ML101440285
| ML101440285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2010 |
| From: | Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| LR-N10-0152, NJ00005622, FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML101440285 (684) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:FOREWORD This Appendix is one part of a larger submission by Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The submittal is in support of the renewal of the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Permit for the Salem Generating Station (Station). The relationships amongst the several parts of the submittal are shown in the attached figure. The present Appendix is highlighted. The submittal is built on seven Appendices (A, B, C, D, I, J, L) that provide the legal, regulatory, and factual basis for the Demonstrations. Three Demonstrations make up the bulk of the filing: the 316(a) Demonstration assessing the thermal discharge, the 316(b) Demonstration assessing the effects of Salem's cooling water intake, and the Demonstration of Compliance with the 1994 Permit. The Cumulative Effects Analysis assesses the potential for impacts on the indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary related to all stresses from the Station.I Memorandum in Support of PSE&G's Request fori Renewal APPLICATION DEMO NS~frk TION S. -------- ---- -- -- ---- --- --3 10eni (a 16j Compliance~ Aill)OI~lixF Appedix FAppcýndlixG-.Cumulative Effects Appeoci:di If SU PPORT APrPrNDICFES
r-K Proc ed ura I 15 1Z" Iif t Ajip d r A A C!Lt~g~I Prei~edcnt Appe~tidi~ [V liio~vp~iAi Cotnpewntadt Aperndi'( i Tl end AppcmdiT L /e'-9 ~'-99~F-fI J .APPEN-DIX F CLEAN WATER ACT § 316(b) DEMONSTRATION SPONSORED BY: L. W. Barnthouse, Ph.D.E. P. Taft D. Harrison, Jr., Ph.D.PSE&G RENEWAL APPLICATION SALEM GENERATING STATION PERMIT NO. NJ,0005622 4 MARCH 1999 CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR: D. G. Heimbuch, Ph.D. PSE&G Permr .\por .ca:;on.larci 1999SecLuon F S Table of Contents I i ntrod uction ................................................................................................. ..I-1 I.A.
SUMMARY
OF DEMONSTRATION ......................................................... I-I L.B .LEGAL REQUIREM ENTS ........................................................................... 1-2 II. Salem Station .............................................................................................. I-I II.A. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................ II-]II.B .STATION D ESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 11-1 11.B. 1. Design and Electric Rating ....................... I....... I-1 1I.B.2. Circulating Water System and Discharge ............. 11-2 1J.B.3. Service Water System and Discharge ................................... 11-3 ITB..4. Station Measurement Systems Relevant to Therm al D ischarge .............................................................. 11-4.1B..5. Operational Characteristics ................................................. 11-5 II.C. MODIFICATIONS TO CIRCULATING WATER INTAKE SYSTEM .................. 11-7 11. C. 1. Traveling Screens ................................................................. 11-7 I1. C. 2. F ish Return System ............................................................... 11-9 III. D elaw are Estuary ................................................ ...................................... III-1 III.A. OVERVIEW OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM ....................... III-1 II1.B .W ATER Q UALITY ................................................................................. 111-2GII.C .H A B ITA T ............................................................................................. 111-4 III. C. 1. Open Water (Pelagic Zone) ................................................ 111-4XI .C .2. Littoral Zone ....................................................................... 111-5 1II. C .3 B enthic Zone ....................................................................... 111-6 X11.C.4. Tidal Marsh Zone ............................................................... 111-7 III.D. IMPORTANT SPECIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY ............................. 111-8 III.D.1. Alewife (Alosapseudoharengus) ........................................ 111-9 III.D.2. American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) ................................... 111-9 IXI.D.3. Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) .................. 111-10 II. D.4. Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) ....................................... 1I-10 II1.D.5. Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) ............................ III-II Xi.D. 6. Opossum Shrimp (Neomysis americana) .......................... 111-11 Xi.D. 7. Scud (Gammarus tigrinus Complex) .............. 111-12 II.D.8. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) ................... 111-12 II1.D.9. Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) ....................................... 111-13 II.D. 10. Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) ........................................... 111-14 III.D. 11. White Perch (Morone americana) .................................... 111-14 III.D .12. B lue C rab ......................................................................... 111-15 II.D .13. Sum m ary ........................................................................... I1-15 I PSE&U Permii A:)ilcai;un 4 Nlarh 191))Section F IV. Impact Assessment Historical Perspective ................................................ IV- I[V.A. THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PAST APPROACHES AND M ETHODS .......................................................... IV-I IV.A .1. Entrainm ent Losses ............................................................ IV -2 IV.A. 2. Impingem ent Losses ........................................................... IV -2 IV A.3. Relation of Entrainment and Impingement Losses to Fish Populations, Natural Mortality Rates, and Fish P rod uction .......................................................................... IV -3 IVA.4. Biological Criteria Previously Used to Assess A dverse Im pact ................................................................ IV -5 IV.B. REFINEMENTS IN THE PRESENT SUBMISSION ........................................ IV-7 IV.B. 1. Extended Tim e Series ........................................................ IV -7[V.B.2. Development of Federal and State Fishery ManagementPlans and Information Collection and Reporting .............. IV-8 IV. B. 3. Current Agency Approaches to Evaluating Ecological Effects ........ .................................................................. IV -10 IV.B.4. Advances in Knowledge .................................................... IV-I I IV.B. 5. Specialized Studies ........................................................... IV -Ii W.C. PRESENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPROACH ..................... ................. IV-12 V. Impact Assessment Rationale and Approach ............................................... V-I V.A. DETERMINATION OF ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .................... V-1 V.A. 1. Case-by-Case Determination .......................................... V- I V.A. 2. Individual Impacts vs. Population/Ecosystem Impacts....... V-2 V.A.3. The Concept of Population Regulation ........................... V-4 VA.4. Benchmarks of Adverse Environmental Impact ......... V-6 V.B. IDENTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES ("RIS") FOR EVALUATING EFFECTS OF SALEM'S INTAKE ON A QUATIC B IOTA .................................................................................. V -10 V.B.1. Summary of Guidance for RIS Selection ........................... V-10 V B.2. RIS Selection for 1999 § 316(b) Demonstration ............... V-11VI. Data and Information Available for use in Salem 316(b) Impact AssessmentVI-1 VI.A. PSE&G PLANT EFFECT STUDIES ......................................................... VI-I VLA. 1. Entrainment Monitoring (Abundance) ............................... VI-2 VLA.2. Impingement Monitoring (Abundance) .............................. VI-2 V .A. 3. Special Studies ................................................................. VI-3 VI.B. FISHERIES INDEPENDENT DATA SERIES ............................................... VI-6 VI.B. 1. PSE&G Nearfield and Baywide Surveys ............................ VI-6 VI.B. 2. DNREC Large Trawl Survey ............................................ VI-10 VI.B. 3. DNREC Juvenile Bottom Trawl Survey ............................ VI-I 1 VLB. 4. NJDEP Beach Seine Survey ............................................. VI-12 ii PSE&G P.:.-\o'ca!:en"March 1991)Section F VI.B.5, American Shad Mark-Recapture Program and H vdro-acoustic Studies ... ...................................... V I-12 4V.B.6. White Perch Mark-Recapture Program ............. VI-12 V1B 7. Special Studies .................................... VI-13 I B. S. PSE&G Pre-Operational Monitoring Reports and Special Studies .......................
- ....................................
V I-15 VI.C. STOCK ASSESSMENT AND COASTAL SURVEYS ................................... VI- 16 VI. C. 1. ASM FC Reports................................................................ V I-16 VI.C.2. NOAA Coastal Surveys ......................... VI-17 VI.D. FISHERIES DEPENDENT DATA ............. .................. VI-18 VL.D. 1. NMFS Commercial Harvest Data ................................ VI-18 VI.D.2. NMFS Recreational Data (1981-1998)...................... VI-18 VI.D. 3. NMFS Blue Crab Harvest Data ....................................... VI- 18 V I.E. O THER STUD IES ................................................................................. V I-18 VIE. ESTUARY AND ECOSYSTEM DATA ..................................................... VI-19 V II. Im pact A ssessm ent ........................................................................................ V II-1 VII.A. BALANCED INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY BENCHMARK .......................... VII-I VJI.A. 1. Species Presence/Absence in Pre-operational Periods ..... VII-I VII.A.2. Fluctuations in Abundance within Anticipated Range ...... VII-7 VIIA.3. Absence of outbreaks of nuisance species ....................... VII- 15 VII.A.4. Balanced Indigenous Community: Summary ................. VII-16 VII.B. CONTINUING DECLINE IN POPULATION ABUNDANCE BENCHMARK..VII-17 VII.B. 1. Rationale .................................. VII- 17 VII.B .2. D ata ................................................................................. V II-17 V L.B .3. M ethods ........................................................................... V II-19 VII.B. 4. Results ......... ..................... ...... VII-20 VII.B.5. Continuous Decline in Population Abundance: Summary .. .......................... VII-25 VII.C. REDUCTIONS IN STOCK BENCHMARK ......................... VII-26 VII. C. 1. Rationale for Methods ..................................................... VII-26 VII.C.2. Biological Reference Points for Fish Stocks ................... VII-30 VII. C.3. Introduction to Stock Modeling Concepts....................... VII-33 VII. C.4. Methods Used to Measure Biological Reference Points in Fish Stocks ....................................................... V II-38 VII.C.5. Local Depletion Model for Opossum Shrimp and Scud .............................................................. V II-41 VII. C. 6. Modeling Results for Each RIS ....................................... VII-42 VII. C. 7. Stock Jeopardy Benchmark: Summary ........................... VII-52 VII.D. IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
SUMMARY
....................................................
VII-54 Vffl. Evaluation of Fish Protection Alternatives .................................................. VIII-lV III.A .INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. V III-I J iii PSE&- P., -.ri[ 4 .arch il)99 Section F VILLA .I. Prior E valuations ............................................................ VIII-I VIII.B. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING FISH PROTECTION OPTIONS ........ Viii-4 VIII.C. PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FISH PROTECTION OPTIONS ................ VIII-5 VIII. C. I. Fish Protection Options .................................................. V 111-5 VIII.D.CoNSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO DETAILED EVALUATIONS OF POTENTIAL A LTERNATIVES .......................................................... V III-7 VII1 D.]. The Design and Operation of Salem Station ................... VIII-7 V III.D .I.a. Station Location ........................................... V III-7 VIII.D. 1.b. River Conditions near the Station ................ VIII-8 VIII.D.I.c. The Design of the Current CWIS ................. VIII-9 VIII.D.2. Potential Biological Effectiveness .................................. VIII- 10 VIII.D.3. Other Environmental Effects ......................................... VIII-11 VIIID. 4. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station O p erations ..................................................................... V III- 1I VIII.E. DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................... VIII-12 V11lE. 1. Wedge- Wire Screens ...................................................... VIII-13 VIII.E. l.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII- 13 VIII.E.l.b. Conclusions ...... ........ .......... VIII-15 VIII.E.2. Dual-flow Fine Mesh Screens .................................... VIII-16 VIII.E.2.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII- 18 VIII.E.2.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ............. VIII-19 VIII.E.2.c. Other Environmental Effects .................... VIII-20 VIII.E.2.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts onStation Operations ...................................... VIII-20 VIII.E.3. Modular Inclined Screens ............................................. VIII-21 VIII.E.3.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII-21 VIII.E.3.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ............. VIII-23 VIII.E.3.c. Other Environmental Effects ..................... VIII-24 VIII.E.3.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations ..................................... VIII-24 VIII E.4. Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain Combination ............. VIII-24 VIII.E.4.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII-25 VIII.E.4.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ............. VIII-27 VIII.E.4.c. Other Environmental Effects ..................... VIII-27VIII.E.4.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations ................................. VIII-27 ViII.E.5. Seasonal Flow Reductions ............................................ VIII-28 VIII.E.5.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII-30 VIII.E.5.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ........... -VIII-33 VIII.E.5.c. Other Environmental Effects .................... VIII-33 VIII.E.5.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations ...................................... VIII-33 VIy.E. 6. Revised Refueling Outage Schedules ............................. VIII-34 VIII.E.6.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII-34 VIII.E.6.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ............. VIII-35 VIII.E.6.c. Other Environmental Effects ..................... VIII-35 iv ?PSE&C P ~ca-m 4 March 19'Q9 Section F VIII.E.6.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station O perations ...................................... V III-35 VI1.E. 7. Retrofit With New Closed-Cycle Cooling System. VIII-36 VIII.E.7.a. Technical Considerations ........................... VIII-37VIII.E.7.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness ............. VIII-40 VIII.E.7.c. Other Environmental Effects ..................... VIII-40 VIII.E.7.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station O perations ...................................... V III-40 IX. Costs and Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives IX .A .INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. LX -I IX.A. 1. Cost-Benefit Methodology ............................................. IX- I IX.A. I.a. Rationale for Cost-Benefit Analysis ............... IX- I[X.A.l.b. Types of Costs and Benefits Considered in this Study .............................................. IX -I IX.A..2. Outline of Section IX .......................................................... LX-3 IX.B. OVERVIEW OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR A PPLICATION AT SALEM ...................................................................... IX -3 IX.B. 1. Modifications to the Current Cooling Water.Intake Structure ................................................................. LX -4 IX.B.2. Reductions in Cooling Water Flow .................................... IX-4 IX.C. COSTS OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES ..................... IX-5 IX C. 1. Overview of Methodology .................................................. IX-5 IX C. 2. Construction Costs ................................ ...... LX-6 IX .C.2.a. M ethodology ................................................... IX -6 IX.C.2.b. Results ...... ......................... IX-6 IX C.3. Operating and Maintenance Costs ..................................... IX-6 IX .C.3.a. M ethodology ................................................... IX -7 IX .C .3.b. R esults ............................................................ 1X -7 IX C.4. The Value of Lost Power .................................................... IX-7 IX.C.4.a. Components of the Value of Lost Power ........ IX-7IX.C.4.b. The Value of Lost Power Related to Construction ............................................... IX-8 IX.C.4.b.i. Methodology ......................... IX-8 IX.C.4.b.ii. Results ................. IX-9 IX.C.4.c. The Value of Lost Power Related to Continuing Operations ............................... ; .... IX-9 IX.C.4.c.i. Methodology ............................. IX-9 IX.C.4.c.ii. Results ........................................ IX-9 IX. C.5. Total Costs ofAlternatives ....................... I................ I........ IX-9 TX.D. BENEFITS OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES .................................. IX-9 IX.D.1. Overview of Methodology ........................... IX-11 IX.D.2. Changes in RIS Fish Caught by Commercial and Recreational Fishermen ........................................ IX- II ,1v PSEi&G .-
- ' arch 0)99 Section F IX.D.2.a.
Changes in RIS Fishery Catch .................... IX-1 1 IX.D.2.b. Commercial and Recreational Split for R IS .......................... ..................... IX -12 IX.D.3. Commercial RIS Fishing Benefits .................................... IX-12 IX.D.3.a. Commercial RIS Fish Prices ......................... IX-12IX.D.3.b. Commercial RIS Fishing Benefits ................ IX-13 IX.D. 4. Recreational RIS Fishing Benefits ................................ IX- 13 IX.D.4.a. Recreational RIS Fish Values ....................... IX-13 IX.D.4.b. Recreational RIS Fishing Benefits ........... IX-13 IX.D.5 Non-RIS Fishing Benefits ....................... LX-14[X.D.S.a. Changes in Non-RIS Fishery Catch .............. IX- 14 IX.D.5.b. Non-RIS Fish Values .................................... IX-14 LX.D.5.c. Non-RIS Fishing Benefits ........................ IX-14 IX.D.6 TOTAL BENEFITS OFALTERNA TIVES ............................... X-15 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES ............. IX-15 IX.F. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES ... IX-15 IXF. 1. Factors that Understate Costs and Overstate Benefits .... 2X-16 IX.F.2. Results Using Alternative Discount Rates ..................... IX-17 X .R E FE R E N C E S ................................................................................................ X -1 vi ?SE& Z 'm.k Sec.-on LIST OF ATTACHMIENTS Number
Description:
1 Bavi.de and In-Plant Sampling Program 2 Model Methodologies and Common Input Parameters 3 Review of Intake Technologies for Fish Protection 4 Biological Modeling of Intake Alternatives 5 Seasonal Flow Reduction 6 Revised Refueling Outage Schedule 7 Closed-cycle Cooling 8 Schedule for Modeling Unit Outages 9 Cost of Replacement Power 10 Cost of Air Emissions 11 Detailed Cost Tables 12 Commercial and Recreational Split 13 Basis of Commercial Catch 14 Basis of Recreational Catch 15 Detailed Benefits Tables 16 Other Environmental Costs and Benefits?vii PSE&G Permit ApplicationMarch 1999 Section F LIST OF TABLES Sections I -VII Number Description 1 Results of the Two-Sample t-rest for Species Richness, Spring Season 2 Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Richness, Summer Season 3 Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Richness, Fall Season 4 Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Density, Spring Season 5 Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Density, Summer Season 6 Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Density, Fall Season 7 Species Present in Pre-operational and Operational Collections. Unique Species are Shaded 8 Percent Change in Abundance per Year of Age-0 Fish, for DNREC andPSE&G Programs, and All Ages Collected for NJDEP Beach Seine Program 9 Trends in Abundance of Age-0 RIS and Blue Crab 10 Life History Parameters for Weakfish 11 Life History Parameters for Striped Bass 12 Life History Parameters for White Perch 13 Life History Parameters for Spot 14 Life History Parameters for American Shad 15 Life History Parameters for Blueback Herring 16 Life History Parameters for Alewife 17 Life History"Parameters for Bay Anchovy 18 Parameter Values Used to Model Local Depletion of Opossum Shrimp and Scud viii PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Section F LIST OF TABLES SECTION VIII Number Description I List of Fish Protection Options 2 Results of Preliminary Screening of Fish Protection Options 3 Estimated Velocities at Salem Intake 4 Representative Important Species and Life Stage Occurrences at the Salem Generating Station 5 Projected Mortality With Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Screens 6 Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Traveling Screens 7 -Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Screens 8 Projected Mortality with Modular Inclined Screens 9 Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Modular Inclined Screens 1 10 Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Modular Inclined Screens 11 Projected Mortality with Air Bubble/Strobe Light 12 Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain 13 Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain System 14 Estimated Capital Costs Seasonal Flow Reduction 15 Change of Alternative Measured as Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Seasonal Flow Reductions 16 Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Revised Planned Outages 17 Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Closed Cycle Cooling ix PSE&G Permit 4 March 1999 Section F LIST OF TABLES Section IX Number Description 1 Construction Costs of Fish Protection Altematives 2 Operating and Maintenance Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives 3 Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages of Fish Protection Alternatives 4 Value of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operations of Fish Protection Alternatives 5 Total Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives 6 Representative Important Species by Benefit Category 7 Commercial and Recreational Percentages of Total Catch for Species Considered 8 Average Wholesale Commercial Prices for Species Considered 9 Commercial Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 10 Recreational Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 11 Non-RIS Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 12 Total Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 13 Total Costs and Benefits for Fish Protection Alternatives 14 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative Discount Rates of Fish Protection Alternatives x PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Section F LIST OF FIGURES SECTIONS I -VII Number Description I Longitudinal Zones of The Delaware Estuary 2 Sampling Design Summary of the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey 3 Sampling Design Summary of the PSE&G Baywide Bottom Trawl Survey 4 S'ampling Design Summary of the DNR\EC Large Trawl Survey 5 Sampling Design Summary of the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey. 6 Sampling Design Summary of the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey 7 Illustration of the use of rarefaction curves to standardize collection sizes 8 Rarefaction Curves for Spring, Pre-operational and Operational Years 9 Rarefaction Curves for Summer, Pre-operational and Operational Years 10 Rarefaction Curves for Fall, Pre-operational and Operational Years I I Spring Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years 12 Summer Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years 13 Fall Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years 14 Spring Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods 15 Summer Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods 16 Fall Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods xi PSE&G Permit Appiication 4 Match 1999 Section F Number Description 17 Estimation of the Decrease in Abundance of Age 1 Fish Due to Plant Operations 18 The Influence of Natural Mortality on the Decrease in Age-i Abundance Due to Plant Operations 19 Generalized Relationship Between SSBPR and F 20 Comparative Effects of Salem Mortality vs. Fishing on SSBPR for a Hypothetical Fish Population 21 The Relationship Between Spawning Stock and Recruitment for a Beverton-Holt Spawner Recruit Curve 22 Weak-fish -Fishing Rate (F) Equivalent to Predicted Effects of Salem (CMR) Added to Current Target F 23 Distribution of Weakfish Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 24 Influence of Fishing and Salem on White Perch Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR)25 Distribution of White Perch Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 26 Influence of Fishing and Salem on Spot Spawning Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR); 1% Coastwide Contribution 27 Influence of Fishing and Salem on Spot Spawning Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR); 10% Coastwide Contribution 28 Distribution of Spot Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 29 Influence of Fishing and Salem on American Shad Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR)30 American Shad -Fishing Rate (F) Equivalent to Predicted Effects of Salem (CMR) Added to Current Target F 31 Distribution of American Shad Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 32 Blueback Herring -Influence of Fishing and Salem on Blueback Herring Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR)xii PSE&G Permit Application 4,March 1999 Section F Number Description 33 Distribution of Blueback Herring Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 34 Alewife -Influence of Fishing and Salem on Alewife Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR)35 Distribution of Alewife Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 36 Bay Anchovy -Influence of Salem on Bay Anchovy Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR)37 Distribution of Bay Anchovy Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) With and Without the Effects of Salem 38 Potential Local Depletion of Opossum Shrimp as a Function of TidalExchange Rate 39 Potential Local Depletion of Scud as a Function of Tidal Exchange Rate Ixiii PSE&CO Permit A0plication Section F LIST OF FIGURES SECTIONS VIII Number Description1 Station Layout with Cooling Water System Arrangement 2 Circulating Water Intake Structure -Plan 3 Circulating Water Intake Structure at Salem 4 Circulating Water System Intake and Discharge Excavation Areas (Based on HRS 1969 Hydraulic Model Studies)5 Delaware River Velocities in the Vicinity of the Salem CWIS through a Tidal Cycle (Based on HRS 1969 Hydraulic Model Studies) 6 Velocity Distributions Approaching the Salem Traveling Screens Showing the Influence of Tidal Currents (Based on HRS 1969 Hydraulic Model Studies)7 Wedge-Wire Screen .Aray -Plan 8 Wedge-Wire Screen -Typical Section 9 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens -Plan 10 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens -Section 11 Modular Inclined Screens -Plan 12 Modular Inclined Screen -Elevation 13 Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain -Plan 14 Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain -Elevation xiv PSE&G Perrnt Application 4 March 1999 Section F LIST OF FIGURES SECTION IX Number Description 1 Methodology for Construction Costs 2 Construction Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives 3 Methodology for Operating and Maintenance Costs*4 Operating and Maintenance Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives 5 Methodology for Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages 6 Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages of Fish Protection Alternatives 7 Methodology for Value' of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operation 8 Value of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operations of Fish Protection Alternatives 9 Total Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives 10 Methodology for Benefits 11 Commercial Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 12 Recreational Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 13 Non-RIS Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 14 Total Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 15 Total Costs and Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 16 Net Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives 17 Cost-Benefits Ratios of Fish Protection Alternatives 18 Cost-Benefits Ratios using a 3 Percent Discount Rate of Fish Protection Alternatives 19 .Cost Benefits Ratios using a 9 Percent Discount Rate of Fish Protection Alternatives Sxv PSE&G Permit Appilcanon dMarch 1999 Appendix F 1. INTRODUCTION This Appendix presents PSE&G's 316(b) demonstration (the "316(b) Demonstration") for the Salem Generating Station ("Salem" or the "Station") as part of its application for renewal of the current NPDES Permit (NJPDES No. NJ0005622), issued July 1994, effective September 1, 1994. The 316(b) Demonstration presented below shows that Salem's intake structure is not causing and will not cause an adverse environmental impact on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary. This conclusion is based on results of trends analyses using empirical data collected over the past 20 years, community level assessments of historical impacts, and predictive modeling of current or future potential effects of station operations. The Demonstration evaluates past or potential effects on a list of "Representative Important Species" (RIS), selected consistent with section 316 guidance, approved by the multi-agency Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and accepted by USEPA, NJDEP, and other interested regulatory representatives. It also addresses other species and ecological components of relevance to the overall health of the Delaware Estuary. This Demonstration also draws upon far more data and information about the distribution, life history, and abundance of the PaS than did the original 1984 316(b) Demonstration, or the 1991 and 1993 updates, and thus presents the most comprehensive assessment of impacts on the RIS in the Delaware Estuary to date.Finally, the Demonstration examines alternative fish protection systems and evaluates the costs and benefits associated with each.I.A. Summary of Demonstration Sections I, II, 1II, and IV of this Appendix provide the background for the 316(b)Demonstration. Section L.B describes in general the legal requirements for a section 316(b) Demonstration, including a description of the regulatory and judicial interpretations of the term "adverse environmental impact" and "best technology available." A more comprehensive discussion of the subject is presented in Appendix D.Section HI of this Appendix provides a brief description of Station operations that draws from Appendix B and focuses particularly on the intake structure design, construction, capacity and also on technological improvements at the Station. Section III briefly describes the Delaware Estuary and its biological resources, which are more fully characterized in Appendix C. Section IV provides a description of the impact assessment approaches used in previous submittals. A detailed history of section 316(b) proceedings with respect to Salem is provided in Appendix A.Sections V, VI, and VII together present the methods and results of the 316(b) impact assessment. Section V describes the rationale and approach for conducting the section316(b) impact assessment, founded upon first principles of ecosystem dynamics and fishery management practices, as well as a description of and rationale for the three benchmarks of adverse impact and selection of the RIS. Section VI describes the full suite of data available for the impact assessment, including data collected over a 30-year 1-1 O ~PSE,&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F period by PSE&G and state and federal resource-agency monitoring programs. Section VII presents a full discussion of the impact assessment benchmarks, the methods by which the data will be evaluated against these benchmarks (including detailed evaluation of the trend data and new methods of modeling and evaluating stock status), the results of both the trends and modeling analyses, and an evaluation of these results. Section VII concludes with a determination that Salem's intake has not had, and will not have, an adverse environmental impact on aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary.Section VIII evaluates the available fish protection alternatives in terms of engineering and operating feasibility, and ability to reduce losses to the aquatic ecosystem. Finally, Section IX enumerates the social costs and benefits of the various alternatives, and calculates ratios of costs to benefits as a measure of ranking the various alternatives. I.B. Legal Requirements 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 environmental impact. When making a section 316(b)determination, the permitting agency must undertake a two-step process. The first part of the process is determining whether there has been or will be "adverse environmental impact" caused by a station's operation. Unless such an impact is established, there is no basis for imposing further technology based controls. Section 316(b) places the burden on the permitting authority to establish that such an adverse impact exists. If adverse environmental impact is found, the second step is to determine the "best technology available" to minimize that adverse environmental impact. Intake technologies whose costs are wholly disproportionate to their benefits do not qualify as BTA.Although there is no authoritative definition of adverse environmental impact under Section 316(b), it is generally agreed that determination of adverse environmental impact should be done on a case-by-case basis focused at the community and population levels of aquatic biota. As described more fully below, USEPA has long applied the principle that in order to establish "adverse environmental impact" under section 316(b), a -permitting authority must show material harm to aquatic populations or communities, not merely loss of individual organisms (USEPA 1975, 1976).Regulatory and judicial interpretation of section 316(b), as well as of similar ecological standards such as those concerned with management of fisheries and other living resources (described in Section IV), also comport with these principles. They find that impacts to individual organisms are not "adverse" unless they affect the abundance, structure, or function of the population or community, taking into account the type, intensity, and scale of the effect, as well as the potential for recovery (given natural variability). See, e.g., In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station,* 1-2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Units I and 2, Administrator's Initial Decision June 10, 1977). Regulatory reliance onthese principles of population regulation is described in Section V, below.Benchmarks of adverse environmental impact grounded in these fundamental ecologicaland resource management concepts represent a sound technical approach to determining-- based on a review of empirical trend data and predictive modeling results--whether an adverse environmental impact has occurred or may occur as a result of Station operations. A finding that any one of the following benchmarks of adverse environmental impact exists for any of the RIS, if shown to be caused by Station operations, would indicate the existence of, or potential for, adverse environmental impact due to Station operations:
- An imbalance in the indigenous population of fish and shellfish in the Delaware ecosystem;" A continuing decline in the abundance of a species population (other than nuisance species);" A reduction in a fishery stock, in the fishery management context, which puts in jeopardy the long-term sustainability of the stock.This approach, described in Section V, is founded upon accepted principles of ecosystemdynamics and fishery management practices (described generally in Appendices C and 1)and consists of both retrospective and predictive analyses.
Analysis of past effects of Salem's operation relies primarily on empirical trend data and considers technologies and operating conditions then in place; predictive analysis relies primarily on modeling results using assumed operating conditions, and takes into account the technologiesimplemented under the present permit. These approaches are consistent with, and build upon, previous Salem impact assessments as described in Section IV.The BTA determination, like the adverse environmental impact determination, is made on a case-by-case basis. As EPA stated in its 1973 guidance document, the identification of BTA has "highly site specific costs versus benefits characteristics." USEPA (1973).EPA's 1977 draft guidance similarly stated that "[tihe environment-intake interactions in question are highly site specific and the decision as to best technology available for intakedesign, location, construction, and capacity must be made on a case-by-case basis." USEPA (1977). The permitting authority has the burden of proving that a particular technology is suitable for a given station, taking into account operational and environmental factors. See Contra Costa (PG&E), Central Valley RWQCB (Memo re:PG&E Contra Costa Power Plant, Antioch), Nov. II, 1977. The authority must show that the selected technology is superior to other alternatives. In addition, while section316(b) requires that the selected technology minimize adverse environmental impacts, this does not mean that all losses of organisms due to station operations must be eliminated. Rather, the costs of an intake technology must be balanced against its 1-3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 ApendixF expected environmental benefits. A measure with costs that are wholly disproportionate to its benefits is not BTA and must be rejected. See, e.v., in Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Administrator's Initial Decision June 10, 1977; Brunswick (CP&L), USEPA Region IV ("N.PDES Permit No. NC0007064), Nov. 7, 1977.With regard to BTA determinations at Salem, there have been a number of developments over the years. PSE&G's 1984 section 316 Demonstration concluded that the then-existing system, which included Ristroph screens and a fish return system, was BTA.NJDEP in 1990 issued a draft perit proposing closed-cycle cooling as BTA for the Station, but in 1993 reconsidered the proposal based on new information submitted byPSE&G. NJDEP then issued a new draft permit proposing improved traveling screensand fish bucket designs, as well as restricted cooling water system intake flow and a sound deterrent study. The statement of basis for the final 1994 permit stated that NJDEP had determined "the existing cooling water intake structure, in conjunction with the screen modifications, improved fish bucket design, a cooling water intake flow limitation, and a sound deterrent study, to be BTA under Section 316(b)." Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis at 140 (June 24, 1993). Thus the agency has determined that the Permit-required conservation measures would minimize Station effects. A more detailed description regarding prior BTA determinations for the Station is found in Section VIII.A.1-4 PSE&O Salem Pcv,-i:
- 4. March 1999 Appcndix F II. SALEM STATION This section of Appendix F describes the Salem Station (the "Station"), a two-unit, pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear generating facility.
It provides a surnmary description of the Station's location, its components, and its operational characteristics, focusing on those facts most pertinent to the 316(b) Demonstration. Appendix B of this submittal describes the Station in greater detail.II.A. Location and Site Description The Salem Station is located in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey at R.M 50 on the Delaware River Estuary (the "River" or "Estuary"). Located on a peninsula known as Artificial Island, the Station is bordered by the River on two sides and by extensive marshes and uplands on the other two sides. It withdraws water from the River for cooling and discharges thiis heated water back into the River.The River in the vicinity of the Station is approximately
2.5 miles
wide. Tidal flow past the Station is approximately 400,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 259,000 million gallons per day (mgd) (see Appendix B, Section I).The Station occupies 220 acres of land next to the 153-acre site for Hope Creek Station. A-n adjacent area of approximately 367 acres in size is uncommitted. This adjacent land is zoned for industrial and residential/agricultural use, but its wetlands classification restricts development. In addition to the generating station itself, the site includes associated buildings and structures, an electrical switchyard, parking areas, roads, and equipment storage areas.Riprap and bulkheads protect the shoreline from erosion.II.B. Station Description II.B. 1. Design and Electric Rating The Station consists of two essentially identical units (I and 2). They are Westinghouse PWRs, each with a thermal rating of 3,423 megawatts thermal (MWt). The Unit 1 and 2 turbines are rated at a gross output of 1, 162 megawatts electric (MWe) per unit. They are designed to operate continuously at the thermal power rating as base-loaded electrical generating units.The Station's generating. units were proposed in 1966. Construction licenses for Units I and 2 were issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (-JSAEC) on 25 September 1968, and operating licenses were issued on 13 August 1976 and 18 April 1980, respectively. Unit 1 0, 11-1 PSE&G Salem Pe-rmit 4 March 1999 Appendix F began operating in 1977 and has a license to operate through 30 June 2017. Unit 2 began operation in 1981 and has a license to operate through 13 October 2021.Water is pumped at high pressure and temperature in a closed loop through each reactor coolant system where heat from the reactor is converted to steam in the steam generators (each reactor has four steam generators). As the steam leaves the steam generators, it flows through pipes to the Station's turbine system. Each unit has a main high pressure turbine plus three low pressure turbines. Having given up thermal energy through movement through the turbines, the steam next moves to a condenser. Each unit possesses a main condenser, inside which the circulating water system (CWS) circulates through tubes.Relatively cool water feeding the condensers is drawn through the intake structure from the River to the condensers, where it flows through tubes around which is the exhaust steam.The steam cools, condenses, and is returned to the steam generators as feedwater. The CWS water then passes through piping to discharge to the River. The discharge is located approximately. 500 feet from shore in the River at a depth of about 30 feet.River water is also used to remove heat associated with the service water system (SWS). The SWS draws water from the River some 400 feet north of the CWS intake structure, using it to cool various heat exchangers and equipment before it is returned to the River via the CWS discharge pipes.II.B.2. Circulating Water System and Discharge I. B. 2. a. 'Pumps The intake structure for the CWS is located at the southwestern side of the site, and consists of 12 separate intake bays with a removable curtain wall, ice barriers, trash racks, traveling screens, and a'fish return system. (See Appendix B, Section II.) Each of the 12 intake bays is serviced by a pump, with a total of six pumps (and bays) servicing each of the two units.Each pump discharges water into an individual 84-inch line for delivery to the main condenser waterboxes. Each of the 12 pumps is an axial-flow Worthington Corporation HIFLO circulating water pump. Total design flow is 1, 110,000 gpm (1598 mgd) through each unit with individual pump design ratings of 185,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 27 feet total developed head (TDII). However, the average flow per pump is below this design value (Appendix B, Sections II and III).Each unit's condenser contains three interconnected shells. Each shell supports one of the unit's three low-pressure turbines. The shells are each divided into two waterboxes, which are supplied with cooling water from their own pump and piping system (six per unit, twelve total for the Station). The circulating water passes through the waterboxes and removes heat from the condenser.
- 11-2 PSE&G Salem Permit 4 March 1999 Appendix F After cooling the condenser, the six discharge flows from each unit converge into three 120-inch diameter discharge pipes (six total for the Station).
Transit time for cooling water from the condenser to the River varies from about two minutes (two pumps operating per discharge pipe) to about seven minutes (one pump operating per discharge pipe). Each discharge pipe has a different length and hence a different transit time. The pumps and piping are designed to discharge water to the River at a velocity of 10.5 feet per second (fps)at a depth of 28 feet below mean low tide.ZL.B.2. b. Discharge Location and Design The six 120-inch discharge pipes (three from each unit) run along the riverbed from the shoreline toward the middle of the River, and are buried for most of their length. The pipes run for a distance approximately 500 feet from the Station bulkhead, nearly directly westward beneath the River. At their western end, the pipes discharge nearly horizontally into the River, perpendicular to the dominant River flow (See Appendix E, Attachment 1, Exhibit 4).The discharge represented best state-of-the-art, as of the design period, and incorporated design feature innovations that enhanced the discharge performance and minimized adverse environmental impact. A detailed discussion of the discharge is provided in Appendix B, Section II.II.B.3. Service Water System and Discharge The service water system (SWS) is a safety-related cooling water system that supplies adependable, continuous flow of cooling water (under normal and emergency conditions) to the nuclear reactor and turbine area. Service water is withdrawn from the River through an intake located approximately 400 ft north of the CWS intake.IZ.B.3.a. Pumps The SWS for each unit consists of six vertical turbine-type pumps; six vertical mechanical screens; one mechanical trash rake; six automatic strainers; two intake sump pumps, and associated piping, valves, and instrumentation. Each service water pump is rated at 10,875 gpm. The actual system flow per pump depends upon system resistance characteristics for the various operating mode. The average velocity through the SWS intake structure is less than 1 foot per second at the design flow of 10,875 gpm.IL.B.3.b. Internal Discharge to the Circulating Water System During Station startup, four of the six SW pumps per unit are operated to provide the nominally required 42,000 gpm flow. During normal Station operations, the four pumps nominally provide 41,200 gpm. When the Station is shut down, the SW flow requirement drops to approximately 28,500 gpm. Service water flow also varies with intake temperature and cooling system heat load.11-3 PSE&G Salem Permit 4 March 1999 Appendix F Service water is discharged to the River through the CWS discharge pipes. Intake temperature for the SWS is essentially the same as for the CWS. Transit through the SWS results in an increase in temperature of the SW from near zero (no change) up to 157F, with an average temperature increase of 8' to 107F.11.B.4. Station Mieasurement Systems Relevant to Thermal Discharge The Station contains a variety of measurement systems to monitor various components under all operating conditions. Measurements are made of water temperature, water pressure, flow volume, megawatts electric (MWe), -megawatts thermal (MWt), and total residual chlorine (TRC).1.B..4.a. Temperature Temperature is measured by resistance temperature devices at the intake structure and within the six discharge pipes., Data are recorded automatically by the Station. Appendix B, Attachment 1, Exhibit 3 describes the temperature measurement system in more detail.1ib.4.b. Pressure Pressure is measured at various locations within the CWS generally using Bourdon tube pressure gauges. Pressure within the SWS is measured remotely using diaphragm-type strain gauges.IB.3.4.c. Flow Volume The Station uses dye studies to measure CWS flow volumes. These dye studies are performed at regular intervals (most recently in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998). Because the flow volume depends on the condition of the pump and piping, representative flow volumes (based on historical measurements) are determined for both clean and fouled conditions. Appendix B, Attachment 1, Exhibit 1 presents the details of the CWS dye measurement procedure. The dye studies are performed in accordance with NIPDES Permit NJO005622, Part IV-B/C, Section A. 1 0.(b). The test follows a simple procedure. Dye is injected into the pump suction at a measured volumetric rate. Dye concentration is normally measured at the inlet to the condensers, where it has become fully diluted with the total flow. The ratio of the injected dye concentration to the fully mixed dye concentration is inversely proportional to the pump flow.Flow in the SWS is approximated by multiplying the number of pumps operating by the design pump flow of 10,875 gpm.11-4 PSE&G Salem Pernit 4 March 1999 Appendix F II3B.4.d Megawatts Electric The electricity produced by the generators is measured in megawatts electric (MWe) using conventional electric power meters. This measurement represents the product from the Station.II. B. 4. e. Megawatts Thermal The heat energy generated by the nuclear reactor system is recorded in megawatts thermal (MWt) using nuclear instrumentation that makes a direct measurement of neutron flux, which is then converted to MWt.I1B. 4.f Total Residual Chlorine Total residual chlorine concentration (TRC) is measured in the discharge pipes at least threetimes per week using amperometric titration. An Orion 1770 chlorine analyzer is an on-line instrument which prevents excess addition of sodium hypochlorite to the SWS. Samples are collected and analyzed from each of the six discharge pipes.I1.B.5. Operational Characteristics The amount of heat transferred to the cooling water is a function of cooling water flow and heat output. Detailed discussions of these components can be found in Appendix B, Attachment 1, Exhibit 2. 4 11.3B.5. a. Circulating Water System Flow Volume The maximum flow rate occurs when all six pumps for each unit are operating in a "clean" system; a minimum flow rate occurs when one of the six pumps is out of operation. Pump flows are represented as an average for the six pumps. If one pump is out, and five are operating, the pump flow is still represented as an average for the six pumps.The following parameter values for flow rate are conservative best representations of the Station's operations and have a reasonable probability of recurring within design normal operating conditions: Nominal 166,000 gpm per pump average Maximum 175,000 gpm per pump average Minimum 140,000 gpm per pump average The maximum operating value of 175,000 gpm is consistent with the 30-day average cooling water flow limitation in the Station's NJPDES Permit.II-5 PSE&G Salem Permit 4.M&arh 1999 Appendix F II.B.5.b. Heat Output The heat output, or heat rejected, is a measure of the quantity of heat discharged to the River as a result of Station operations. The Station heat rejection rate is measured in British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr). The amount of heat energy rejected approximates the amount of energy generated by the reactor minus the amount of energy converted to electricity (according to the first law of thermodynamics). Appendix B, Attachment 1 provides a description of the methods used to calculate heat rejection. The differential energy method compares the heat energy generated by the reactor (normally reported in MWt); the energy generated by the turbine generator that converts steam to electricity (normally reported in Mwe), and the energy transferred to the cooling water (normally reported in millions of Btu/hr (Mbtu/hr)). This calculation is conservative in that it may overstate the impact on the environment because it does not explicitly addressenergy losses to other sinks (e.g., steam leaks, samples, etc.). The measurement of reactor energy is regulated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). The electrical energy is generated for sale, and thus requires accurate measurement. The differential energy method yields a Station parameter value of 15,600 MBtu/hr for the heat rejection rate. This value conservatively best represents Station operations and has a reasonable probability of recurring within the confines of design normal operating conditions.11.B.5 .c. Differential TemperatureDifferential temperature (AT) is the difference in water temperature between the intake and the discharge of the CWS. The change in temperature results from the addition of heat during flow through the condensers. Nearly two-thirds of the energy generated by the reactor becomes reject heat, which is transferred to the CWS water.Appendix B, Attachment I provides a description of the methods available for calculating AT. The calculation of differential temperature based on flow rate and heat rejection rate was selected as the most accurate and representative method.The minimum and maximum operating values for AT have been calculated at 14.80 F-for high flow conditions of 175,000 gpm per pump (average), and 18.67F for low flow conditions of 140,000 gpm per pump (average). II.B.5.d Refueling Schedule The Salem Units are currently on an 18-month refueling outage cycle with a typical 60-day outage duration. Each unit's outage is scheduled for either spring or fall (not at the same time for both units). The Station, as well as the industry, is working toward the goal of completing refueling outages within 39 days.511-6 PSE&G Salem Prrnic 4 March 1999 Appendix F II.B.5. e. Chlorine Injection There is no chlorine injection in the CWS. The SWS is the only chlorinated cooling water system at Salem. Chlorine minimization and chlorine decay studies of the Salem Station (Burton and Garey 1986) recommended a minimum Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) of 300ýLg/L be maintained at the outlet of the last heat exchanger in the nuclear header of the SWS.Following this recommendation, the target TRC concentration is 500 4g/L. Attachment E-4 of Appendix E describes the investigation of the discharge of chlorine to the River.II.C. Modifications to Circulating Water Intake System 1. C.1. Traveling Screens There have been two distinct modifications to the traveling screen design at Salem. A summary of each of the systems and modifications is presented below. Additional detailed information is provided in Appendix G- 1-1.The original Linkbelt screen assembly was designed for intermittent operation and debris handling, with no fish handling capabilities. All material removed from the water by the traveling screens was placed in a trash basket for off-site disposal. The original mesh was a3/8-inch-square opening. In 1979, the Unit 1 screen assembly was modified to incorporate Ristroph vertical traveling screens with the capability for continuous operation and fish handling Unit 2 became operational in 1981 with the Ristroph screens already installed). The original mesh, with the 3/S-inch-square opening, was maintained and was mounted in the screen frame at an"inclined into descent" attitude to the carrier chain center line. Each frame was attached to the back side of both the leading and trailing rails. Each of the Ristroph screen panels was fitted with a lip at its base, creating a water filled bucket to contain impinged organisms and return them to the river via a fish return trough. Impinged organisms could reside in the water filled buckets until being washed into the sluiceway of the fish return system, which returned the fish to the River north of the CWIS on flood tide and south of the CWIS.on ebb tide. This configuration was designed to prevent reimpingement. In 1995, pursuant to the terms of the present permit, PSE&G made additional alterations to the traveling screen system to improve performance and reliability and increase the survival rates of impinged fish. The new traveling water screens are a modified Ristroph design.Each screen unit is a vertical, chain-link, four-post type machine on which the screen rotates continuously to collect fish and debris as the water passes through the screen. Each traveling screen panel is 10 feet wide by 21 inches high and each traveling screen contains sixty-two (62) screen panels. The wire mesh on' each screen panel has been changed to 14 gauge (0. 100 in) "Smooth Tex'" screening material with V4" wide by /2" high mesh screen openings. At the bottom of each screen panel there is a composite material fish bucket with a reinforcing bar across the center.11-7 PSE&G Salem Permit 4 March 1999 Appendix F The water spray system was modified to improve water flow to the circulating water traveling screens. A total of eight spray nozzles were added to the spray headers of each traveling screen. Two low-pressure spray nozzles were added to the source pipe of each of the two inside fish spray headers (a total of 4 nozzles) to provide better spray coverage and improved fish handling. In addition, two high-pressure spray nozzles were added to each of the two main debris spray headers (a total of 4 nozzles) to provide better spray coverage and improve debris removal.The modifications to the traveling screens incorporated newly designed screen baskets with hydrodynamically improved fish buckets (Appendix B, B Figure 12). The modified Ristroph through-flow fish screens are made of composite material that are integral to the bottom.support member of the screen panel. The fish bucket redesign included an integral, curved lip or leading edge. This lip efficiently redirects inlet water flow through the entire lower portion of the basket's screen surface area. Additionally, the curved lip eliminates the turbulent flow pattern that existed in previous fish bucket designs. Each newly designed bucket is configured to form an interlocking seal with the basket frame below it during ascending and descending travel. As the screen bucket travels over the head sprocket of the traveling screen, organisms slide onto the screenface and are washed off by the low-pressure spray system.Much of the redesign of the fish bucket was based on tests conducted inthe test/modeling flume at Royce Equipment in Houston, Texas in the late 1980s. Work at the flume focused on the hydraulic interface between the fish bucket and the intake flow surrounding it.Envirex, Royce and.FMC (the major designs then in use) generated vortices within the fish bucket. This vortexing phenomenon had the potential to damage or kill the impinged fish.Royce's new design for thebucket created a calm, stable environment, relatively free of vortices. This design integrated the fish bucket directly into the structure of the bottom frame. This modification had the added benefit of changing the pattern of the intake flow to the screen to make more efficient use of the available surface area and lower water flow velocities. The mounting and structural hardware for the baskets was located behind the screen mesh weave. This, in conjunction with the smooth weave pattern, has resulted in a smooth surface that eliminates obstacles that might cause damage to fish when they contact these parts during the spray wash assisted removal cycle.Additional advantages of using composite materials over steel are corrosion resistance and weight reduction which allow for increased traveling screen speeds and enhanced debris removal. This enhances fish handling because the pressure differential is reduced across screens due to less debris collected on the screen faces. Additionally, flow velocities are kept to a minimum, corresponding to the actual debris loading on the screen. The screen assembly now automatically changes speed in response to the differential pressure across the screens.The traveling screens can rotate at 6, 12, 17.5, or 35 fpm.II-8 PSE&G Salem Permit 4 March 1999 Appcndix F The use of composite materials allows the design to have optimum cross-sectional profiles in the special upper and lower lip shapes. The new material is impervious to corrosion and biological fouling. This has resulted in reduced maintenance and operating costs and increased Service life.II.C.2. Fish Return System PSE&G replaced the original rectangular trough assemblies for fish and debris with custom-formed troughs. The fish return trough is approximately 30 inches wide and 18 inches deep with 6-inch radius rounded comers at the bottom. Smooth fiberglass material forms the trough which minimizes any damage to the fish traveling along the trough. Water depth in this bi-directional fish return system is maintained at approximately three inches with oneunit operating and greater than three inches with both units in operation (normal configuration). The intersection of the fish and debris troughs were redesigned to enhance fish survival. The fish trough is aligned parallel to and above the debris trough. At the end of the fish trough the water from the fish trough drops approximately three inches into the combined trough and is cushioned by the water in the debris trough. The neoprene flap seals between the traveling screens and the troughs were also redesigned to improve sealing, enhance the entry of fish into the troughs, and allow for adjustment of the seals during operation. 11-9 PSE&O Permrit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F III. DELAWARE ESTUARY III.A. Overview of the Delaware Estuary EcosystemThe Delaware Estuary extends 133 miles (214 kilometers) from the falls at Trenton, NJ,to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. It is one of the largest estuaries on the Atlantic Coast-open water areas of the main stem cover approximately 725 square miles (1,878 square kilometers), and open water areas of the Estuary's tributaries cover an additional 33 square miles (85.5 square kilometers). Approximately 247 square miles (639 square kilometers) of marsh-plain areas border the tidal creeks, primarily in the lowerestuary below the C&D Canal (this estimate of marsh-plain includes small tidal creeks). The Estuary is divided into the following three longitudinal zones (Figure 1) based on salinity, turbidity, and biological productivity (EPA 1995).* Tidal River Zone-This freshwater zone extends from the head-of-tide at Trenton, NJ (rivermile (RIM) 133) to Marcus Hook, PA (RIM 80).a The Transition Zone-Located between Marcus Hook (RtM 80) and Artificial Island (RM,, 50), the site of the Station, this zone has high turbidity, variable salinity, and low biological productivity. The C&D Canal, located north of Artificial Island at RM 59, provides a sea level connection between the Delaware Estuary and the upper Chesapeake Bay. Although on average, the net flow is from the Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware Estuary, at times it also flows in the reverse direction (Hsieh and Richards 1996).* The Delaware Bay Zone-This final zone of the estuary running from ArtificialIsland down to the mouth of the bay is characterized by high salinity, low turbidity, and high biological productivity. The annual mean freshwater inflow to the Delaware Estuary is approximately 20,243 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) (574 cubic meters per second (m 3/sec)). The nontidal Delaware River and the Schuylkill River provide approximately 72 percent of this freshwater inflow. Groundwater seepage from unconfined aquifers may also provide a significant source of freshwater to the estuary (Bachman and Ferrari 1995). However, groundwater withdrawal from certain aquifers in excess of freshwater recharge can also cause the more saline estuarine water to intrude into these aquifers. Data maintained by the USGS indicates the mean annual flows at Trenton, NJ, have ranged from 5,027 cfs (142 m 3/sec) to 19,268 cfs (546 m3/sec). The highest mean monthly flows typically occur in March and April, the lowest flows during August and September. The C&D Canal (RM 59), about 9 RMs north of the Salem Station, provides a sea-level connection between the Delaware Estuary and the upper Chesapeake Bay through which a significant exchange of water occurs. Reversing, semidiurnal tidal currents of roughly 1.2 knots (0.6 m/s) occur within the Canal. Net (tidally-averaged) flows through the U III-I PS.UG Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Canal also occur. On average, the net flow is from Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware Estuary, but it may reverse direction at any time. Results of an Army Corps of Engineers simulation of net (seasonally-averaged) flows during each spring and fall from 1957 through 1987 suggest that the net flow for every spring in this period was from Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware Estuary, with net flows ranging from roughly 700 to 3,000 cfs (Hsieh and Richards 1996).While the Delaware Estuary has an overall longitudinal change in salinity from 30 ppt at the mouth to freshwater at Trenton, NJ, it has additional longitudinal, transverse and temporal variations as well. Vigorous mixing of the Estuary's waters results in relatively little variation in salinity with depth. The salinity of adjacent coastal waters, freshwater inflow, tides, estuarine morphology, and winds are the main determinants of the estuary's salinity distribution at a given time. During times of low freshwater inflow, higher salinity water will move up-estuary. During times of high freshwater inflow, higher salinity water is pushed down-estuary. Estuarine morphology causes transverse salinity variations-high-salinity ocean water and the coarse particulate matter that it carries flow into the estuary, primarily in the deep central channel during flood tides. At the sametime low-salinity water flows down-estuary along the shallower near-shore areas carrying its load of fine particulate matter. Semidiurnal tides are primarily responsible for the vigorous vertical and horizontal motions of water in the estuary. Other factors contributing to residual circulation patterns include the Coriolis effect, gravitational circulation, meteorological events such as local and regional winds, and freshwater pulses.N The Delaware Estuary is used by a variety of aquatic organisms for feeding, reproduction, and nursery areas. In the past, activities of the human population inhabiting the Delaware River watershed have adversely affected water quality and habitat conditions and, consequently, the fisheries of the Estuary. However, advancements in the treatment ofindustrial and municipal wastewater, the creation of cooperative agencies such as the Delaware River Basin Comxnission that is responsible for managing the river's water resources, as well as advancements in the science of fisheries management, have lead to the Delaware Estuary's current healthy status, as described in the following sections.Appendix C to this application provides a more detailed description of the Estuary's physical characteristics, water quality, and biological resources. III.B. Water Quality Turbidity tends to be high in the estuary. The turbidity maxima are centered at salinities I -3 ppt and 7.5 -10 ppt, and move up- and down-estuary with the salinity gradient. The high turbidity in the Transition Zone reduces the amount of light penetrating below the surface, which results in a shallow photic zone that limits phytoplankton productivity. Harding et al. (1986) suggest that much of the phytoplankton found in this zone are transported there from other areas.111-2 PSE&O Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F In aquatic systems, the processes of photosynthesis and re-aeration produce the dissolved oxygen (DO). Between Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, PA, DO concentrations were historically depressed prior to the major improvements in sewage treatment plants initiated around 1980. Mean DO concentrations throughout the estuary are now typically greater than 5mg/L.Estuarine pH is currently around 7.5 along the entire length. The Delaware Estuary has one of the highest nutrient inputs (nitrogen and phosphorus) of any major North A~merican estuary, primarily from urban wastewater (Sutton et al. 1996). The resulting high nutrient concentrations, however, do not cause massive algal blooms or eutrophication, partly because of the poor light penetration discussed earlier for the Transition Zone. Nitrate concentrations clearly increase moving downriver in the Tidal River Zone, but decrease moving down the remainder of the Estuary. Spatial patterns of other nutrients are not as clear. While concentrations of ammonia and total phosphorus have decreased since the 1960s, total inorganic nitrogen has decreased only slightly, and nitrate has increased somewhat.The Delaware Estuary's watershed has one of the heaviest concentrations of industrial facilities, oil refineries, and petrochemical plants in the world. Approximately
6.4 million
people (Sutton et al. 1996) inhabit the watershed, concentrating in the Philadelphia area. Untreated industrial and municipal waste water and nonpoint source discharges associated with the developed watershed severely impaired the estuary's water quality during the early and middle parts of this century, particularly around Philadelphia. By 1914, DO concentrations were as low as 1 mg/L near Philadelphia (Albert 1988). By the early- to mid-1940s, DO concentrations were near zero (Kiry 1974) for about 20 miles in the vicinity of Philadelphia (Albert 1988). Actions to improve water quality began inthe 1950s with the implementation of primary wastewater treatment-principally the installation of sedimentation basins to remove suspended solids. Dischargers inthe Tidal River Zone were required to meet specific biological oxygen demand (BOD) removal rates. By 1958, warm-weather DO concentrations in the Philadelphia area had increased by at least 1 mg/L. Additional water quality improvements resulted from the implementation of secondary treatment-biological treatment to remove organic matter (trickling filters, activated sludge, or biological towers)-in the 1980s. By 1986, the total annual BOD loading to the estuary was about one-fourth what it was in 1958 (Albert 1988). Current DO levels meet DRBC standards throughout the Tidal River Zone (DRBC 1996; Santoro 1998).Other water quality parameters, such as nutrients, and fecal coliform, have changed in concert with DO. In the 1970s, the discharge of toxics such as PCBs, DDT, and chlordane was reduced or banned, and protective discharge limits were imposed on many other substances through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).Although their release to the estuary have been reduced or eliminated, some of these toxic substances, particularly mercury and lipophilic organics, are persistent in the sediments and in the biota, particularly in the sediments within the Tidal River Zone where the 111-3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F majority of the toxic pollutant discharges to the watershed occur. Sediment contaminants of concern include: PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, PAH, and heavy metals (DRBC 1998).Elevated levels of certain toxic contaminants (chlordane, mercury and PCBs) have also been found in fish, leading to the issuance of fish consumption advisories. The Delaware Estuary Toxics Management Program (DETMP) originally identified the following toxic pollutants of concern: chromium, zinc, nickel, copper, lead, 1,2-dichloroethane, silver, tetrachloroethene, chloroform, cadmium, arsenic, DDD, selenium, and mercury (DRBC 1996). Based on revised water quality standards and more extensive monitoring data, five of these pollutants (arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver) have now been removed from the list of pollutants of concern (NJDEP 1998). Appendix C to thissubmittal provides a thorough discussion of water quality issues associated with the Delaware Estuary.The DRBC has promulgated water quality standards for the entire Delaware River, including both the nontidal river and the estuary. The standards vary among different zones of the river, depending on their designated uses (drinking water, swimming, shellfishing, etc.). According to the 1996 to 1997 data (DRBC 1998), the entire estuary fully supports sv'imming and secondary contact uses, and there is no longer aquatic life impairment due to low DO (below 6 mg/L daily mean standard) in the Tidal River Zone.Low DO (below 6 mg/L daily mean standard) still occurs in the Transition Zone and extreme upper portion of the Delaware Bay Zone (RIM 49, Liston Point). In its study of the condition of mid-Atlantic estuaries (USEPA 1998a), EPA classified 95 percent of the estuary as having Good Conditions with respect to DO with no areas having SevereHypoxia. EPA also classified more than 95 percent of the estuary as either having No Risk or Minimal Risk, with respect to sediment contamination. III.C. Habitat The Delaware Estuary comprises four main habitats: open water (pelagic) zone, littoral zone, benthic zone, and tidal marsh. These are described briefly below. Appendix C to this application provides a detailed description of each and is the source of the information presented below.III. C.1. Open Water (Pelagic Zone)The pelagic zone includes most of the open water of the estuary and near-shore areas that are more than 2 m deep at low tide. Phytoplankron, zooplankton, immature macroinvertebrates, fishes, mammals, birds, and reptiles all use the open water areas.Phytoplankton are the dominant primary producers in the estuary and form the base of the food web in open water areas. They are consumed by zooplankton, the secondary producers. The greatest rates of secondary production occur in the lower portion of the estuary. Although the relative importance of different zooplankton varies with time and location within the estuary, copepods are the dominant group on an annual basis. On a 111-4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F seasonal basis, immature forms of benthic shellfishes, including eastern oyster and blue mussel, contribute significantly to the planktonic community. Freshwater zooplankton, such as cladocera, are more important in the Tidal River Zone.The current phytoplankton community, primarily diatoms with few nuisance species, appears to be stable and comparable to that of other East coast estuaries (Marshall and Alden 1993). Insufficient data exist to adequately assess temporal trends in zooplankton (Steams 1995). The general pattern of seasonal succession in copepod species does not appear to have changed since the 1940s (Maurer et al. 1978, Herman and Hargreaves 1988).Fishes that occur in the pelagic zone include oceanic migrants, rare transients, and freshwater 'benthic and littoral fishes-their distribution is dependent upon salinity. In general, fishes in the family Clupeidae (herrings and shad) and Engraulidae (anchovies) dominate the pelagic zone. Many pelagic fishes are seasonally abundant in the estuary and use estuarine habitats as foraging areas, spawning areas, or nursery grounds. These seasonal fishes are typically most abundant in the summer, then decline to almost zero in the winter as adults migrate to coastal waters. Gizzard shad, yellow perch, and a number of common freshwater game species use pelagic areas in the Tidal River Zone. Although recent water quality improvements have contributed to increased numbers of many recreationally and commercially important pelagic fishes, their abundance and catch are still below levels recorded before the turn of the century.The status and trends of marine mammals in the estuary are not well known. Although some cetaceans regularly occur or were once common in Delaware Bay, most are found mainly in the inshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean as migrants.Because the Delaware Estuary is located along the Atlantic flyway, it is a critical link in the life histories of many bird species. Waterfowl are the most abundant group of birds using the pelagic zone-diving ducks and two species of goose dominate this group. A number of seabirds and wading birds are abundant in the lower estuary at various times of the year. Numbers of seabird migrants are highest during fall migration, whereas diving ducks are most abundant in mid-winter. The loggerhead is the most common sea turtle speciesin the bay although four other species have been recorded or are likely to occur. All of these sea turtle species are either federally threatened or endangered. III. C.2. Littoral Zone The littoral zone includes the intertidal zone as well as near shore areas less than 2 m deep at low tide, whether or not submerged or emergent macrophytes (aquatic vegetation) are present. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are important habitat formers, but are scarce in the Delaware Estuary. However, some SAV (especially wild celery), are 1 111-5 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F present in the Tidal River Zone. Because SAVs are sparse or absent in much of the Transition and Delaware Bay Zones, the littoral zone and pelagic/benthic zones are distinguished by depth.Benthic algae (the "microphytobenthos") may be important primary producers in the littoral zone, since SAVs are sparse. The microphytobenthos are also important in marsh areas. The composition of the phytoplankton community is assumed to be similar to that in the pelagic zone. In the Delaware Bay Zone, horseshoe crabs lay eggs in intertidal areas in one of the largest nesting aggregations of horseshoe crabs in the Northern hemisphere. Blue crabs are another important species in the littoral zone.Fishes of the littoral zone throughout the estuary have been extensively sampled using seines, and by electrofishing in freshwater areas. The fish communities of littoral areas are similar to those of adjacent pelagic and benthic zones. They also include many of the species that commonly use intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats in marshes. Species composition varies with salinity (although many species are widespread across the salinity gradient), and substrate type (sandy beaches versus silt-detritus areas). The mummichog, bay anchovy, silversides, menhaden, weakfish, croaker, white perch, striped bass, bluefish, hogchoker, and American eel are common and widespread in the littoral zone. In addition to these widespread species, several species of minnow, shad and river herrings, and sunfishes are common in the littoral zone in the Tidal River Zone and to a lesser extent in the Transition Zone. A few-species, such as the striped killifish and dusky pipefish, may be most common in the littoral zone.In comparison with the pelagic zone, the littoral zone may be used more by smaller species such as minnows, anchovies, silversides, and killifishes, and juveniles of larger species such as spot, croaker, shad, and river herring. However, larger individuals of predatory fish such as white perch forage in the littoral zone, especially during high tides.Use of the littoral zone is highly seasonal, with many fish moving into deeper water in the winter.The littoral zone is particularly important for feeding by birds, including geese, ducks,loons, herons and egrets, gulls, terns, and shorebirds (plovers and sandpipers). Many .fthese species feed in marshes or in the adjacent pelagic/benthic zones, as well. Several species of shorebirds and gulls feed heavily on horseshoe crab eggs during the late spring crab nesting period. The eggs are a high-energy food that is important for several species of migratory shorebirds using the Delaware estuary as a stopping point on their northern migration. This area hosts one of the largest aggregations of these species in the Northern hemisphere. The littoral zone is used to some extent by turtles (especially diamondback terrapin in brackish areas and several other species in the Tidal River Zone), snakes, frogs (mainly freshwater areas), terrestrial mammals (e.g., foraging in the intertidal), and marine 111-6 PSEUG Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F omammals. Appendix C to this application provides a thorough discussion of these species.III. C3. Benthic Zone The benthic zone consists of both the surface and interior of the substrate in the deeper parts of the estuary. Benthic biota includes those that live on the surface of the substrate (epifauna) as well as in it (in.fauna). Benthic algae are presumed to be relatively unimportant because depth and turbidity limit light penetration. The benthic infauna varies with salinity and substrate type. Various oligochaete worms and chironomid larvae (midges) are dominant in the tidal river zone. Polychaete worms and several species of mollusc are dominant in soft-bottom (sand or silt) areas of the bay zone, along with blue crabs and horseshoe crabs. In addition to filtering detritus and plankton, oysters, mussels, tube-building polychaete worms, and other invertebrates that produce a hard bottom structure are important in providing habitat for other benthic species such as gobies and blennies. Oyster reefs historically were an important habitat former found in the Delaware Bay Zone but the population was decimated by two diseases, MSX and Dermo, in the beginning of the 1950s (Ford et al. 1995). The loss of the oyster population has affected species dependent on this type of bottom habitat (Santoro 1998).Many of the important recreational and commercial fish species (including several RIS)are benthic. Predatory species, such as weakfish, bluefish, striped bass, white perch, and summer flounder, feed in the benthic and pelagic zone. Other species of drums and flatfishes are widespread and common in the benthic zone, as are several species of sharks, rays, and cods. Many freshwater species, including minnows and catfishes, occur in the Tidal River and Transition Zones, and many benthic oceanic species occur in the Delaware Bay Zone.Use of the Estuary by benthic fishes is seasonal and dependent on the life stage. Species that occur as juveniles and/or adults in the estuary spawn in freshwater (anadromous species), in the Estuary itself, or in the ocean. Most species use the estuary in summer, with many or all individuals wintering in deep parts of the estuary or moving into the ocean. Some species, however, occur mainly in winter.EPA (USEPA 1998a) classified the condition of the Delaware Estuary benthic communities in 70 percent of the Delaware Estuary as Good, Severely Impacted in 10 percent (located between Philadelphia and the C&D Canal), and Impacted in the remaining 20 percent (between Philadelphia and Trenton). In 1993, ECSI studied the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of the entire mainstem estuary between Trenton and Philadelphia and compared their results with data from earlier reports. These researchers concluded that the existing benthic community in this region was still dominated by 9111-7 PSE&O Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F pollution-tolerant oligochaetes and chironomids, but that less pollution tolerant and more oxygen sensitive genera were starting to occur (ECSI 1993).III.C.4. Tidal Marsh Zone Tidal wetland communities include freshwater emergent tidal marshes of the Tidal River Zone and tributaries; tidal scrub/shrub and forested wetlands along the shorelines of tidal tributaries in this zone; and the coastal salt marshes of the Delaware Bay Zone. These wetlands are a mosaic of different habitats strongly influenced by the tidal cycle that include open-water tidal creeks, intertidal mud creek banks, and herbaceous emergent plants. The ebb and flow of tides defines the habitat for marsh plants and animals-creating spatial zones of different macrophyte assemblages and their associated communities of algae, benthic macroinvertebrates, fin.fishes, and shorebirds. Salt marshes are generally described in terms of high and low marsh. Low marsh is flooded at least once a day by tides and is dominated by smooth cordgrass. High marsh isflooded less often and is usually dominated by stands of salt hay and spike grass. The vegetation of brackish marshes is transitional between those of salt and freshwater tidal marshes. Freshwater marshes exhibit less distinct zonation than do brackish marshes and are more prone to infestation by common reed than are salt marshes.Macroalgae and benthic algae are widespread throughout salt marshes, where they contribute to fish habitat and primary production. Bacteria and fungi are important asdecomposers and as food items for suspension feeding animals in all tidal marshes. A number of macroinvertebrate species important to nutrient cycling in marshes inhabit intertidal and subtidal habitats and time their reproductive cycle with the tides. Ribbed mussel and coffee-bean snail are associated with cordgrass, and these, along with grass shrimp and fiddler crabs, form important energy links to higher trophic levels. Grass shrimp and one fiddler crab species are equally common in freshwater tidal marshes.Insect macroinvertebrates, including the white-banded salmarsh mosquito, occur in the infauna of the intertidal zone of most tidal marshes.Tidal marshes support a diverse fish assemblage that includes resident marsh dwellers, seasonal residents, transients, and anadromous and catadromous (live in freshwater but migrate to ocean to breed) species. The most abundant salt marsh fishes include murnmichog, spot, white perch, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silversides, bay anchovy, and sheepshead minnow. Freshwater tidal marshes support fewer fishes than salt marshes and include a number of introduced freshwater game fishes. Several tidal marsh species, including striped bass, American eel, and bay anchovy, are important in recreational or commercial fisheries. Waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, raptors, and songbirds use the marshes of the Delaware Estuary. Some waterfowl breed in the marshes, but many use the wetland habitat for food and cover on migrations through the Eastern Flyway. Many 111-8 PSE&G Permnit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F shorebirds and wading birds also breed in the estuary-Pea Patch Island is the largest heronry north of Florida. As discussed previously, the Delaware Estuary is especially important to migrating shorebirds whose feeding ecology is closely tied to the breeding cycle of the horseshoe crab. A number of raptors protected by state or federal governments still inhabit the Delaware Estuary tidal marshes, although their populations were greatly reduced as a result of chemical contamination that occurred before 1970.The mammal, reptile, and amphibian tidal marsh faunas are sparse compared to fishesand birds. Typical salt marsh mammals are mainly a subset of the freshwater marsh species and include muskrat, river otter, rice rat, masked shrew, meadow vole, and white-tailed deer. Few amphibians occur near saline waters, and reptiles are limited to a few turtle species and two snake species.A variety of natural (snow goose grazing, sea level rise, and rapid expansion of common reed) and anthropogenic factors (diking, filling, bulk heading) have led to a decrease in the spatial extent and quality of wetlands in the Delaware Estuary, eliminating large areas of wetland habitat along margins of the estuary. Damming of tributaries has also eliminated spawning habitat for anadromous fishes. According to EPA (USEPA 1998a), the loss rate for salt marshes has slowed in response to strict state and federal conservation plans and slowed development. III.D. Important Species of the Delaware EstuaryThe following sections briefly summarize information on the Representative Important Species (RIS) of the Delaware Estuary, and blue crab. Appendix C and the Species Specific Reports accompanying this application provide a detailed description of these species. Seasonal abundance of life stages that may be sensitive to impacts from the intake structure in the vicinity of the Station, is based on PSE&G's entrainment and impingement monitoring programs described in Section VI and Attachment 1 to this Appendix, and in Appendix J. Appendix J of this Demonstration provides a detailed evaluation of trends in abundance for the species presented below.III.D. 1. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) live in a narrow band of coastal water from Newfoundland to South Carolina. They are part of the commercial by-catch, but no targeted fishery exists for them in the Delaware. Alewife occur from the ocean off Delaware Bay into the Estuary and upriver as far as Milanville, NY, but above Trenton they are generally confined to the mainstem of the river. Adults go upriver from April to early June and spawn (the eggs are laid in sluggish water), then return to the ocean.Alewife larvae and juveniles use the Delaware as nursery habitat. They move downriver in September and October when water temperatures drop to overwinter in Delaware Bay or along the coast. Near the Station, alewife juveniles generally occur in spring and fall.8 II-9 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Alewife have shown significant increases in their relative abundance in the Delaware Estuary in recent years (Killam and Richkus 1992). These increases have been attributed to water quality improvements (Waterfield 1995), as well as the construction of new fish ladders in Delaware and New Jersey that allow alewife to ascend tributaries that were formerly inaccessible. 111.D.2. American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)American shad (Alosa sapidissima) range along the Atlantic coast, but are most abundant from Connecticut to North Carolina. It is a highly prized commercial and recreational species in the Delaware River--commercially, it is mostly sought for its roe. Both commercial and recreational fisheries operate during the spawning run. Commercial fishery gear restrictions are in place for both Delaware and New Jersey waters, and the shad fishery is being managed under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) regional fishery management plan (USEPA 1998a). The catch in 1997 was more than ten times the catch in 1971; but current catch levels are one-tenth of those in 1899. Adults live offshore from Long Island to Nantucket during winter and start moving toward their natal rivers (where they wire hatched) when water temperatures are above 377F (3°C). Shad move up the Delaware in April and May to spawn between Belvidere, New Jersey and Hancock, New York. Although they return to their natal rivers to spawn, no genetic differences have been found among shad from the Delaware, Hudson, orConnecticut rivers. After spawning, adults migrate north to the Gulf of Maine for the summer and fall. Larvae and juveniles gradually move downriver in response to temperature and currents. The peak abundance ofjuveniles near the Station is in November and December.American shad have shown a marked increase in the Delaware Estuary in recent years, increasing from a population low of 106,202 in 1977 for the time period starting in 1975, to a high of 882,600 in 1992. Although shad population abundance declined between 1992 and 1995, there was no evidence of recruitment failure. In 1996, the population size increased to 899,930, the fifth highest size recorded for the period starting in 1980 (Crecco 1998).The Delaware River shad population was estimated in 1995, 1996, and 1998 using hydro-acoustic gear at the Route 202 bridge at Lamberrville, NJ. These studies resulted inpopulation estimates of 290,000 in 1995, 524,000 in 1996, and 303,000 in 1998. The river population is actually larger than these estimates because some spawning occurs in the river and tributaries below Lambertville. The juvenile abundance index in 1997 was 278 (Field 1998).The increase in the shad population has been attributed to federal, state, and interstate efforts to reduce fishing pressure, increase spawning ground accessibility, and improved water quality. Despite these improvements, this species remains under strict management III-10 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appcndix F (USEPA 1998a). New Jersey and Delaware jointly monitor shad relative and absolute abundance in the Delaware River (Crecco 1998).II.D.3. Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) Atlantic croaker (Mi cropogonias undulatus) range from Cape Cod to the Gulf of Mexico, but are not common north of New Jersey (Welsh and Breder 1923; McHugh 1981; Able and Fahay 1998). As is the case for spot, Atlantic croaker are most abundant from the Chesapeake Bay to the Carolinas (Berrien 1973, White and Chittenden 1976); they are one of the most abundant inshore demersal fishes from the Chesapeake Bay south to Florida and the northern Gulf of Mexico (Mercer 1987). Delaware is the most northerly location where croaker are caught in inshore fisheries, although catches there are irregular (Mercer 1987). Atlantic croaker did not become important to Delaware Estuary fishermen until the 1990s. This species is part of the industrial trawl fishery and is by-catch in the shrimp fishery. Adult croaker migrate offshore in fall to spend the winter over the continental shelf. They spawn in late summer and larvae enter Delaware Bay from September through November. Young croaker use the Delaware Estuary as a nursery area in the late winter, spring and summer, occurring from the bay to the Tinicum Island/Raccoon Creek area, in the C&D Canal, and in tidal tributaries to the Delaware.Near the Station, Atlantic croaker larvae are present in greatest abundance in September and October, and Atlantic croaker young between October and January.Atlantic croaker abundance in the Delaware Estuary has increased substantially in the last decade (EPA 1998). This species showed a 10-fold increase in the average recruitment in 1992 compared with the 1980s (USEPA 1998a).III.D.4. Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) This small, pelagic schooling fish lives along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where it is abundant in estuaries, bays and nearshore coastal waters throughout its range. Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) are historically the most abundant fish in the Delaware Bay;where it is found throughout the Bay, its tributaries, and the C&D Canal. In the spring, adults move from overwintering areas in deeper parts of the bay, and offshore, into shallows of the lower bay to spawn. Spawning occurs from May through August in the lower reaches of the estuary where salinities are greater than 20 ppt. Adults stay in the estuary until late summer when they begin to migrate into deeper waters. Many bay anchovy emigrate from the Estuary in the fall and remain offshore until spring. Larvae and juveniles spawned in the lower estuary during spring and summer move upriver into lower salinity nursery areas. In fall, juveniles move downriver into deeper channel areas to overwinter. Within the vicinity of the Station, bay anchovy eggs are present from May through November, but are most abundant from May through August. Larvae occur near the Station from May through October, with the greatest abundance in June through August. Bay anchovy juveniles are present year-round near the Station, but are found in~Ill-lIi PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F greatest abundance in July through October. Bay anchovy adults are present near the Station year-round, but are most abundant from April through November.The abundance of bay anchovy in the Delaware Estuary is highly variable, and there does not appear to be a consensus regarding temporal trends. Frithsen et al. (199 1) concluded that catch per unit effort data suggest bay anchovy populations in the Delaware estuary experience considerable annual variation in either absolute or localized abundance or in recruitment from nearby coastalwaters. Santoro (1998) reported that bay anchovy abundance has increased in recent years.III.D.S. Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) This anadromous fish lives in a narrow band of coastal water from Nova Scotia to Florida, but is most abundant from Chesapeake Bay southward. Like alewife, blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) are part of the commercial by-catch; but there is no targeted fishery for them in the Delaware. There is, however, a modest recreational fishery.Blueback herring begin congregating near mouths of estuaries in late winter when temperatures approach 41 °F (5°C). They move up the Delaware River in spring to spawn as far as 25 miles (40 kin) above Trenton, as well as up tributaries that have not been blocked. Blueback use the Delaware and tributaries as nursery areas in spring and summer and overwinter offshore.Since the water quality has improved in the Delaware River between Wilmington and Philadelphia, access to spawning habitat is the main limitation on blueback production. Diking of salt hay marshes, mosquito control, muskrat and waterfowl impoundments, road and landfill construction have all altered spawning habitat. New fish ladders have been constructed in New Jersey and Delaware to offset previous impacts and facilitate spawning runs. Blueback herring juveniles are present from winter through late spring and again in fall near the Station.III.D. 6. Opossum Shrimp (Neomysis americana) Neomysis americana (opossum shrimp) is the most common mysid in the estuaries and nearshore areas of the northeast. Like the Gammarus tigrinus complex, it is an important link in the estuarine food chain. Also like the Gammarus tigrinus complex, they are omnivores, with detritus making up a large portion of the diet. Populations consist of one longer-lived (10-14 months),overwintering generation and one or two shorter-lived (6-10 months) summer/fall generations. The overwintering generation spawns in spring, the first summer generation in summer, and the second summer generation in fall. They can tolerate temperatures as high as 91°F (33°C) and salinities greater than I ppt up to full strength seawater. They are an important food source for weakfish, white perch, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, and young striped bass (Stevenson 1958, Shuster 1959, Thomas 1971, Bason et al. 1975 and 1976, and Cronin et al. 1962). Within the vicinity of the Station, opossum shrimp is most abundant from May through December.III-12 PSE&G Permit Applicafion 4 March 1999 Appendix F III.D. 7. Scud (Gammarus tigrinus Complex)The Gammarus tigrinis (scud) complex includes amphipod species that are a link in the food web between microorganisms and fish. They are found throughout the estuary, but are most abundant in freshwater and low salinity areas. The population has one overwintering generation and several shorter-lived (60 days) summer/fall generations. Depending on the individual species, spawning can occur throughout the year.Scud are omnivorous, but are primarily detritivores. The young, however, survive best when they have access to fresh algae. Predators include crustaceans, birds, and bottom feeding fishes. Gammarus complex was found to be an important component of the diet of weakfish, white perch, and bay anchovy collected from the Delaware River (Meadows 1974). They can tolerate temperatures to 96.8°F (36°C) and a wide range of salinity.Within the vicinity of the Station, Scud are most abundant from April through September. III.D.& Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) range along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Its greatest abundance, however, is south of Delaware Bay in the area of the Chesapeake Bay and the Carolinas (Berrien 1973). Although not currently an important commercial species, in the 1800s, spot was Delaware's second most important fishery.There is a small recreational fishery in Delaware Bay. Adult spot spend the winter over the continental shelf south of Virginia, spawning there from late September through March. The adults then move into estuaries. After they spend several months in the ocean, currents carry larvae to estuarine nursery areas. The first recruits into the Delaware occur during April, with recruitment continuing into June. Most of the young of the year (YOY) spot found in the Delaware River in the spring are two to four monthsold. These early juveniles concentrate in tidal marshes along the bay and remain there during the summer. In the fall, they move south and offshore to overwinter. After spawning, adults also move into estuaries. Spot rarely live more than three years and their populations tend to fluctuate from year to year. Near the Station, spot occur primarily from May through August as 0+ fish; 1+ spot occur most frequently from October through December.Spot is considered a southern species, and the Delaware Estuary is the northern limit of its range (Sutton et al. 1996). Although the abundance of spot appears to be highly variable and have no clear temporal trend, the Delaware Estuary population appears to be healthy (Frithsen et al. 1991). These variations have been attributed to fluctuations in year class abundance due to environmental differences in the spawning grounds, quantity and quality of nursery habitat, and fishing mortality (Joseph 1972, Sutton et al. 1996).The catch in most years is composed of a single year class. Numerous studies have 9 #111-13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F demonstrated that spot occur not only in the mainstem estuary below Philadelphia, but in nearly every tidal tributary and creek, frequently ranking as one of the top five fish in abundance in the Delaware Estuary (Cole et al. 1985, 1986, 1988, Michels 1992, 1993;O'Herron et al. 1994).III.D. 9. Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) The striped bass (Morone saxatilis ) is an anadromous fish that ranges along the Atlantic coast from the St. Lawrence River, Canada, to the St. Johns River, Florida. Atlantic coastal stocks of striped bass come from four distinct spawning stocks: Roanoke River/Albemarle Sound; Chesapeake Bay; Delaware River; and Hudson River (ASMFC 1998a). The Chesapeake Bay is the largest producer area, followed by the Hudson River, and then the Delaware River. This fishery has been a target of commercial and recreational fishing pressure from North Carolina to Massachusetts, but declined steadily in abundance during the early 1970s. The commercial catch in the Delaware Estuary peaked in 1973 at almost 600,000 pounds, then dropped I 0-fold within five years. The recreational catch also declined precipitously. Population declines over its entire range resulted in the development of the ASMFC's striped bass fishery management plan in 1981. The federal Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act passed in 1984 madecompliance with this plan mandatory from North Carolina to Maine. Most of the fishery management actions instituted by the ASMFC management plan were intended to restore production in the Chesapeake Bay, since it was the largest coastal stock. Delaware and New Jersey do not have a commercial fishery for striped bass, and sport fishermen have size limits and quotas.Although known for striped bass spawnng runs until the early 1900s, the Delaware Riverhas had little if any spawning until recently, due in part to low dissolved oxygen levelsbetween Wilmington and Philadelphia. Recently 01996-1998), the recreational catch of striped bass has risen dramatically, approaching levels of abundance comparable to thoseseen in the first half of the century. Striped bass are found throughout the Delaware Bay and spawn in the Delaware River as far south as the C&D Canal (ASMFC 1995). Adult striped bass move into the estuary to spawn in fresh to slightly brackish waters in the spring, then move downriver to estuarine and coastal areas. At various life stages, striped bass are found close to shore around their natal rivers, in coastal migration and in deeper areas of the lower estuary. Within the vicinity of the Station, early life stages of striped bass began to appear in 1989.Striped bass eggs historically have not occurred near the Station in most years, but when they do, they are present in April and May. Larvae are also generally most abundant in April and May. Juveniles generally begin to appear in the vicinity of the Station in June, and continue to utilize this area until the following spring.111-14 PSE&O Permit Application 4 March 1999, Appendix F Striped bass have exhibited a strong recovery in the Delaware Estuary, as shown by the resurgence in spawning success in the river (Santoro 1998). Because of the improved conditions, the ASMFC has declared the Delaware striped bass stock restored, andliberalized, but has not removed, fishing restrictions (USEPA 1998a).The recovery of Delaware striped bass is attributed to improved water quality and reduced fishing pressures (USEPA 1998a, Santoro 1998). Fishing moratoriums were issued for striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Estuary from 1985-1990.The States of Delaware and Pennsylvania monitor striped bass spawning stock in the Delaware River during the spring migration, as required by the ASMFC striped bass management plan. The ASMFC striped bass management plan requires each state toimplement protection for striped bass habitat within its jurisdiction to ensure the stability of that portion of the migratory stock that is either produced or resides within its boundaries (ASMFC 1995).11.D.1O. Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) is a schooling marine migrant that is a valuable component of the commercial and recreational catches along the Atlantic coast. This species ranges along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts Bay to Florida as a single stock, but is most common in shallow coastal and estuarine waters from North Carolina to New York (Vaughan et al. 1991). The migratory nature and importance of the species led the ASMTC to develop a fishery management plan in 1985, and subsequently amended in 1992. The Delaware River weakfish population is probably part of a common stock originating in southern waters. Weakfish generally inhabit the Delaware Estuary from April through November. Adults spawn and feed in the lower estuary, while young weakfish use the whole bay and lower river as a nursery during summer. Weakfish eggs,during certain years, appear to be present in the vicinity of the Station in June and July.Weakfish larvae generally occur in greatest numbers near the Station from June through August, and juveniles in summer and early fall.Recent data indicate that the fully exploited weakfish population of the Delaware Estuary is recovering (NMFS 1998). EPA (USEPA 1998a) also noted improved weakfish recruitment. II...11. White Perch (Morone americana) White perch (Morone americana) occur in brackish water from South Carolina to NovaScotia, but are most abundant between the Hudson River and the Chesapeake Bay region. This species supports a commercial and recreational fishery, particularly during theirspawning season. Delaware regulates commercial gill and drift net catches--currently, there is limited fishing effort and the resource is considered under-exploited. There is no quota on recreational fishing. In the Delaware River, white perch spawn primarily upriver, above Newbold Island (RM 125), but have spawned near Artificial Island. Adult 5 III- 15 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F white perch typically make their upriver spawning migration in the spring, returning downriver to brackish areas in the middle and lower estuary in the fall. When the water temperature drops in the fall, adults move to deeper and more saline waters to overwinter. White perch larvae begin to disperse downriver, progressively moving toward brackish nursery areas as they develop into juveniles. Juvenile white perch are found inshore in sandy shoal and beach areas. White perch larvae are present near the Station from April through July, but are most abundant in April and May. Primary seasonal distribution for juveniles in the vicinity of the Station is from October to May, but white perch adults are present year-round near the Station.White perch also appear to have increased in abundance since the 1980s (Killam and Richkus 1992, Weisberg et al. 1996). It is one of the most abundant exploited species in the estuary (Killam and Richkus 1992). Beck (1995) concluded that the present age and size structure of the population indicate the species is robust.III.D.12. Blue CrabThe blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is found along the entire Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico, where it is most abundant in water shallower than 90 meters, and in bays, estuaries, tidal marshes and creeks less than 35 meters deep. There is a commercial andrecreational fishery for blue crabs, with size and catch limits. Blue crab spawn in theestuary between May and October, after which the female adults move to lower reaches of the estuary. Larvae, which live in surface waters, are transported out of the estuary into the ocean on ebb tides. They re-enter the estuary in fall as megalopal larvae to develop into juveniles and adults. Megalopae have been shown to exhibit markedly reduced- survival in salinities that normally occur at the Station (Costlow 1967). Intertidal marshes have been identified as important nursery habitats for juvenile crabs (Wilson et al. 1990). Juveniles can burrow into the sediments to overwinter. They move downriver in spring and mature in the upper estuary during the fall. Impingeable sizes of blue crab are present year-round near the Station, but are most abundant from April through November.Following the decimation of oysters by MSX and Dermo, blue crab became the dominant shellfish fishery in the Delaware Estuary, significantly increasing the fishing pressure on a population that was already heavily exploited (USEPA 1998a). New Jersey issued permits for 3,001 crab pots for the Delaware Estuary in 1969, and for 40,688 pots in 1993 (USEPA 1998a). Despite the pronounced increase in blue crab harvest, the blue crab population in the Delaware Estuary remains healthy (Frithsen et al. 1991, Killam and Richkus 1992). However, the blue crab population may be showing signs of overfishing because the catch per unit effort (number of crabs caught per pot per day) has decreased (USEPA 1998a).111-16 PSE&G Permit Appiication 4 March 1999 Appendix I1.D.13 SummaryIn summary, water quality has improved since the 1970s and should continue to remain at present conditions into the future. Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities appear to be healthy, but there is insufficient information to assess temporal trends in abundance of dominant species. Areas of severely impaired benthos still exist, but have improved since the 1980s. Habitat formers, such as SAV and oyster beds, remain severely depressed. Freshwater rivers and streams, especially the mainstem Delaware River and its large tributaries, have been very important for spawning by anadromous fishes. These runs were reduced by damming, pollution, and overfishing during the 18th through mid-20thCentury. Water quality improvements combined with stricter fisheries management have resulted in substantial improvements in anadromous and other finfish populations since the early 1980s (McCloy et al. 1997, Santoro 1998, Weisberg et al. 1996). The number of species found in the estuary has increased (Santoro 1998), and harvests of the late 1980s and early 1990s are the best of this century (McCloy et al. 1997).The existing liierature on the important species of the Delaware Estuary suggest that bay anchovy, spot and blue crab show no clear trend but appear healthy; and weakfish, striped bass, white perch, Atlantic croaker, American shad, and river herrings all have improved in recent years. (See Appendix F, Section V.B., for a discussion of RIS). Trends analyses presented in Section VII.B of this Appendix and in Appendix J to this Demonstration, generally support these conclusions, except for blueback herring. Therefore, while biota of the Delaware Estuar-v continue to show certain effects of both natural and anthropogenic stressors, the overall health of the estuary has improved greatly since the 1970s and is quite comparable to that of other mid-Atlantic estuaries. 111-17 PS&O Permnit Applicaaýon 4 March 1999 APenndix rV. IMPACT ASSESSMENT HMSTORIC.AL PERSPECTIVEThe central aim of quantitative analysis of power plant impacts on populations of aquatic organisms is to determine whether effects of the intake structure on these organisms are or will be reflected in a decline in abundance of relevant species, and, if so, what the magritude and duration of such a decline will be. This section outlines past approaches to identify any such impact of Salem, and describes how PSE&G has built upon these approaches in the current Demonstration. IV.A. The Building Blocks of Impact Assessment: Past Approaches and Methods The ecological effects of cooling water withdrawal considered by 316(b) Demonstrationsmay result primarily from three processes: impingement, entrainment, and addition of chemicals such as chlorine to reduce fouling. Because the operation of Salem requires only a relatively small amount of chlorination of the SWS to reduce fouling, the sources of potential impacts are limited to impingement and entrainment. Impingement is the process by which large organisms are drawn to the intake along with the cooling water and trapped against intake screens by the flowing water. Although impinged organisms are returned to the river and many survive, some are injured or killed by mechanical stresses, contact with screens and other surfaces, and suffocation. The process by which small organisms may pass through the screens and be carried through the cooling water system is called entrainment. Entrained organisms are returned to the river with the cooling water flow. Many survive, but some may be injured or killed by contact with power plant structures, changes in temperature and pressure, and shearing forces.Because of the complexity of assessing potential impacts where various life stages of many species were potentially affected over multiple years, the Salem 1984 316(b)Demonstration divided the assessment into logical elements. One element was an estimation of entrainment losses-the number of organisms estimated lost due to entrainment in a month or year. Another element was estimation of impingement losses in a month or a year. Although estimation of losses is required.to assess impacts, the.losses by themselves do not necessarily constitute impacts on the fish populations. Computer modeling was used to put the losses of target species into biologicallymeaningful contexts. While models provide important information concerning fish losses, there are certain limitations inherent in their use. First, models used by PSE&G in 1984 did not take into account compensatory responses of fish populations (i.e., survival, growth, and/or fecundity must increase on average, at a reduced population size) to the losses. Also, the models did not explicitly account for the dynamic exchange oforganisms occurring at the mouth of the Estuary. Due to these model limitations, themodeling results incorporated conservative assumptions, (i.e., no exchange orcompensatory responses) .Biologically meaningful contexts; biological criteria were then IV- 1 PSE&G Permic Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F applied to the results to assess impact. The elements of impact assessment used in the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, and the 1991 and 1993 updates, are summarized below.IV.A.1. Entrainment Losses Estimating entrainment losses requires measurement of the number of organisms that enter the plant and the survival rate of those organisms. While sampling of the intake is possible, implementation is difficult and continuous sampling is not practicable. Thus, it is necessary to estimate losses for a particular period of time from organisms counted during established sampling intervals using certain assumptions and interpolation methods. The number of organisms entrained is calculated from the estimated density oforganisms in the cooling water flow and rate of water withdrawal. Survival rates depend on the species and life stage entrained, ambient conditions, pressure changes, temperature changes, contact with power plant surfaces, and other plant-specific factors. At Salem, entrainment sampling provided data from which densities of organisms in cooling water flow could be estimated. Plant operations data provided information on cooling water withdrawal rates. Special studies conducted by PSE&G simulated plant-specific conditions and provided information on mortality due to temperature changes and mortality due to pressure changes. As part of its 316(b) impact assessment, PSE&G (1984) calculated entrainment losses for important species and life stages from the density of organisms entrained, the amount of water withdrawn, the mortality due to temperature changes, and the mortality due to mechanical damage and pressure changes.In 1991 and 1993, PSE&G updated these calculations with new information on plant operations, gear efficiency, and biology of target species. IV.A.2. Impingement LossesEstimating impingement losses requires measurements of the number of organisms impinged and the survival rate of those organisms. For the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, during specified periods, impinged organisms were collected and counted, and coolingwater flow was measured. From those data, the density of impinged organisms was estimated, and that data extrapolated to the total number of organisms impinged over a month or a season, based on the cooling water flow over that period. Special studies were conducted to determine impingement survival. Mortality was characterized as initial and latent. Initial mortality refers to mortality of organisms immediately after being impinged and washed from the screens. Latent mortality refers to mortality after a longer period and is typically reported for organisms held for 48 or 96 hours after being impinged and washed from the screens. In the 1984 316(b)Demonstration (PSE&G 1984), total impingement losses were calculated from the density of organisms impinged, the flow of cooling water, the initial survival, and thelatent survival. PSE&G later revised certain information used in the impingement calculations, including certain survival rates (PSE&G 1991, 1993).IV-2 PS.kG Permit Application 4 Match 1999 Appendix F IVA.3. Relation of Entrainment and Impingement Losses to Fish Populations, Natural Mortality Rates, and Fish Production. Six models were applied in the 1984 316(b) Demonstration (and then updated by PSE&G in 1991 and 1993) to put entrainment and impingement losses of target species into biological or societal contexts. Each model has limitations and strengths, and all are notnecessarily applicable to all species. As noted above, the limitations of the models generally result in the incorporation of conservative assumptions into the modeling results. Section VII.C. of this Appendix describes in detail the models used in the current Demonstration, and their limitations. Three of the models used in the previous Demonstration compute conditional mortality rates (CMRs). CMR is the fraction of a defined population lost as a result of entrainment and impingement if no other sources of mortality operated. (Assumptions used in the CMR, and its limited usefulness in assessing affects on Stock sustainability are describedin Section VII.C.1. The three CMR models used in the Demonstration were the Empirical Impingement Model (EIM), the Empirical Transport Model (ETM), and the Exploitation Rate Model (ERM). In this Demonstration.. only the EIM and ETM CMR modes are used. PSE&G also applied three non-CMiR models to place losses into biologically meaningful perspectives. These models are the Lost Reproductive Potential Model (also referred to as the Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit Model in other parts of this Demonstration), the Production Foregone Model, and the Equivalent Adult Model.The EIM computes the ratio between the number of organisms lost to the plant and the number of organisms estimated to be in the estuary. The model requires empirical estimates of monthly losses. The population size at any time is computed, based on an estimated initial population size and the portion of the population that survives all sources of mortality each month. Because the EIM computes a ratio, results are sensitive to the estimated population size. The reliability of the population size estimate varies according to data quality and whether a particular survey samples all areas of species distribution within the estuary.In the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, PSE&G applied the EIM to alewife, American shad,blueback herring, spot, and white perch, the species for which PSE&G could find or -develop estimates of total population size. In the 1984 Demonstration, the model utilized the following types of data: (a) the number of individuals lost to impingement per month, (b) the population size just before the population becomes vulnerable to impingement, and (c) the rate of natural mortality or total mortality.The ETM estimates the proportion of a population lost due to entrainment or impingement or both. The ETM is basically a box model, where regions of the source water are boxes each containing some density of organisms belonging to the population of concern. The plant withdraws a portion of water from the box representing its region,and organisms are lost in that plant flow at a certain rate. Periods of vulnerability to the intake are estimated from age and size information and life stage duration. The ETM IV-3 PSF.G Permit Application 4AMarch 1999 Appendix F A1 does not require estimates of the number of organisms lost to entrainment or impingement or the total population size. The proportional reduction calculated by ETM applies only to the population in the regions (the boxes), and because this can be only a portion of the total population, the estimated proportional reduction of a population can be biased high (the estimated impact is conservative). In the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, ETM was applied to weakfish, bay anchovy, and spot.For each species, ETM requires the following types of information: (a) the volume of each region (the boxes), (b) the Station's pumping rate, (c) the fraction of the total spawning that occurs each week, (d) the proportion of the population (by each size class)that occurs in each region during each week of vulnerability, (e) the entrainment mortality rate or the impingement mortality rate, (f) the relative density of organisms in the withdrawal flow compared to the average density in the region (the "W-factors"), and (g)the life stage durations and the periods of vulnerability. The ERM is a simplified ETM. The ERM differs from the ETM by treating the estuary as one big box without differences in regional density and by not having different densities of organisms in the withdrawal flow compared to average density in the region.In the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, PSE&G applied ERM to entrainment of two invertebrate species (opossum shrimp and scud) that produced multiple generations per year. For such analysis, ERM requires the following types of data: a) the volume of the study area, (b) the Station's withdrawal flow, (c) the average entrainment mortality, and (d) the duration of the vulnerability. Among the non-CM, models, the Lost Reproductive Potential Model (LRP referred to as the SSBPR model in Section VII.C.) estimates the reduction in lifetime egg production per female fish as a fraction of what would be expected if the Station had not been operating. The underlying premise of applying this model is that the number of eggs produced by a female fish over her expected life span is an indirect indicator of the compensatory capacity of the stock. Fishery managers routinely use this model to assess the effect of a given fishing mortality rate on stock status. PSE&G applied this model to white perch, for which a considerable proportion of impinged fish are sexually mature.The model estimates the reduction in egg production from the following types of data: (a) the proportion of females in each age group, (b) the proportion of mature females in each age group, (c) the average fecundity of females in each age group, and (d) the conditional mortality rate due to Station operations. The Production Foregone Model (PFM) calculates the reduction in the amount of fishbiomass produced as a fraction of the expected production if the Station had not been operating. This model was applied for bay anchovy, which was considered as prey forpredatory target species, because the biomass of the prey rather than the number of the prey is the important factor in supporting predator populations. The PFM was also used in the 316(b) Demonstration for weakfish and white perch, which were assessed in a variety of contexts. Following the Demonstration, PSE&G used PFM to help understand IV-4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F effects on spot (PSE&G 1993). The PFM requires the following types of data: (a)length-weight-age relationships for the species and (b) conditional mortality rate due to station operations. The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) projects the losses of early life stages to a frame of reference familiar to fisheries managers: losses at the age of recruitment to a fishery or at the age of sexual maturity. However, unlike LRP, these losses provide no information on the relationship of these hypothetical losses to stock status. The EAM results are interpreted primarily in relation to fishery landings data. The model may be applied to impingement losses, entrainment losses, or both. In the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, PSE&G applied the EAM to alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, blueback herring, spot, and striped bass. The EAM requires the following types of data: (a) the number of organisms killed in each age class, and (b) the probability that an individual of any ageclass survives to the reference age.The models were updated and refined in PSE&G's 1991 and 1993 submissions (PSE&G 1991, 1993). The refinements included modifications to model inputs, such as changes to plant flow rates to reflect actual conditions, changes in discharge temperatures based on empirical data, better estimates of transit times for entrained organisms, elimination of mortality estimates due to chlorination (which is not currently used), inclusion of recirculation in impact assessment, and changes in estimates of gear efficiency and natural mortality. For example, model adjustments are made to account for in-river gear efficiency bias in the ETM for bay anchovy, and another was made to correct in-plant sampling gear efficiency for weakfish, white perch and striped bass. Finally, revised survival rate estimates were updated from more recent literature and incorporated intomodel calculations for weakfish, bay anchovy, and white perch.IV.A.4. Biological Criteria Previously Used to Assess Adverse ImpactPower plants act on the surrounding environment in a variety of ways, not all of which are significant enough to be considered as candidates for adverse impact. In 1984, PSE&G identified the following factors commonly used by biologists to assess adverse effects from cooling water intakes for a given biological species and a given power plant site: the relative biological value of the source water body; the zone of power plant influence; the degree of involvement that the species has with the cooling water intake;the degree to which the species may survive entrainment and impingement; and the life history of the species. Characteristics considered to be symptoms of adverseenvironmental impact to natural populations included alterations or changes in geographic range; abnormal changes in trends of standing crop (population abundance);and alterations in life-stage duration, age of maturation, or reproductive capacity.Characteristics considered to be symptoms of impact to biological communities included reductions in abundance of lower trophic level populations that might affect higher trophic level populations, changes in species composition and abundance, changes inrelative abundance pattems and trends, and changes in principal associations of species.IV-5 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F The Salem 316(b) 1984 Demonstration identified several communities for which the potential for adverse impacts was considered negligible or low. Communities identified as having negligible potential for impact included vascular plants, which have almost no involvement with the Station ; the decomposer-detritus complex, because microbes have short generation times, high reproductive potentials, and tremendous numbers in theestuary; and the adult component of benthic macroinvertebrate communities, for which power plant involvement is minimal. These communities were not addressed further.Communities identified as having low potential for impact included phytoplankton, because of wide geographic distribution, high potential to survive entrainment, and high reproductive potential; microzooplankton, for the same reasons; and macrozooplankton, for which scud and opossum shrimp were target species. Fish were identified as the community having the greatest potential for being adversely impacted.The 1984 316(b)' Demonstration also assessed ecosystem effects at several trophic levels.A trophic level is a conceptual grouping of populations that all obtain energy from a similar source such as photosynthesizing sunlight, eating plants, eating plant-eaters, etc.The first level considered was the "food-energy base." Because this level includes vascular plants, phytoplankton, and the detritus-decomposer complex, all listed above, the potential for adverse effects on this trophic level was considered to be low.The second level was the "primary consumer trophic level," which includes organisms that feed on the "food-energy base" level of detritus and phytoplankton. Primary consumers include some populations or life stages in the following groups: benthic epifauna and infauna, nanozooplankton, microzooplankton, macrozooplankton, fish larvae, and certain fish (e.g., gizzard shad). Many of these populations are not involved with cooling water withdrawal at the Station, and the primary consumer trophic function of the Delaware.Bay was considered not to have been adversely affected (PSE&G 1984).The "secondary consumer trophic level" was considered to be all the populations that feed on the primary consumer trophic level and are in turn eaten by the top consumer trophic level. For the assessment, this group was considered to include intermediate-sized -invertebrates and fish, macrobenthos, macrozooplankton, and postlarval to young-of-the-year fish. Six target species were designated from the secondary consumer trophic level for the previous impact assessment. These included: alewife, blueback herring, American shad, bay anchovy, scud, and opossum shrimp. The potential for impact was found to be low because species composition and abundance of secondary consumers was found to be unaffected by the operation of the Station, many secondary consumer populations had low to nonexistent involvement with the Station, and the prevalence of omnivorous and opportunistic feeding served to minimize the potential for impact at the secondary consumer trophic level.IV-6 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Organisms in the "top consumer trophic level" feed primarily on organisms in'the secondary consumer trophic level. Components of the top consumer trophic level were considered to be certain yearling and older fish, reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals including man. Of these, only large fish were directly affected by the operation of the Station. The remaining target species (weakfish, striped bass, white perch, spot, and Atlantic croaker) were designated from this top consumer level for the previous impact assessment. No appreciable adverse effects were found for species belonging to this trophic level.In the 1991 and 1993 submissions, refinements were made in the assessment of adverse impact to rely less on model-based approaches and increasingly on empirical data. Later updates to the 1984 Demonstration were filed after the Station had operated for more than 10 years. By that time, additional Estuary and fish population information was becoming available from state and federal resource agencies. These 1991 and 1993 submissions substantially relied on the principle that long term abundance monitoring data can be used to determine the status of fish stocks in the Delaware Estuary and to assess whether operation of Salem's cooling water intake system has an adverse impact on populations of fish and shellfish. PSE&G had concluded that models alone should not form the basis of an adverse impact determination because comparisons of predicted losses from otherpower plants with real world abundance data demonstrated the inherent limitations of such models to judge whether a plant would cause such impacts (PSE&G 1993).IV.B. Refinements in the Present Submission IV.B.I. Extended Time Series Since the last submission in 1993 (PSE&G 1993), five more years of data on plant operations and biological populations have been collected. The amount of additional data is substantial. The longest time series, though discontinuous in the early years, is the University of Delaware-DNREC Large Trawl Survey of adult groundfish that started in 1966. At the time of the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, surveys had been conducted between 1966-1971, 1979, and 1979-1984. The 1993 PSE&G document presented summary graphics of the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey data, collected from 1980-1992, and discussed findings from a qualitative perspective. Now these data are also available through 1998. The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey started sampling for blue crab in 1977, so that only a limited number of years of data were available for the 1984 316(b)Demonstration. In PSE&G's 1993 submission, abundance and trends in DNREC blue crab data collected through 1989 were discussed, and summary graphics presented.Other riverwide monitoring studies that were relied upon in previous submissions include the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and PSE&G sampling programs. The NJDEP initiated its beach seine survey in 1980, so that only four years had been completed by 1984.NJDEP data collected through 1992 were presented and discussed in PSE&G's 1993 IV-7 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F L& submission. PSE&G has also conducted comprehensive field programs that have monitored fish populations in the Delaware Estuary since 1969.For the present Demonstration, the long-term DNREC, NJIDEP, and PSE&G Nearfield data sets have all been statistically analyzed. Clearly, the analysis and interpretation of this extended time series, obtained from three independent programs, will result in a greater understanding of long-term trends in populations of RIS inhabiting the Delaware Estuary. It also provides a biological context for evaluating the effects of Station operations. IV.B.2. Development of Federal and State Fishery Management Plans and Information Collection and Reporting As a result of the passage and implementation of federal legislation beginning in the 1980s, an increasing number of fish populations became subject to fishery management plans, and the collection, analysis, and reporting of information gathered to support management of these species consequently also increased. These efforts have yielded a large body of information on certain stocks, including information on stock identification and distribution, life history data, yield per recruit calculations, age structure data, estimates of coastwide and local fishing rates, abundance indices, and current and projected stock status.The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASNIFC) was established by compact among 15 East coast states and the District of Columbia in 1942 to manage interjurisdictional fish stocks. The Commission was established as a cooperative commission with no enforcement authority over the member state fishing practices. However, in 1984 (for striped bass) and 1994 (for other interjurisdictional species), Congress passed legislation that established a federal enforcement mechanism to ensure consistent management under ASM'FC fishery management plans.Of the RIS for the Salem Demonstration, three have been the subject of significant information collection and fishery management activities under ASMFC since the 1980s: American shad, striped bass, and weakfish. Four other RIS are also managed by ASM.4FC under the 1993 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, but have had less significant management. These species are alewife, blueback herring, Atlanticcroaker, and spot.ASMFC evaluates stock status with the use of a variety of models that requires a wide range of species data, including the virtual population analysis, the Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit Model (called the LR.P in the 1984 Demonstration) and stock-recruitment models (NMFS March 1998a;). Data collected by ASMFC for use in these models provide a ready source of biological information not previously available for certain species. Several programs had been initiated in the 1980s to provide data and methods for assessing East coast fish populations. In 1981, the SEAMAP (Southeast IV-8 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F.Area Monitoring and Assessment Program) was initiated as a collaborative state and federal university effort to collect, manage, and disseminate data from the South Atlantic, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean region. SEAMAP had supplemented the.'vLARMAP (Marine Research Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction) Program (initiated in 1974) and now forms the basis for uniform data collection used by fisheries management councils (NMFS 1999a).Concerted efforts to manage the Atlantic striped bass stock have greatly increased information available about this species. Coordinated state management of Atlantic striped bass under ASMFC began in the mid-1980s. The 1984 Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act was passed to assist in the conservation, restoration, and management of Atlantic striped bass (focusing on the 1982 Chesapeake year class) and to help enforce compliance with the ASMIFC Fisheries Management Plan. By the mid-1990s, the Chesapeake stock, the largest coastal striped bass stock, was largely restored, and in 1998, the Delaware stock was declared restored.Increased fishing regulation of weakfish under ASNMC began primarily in the early 1990s and has resulted in the collection of a significant amount of information about the distribution, harvest, and life history of this coastal stock. (NMFS March 1998). For example, ASMFC data demonstrate that since 1991 weakfish spawning stock biomass has increased at a mean rate of 22 percent per year (NMfFS October 1998a). The 1980s and 1990s have also seen increasing regulation of American shad, particularly under the 1993 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, that has provided additional information on life history and stock status (ASMFC March 1998b).Information gathering and interjurisdictional fishery management support has been increased under the 1993 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. This Act provides support for projects such as fishery management planning, data collectionand statistics, research, habitat studies, and law enforcement. An example of a recent project under this act is the collection of biological information for Pennsylvania on American shad and river herring (NMFS 1999b).In summary, passage of federal legislation in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in increased fishery management and oversight based to a large extent on evaluation of stock status using fishery models. In order to justify and support increased management and coordination required by such regulation, there has been a substantial increase ininformation gathering and dissemination, monitoring, and fisheries modeling activities regarding many East coast fish species. As a result, our knowledge of fisheries science for fishes of the mid-Atlantic region, including the Delaware Estuary, has substantially increased since the preparation of the last 316(b) Demonstration. IV-9 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F IV.B.3. CurrentAgency Approaches to Evaluating Ecological EffectsNew approaches developed over the past decade provide a more focused framework for evaluating ecological impact at the population, community, and ecosystem levels.Improved methodologies for evaluating adverse environmental impact are available that offer more consistent and complete information. A key development in the area of environmental impact.assessment is EPA's 1998 issuance of the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (the "Ecorisk Guidelines"). (USEPA 1998). The guidelines represent years of accumulated knowledge and study regarding how:to define harm to the environment and reflect the input of a wide range of scientists and ecologists both within and outside the Agency.The Ecorisk Guidelines provide a framework for evaluating the adverse ecological effects that may result from individual or multiple stressors and offer a means for improving thequality and consistency of site-specific evaluations of adverse environmental impacts.The Guidelines provide a structured approach to defining problems, testing impact hypotheses, and characterizing the ecological adversity of any identified effects.Ecological adversity of an effect is determined by evaluating (1) the nature and intention of effects; (2) spatial and temporal scale, effects, and (3) potential for recovery. EPA is now using the approaches set forth in the Guidelines to develop additional ecological impact assessment methods (e.g., biocriteria). The Ecorisk Guidelines are discussed in more detail in section V.A.2 and in Appendix D. IN addition, resource management agencies focus on population level effects and issues, reversibility (recovery) and ability to sustain population growth levels, while recognizing population variability (as described in Section V). These approaches comport with Ecorisk Guideline assessment principles and approaches. Another important approach to assessing ecological effects is EPA's increasing focus on estuary wide processes and effects. This has resulted in a more detailed characterization of aquatic resources and a greater understanding of estuarine physical/chemical and biological processes. Implementation of programs such as the National Estuary Program (NEP) has served to guide restoration strategies and develop estuary-specific restoration goals through comprehensive management and monitoring plans. EPA's NEP has resulted in new information on the status and health of estuaries, including the Delaware Estuary. The NEP identifies estuaries of national concern and seeks to restore and protect them through a wide variety of measures aimed at improving water quality, as well as maintaining the integrity of the entire system. This is accomplished through a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), developed for each estuary by local regulators and stakeholders that addresses all aspects of environmental protection and is based on a scientific characterization of the estuary. The CCMP includes a monitoring component to assess the effectiveness of measures taken to meet the goals identified in the plan.The monitoring plan for the Delaware River Estuary covers four general subject areas: water quality, toxics, living resources, and habitat/land cover/land use. Among the items* IV-10 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F being addressed by the Delaware plan are assessments of cumulative wetland losses and gains; and efforts to influence the process of local land use decision-making and regional population patterns that consume land, reduce habitat, and increase impacts on waterquality. Through the Delaware Estuary Program, numerous studies and reports have been completed that have generated a substantial amount of information concerning the health and status of the Estuary (e.g., Santoro 1998; Sutton et al. 1996). The present Demonstration is fully consistent with and takes advantage of these new approaches,including assessing and identifying ecological risk and evaluating and integrating existing and new information on estuaries status and trends.IV.B.4. Advances in Knowledge New data are available concerning the life history and stock characteristics of managedspecies such as striped bass, weakfish, and American shad as described previously. These data permit more accurate evaluation of the effects of Salem, in the context of the known effects of fishing on the abundance and reproductive capacity of these populations. Knowledge concerning density-dependent processes operating in fish populations has also increased. Process-level research has produced improved understanding of the specific compensatory mechanisms operating in different life stages. Data on spawner-recruit relationships in a wide variety of marine fish species have been compiled, and new statistical methods for analyzing spawner-recruit data have been developed. This new knowledge, summarized in Appendix I, permits broader application of the concept of compensation than had been possible in previous 316(b) Demonstrations. IV.B.5. Specialized Studies Since the 1993 submittal, PSE&G has conducted a number of specialized studies directed at improving riverwide density estimates of RIS inhabiting the Delaware Estuary. These studies have been focused on either extending spatial coverage into traditionally unsampled areas or obtaining better estimates of gear efficiency. The Extended Bottom.Trawl Study (also known as the Upriver Spot Sampling Study)was conducted in 1998 in an effort to provide additional information on spot and other species that may reside in areas upstream of the plant. The study used trawls to randomly sample within a large portion of the Delaware, from RKM 73 (RKM (117) to RM 100 (RKM 160).The Epibenthic Sled Studies were also implemented in 1998 to provide better spatial distributional data for opossum shrimp and scud, which tend to be bottom oriented during daylight hours. The epibenthic sled was paired with an oblique plankton tow to ascertain the level of difference in catch between the two gear types. Epibenthic sled studies were IV-11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F also conducted at selected tidal creeks and reference marsh to quantify relative densities of opossum shrimp.A comprehensive ichthyoplankton gear comparison study was conducted in 1995 to determine the relative efficiency of 0.5-m and 1.0-m plankton nets. A side-by-side comparison was deemed necessary, as the sampling program was considering switching to the larger sampling gear for the 1996 sampling program. Another detailed special study was conducted in 1995 that involved the effect of water clarity (i.e., turbidity) on probability of capture by pelagic trawls.IV.C. Present Impact Assessment Approach The present 316(b) Demonstration provides a rigorous scientific evaluation of whetherthe Salem intake structure has caused, or is likely to cause, an adverse environmental impact to aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary. The analyses for determining adverse environmental impact that are presented in Section VII are directed at identitying whether Station operations have resulted in: (a) modification or imbalance in the indigenous population of fish and shellfish; (b) a continuing decline in populations of R.IS; or (c) a reduction inRIS abundance that jeopardizes the long-term sustainability ofthe stock, using fishery management approaches. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, advances in fisheries science and modeling techniques, as well as the additional data collected since the previous submittal, havebeen used in analyses directed at determination of adverse environmental impact.Population models have been refined to provide scientists, fishery managers, and regulators with improved quantitative tools for assessing the role of compensation in controlling fish populations in the face of anthropogenic stresses, including fishing andpower plants. In addition, fishery management plans enacted in recent years have resulted in generatingconsiderably more data than was previously available on the status, trends, and sustainability of fish stocks, and on fishery attributes such as growth, movement, and mortality. Long-term data sets collected by PSE&G, DNREC, and NJDEP are now available that can provide an extended time series that was unavailable in the previous submittals. In addition to these studies, additional longer time series are available for, entrainment and impingement data. Furthermore, several specialized studies (e.g., bay anchovy gear efficiency and egg survival, extended bottom trawl, intake-discharge studies, etc.) have been conducted over the past several years that increase:
- 1) our ability to more accurately assess such factors as gear avoidance by fish, 2) information available about natural mortality, and 3) our knowledge of spatial and temporal fish distribution patterns. These data are utilized in this Demonstration to determine the impact of Station operations on the sustainability of RIS, when evaluated from a fishery management perspective.
IV-12 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F This Demonstration also evaluates the degree to which the existing cooling water intake structures minimize adverse environmental impact. The technical and economic analyses that support this evaluation are provided in Sections VIII and IX, respectively. IV- 13 PSEAG Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F V. IMPACT ASSESSMENT RATIONALE AND APPROACH V.A. Determination of Adverse Environmental Impact The Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requires that applicants for a NPDES thermal discharge permit demonstrate that "the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." 42 U.S.C. 1326(b). The Act does not define the term"adverse environmental impact." USEPA draft guidelines and decisions under the CleanWater Act, as well as explication of similar terms under other environmental authorities, make clear that theterm is intended to address only impacts at the level of the population or above, and determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. Impacts to individual organisms are not "adverse" unless they affect the abundance, structure or function of the population, taking into account the type, intensity, and scale of the effect as well as the potential for recovery, given natural variability. Threatened or endangered species have been identified as those for which impacts to individuals will have a population level effect, and thus in these limited circumstances individual impacts can constitute an adverse environmental impact.Building from these concepts, this Appendix evaluates whether Salem's operation hascaused or will cause an adverse environmental impact, relying on three benchmarks -two that evaluate whether past operations have had an adverse impact, and a third that evaluates whether future operations could result in adverse effects. The first two benchmarks relating to past operations are whether Salem's past operations have caused or will cause either: (1) an imbalance in the indigenous community of fish and shellfish inthe Delaware ecosystem; or (2) a continuing decline in the abundance of a speciespopulation (other than nuisance species). The third benchmark uses fishery management techniques to evaluate whether current or future operations would result in reductions that would place the long-term sustainability of the stock in jeopardy. This section describes the conceptual basis for the population and community approach to evaluating adverse environmental impact, and then describes in detail the rationale for the three benchmarks used in this assessment. V.A.1. Case-by-Case Determination A case-by-case approach clearly is warranted in determining whether a station's operation has caused or will cause adverse environmental impactý According to one of EPA's original Section 316 guidance documents, a case-by-case determination is appropriate under Section 316(b) due to "the highly site-specific cost versus benefits characteristics of available technology" (USEPA 1973). Similarly, another USEPA guidance documentstated that for Section 316(b) determinations, "the environment-intake interactions in question are highly site-specific and the decision as to best technology available forintake design, location, construction, and capacity must be made on a case-by-case basis." V-1 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F USEPA 1977. Section 316(b)'s case-by-case approach differs sharply from the uniform-technology based effluent limitations established by Congress in other sections of the Clean Water Act; indeed, USEPA stated that "[t]he requirements of Section 316(b) are in contrast to those of Sections 301 and 306, which call for the uniform achievement ofeffluent limitations based on the application of defined levels of technology" (USEPA 1976). Numerous individual permit decisions over the years have confirmned that Section 316(b) determinations are to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of thepeculiar circumstances at each facility. See, Seabrook II; Crystal River (Appendix D).VA.2. Individual Impacts vs. Population/Ecosystem Impacts USEPA's 1975 draft guidelines for Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act provide definitions and guidance concerning the meaning of "adverse environmental impact," USEPA (1975). The 316(b) Guidelines indicate that declines in aquatic populations are the focus of the 3 16(b) inquiry: Adverse environmental impacts occur when the ecologicalfunction of the organism(s) of concern is impaired or reduced to the level which precludes maintenance of existing populations; a reduction in optimum sustained yield to sport and/or commercial fisheries results; threatened or endangered species of aquatic life are directly or indirectly involved; and/or the magnitude of the existing or proposed damage constitutes an unmitigatable loss to the aquatic system.The 316(b) Guidelines' definition of adverse environmental impact also incorporates the focus on population declines: Adverse environmental impact from the operation design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures, for the purposes of this document is damage to individuals, populations, or communities of organisms such that: (1)the ecological functioning of the unit is impaired or reduced to the point such. that long-term stability at pre-existing levels is affected; or (2) a reduction of optimum sustained yield to sport and/or commercial fisheries results; or (3) threatened or endangered species of aquatic life are directly or indirectly affected, or (4) the magnitude of the damage constitutes an unmitigatable loss to the aquatic system.The 316(b) Guidelines have not been issued in final form, nevertheless, USEPA has continued to rely upon them. In addition, the statutory language of Clean'Water Act Section 316(a) sets a population-based standard for the thermal discharge ("protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population..."), and reinforces the idea that Section 316(b) should be aimed at populations, rather than individuals. 42 U.S.C.1326(a).V-2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F The leading court decision on the meaning of the term also focused on maintenance and sustainability of populations. In Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle, 597 F.2d 306 (1 st Cir. 1979), the court upheld EPA's determination that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure at the Seabrook Power Plant reflected the best available technology for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The court considered the key question to be whether the cooling water intakesystem would "affect the ability [of the fish species at issue] to propagate and survive." Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, 597 F.2d at 310. The court held that despite the fact that the cooling system would kill many individual fish through entrainment, there would be no adverse environmental impact because the "protection and propagation" of species of fish would continue to be assured.Under other statutory authority, including Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Resource and Recovery Act ("RCRA."), USEPA is directed to "protect" the "environment." USEPA guidelines and other interpretive policy under these authorities clearly direct regulatory attention toimpacts or risks of impacts to populations, communities, and ecosystems rather than to impacts on individuals, taking into account natural variability and the ability of natural systems to respond to stress.For example, the Proposed RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, 60 Fed. Reg.66344 (Dec. 21, 1995). The proposal stated that the "the reproducing population is the smallest ecological unit that is persistent on a human time scale and, therefore, is an appropriate level (as opposed to individual) for the development of toxicological benchmarks" (Suter et al. 1993) and therefore benchmarks were developed from effects that could impair the maintenance of the population. This regulation while not adopted in final form (on other grounds), took a population-based approach consistent with agency approaches to evaluating ecological risk.Recently USEPA has expanded upon these concepts in its agency-wide final Guidelinesfor Ecological Risk Assessment developed by an Office of Research and Development technical panel and revised through an external peer-review process. (USEPA 1998b).The Agency uses ecological risk assessments to "evaluate... the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors." USEPA (1992). The approach to evaluating ecological effects consists of'problem formulation, analysis (using "assessment endpoints" and "risk hypotheses"), and risk characterization. The Ecorisk Guidelines establish the overarching principle that only impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem are "adverse" ecological effects. The Ecorisk Guidelines state that risk assessment should focus. on impacts that are "ecologically relevant," -- those that "help sustain the natural structure, function, and biodiversity of an ecosystem or its components." (USEPA 1998b). In addition, even where an effect to an ecologically relevant ecosystem component is measurable, the Guidelines require agency evaluation of the "ecological adversity" of the effect."Adverse ecological effects" are defined as "changes that are considered undesirable because they alter valued structural or functional characteristics of ecosystems or their components. An evaluation of adversity may consider the type, intensity, and scale of the*V-3 PSS&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F effect as well as the potential for recovery [i.e., reversibility or resiliency]" (emphasis added). (USEPA 1998b). This inquiry focuses onwhether the changes can be distinguished from "those within the normal pattern of ecosystem variability or those resulting in little or no significant alteration of biota." The guidelines make it clear that statistical significance should not be equated with ecological significance, because significance or adversiry must be evaluated based on the characteristics of the biota and the system.Thus, the Agency should evaluate environmental protectiveness on a case-by-case basis by determining the likelihood that a particular human activity would have irreversible impacts on the structure or function of an ecosystem, outside of the normal pattern of natural variability. V.A.3. The Concept of Population Regulation Agencies empowered by statute to manage, conserve, or protect wildlife focus on issues of reversibility, of impact or ability to sustain growth levels, while recognizing variability in natural populations. The concept of population regulation and the use of the concept in fishery management are described in detail in Appendix I (Compensation). VA.3.a. Use of the Concept by Fisheries Managers The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ("Magnuson-Stevens Act") specifically governs determinations of the allowable harvesting of fish species and focuses on concepts of maximizing productiveness of fish populations, while ensuring sustainability. It sets forth "national standards" that shouldgovern fisheries management, including Principle 1: "conservation and managementmeasures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the [US] fishing industry." 16 USC §1851. Recentregulations interpreting these standards clarify that "optimum yield" is based on the concept of "maximum sustainable yield" ("MSY") as it may be reduced, based on certain social and other factors dictated by the legislation. 63 Fed. Reg. 24212 (May 1, 1998).MSY is defined as "the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions." 63 Fed. Reg. at 24229 (emphasis added).The regulation then establishes limits (based either on a maximum allowable fishing rate or a minimum stock size) that are designed to prevent overfishing, a concept also based on MSY. The rule defines "overfishing" conservatively as fishing "at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis." 63 Fed. Reg. at 24230. However, the NMFS (1998b) fully recognizes that fish populations can withstand a fairly high level of exploitation beyond the MSY fishing rate and remain sustainable: V-4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F How low is too low [for a stock to fall below MSY levels]?" While the fishery science literature does not provide a definitive answer to thisquestion, NMFS believes that a prudent rule can be established as follows: Two of the best known models in the fishery science literature find that, on average, the stock size at MSY is approximately 40 percent of the stock size that would be obtained iffishing mortality were zero (the pristine level).Also, the fishery science literature contains several suggestions to the effect that any stock size below about 20 percent of the pristine level should be cause for serious concern. In other words, a stock's capacity to oroduce MSY on a continuing basis mav be ieovardized if it falls below a threshold of about one-fifth the pristine level. (emphasis added).Thus, NMFS recognizes that maximum productivity from a stock can be achieved by reducing the stock size by as much as sixty percent of the unfished stock size, and the population can remain able to sustain or replace itself roughly until the stock size is reduced by approximately 80 percent. At this 20 percent stock size threshold, NMNFS recognizes that the population's ability to sustain itself (through reproduction and population regulation mechanisms such as density-dependent compensatory responses) begins to subside. See Appendix I, Sections IV and V.C.Thus, federal fishery managers recognize that mortality in wild populations is natural, that increased mortality can result in increased production (through compensatory mechanisms) and its effects are reversible until a threshold level at which increasing mortality can exceed the population's ability to respond through compensatory responses ("jeopardy"). The fishery management councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act use these concepts to set target control rules (to achieve MSY) or threshold control rules (to avoid placing the stock in jeopardy) using a variety of measures of stock reduction, including fishing rates (e.g., FMsyo.) and biomass levels (e.g., B Msy). SeeSections V.A.4.c. and VII.C., below.VA. 3. b. Use of the Concept by Other Wildlife Managers These population regulation and sustainability concepts also have long been used by other federal agencies charged with managing wildlife, even with respect to endangered species and marine mammals, as described in Appendix D, Section V. National Marine Fisheries Service regulations governing "small takes" of marine mammals incidental to activities such as commercial fishing allow a marine mammal take if the agency finds,"based on the best scientific evidence available, that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will have a negligible impact on species or stock of marine mammal(s) and will not have an unmitigatable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks of marine mammals intended for subsistence uses." 50 C.F.R. 216.102(a), as (emphasis added). Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations direct that population status and trends*V-5 PSE&G Permit Appication 4 March 1999 factors be the basis for decisions on allowable takes, including whether ratesf Appendix F 4 recruitment are increasing, decreasing, or stable. 54 Fed. Reg. 40,338 (1998). In addition, even takes of endangered or threatened species are permitted if the population is known to be resilient to mortality (i.e., have high natural mortality rates), or to benefitfrom such takes because the increased mortality increases carrying capacity. For example, USFWS (1991) allowed increasing the maximum allowable take of a threatened species from 5,000 to 6,000 animals during the portion of year the animals experience. high natural mortality, designating animals during certain parts of the year "biologicallyexpendable" because of high natural mortality. V.A.4. Benchmarks ofAdverse Environmental Impact While the conceptual population and community basis for this evaluation is firmly supported by both ecological principles and regulatory policy, practical considerationsrequire that the evaluation be conducted using measurement benchmarks (similar to the Ecorisk Guideline "assessment endpoints"). Three benchmarks of adverse environmental impact -two relating to past operations, one relating to current and future operations -were developed to evaluate whether Salem operations may have caused or could cause any adverse environmental impact. The rationale for establishing each of these benchmarks is discussed in the following sections.V.A. 4. a. Balanced Indigenous Community ofAquatic Biota This benchmark is drawn from Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act where Congress sets out as a loss of population or community-level "balance," an environmental effect that it clearly viewed as adverse. CWA Section 316(a) requires that a thermal discharge ensure "the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population" of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. The Act also assumed substantial change in water quality over time. Later federal and state statutes have resulted in stricter management of fisheries. It is reasonable to assume that both of these statutory developments could materially affect aquatic populations and communities. Itfollows that the "balance" sought by Section 316(a) is not a static but a dynamic one compatible with the change fostered by public policies found in the Clean Water Act and elsewhere. Data from the Delaware Estuary, therefore, can be evaluated to determine whether, taking account of 30 years of changes in water quality, fishing pressure, and habitat, the past operation of Salem has upset or modified the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary. Modification of the balanced indigenous community can be evaluated by any one or more of three benchmarks:
- 1) Species presence/absence in preoperational vs. operational periods
("species presence"), V-6 PSE&G Permit Application 4,March 1999 Appendix F 2) Whether there have been fluctuations in species abundance within anticipated ranges ("fluctuations within anticipated ranges"); and3) Whether there have been eruptions of nuisance, non-indigenous or species indicative of degraded conditions ("nuisance conditions"). Species presence was selected because data on the number and relative abundance of species present in different communities are used to draw inferences concerning their evolutionary history, successional status, temporal stability, or degree of disturbance. If effects of Salem are analogous to effects of other disturbances that reduce community diversity, then those effects might be detectable as changes -most likely reductions -in the diversity of the fish community following the startup of the plant..Analyses of species presence/absence data do not provide information concerning changes in relative abundance of the individual species. In contrast, fluctuations within anticipated ranges investigates whether the operation of Salem may have led directly or indirectly to changes in the relative abundance of species. This indicator examines changes in the densities of the dominant species between pre-operational and operational time periods and uses impact hypotheses to determine whether such changes would have been due to changes in the Estuary unrelated to Salem operations. Finally, nuisance species is an indicator of nuisance conditions because these species, due community. This indicator evaluates data and literature on the Delaware Estuary community to determine whether nuisance species have increased, and if so, whether Salem operations could be responsible for any such blooms.V.A. 4. b. Continuing Decline in Abundance ofAquatic Species This benchmark was drawn from biology and population dynamics which has demonstrated that a decline that continues long enough will lead to a population crash.Long-term power plant operation may result in increased mortality of aquatic organisms, which in turn may cause continuing decline in population abundance. The benchmark evaluates data collected in the Delaware to determine whether any declines in RIS abundance have occurred, and if so, whether past operations of Salem could be responsible. One of the first signs of a continuing decline in population abundance is a downward trend in recruitment (i.e., young fish produced each year). Anthropogenic mortality that prevents a generation from replacing itself would lead to continuing decline, and non-anthropogenic factors may also lead to a continuing decline in population abundance. For example, the increase in abundance of a predator species may cause the decline in abundance of its prey species.5V-7 PSE&G Permit Applicalton 4 March 1999 Appendix F Populations respond to natural variability in environmental conditions (e.g., weather cycles). This inter-annual variability may produce short-term declines in population abundance that neither continue nor lead to population crashes because populations have a natural resilience to such fluctuations. See Appendix I. By examining as many years of data as possible, an evaluation can place such short-term variability in the context of long-term trends. The approach to evaluating population trends relies on empirical data for each finfish species on the RIS list; and for blue crab. This analysis reviews the available fishery-independent field surveys conducted in the Delaware Estuary, using catch per haul as a measure of abundance. Field surveys are of particular value if theymaintain standard methods over many years, sampled at times and in places inhabited by the species of interest, and reported the catch-per-unit-effort of those species. Appendix J describes in full the methods used in the analysis of trends data.V.A.4.c. Fish Stock Sustainability Placed in Jeopardy This benchmark is drawn from fisheries management, and uses models and fishery management reference points to evaluate potential current and future effects of Salem. It is a core premise that a substantial amount of anthropogenic mortality (i.e., fishing harvests) can be imposed on fish populations without causing long-term harm to the populations. Compensatory responses at low densities allow fish populations to maintain themselves when subjected to fishing mortality. A recent expert panel of stock assessors, the Committee on Fish Stock Assessment Methods, of the National Research Council (NRC) recognized that compensation acts to maintain populations in the face of fishing mortality. The panel observed that "[m]any species appear to have strongly compensatory [spawner-recruit] relationships; that is, per capita recruitment increases significantly as stock size decreases." (NRC 1998).A recognized limit exists beyond which additional mortality could jeopardize the ability of a fish population to maintain itself at desirable levels of abundance. The theory of compensation plays a central role in defining such limits in fisheries management (i.e., biological reference points). Fishery managers routinely evaluate whether an assumed future fishing mortality rate would result in declines in abundance, employing models that estimate stock biomass under specified conditions (e.g., fishing rates) and relating them to biological reference points. Fishery managers have established methods of estimating biological reference points that can be used to set optimal fishing "targets" (that obtain desired MSY) or overfishing "thresholds" (that prevent stock jeopardy). See NRC 1998.Reference points can be based on total spawning stock biomass (SSB) -known as biomass-based reference points -or on spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBPR), represented as a fishing rate (F) -known as fishing-based reference points.The Magnuson-Stevens Act refers to the desirable level of abundance for fisherymanagement purposes (i.e., SSB that protects the yield of the fishery) as the MSY stock size. Recent regulations state that as a general rule, reduction of a fish stock to approximately 30-40 percent of its unfished SSB can maximize productivity to the V-8 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F fishery (a "target" reference point) and that a stock can be fished down to approximately 20 percent of its unfished SSB before raising a concern that fishing is jeopardizing the stock's ability to replace itself (a "threshold" reference point). Estimating the SSB level of a stock requires some information on that species compensatory reserve, generally obtained from spawner recruit data, as described in Appendix I.In addition, managers use fishing mortality-based (F-based) biological reference points relying on past fishery management experience of sustainable levels of SSBPR (also supported by quantitative meta-analysis of data collected for other stocks (NRC 1998);Goodyear 1993; Mace and Sissenwine 1993). These mortality-based SSBPR reference points can be expressed as an F rate that would result in reducing the stock to a certain level of SSBPR that is either a target or a threshold biological reference point. These F-based SSBPR reference points do not explicitly incorporate a calculation of the compensatory reserve of a particular species. NRC (1998) concluded that while compensation is not explicitly included in these reference points, default reference points can still be selected: Reference levels are now more commonly based on a % [SSBPRJ, but the percentage is often specified by analogy with other stocks or by using the results [of comparisons among other biological reference points]. A knowledge of thecompensatory capacity of the stock is necessary to define the most appropriate. [biological reference points]for a stock Even without such knowledge, however, a conservative % [SSBPR] still can be selected (Sissenwine and Shepherd, 1987).SThis benchmark employs models to consider whether predicted current or furore station operating conditions (e.g., maximum flow) would result in future stock reductions that would threaten sustainability ("stock jeopardy"), relying on commonly used SSBPR and SSB fishery management reference points. The methods used to evaluate this benchmark (described in Section VII.C.) employ models that relate reductions in age- 1 abundance (i.e., the conditional mortality rate, see Section VII.(l) to reductions in abundance (SSB)or reproductive potential (SSBPR) of the Stock. These results can then be compared withestablished biological reference points.SSBPR for each RIS is estimated using an equilibrium SSBPR model, which does notincorporate compensation in the analysis. SSB under assumed conditions is estimatedusing a model that does explicitly incorporate information on the compensatory reserve of each RIS (derived through meta-analysis), and the Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis (ES-RA). The following biological reference points are used as default thresholds for stock jeopardy against which estimated SSB or SSBPR levels are evaluated. The biomass-based threshold reference point used, 20 percent of the unfished SSB (320%), is described in the 1998 Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations as default stock jeopardy level (NMFS May 1998). The fishing (F)-based threshold reference point used (against which SSBPR is measured) is 30%, the fishing rate at which SSPBR is reduced to 30 percent of its unfished level (F 0..), a default conservative biological threshold when little is known*V-9 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F about the compensatory reserve of the stock (Mace and Sissenwine 1993). See section VII.C, below.V.B. Identification of Representative Important Species ("RIS") for Evaluating Effects of Salem's Intake on Aquatic Biota Section 316(b) establishes the ability to select a small number of species that are both representative of the other species and important in that they have a special human use or ecological value.These evaluations focus on RIS because it is not practicable to investigate all speciespotentially affected by operations. This section describes the RIS selection process for the Salem Demonstrations. V.B.1. Summary of Guidance for RIS Selection The concept of designating particular species for study under Section 316(b) is nearly identical to the designation of RIS under Section 316(a) and, indeed, USEPA's originaldraft 316(b) guidance used the RIS term in the context of 316(b) demonstration requirements (USEPA 1975). Subsequent USEPA guidance adopted the term "critical aquatic organisms" to describe the same concept, but for purposes of this demonstration, we are using the term RMS for species selected for evaluation under Section 316(b). In any case, pursuant to EPA's Section 316(b) draft guidance (USEPA 1977), certain species would be selected as representative of various categories of species, such as those that are: (a) Representative, in terms of their biological requirements, of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife;(b) Commercially or recreationally valuable;(c) Threatened or endangered;(d) Critical to the structure and function of the ecological system (e.g., habitat formers);(e) Potentially capable of becoming nuisance species;(f) Necessary, in the food chain, for the well-being of species indicated in (a)-(d);and (g) One of (a)-(f) and have high potential susceptibility to entrapment-impingement and/or entrainment. According to the draft guidance, species are not considered to be RIS simply because of high susceptibility to entrainment or impingement; one of the other six criteria must be satisfied as well. The draft guidance suggests that consideration of five to fifteen species should be adequate. Endangered species must always be considered. The species chosen for a 316(b) demonstration may or may not be the same as those appropriate for a 316(a)V-10 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F determination "dependent on the relative effects of the thermal discharge or the intake in question" (USEPA 1977).Under EPA's Section 316(a) guidance, selection of RIS must consider the various biotic categories making up the aquatic community as a whole. The biotic categories making up the aquatic communrity are: phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and fish, as described in Section III above and in Appendix C. With regard to evaluation of these-categories in a 316(b) study, USEPA has offered the following guidance: Relative to environmental impact associated with intake structures, effects on meroplankton organisms, macroinvertebrates, and juvenile and adult fishes appear to be the first order problem. Accordingly, the selections of species should include a relatively large proportion of organisms in these categories that are directly impacted. Generally, because of short life span and population regeneration capacity, the adverse impact on phytoplankton and zooplankton species is less severe (USEPA 1977, USEPA 1975).Thus, unless preliminary data or prior sampling indicates that phytoplankton or zooplankton have a "special or unique value.., at the site," species in these categories"will generally not be selected" (USEPA 1977).In determining whether particular species potentially may be impacted by the operation of a station's cooling water intake,.two categories of factors must be considered. These are (1) the relative biological value of the source waterbody zone of influence and (2)involvement with the cooling water intake. Under the first category, USEPA guidance states that the value of a particular area is based on whether it is a principal spawning or breeding ground, migratory pathway, or nursery or feeding area, as well as on the numbers of individuals present and any other functions critical to the species life history (USEPA 1977). The second category, degree of involvement with the intake, may be determined by the size of the organism, the temporal and spatial distribution of the species in each of its life stages relative to the zone of withdrawal, and the proportion of water withdrawn to the total available (USEPA 1977).V.B.2. RIS Selection for 1999 § 316(b) Demonstration The RIS selection for the 1999 Demonstration relied upon a review of the previous RISlist for Salem and a re-evaluation of these PIS under the Section 316(b) criteria.V.B.2.a. Previous RIS Selected for Salem In 1978, PSE&G proposed eleven species (alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, blueback herring, opossum shrimp, scud, spot, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch) as category I, II, and III "target species" for its 316(b) plan of study, which was accepted by USEPA and NYDEP in 1979 (PSE&G 1978; USEPA 1979). The Technical Advisory Committee (TAG), which was subsequently formed of representatives of V-11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F relevant environmental resource agencies and which was charged with identifying target species under the new 316(b) guidelines, also selected the same species for the 1984 Salem Demonstration (USEPA 1981).In connection with its review of the 1984 Salem Demonstration, NJDEP hired a consultant, Versar, to independently review the selection of RIS based strictly on EPA's draft guidelines. Versar concluded that the RIS selected by PSE&G for study met all316(b) guidelines for species categories, and also that the Salem intake had the potentialto affect only four fin.fish species: weakfish, spot, white perch and bay anchovy (Versar 1989). Notwithstanding Versar's conclusion that only 4 finfish species were potentially affected by the Salem intake, PSE&G in the current 316(b) study has continued to address the original eleven R.IS.VB. 2. b. PJS Criteria Used in the Re-evaluation Based on the Section 316(b) Guidance, the following criteria were used to select RIS for the 1999 Demonstration: o Spatial and temporal distribution of species in the Estuary in relation to the station.* Ecological role and importance.
- Economic importance.
- Susceptibility to entrainment and impingement at Salem.* Threatened/endangered species.* Additional species.e.g. USEPA (1975).V.B. 2.c. Re-evaluation of Etisting List Under RIS Criteria The original representative important species were approved by the TAG and accepted by NJDEP and EPA, so for this renewal application it was assumed that the RIS would remain the same unless changes in plant operation or the ecology of the Delaware indicated that a species should be added or deleted. The original RIS were found to still satisfy the guidance criteria.
Review of the biotic categories noted in the USEPAguidance indicates that phytoplankton would not be expected to be impacted by the Station's cooling water intake, since the Estuary in the vicinity of the Station supports very low levels of phytoplanktonic photosynthesis (Appendix B of PSE&G 1974;Pennock 1988). Nor would zooplankton be expected to be impacted since the Estuary inthe vicinity of the Station has low concentrations of immature planktonic stages of commercially important shellfish, no commercially important species of zooplankton, and no threatened or endangered species of zooplankton (PSE&G 1980).V-12 PSUELG Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Shellfish/macroinvertebrates and fish are the only biotic categories that indicate a potential for impact, since several species of ecological and economic importance-that occupy benthic and open water habitats are seasonally abundant in the vicinity of the Station. Therefore, only species from these categories were selected. In general, the species were chosen for study in this Demonstration for one or more of three reasons: (1)current or potential high involvement with the plant (bay anchovy, white perch, weakfish, opossum shrimp, scud, striped bass, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, spot, blue crab and Atlantic croaker), (2) present or future value for human use (white perch, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, croaker, blue crab, and weakfish), or (3)importance for transfer of energy within the system (bay anchovy, opossum shrimp, and scud).A detailed discussion of the re-evaluation of original RIS under the 316(b) criteria and consideration of additional species follows.V.B.2.c.i. Spatial and temnoral distribution of species in the Estuary in relation to the station Vulnerable life stages of bay anchovy, opossum shrimp, scud, and weakfish are abundant in the vicinity of Salem during the summer. White perch are abundant near Salem throughout the fall and winter. Spot occur in summer and fall; Atlantic croaker during late fall and winter; American shad, alewife, and blueback herring in the spring and fall.V.B.2.c.ii. Ecological role and importance Bay anchovy, opossum shrimp, and scud are important prey species for many predatory fish in the Delaware Estuary. Bay anchovy is a major consumer of zooplanlcton. Scud is primarily a detritivore, while opossum shrimp is both a detritivore and predatory on planktonic copepods. Thus, these forage organisms are integral components of direct or detrital pathways for the transfer of energy to higher trophic levels.V.B.2.c.iii. Economic importance Weakfish, striped bass, white perch, spot, croaker, and American shad support active sport and/or commercial fisheries. Blueback herring and alewife have in the past supported significant fisheries and may do so again.V.B.2.c.iv. Susceptibility to entrainment and impingement at Salem Bay anchovy and weakfish are among the most common species in both entrainment and impingement collections. White perch is rarely entrained but commonly impinged. Spot and croaker are abundant in impingement collections during some years, but not in V-13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F others. Historically, striped bass have not been entrained or impinged in large numbers, however, recent increases in abundance of striped bass suggest that entrainment and impingement may increase in the future. Threatened/endangered species Federally designated threatened or endangered species potentially affected by Salem include the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), the Kemp's Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). In addition to these species, the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) was proposed for listing, but in September, 1998 the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service decided not to place it on the endangered species list but to retain it on the candidate species list stating that the current catch moratorium was sufficient protection for the species. Thus, Atlantic sturgeon is not evaluated here (See Appendix H for a discussion of Atlantic sturgeon). Data from Salem indicate that Station operations are not having adverse effects on theseendangered and threatened species. This conclusion is confirmed by numerous government-issued "no jeopardy" determinations for these species under the Endangered Species Act. The Kemp's ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and the green sea turtle occur at Salem primarily during the month of July when these species are foraging northward along the coast. In 1990 PSE&G entered into a formal Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) that resulted in a "no jeopardy" determination on the sea turtle losses through 1988 (NMFS 1991). Since that time,administrative controls and frequent cleaning of the trash racks during seasons when turtles are likely to appear in the Estuary have reduced mortality of sea turtles captured at the intake. By 1991 sea turtle release rates had increased to 96 percent (NMFS 1992).Biological opinions and incidental take statements issued by the NMFS in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1999 found that the continued operation of the Salem Station has not jeopardized, and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any populations of threatened or endangered sea turtl4s (NMFS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1999). Biological assessments conducted by the USNRC and NMFS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act since 1979 have reviewed the data on collections of shortnose sturgeon as well as the status of the species in the Estuary and concluded that Salem operations have not jeopardized and will not jeopardize the continued existence of this species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their habitat. (USNRC 1980); (NMFS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1999).V-14 PSE&-O Pe.rit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix FV.B.2.c.vi. Additional Soecies Additional species were considered in light of possible changes in the Estuary since the establishment of the original 316(b) list. Based on this evaluation, one species was added: blue crab. Blue crab is abundant in impingement collections and reoresents a crustacean that is economically important. The 12 species selected are among those most entrained and impinged at Salem and have a current or potential high involvement with the plant. All of the finfish species are representative of plankton-eating and fish-eating organisms that inhabit the Estuary. As such, they are relatively high on the food chain and would accumulate multiple indirect effects of the station as well as direct effects over their life cycles. The species selected also have a present or future commercial or recreational value for human use or are very important in the tansfer of energy within the system as prey for many predators, such as opossum shrimp and scud. Opossum shrimp and scud also are abundant in the vicinity of the station during the summer months. Blue crab was added for detailed evaluation because it is representative of the shellfish biotic category, is the third most impinged species at the plant, and has economic significance as a commercial and recreational species.V-15 PSE&G Permit Appication 4 March 1999 Appendix FVI. DATA AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR USE IN SALEM 316(b)IMPACT ASSESSMENT Section VI briefly describes the studies conducted by PSE&G, the States of Delaware and New Jersey, federal agencies, academic institutions, and private entities that were used as part of this Demonstration. It provides an overview of each study, their sampling methods, and the type of data produced. Attachments 1 and 2 to this Appendix (F-I and F-2)provide detailed descriptions of these studies and discuss why the methods may have changed over time. Appendix L to this Demonstration presents the data from these studies that were used for our evaluations. In general, the data from these studies were used for the analyses presented in Appendices E, F, G, H, and J.Sampling program characteristics that are important to consider in data analysis, such as changes in spatial and temporal scope or study design are emphasized in the summaries below. For ease of presentation, separate surveys conducted by PSE&G using similar gear may be described as one program. In many instances PSE&G changed the program scope or gear deployment as the survey purposes changed in response to evolving regulatory requirements. The reasons for these changes are not reflected in these summaries, but are explained in Attachment 1 to this Appendix. For example, while the PSE&G finfish studies are described as one program, they really consist of a number of separate surveysconducted over time. The pre-1979 finfish trawl program was conducted for the NRC under the Environmental Technical Specification monitoring program. Its goals were very different from the baywide finfish sampling required by USEPAINJDEP in 1977 through 1982, and very different again from the finfish population monitoring performed for consistency with DNREC's program in the 1990s.VI.A. PSE&G Plant Effect Studies PSE&G has conducted entrainment and impingement studies since August 1977, the first year of commercial operation for Unit 1 of the Station. The entrainment studies determine the density of macrozooplankton and ichthyoplankton entrained in the circulating water system (CWS) and the effect of entrainment on their survival. The impingement studies determine the numbers and species of fish, and number of blue crab being impinged by the CWS, and assess the effect of impingement on their survival after being returned to the Delaware River. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides detailed descriptions of these monitoring studies. Detailed information on Station operations are provided in Appendix B.VI-I PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F SVIA.1. Entrainment Monitoring (Abundance) Attachment 1 to this Appendix presents a detailed surnmary of the entrainment sampling conducted since 1977 with respect to sampling gear, year, location, daily schedule, volume sampled, number of samples, and number of sampling days and laboratory processing of samples. What follows here is a brief summary of the entrainment monitoring. PSE&G has conducted sampling for the entrainment monitoring program every year since 1977, except for 1983 and 1984 when it was suspended. In general, the months sampled have covered the period from early spring through the fall. The entrainment abundance samples were collected at the CWS intake bays I 1A (Unit 1), 12B (Unit 1), 21A (Unit 2), or 22A (Unit 2), and at discharges 12 (Unit 1) or 22 (Unit 2), as described in Attachment 1 to this Appendix. Intake samples were collected just ahead of the circulating pumps; discharge samples were taken from standpipes between the service and circulating water intake structures. When both intake and discharge samples were collected, they were synchronized with CWS passage time to collect representative samples from the same' water mass. At the sampling events, the investigators recorded the total volume sampled, the total number of samples, and number of individuals per species of ichthyoplankton, opossum shrimp, and scud.VJ.4.2. Impingement Monitoring (Abundance) The impingement abundance study focused on determining the number of specimens impinged at the Station. The initial survival studies performed on the abundance samples assessed the immediate physical condition of the specimens before they were returned to the river. Attachment I to this Appendix presents a detailed summary of the impingement sampling program conducted since 1977. A summary is presented below.PSE&G conducted impingement abundance studies over the. 1977 through 1998 period.Researchers collected the impingement abundance samples at the fish counting pools adjacent to the discharge troughs at the northern and southern ends of the CWS intake structure. When a sample was collected, the water level in the pool was lowered, organisms were removed with a dip net and placed in buckets. Organisms collected from the counting pools were sorted by species, then counted, measured, and weighed.Simultaneously, PSE&G recorded the following: the amount of detritus, the salinity and temperature of the water, number of pumps and screens in operation, screen speed, tidal stage and elevation, sky condition, wind direction, wave height, and air temperature. VI-2 PSE&G Permit Appication 4 March 1999 Appendix F 11LA.3. Special Studies in addition to the entrainment and impingement monitoring studies, PSE&G conducted several additional studies pertaining to entrainment and impingement at the Salem Plant.VIA.3.a. Entrainment Survival The purpose of the entrainment survival sampling is to estimate the portion of organisms that survive passage through the CWS. Entrainment survival sampling was conducted in 1997, 1978, 1980, 1981, and 1982. Attachment I to this Appendix presents a detailed description of the entrainment survival program.Sampling locations were the same as for the entrainment monitoring, at intake bays I IA and 12B, and discharges 12 or 22. Intake samples were collected just ahead of the circulating pumps, and discharge samples from the standpipes between the service and circulating water intake structures. Intake and discharge sampling were synchronized with the CWS passage time to obtain representative samples from the same water mass.PSE&G analyzed samples for ichthyoplankton, scud, and opossum shrimp.The investigators evaluated survival by examining samples held for 12 hours after collection, and examining the samples at 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours. All individuals were preserved for later identification and enumeration at the.end of the 12 hour period. For the 1981 and 1982 sampling events, the investigators extended the holding time to 24 hours for bay anchovy, 48 hours for white perch, and 96 hours for weakfish.VI.A.3.b. Impingement Survival PSE&G conducted studies to examine the survival of impinged organisms returned to the Delaware River, from 1977 through 1998. These studies consisted of two phases-initial-survival studies to determine the physical condition of specimens before return to the river, and extended-survival studies to quantify delayed mortality for potential adjustment of the initial mortality estimates. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a detailed description of the impingement survival studies.The initial survival studies consisted of recording the condition of the specimens collected during the abundance sampling discussed previously in Section VI.A.2. The extended survival study was initiated in July 1978 to determine the delayed mortality of weakfish.In late summer 1978, researchers expanded this program to include the other R.IS.Investigators did not initially include damaged specimens in the extended survival testing because they assumed that these specimens would not have survived after being returned to the river. Damaged specimens were included starting in the winter of 1978.The sample duration for the initial-survival sampling ranged from I to 10 minutes (3-minute average), during which time the samples were diverted to the north and south VI-3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F counting pools. Fish and crabs were collected from the pools and sorted into three separate rubs as live, damaged, or dead. All specimens were identified to species. Data recorded included total number, weight, minimum and maximum length, and weight perspecies for each condition class, number of screens and pumps in operation, temperature,salinity, screen speed, tidal stage and elevation, sky condition, wind direction, wave height, and air temperature. Extended-survival samples were collected from the pools, following the same procedures as in the initial-survival studies, from 1977 through 1982, 1992, and 1997 through 1998.Crabs and fish were collected from the pools and sorted into separate holding tanks for: live (swimming vigorously with no apparent orientation problem), damaged (struggling or swimming on its side, signs of severe abrasion or laceration), or dead. Specimens were identified to species. Researchers recorded the total number and weight, minimum and maximum length and weight of each species in each condition class, and fork length for up to 100 individuals per species.Live and damaged specimens were placed in aerated tanks and held for 96 hours from 1978 to 1982, and 1992, and 48 hours for 1995, 1997, and 1998. Prior to January 1982, all specimens were held in groups. Later, fish were held individually. Specimens were observed continuously during the first 30 minutes, hourly for the next 4 hours, and then at 24-hour intervals. The number of live, dead, damaged, and LOE (loss of equilibrium) fish, and temperature were recorded at each observation interval. Dead fish were removed and measured. The remaining fish were measured at the, end of the 48 hour, or 96 hour period. Prior to 1980, all target species were tested as available. Thereafter, only the primary target species (bay anchovy, white perch, and weakfish) were intensively tested in order to provide better estimates of conditional -mortality rates (PSE&G 1985).3 VI-4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VI.A.3.c. Entrainment Collection Efficiency In June 1980, researchers collected 14 simultaneous intake and discharge entrainment abundance samples to evaluate the suitability of collecting abundance. samples at thedischarge locations. The number of bay anchovy and weakfish eggs, larvae, and juveniles were recorded for each sample. Attachment 2 to this Appendix provides a detailed discussion of this study and how it was used for this Demonstration. Attachment I to this Appendix also provides a brief description of this study.VI.A. 3. d Impingement Collection Efficiency Impingement collection efficiency studies were conducted to estimate the proportion of fish specimens impinged but not collected during impingement sampling. PSE&G conducted impingement collection efficiency studies from 1979 through 1982, and in 1998.Dead fish were stained and measured, then placed in front of the screens at the intake.The screenwash containing the stained fish was sampled and the fish counted to determine the proportion collected in the fish counting pools. Collection efficiency was expressed by the number of stained fish collected divided by the number of fish stained and released.For the 1998 collection efficiency study, all target species were collected and split into two groups: Group 1 -bay anchovy, blueback herring, alewife, and American shad, and Group 2 -white perch, striped bass, weakfish, spot, and Atlantic croaker. Specimens from each target species were separated into 11 length groups. Two hundred fish were used per species group and length group, for a total of 4,400 fish.VI.A.3.e. Age Composition PSE&G conducted age studies on blueback herring, alewife, white perch, and bayanchovy to assist in determining the age-class composition of these species. Age studies were conducted during the following periods: in 1981 for blueback herring and alewife;in 1983 for white perch and bay anchovy; and 1995 through 1998 for bay anchovy, white perch, and striped bass.Methods for assessing age were scale analysis and otolith analysis. These two methods were used singularly or in combination as appropriate for each species. Length-at-age analyses were also conducted as part of the age studies. In the studies prior to 1995, alewife and blueback herring specimens came from the Fred Lewis shad fishery in Lambertville, New Jersey RM 149 (RKM 240).White perch were collected from the river between the Smyrna River RNM 43.5 VI-5 PSE.&O Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F (RKM 70), and Reedy Island RM 56 (RKM 90). Bay anchovy specimens were collected from ongoing field and impingement sampling.VI.B. Fisheries Independent Data Series Numerous fisheries surveys have been conducted in the Delaware Estuary that provide fisheries data within the vicinity of the Station as well as other areas of the Estuary.Some of these are sponsored by PSE&G, while others are sponsored by state agencies-DNREC or NJDEP. Basic information concerning the design of these studies is presented in the following sections. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides detailed information on these studies.The sampling designs for the PSE&G Nearfield and Baywide Surveys are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. The Nearfield Survey essentially covered the region of the river near the Station between RM 40 (RKMf 64) and RPM 61 (RtKM 97). The Baywide Bottom Trawl Survey covered the region of the Delaware River between the mouth RM 0 (RKM 0) to RM 73 (RKM 117), incorporating the nearfield area. Only the Baywide Bottom Trawl survey from 1970 onward is presented in Figure 2 because this is when the program became standardized. Figure 4 summarizes the sampling design for the DNREC Large Trawl Survey through 1997. Figure 5 presents similar design information for the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey from .1980 through 1998. Figure 6 presents the detailed sampling design for the NIDEP Beach Seine Survey for 1990 through 1998.VI.B.1. PSE& G Nearfield and Baywide Surveys PSE&G has several ongoing fisheries studies that provide data on fish, macroinvertebrates, and ichthyoplankton. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a detailed description of these studies, and the reasons the methods may have.changed over time.Fin~fish and blue crab have been sampled with a variety of gear since mid- 1968. The initial objective of these studies was to inventory the fishes that occurred in the vicinity of the Station. These studies were also designed to describe seasonal and spatial distribution and annual variation by life stage. Eventually, the sampling programs were standardized with trawling and seining as the most suitable methods to define structure and behavior of the fish community and of the effect the Station may have on the Delaware Bay fish populations. VI-6 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VI.B.i.a. Finfish and Blue Crab Studies-Bottom Trawl The bottom trawl studies estimate the relative spatial distribution ofjuvenile and small fishes, and blue crab in the estuary. The nearfield portion of these studies was used to assess long-term trends in fish abundance in Section VII.B, and Appendix J to this Demonstration; and to assess whether changes in the fish community structure occurred (Section VII.A tothis Appendix). These trawl data were also used in the cumulative effects assessment presented in Appendix H to this Demonstration. Figure 2 and Figure 3 present a summary of the sampling design for the Nearfield and Baywide Bottom TrawlSurveys discussed below.PSE&G conducted a daytime bottom trawl program from 1968 to 1982, and then from 1988 to 1998. Sampling occurred from the spring through the fall. Attachment I to thisAppendix provides detailed information on the sampling schedule. In an effort to be more consistent with the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, PSE&G changed the direction of trawling from towing with the current to towing into the current in 1995.In 1968 and 1969, researchers used a 4.9-m (16-ft) and 7.6-m (25-ft) otter trawl, both of which had 1.3-cm (0.5-in) mesh. From 1970 through 1998, only the 4.9-m (16-ft) otter trawl was used.Although the study area may have increased or decreased to the north and south of the Station, the initial study area from 1968, from 11.3 km north of the Station to 9.7 kim south of the Station, referred to as the nearfield region PRM 40 (RKM 64) to P.M 61 (RKM 97), has been sampled consistently. Upriver stations RPM 73 (RK-M 117) to RP.100 (RKMv 160) were added in 1998 as part of a special one-year study of these areas.The geographic area covered by the bottom trawl survey extended 1] .3 km (7 miles)north of the Station and 9.7 km (6 miles) south of the Station from 1968 through 1975, referred to as the "nearfield" region. In 1976, the spatial coverage of the nearfield was expanded to 14.5 km (9 miles) north of the Station and 16.1 km (10 miles) south of the Station. In some years the geographic extent of the program was expanded to include the area from the mouth of the Estuary R.M 0 (RKM 0) to RPM 73 (RKM 117), the "baywide" region. The Station is at PM 50 (RKM 80.5). Attachment 1 to this Appendix describes the sampling locations in detail.Data from bottom trawl studies included the number of specimens per fin.fish species, length, and sex. All blue crabs were enumerated. If fewer than 30 blue crab specimens were collected, researchers also recorded carapace width, sex, maturity, and molt phase.When more than 30 were collected, this information was recorded for a random subsample of 30 specimens. Other data included tide, air and water temperature, salinity, DO, pH, secchi depth, and depth. VI-7 PSE&G Pemit Application 4 Match 1999 Appendix F VI.B.1. b. Finfish and Blue Crab Studies-Pelagic Trawl Pelagic trawls were used to estimate the vertical distribution of fish in the Delaware Estuary, and the relative spatial distribution ofjuvenile and small fishes, and blue crab.PSE&G conducted a pelagic trawl sampling program from 1979 through 1982, and then from 1988 through 1998. Attachment I to this Appendix describes the sampling schedulein detail. In 1979 and 1980, researchers used a modified 4.9-m (16-ft) otter trawl with 1.3-cm (0.5-in) mesh to collect the pelagic samples. They changed to a 1.2 by 1.8-m (4-by 6-ft) fixed frame trawl with 6-cm (0.25-in) mesh with an attached General Oceanics (GO) flow meter in 1981. Investigators always towed the trawl for 10 minutes in the direction of tide. The spatial coverage and data for the pelagic trawl sampling program were essentially the same as the bottom trawl program discussed previously in Section VI.B. 1.a.VI.B. ].c. Finfish and Blue Crab Studies--W-Factor Bottom and Pelagic Trawl With the adoption of the ETM assessment procedure, an estimate was-required of the abundance of organisms in the power plant intake relative to their average abundance in an idealized cross-section of the river in front of the power plant. This parameter -W-factor -was derived from paired collections taken near the intake and one of five offshore zones. The W-factor studies for pelagic and bottom trawl are described below. Section VI.B. 1.f. presents the W-factor sampling for ichthyoplankton. PSE&G conducted the W-factor bottom and pelagic trawl sampling in 1981 and 1982, 1984 through 1987, and 1996 through 1998. Researchers collected samples from spring through late fall. Investigators used the same 4.9-m (16-ft) otter trawl as was used in the bottom trawl sampling, and the W-factor pelagic trawl sampling used the same 1.2-by 1.8-m (4- by 6-ft) fixed frame trawl with 6-cm (0.25-in) mesh and attached GO flow" meter used in the later pelagic trawl sampling. Researchers towed both samplers in the direction of the tide except in 1996 and 1998, when the bottom trawl was towed against the direction of tide..The spatial coverage of the W-factor bottom trawl and pelagic trawl programs extended along a transect from the Station to the Appoquinimink River R.M 50 (RKM 80). This transect contained four offshore bottom zones and one intake zone. Investigators collected random paired samples, consisting of one from the offshore bottom zone and one from the intake bottom zone. The W-factor pelagic trawl had the same spatial coverage as the W-factor bottom trawl program, but had nine offshore pelagic zones and two intake zones. Again, researchers collected random paired samples (one offshore and one intake zone).VI-8 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Data from the W-factor trawl programs was the same as the previously described bottom trawl program and pelagic trawl programs.VI. B. 1. d. Ichthyoplankton and Macrozooplankton Sampling Programs The ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton field programs were designed to provide relative density estimates and length frequency data on early life stages (eggs, larvae, and juveniles) of primarily bay anchovy, weakfish, opossum shrimp, and scud. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a detailed description of the two programs summarized below.PSE&G conducted ichthyoplankton sampling from 1968 through 1982, 1996, and 1998.Samples were also analyzed for macrozooplankton from 1968 to 1980, and again in 1998.Although the spatial coverage of the sampling varied, a core area extending 6.4kilometers north and 8 kilometers south of the Station, the nearfield, was always sampled.The largest study area sampled extended from RM 0 (RKNM 0) to RM 73 (RKM 117). Sampling varied from year round to the period from March through October. It was always more intensive in the summer months, ranging from two to five times per month. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides the schedule during these time periods.Ichthyoplankton sampling has always been done with a 0.5-m (1.6-ft) conical plankton net with 0.5-rmm (0.02-in) mesh. Until 1996, the net was towed in the direction of the tide when they changed to a 1-m (3.3-ft) net with the same mesh size. Investigators attached a GO flow meter to the net in 1973.Data collected as part of the ichthyoplankton sampling study included: number of specimens per species and life stage; length of larvae and juveniles (maximum of 25 larvae and 25 young per species per sample); concentration and length frequency distribution of macrozooplankton (opossum shrimp and scud); initial and final flow meterreading; sample depth; air and water temperature; secchi depth; DO; and salinity.V1. B. I.e. W-Factor Ichthyoplankton PSE&G conducted the W-factor ichthyoplankton sampling during the day in 1981, 1982, 1984 through 1987, 1996, and 1998. Samples were collected from early spring through the fall, as described in Attachment, I to this Appendix. From 1981 through 1987, researchers used the same type of net as the other ichthyoplankton sampling-a 0.5-m (1.6-ft) conical plankton net with 0.5-mm (0.02-in) mesh towed in the direction of the tide with a GO flow meter. In 1996 and 1998, the investigators increased the net size to a 1-in (3.3-ft) plankton net with the same mesh size and flowrmeter. VI-9 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F The spatial coverage of the W-factor ichthyoplankton program extended along the same transect from the Station to the Appoquinimink River RM 50 (R.KM 80) as the W-factor bottom and pelagic trawl, Section VI.B.I.d. The types of data collected are the same as for the ichthyoplankton sampling presented earlier.V1.B.2. DNREC Large Trawl Survey The ongoing DNREC large trawl survey program collects data on adult groundfish (fish living on or close to the bottom). This program has three objectives: to monitor trends in abundance and distribution, to determine age/size composition of populations, and to develop pre-recruitment indices for selected inshore finfish species. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a detailed description of these studies. Figure 4 summarizes the sampling design through 1997.The DNREC large trawl survey consisted of three studies conducted between 1966 and 1971, 1979 through 1984, and 1990 through to the present. In the earliest study, Daiber and Smith (1972) sampled monthly from August 1966 through November 1971. From 1979 through 1981, sampling was monthly from January through December. From 1982 through 1984, the researchers collected monthly samples from April through November.Starting in 1990, DNREC has sampled monthly from March to December.This study uses a 9.1-m (30-ft) otter trawl fitted with 7.6-cm (3-in) stretch mesh wings and a 5-cm (2-in) stretch mesh cod end. From 1966 to the present, samples have been collected at fixed stations on the western side of the Delaware Bay from Cape Henlopen north to Liston Point. The DNREC trawl surveys that started in 1990, while employing a fixed-station sampling scheme, had some randomization of tow start locations in each quadrant.The mesh size of the 1966 to 1971 study was too large to effectively sample YOY;therefore, the catch was primarily individuals one year and older. The 1979 through 1984 data provide the abundance (number of fish per mile) for six target species: alewife, Atlantic croaker, spot, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch. Information recorded for the DNREC studies starting in 1990 have included distance towed, mean depth, surface and bottom water samples, temperature and dissolved oxygen, and salinity. The DNREC researchers have identified all fish collected, and aggregate weights for each tow and taxon measured. All fish are measured unless samples contain more than 50 fish; in which case, subsamples have been measured after the first 50 fish. Scales have been taken and age determined for selected species that include all of the RIS species except the bay anchovy. Other data recorded have included catch at age (based on age-length keys), and fish density at each station (number of individuals of a species per nauticalmile towed). VI-10 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F V.B.3. DNREC Juvenile Bottom Trawl Survey The Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife started a trawl survey in 1977 to assess the annual production of juvenile crab. In 1980, it was expanded to include catch data of juvenile fish to determine relative abundance, distribution, and indications of year-class strength. For this ongoing study, samples are collected from spring through fall.Attachment I to this Appendix provides a detailed description of these studies. This Demonstration used the data from this study to assess long-term trends in fish abundance in Section VII.B of the Appendix and Appendix J to this Demonstration. Figure 5 summarizes the sampling design through 1998.The juvenile trawl sampling program initially sampled fixed stations, using a 4.9-m (1 6-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl fitted with a 1.3-cm (1.5-in) stretch mesh and a 1.3-cm (0.5-in) knotless stretch mesh cod-end liner, on the Delaware side of the Bay from Primehook Beach RM 6 (RKM 10) to C&D Canal RIM 59 (RK-M 94). In 1986, the researchers with DNREC expanded the program to survey the Indian River Bay and Rehoboth Bay. They increased the spatial coverage again in 1989 to include six stations in the area from the C&D Canal north to the Delaware-Pennsylvania state line near Wilmington, DE RPM 78 (RK.M 125).DN'REC identifies all fish collected to species. Subsamples of up to 30 individuals per species are measured for length. DNREC records temperature and salinity at the beginning of each tow, and tidal stage, weather conditions, water depth, and engine speed for each station.VL.B.4. NJDEP Beach Seine Survey NJDEP initiated a beach seine survey in 1980 that has continued to the present. The objective of the survey is to monitor the abundance of juvenile striped bass in the Delaware River, although the catch of other species is recorded as well. This Demonstration used the data from this study to assess long-term trends in fish abundance as part of Section VII.B of this Appendix, and Appendix J to this Demonstration. Figure 6 summarizes the sampling design for the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey.Prior to 1987, the number of beaches sampled ranged from 12 to 20--they started as early as July and ended as late as December. Between 1987 and 1990, 16 fixed stations were seined twice a month. Two seine hauls were taken at each station. In 1990, NJDEP modified the survey to fixed and random sampling stations, the sampling season, eliminated the replicate, and reallocated sampling effort to the portion of the river between the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Schuylkill River. Currently, the program collects samples from summer through fall.VI-1 I PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 This program uses a bagged 30.5m by 1.8-m (100-ft by 6-ft) beach seine of.0.95-cm (3/8-in) bar mesh netting. The NJDEP beach seine survey is conducted in the reach of the Delaware River from the C&D Canal upstream to Trenton. During each sampling series, hauls are conducted at 16 beaches, which are fixed and random. These beaches are allocated among three regions of the river, although before 1987 that design was not closely followed. Because the beach seine program is designed to monitor the abundance ofjuvenile striped bass, all striped bass are measured and only the size range and number caught are recorded for the other species.VI.B.5. American Shad Mark-Recapture Program and Hydro-acoustic Studies The States of New Jersey and Delaware have monitored American shad abundance in the Delaware River using data from mark-recapture programs from 1975 through 1983, and then in 1986, 1989, and 1992, and hydro-acoustic studies in 1995 and 1996. TheDelaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative Fishing Project conducted the program from 1975 through 1978; the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game,and Wildlife from 1979 through 1983, 1986, 1989, and 1992. In 1995 and 1996, abundance estimates were based on data from hydro-acoustic studies (BWEC 1995 and 1996) that were designed to monitor American shad upstream spawning migration. Hydroacoustic monitoring in 1995 and 1996 occurred in April and May, in 1995 and May 1996.Researchers collected shad by haul seine from the Delaware River, marked adults with aFloy fluorescent orange anchor tag, and released them back to the river (Lupine and Kuc 1987). The hydro-acoustic studies used echo integration at a station on the river. Theequipment included a 37.0 half-power beam width 200KHz transducers mounted on the sides of bridge piers, and 200KHz signal processors with a computer interface. During the mark-recapture sampling, shad were collected and released on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey R.M 149 (R.KM 239). The mark-recapture study recorded tag returns and data collected from the logbook creek survey provided by cooperating shad anglers. The majority of the returns came from between Easton, Pennsylvania and the Delaware Water Gap, where the highest angler effort occurred. Thehydro-acoustic monitoring occurred at the Interstate 202 Toll Bridge piers.VI.B. 6. White Perch Mark-Recapture Program PSE&G conducted a series of mark-recapture studies from 1980 through 1983, and 1996 through 1998. Individuals were collected from mid-fall through early spring, using a 4.9-m (16-fl) bottom trawl. In the 1980 through 1983, and 1996 studies, researchers marked 9 " VI-12 PSE&G Permit Application 4 Mauch 1999 Appendix F YOY white perch in the fall when they migrate from the freshwater riverine portion of the river toward deeper, more saline waters. In the fall of 1997, researchers expanded themarking phase through the winter to accommodate the Fisher-Ford open population model. The specimens were marked with zone-specific fin-clips during the 1980 through 1983 program, and with coded wire tags during the 1996 through 1998 program. To approximate the number of marked-released fish actually available to recapture, researchers also conducted laboratory studies of mark mortality and mark retention. The laboratory specimens were captured, marked, and held using the same gear and procedures as the specimens that were released. Researchers assumed that both mark-retention and mortality would be essentially the same in the laboratory as in the wild, and that marking-related mortality could be determined by comparison with controls.Evaluation of mark-mortality and retention continued throughout each recapture phase;researchers adjusted environmental conditions (temperature and salinity) to reflect those experienced by the majority of white perch in the Delaware Estuary.White perch were recaptured in the early spring after the marking phase, except for the1997 to 1998 program. For this sampling period, the first recapture phase overlapped the second marking phase during the winter, and a second recapture phase occurred during the spring. In the winter of 1997, striped bass were also recorded and populationestimates calculated using mark-recapture ratios established for white perch.The white perch study area included the region of the Delaware River from just south of.Artificial Island RM 50 (RKM 80.5) to the Burlington-Bristol area RM 119 (RKM 190) from 1980 through 1983, and was extended further south to Ship John Shoal RM 35 (RK.M 56) for the 1996-1998 program. Because the sampling programs were designed to maximize the number of white perch captured and marked, fishing effort was nonrandom both among and within eight zones for the 1980 through 1983 programs, and nine zones for the 1996 through 1998 programs. Fish were randomly released within these zones. Fish were also collected from vertical traveling screens at industrial water intakes along the River within the study area, including at the Station.VU.B. 7. Special Studies This section presents studies primarily conducted since PSE&G's 1994 316(b)Demonstration submittal that focused on evaluating or interpreting data collected on certain fish species.VI. B. 7.a. Upriver Spot Sampling Studies Tributary and upriver sampling were conducted in 1998 as an addition to the bottom trawl studies and is included in the description of the bottom trawl studies found in Section VI.B. 1. The upriver sampling was conducted with the 4.9-m (16-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl used for the bottom trawl study. The upriver sampling reach consisted of three VI-13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F zones R.M 73 (RKM 1 17) to RM 82.5 (RKM 132), RM 82.5 (MKM 132) to RM 92 (RK-M 147), and R.M 92 (RKM 147) to R.M 100 (RKM 162). A random allocation of trawl samples was made from within each zone for each survey. Ten tows were randomly selected from the trawl-sampling habitat. Two surveys per month were conducted from July through October. Methods followed those for bottom trawl (Section VI.B. L.a).V1. B. 7. b: Marsh Studies The marsh studies included the marsh epibenthic sled study, and the marsh push trawl study. Both of these marsh studies were conducted in 1998. The epibenthic sled study was added to the macrozooplankton program in 1998. This sampling program was initiated to quantify the relative densities of seasonal opossum shrimp cohorts in certain tidal creeks. A 0.5-m (1.6-fl) epibenthic sled with 0.5-mm mesh and GO flow meter was towed against the tide. Samples were collected in the summer and early fall, from four creeks off the Delaware Bay: two constructed tidal wetland creeks (off West Creek) at the Dennis Township restoration site, and two natural marsh creeks (off Riggins Ditch) at the lower Moores Beach West reference site.Researchers collected three replicates per station at three stations per creek. Opossum shrimp was the only macrozooplankton identified and enumerated in the marsh sled samples.Researchers also collected samples in the same marsh creeks discussed above, using a 0.8 by 1.5-m (2.5 by 5.0-ft) push trawl with 214-m (8-ft) long 0.3-m (0.125-in) mesh, in the summer of 1998. The primary objective of this sampling program was to provide data and information on small pelagic fish in tidal creeks along the lower Delaware Estuary.The trawl had a GO mechanical flow meter suspended slightly off-center in the net mouth. The investigators mounted the net frame on a 9.9-hp outboard motorboat and pushed it against the tide through water greater than 0.9 m (3-ft) deep. The study recorded: species composition, relative abundance and residence time, and movement patterns within tidal creeks. For these studies, finfish were identified and enumerated, and blue crab enumerated. A randomly chosen subsample of 30 fish/species was selected for length measurement. VI.B. 7.c. Gear Efficiency Studies PSE&G has conducted three different gear efficiency studies: pelagic trawl net mouth opening study, plankton net comparison, and fixed-frame trawl pelagic efficiency study.The following sections briefly describe these three studies. Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a more detailed description.
- ,VI-14 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VI.B.7.c.i.
Pela2ic Trawl Net Mouth Opening Study PSE&G conducted a series of gear efficiency studies in 1980 on the 1.2 by 1.8-m (4 by 6-ft) fixed-frame pelagic trawl with 0.6-cm (0.25-in) mesh and a GO digital flow meter suspended in the net mouth, which was used in most of the pelagic trawl sampling. The purpose of this study was to confirm the manufacturer's determination of the otter trawl net-mouth opening size. By using a standard trawl speed of 1.6 rn/sec (5.1 ft/sec), calibrated lines and 5-minute deployment in the direction of tide, these studies calculated the maximum effective fishing area of the net at the surface and bottom.VI.B.7.c.ii. Plankton Net Comparison From 1981 through 1987, researchers conducting icthyoplankton studies for PSE&G used a 0.5-m (1.6-ft) plankton net with 0.5-mm (0.02-in) mesh. In 1995, LMS and ECSI were considering changing to a larger plankton net, 1r-m (3.3-ft) but wanted to assess the consequences of changing nets. They conducted eight weeks of simultaneous sampling with the two nets in beginning the first week of June in 1995. Researchers towed the nets for 90 seconds at 0.7 to 1.0 m/sec (2.2-3.2 ft'sec), in the direction of tide. The sites sampled were located in a region between Egg Point Island and Arnold Point R.M 22.5 -37.5 (RKM 36-60, respectively) in Delaware Bay.VI.B.7.c.iii. Fixed-Frame Pelagic Trawl Efficiency Study In 1995, researchers conducted a gear efficiency study of the same pelagic trawl as the 1980 net opening study described above in VI.B.7.c.i. The objective of this study was to determine the relative sample efficiency of the 1.2 by 1.8-m net with a 3 by 3--m (10 by 10-fl) Cobb trawl, which is considered to be a more efficient net. Both nets were finted with GO flow meters to measure the volume of water filtered. They were fished simultaneously for 10 minutes in the direction of tide at a rate of 1.6 m/sec (4.4 ft/sec).Researchers also examined the effect of water clarity on collection efficiency. They 'set up five stations in the Bay with five discrete strata defined by Secchi disk intervals, and collected six replicates per stratum per station. They also established a single deepwater station in the lower Delaware Bay, identified three vertical strata, and collected nine paired tows per stratum.VI.B.8. PSE& G Pre-Operational Monitoring Reports and Special Studies PSE&G's pre-operational monitoring reports start in 1969 with the 1968 pre-operational monitoring data, and end in 1978 with the 1977 pre-operational monitoring data. The objective of the pre-operational monitoring reports was to document the ecological conditions in the Delaware River within the vicinity of Artificial Island, particularly the VI-15 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F small portion of the River that would receive the heated effluent from the Station. In general, annual reports provided fish, ichthyoplankton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton sampling results from a specified period, sampling locations, and methods.PSE&G's pre-operational monitoring activities also included a number of special studies that focused on particular information needs over the course of the pre-operational period.These studies included the following: A series of special studies conducted in 1969 on the diurnal variation with season in numbers of fishes at Augustine Beach; American shad and other anadromous fishes collected in drifted gill nets; temperature preference and avoidance studies; tidal creek fish survey; a key for identifying larval; prejuvenile and juvenile stages of clupeids found in the upper Delaware Estuary; growth study of white perch, age, growth, year class strength and survival rates in the River near Artificial Island; the ecology of six species of drum found in the lower Delaware; abundance of bay anchovy near Artificial Island; life history of the Atlantic silverside in the Delaware Estuary; trawl and seine catch statistics on the blue crab near Artificial Island; studies of plankton near Artificial Island; benthos in the vicinity of Artificial Island; macroinvertebrates in the vicinity of Artificial Island; invertebrate organisms drifting along the bottom of the River near Artificial Island; and a key to the species of invertebrates found in plankton samples near Artificial Island.* Marsh and terrestrial ecology study, and food habits study of white perch, weakfish, and bay anchovy conducted in 1974.a A series of special studies conducted between 1974 and 1977 on: pressure temperature shock; thermal and chemical responses of certain estuarine organisms; temperature preference; temperature and chlorine avoidance; cold shock; secondary plume entrainment; upper lethal temperature; salinity tolerance; and chlorine toxicity.VI.C. Stock Assessment and Coastal Surveys VI.C.1. ASMFC Reports The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is responsible for conducting stock assessments and preparing fishery management plans to maintain the health of the coastal fisheries under its jurisdiction. ASMFC's stock assessments are based on existing data collected by various state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and private entities. The information contained in the ASMFC stock assessment reports was used as part of the modeling analysis described in Section VII.C of this Appendix (Reductions in Stock Benchmark) as well the modeling methods discussion presented in Attachment 2 to this Appendix. It is also used to provide a context against. which power plant effects can be gauged in Appendix H (Cumulative
- VI-16 PSE-G Permit Application 4 Match 1999 Appendix F Effects) to this Demonstration.
ASMFC stock assessments integrated into this 316(b)Demonstration included those for weakfish, striped bass, spot, Atlantic croaker, and American shad.VI.C.2. NOAA Coastal Surveys The analyses presented in this Appendix incorporates information from two NOAA Coastal Surveys described briefly in the following sections: SEAMAP Spring and FallSurvey, and the MARMAP survey. Section IV of this Appendix describes these NOAAcoastal survey programs, and Attachment 1 to this Appendix provides a more detailed description of their methods. The data from the NOAA coastal surveys were evaluated for providing additional information on the status of coastal stocks, and are discussed in Appendix H to this Demonstration. This information was also used in the modeling analysis, if it had been compiled and synthesized by the ASM'FC.VI.C.2.a. MARMAP NOAA initiated the Marine Research Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) program in 1974. This program forms the basis for uniform data collection used by fisheries management councils, including the ASMFC. The dataset was reviewed to determine usefulness for providing additional information on the status of coastal stocks, but no quantitative analysis of these data was conducted for this Demonstration. V1C.2.b. SEAMAPNOAA initiated the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, SEAMAP, in 1981 as a collaborative effort among state and federal agencies, and academic institutions to collect, manage, and disseminate data from the South Atlantic, U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regions. The SEAMAP program began collecting data in 1982 to supplement the MARMAP program described in the previous section.The SEAMAP-South Atlantic (SEAMAP-SA) program has been conducting a shallow water trawl survey in the coastal zone of the South Atlantic Bight following established SEAMAP-SA procedure (Webster et al. 1990, in Beatty et al. 1994) since 1986 (Beatty etal. 1994). This survey program provides long-term, fishery-independent data on seasonal abundance and biomass of fmfish, elasmobranchs, decapod and stomatopod crustaceans, and certain cephalopods. SEAMAP researchers conduct multi-legged cruises in the spring, summer, and fall of each year. Seventy-eight stations in 24 strata are sampled in each season. Samples are collected by towing paired 22.9-m (75-fl) mongoose-type Falcon trawls for 20 minutes. Contents of each trawl are sorted to species. Data recorded included biomass and number of individuals for all species of finfish, elasmobranchs, decapod and stomatopod crustaceans, and cephalopods. Each of the 23 species of target VI-17 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F finfish and decapod species is weighed collectively and individuals are measured to the nearest centimeter. Biomass is recorded for all other invertebrates and algae. Other datacollected included surface and bottom temperature and salinity, sampling depth, wave height, and atmospheric data.This dataset was reviewed to determine usefulness for providing additional information on the status and distribution of coastal stocks, but no quantitative analysis of these data was conducted for this Demonstration. VI.D. Fisheries Dependent Data VID.1 NMFS Commercial Harvest Data The NMFS maintains a database of Atlantic coast commercial fisheries data, that goes back to 1880. Between 1880 and 1951, landings data were limited. Comprehensive surveys of all coastal states have been conducted since 1951.Commercial landings data are collected jointly by state and federal agencies using a variety of methods, but NMFS supplemental surveys ensure that data are comparable. Landing data for each state represent a census of the volume of finfish landed and sold at the docks. States are switching to mandatory trip tickets to gather landing data.V.D.2. NMFS Recreational Harvest Data (1981-1998) The NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) database contains data on Atlantic Coast recreational fisheries. Since 1979, the MRFSS has annually gathered information on angler effort (number .trips) using a telephone survey, and information on recreational catch using an angler interception survey at fishing access sites. Annual recreational catch was summarized by state and species.VI.D.3. NMFS Blue Crab Harvest Data These data were used to provide supporting information for our assessment of blue crab trends in the Delaware Estuary. The data were also used in calculating the commercial and recreational split in the economic cost/benefit analysis presented in Attachment 12 to this Appendix.VI.E. Other StudiesThe Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has monitored the reproductive success of striped bass in Maryland's portion of the Chesapeake Bay annually since 1954.MDNR calculates the striped bass juvenile index every year based on samples from 22 VI-18 PSF&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F survey sites located in the four major spawning systems: Choptank, Potomac, and Nanticoke Rivers, and the Upper Bay. Monthly samples are collected from July through September using a 100-ft beach seine. The index is calculated as the average catch of YOY striped bass per sample. In this Demonstration, the Maryland striped bass juvenile index was used to help.assess the potential contribution of the Chesapeake Bay striped bass stock to the Delaware River stock.VI.F. Estuary and Ecosystem Data Appendix C and Section III of this Appendix describe the Delaware Estuary's physical, water quality, and biotic resources, as well as documented trends in these resources. Thestudies referenced in Section III and Appendix C were used to develop general information on the status of the estuary's biotic resources, and the RIS species in particular. This information served as a guide in developing the structure of this Demonstration and the analyses therein.Some of the references used to develop the descriptive information on the estuary and the status of RIS species in Section III (Santoro 1998, Sutton et al. 1996, Frithsen et al.1991), and many more cited in Appendix C, were produced for the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) as part of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) required under the Delaware Estuary Program (DELEP). These DELEP reports characterize the status of the Delaware Estuary's resources under The National Estuary Program (NEP).VI-19 I (o-,9- ?~p PSE&G Pcrmit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VII. IMPACT ASSESSMENT In this section of the Appendix dam on the RIS are evaluated using the three benchmarks described in Section V: (1) whether the balance of aquatic biota of The Delaware Estuaryhas been upset or modified (2) whether there has been a continuing decline in population abundance; and (3) whether abundance would be reduced sufficiently to threaten the sustainability of the stocks. Effects on an additional species, blue crab, are examined only under the second benchmark. These impact assessments demonstrate that Salem has not caused, and will not cause, adverse environmental impact to any of these species. These conclusions are summarized and explained in Section VII.D.VII.A. Balanced Indigenous Community Benchmark Investigators evaluated the data from the Delaware to determine whether, taking account of 30 years of change in water quality, fishing pressure, and habitat, the operation of Salem has upset or modified the balanced indigenous population of the Delaware as reflected by any one or more of three indicators: " Whether the same indigenous species have been present over time ("species presence");
- Whether the abundance of aquatic species has fluctuated and trended within the anticipated range ("fluctuations within anticipated range");
and* Whether there have been eruptions of nuisance, non-indigenous species or species indicative of degraded conditions ("nuisance conditions"). VII.A.I. Species Presence/Absence in Pre-operational vs. Operational Periods The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the fish community of the Delaware River has been altered by the operation of Salem. This community-level analysis is distinct from analyses of impacts on the abundance of individual species. Species-specific impacts are discussed below in Sections VII.B and VII.C. The measures of thefish community employed in this section rely on counts of the number of individuals belonging to different species, irrespective of which particular species are present.Ecologists use the term "community" to denote the entire assemblage of species present in a given location or habitat. Usually, analysis is restricted to a particular taxonomic group, e.g., fish or birds. Data on the number and relative abundance of species present in different communities are used to draw inferences concerning their evolutionaryhistory, successional status, temporal stability, or degree of disturbance. Communities are said to be "diverse" if many species are present. In the past, some ecologists (notably Margalef 1968) have argued that undisturbed communities generally evolve through time from a less diverse to a more diverse state, and that disturbances -including both\VII-1 PSE&G Pernit Application 4 Nlarch 1999 Appendix F physical disturbances and pollution -cause communities to digress and become less diverse.The general validity of the proposition that ecological communities have a natural tendency to diversify with time and that natural and anthropogenic disturbances necessarily reduce diversity has been discredited (Qotelli and Graves 1996). However, empirical observations have demonstrated that the diversity of many types of biological communities is, in fact, reduced by a wide variety of environmental stresses (Rappart et al. 1985). For example, the number of benthic invertebrate species present in highly polluted rivers is generally much lower than the number present in comparable unpollutedrivers, because only species that can tolerate very low oxygen levels can survive under polluted conditions (Wih-m and Dorris 1968). For this reason, measures of species diversity are still used as indicators of the influence of environmental stress on biological communities. If effects of Salem are analogous to effects of other disturbances that reduce community diversity, then those effects might be detectable as changes -most likely reductions-in the diversity of the fish community following the startup of the plant. The analysis presented below addresses this possibility using data on Delaware Estuary fish collected during pre-operational and operational years.VII.A.l.a. Measures of Species RichnessMany indices of fish species composition have been proposed and used by ecologists (Peet 1974, Gotelli and Graves 1996). As noted by Gotelli and Graves (1996), most ofthese indices are highly correlated with one another. Moreover, many indices lack valid statistical tests and biologically meaningful interpretations. Hurlburt's (1971) measures of species richness do not suffer from these problems. Hurlburt (1971) defined species richness as: "...the number of species present, without any particular regard for the exactarea or number of individuals examined." Hurlburt distinguished two types of speciesrichness measures: numerical richness, meaning the number of species present in acollection containing a specified number of individuals, and areal richness, the number of species present in a given area or volume of the environment. Areal richness is alsotermed "species density." Both numerical richness and species density are used in this analysis.VII.A. 1.a.i. Numerical Richness The number of species present in a collection of organisms generally increases with the number of organisms collected. Hence, to provide for valid comparisons of different communities, the collections must be standardized to a common size. Sanders (1968)proposed an approach called "rarefaction" and applied it to studies of marine benthic invertebrate communities. He constructed "rarefaction curves" that describe the way inU .VII-2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F which the number of species present in a sample increases with increasing sample size. If only a few organisms are included in a collection, only a few species are likely to be present. As more and more individuals are collected, the number of species present in the sample rises rapidly at first, then levels off. Sanders compared communities from which large numbers of organisms had been collected to communities for which only small collections were available by "rarefying" the large collections, i.e., calculating the number of species that would have been found in smaller collections. A hypothetical example is presented in Figure
- 7. Community (a) contains 50 species; community (b) contains only 25. However, if 500 organisms were collected at random from community (b) and only 50 from community (a), more species would very likely be found in community (b). To validly compare the two communities, the data for community (b) would be rarefied to a sample size of 50. In a collection of 50 organisms, it is likely that many fewer species would be found in community (b) than in community (a), showing that community (a) actually has the higher species richness.Simberloff (1971) and Hurlburt (1971) independently demonstrated that the computational technique proposed by Sanders is biased. Hurlburt (1971) proposed an alternative approach, based on a definition of richness as "...the expected number of species in a sample of n individuals selected at random (without replacement) from a collection of N individuals and S species".Heck et al. (1975) developed an estimate of the variance for Hurlburt's index; the mean and variance permit statistical testing of numerical richness values derived from samples taken from different communities.
The methods use to calculate species richness and to test for differences between preoperational and operational periods are documented in Attachment F-2.VII.A.l.a.ii. Scecies Density Species density is defined simply as the number of species present in a given area or volume of the environment. For fisheries surveys such as the PSE&G Bottom Trawl Survey, in which a standard gear (bottom trawl) is deployed using a standard sampling protocol, the number of fish per trawl can be used as an estimate of the number of fish per unit area. The average species density for a given location and time interval is simply the mean number of species collected per trawl sample for that location and interval.Standard statistical tests (e.g., the t-test) can be used to test for significant differences in species density for different locations and time intervals. Species density estimates permit comparison of numbers of species in samples that are standardized to a constant unit of area or volume rather than to a constant number of individuals. Species richness and species density estimates are affected in different ways by variability in the total abundance, relative abundance and spatial distribution of species. For these reasons, species density and species richness measures do not always VII-3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F provide similar results (Gotelli and Graves 1996). The two measures used together provide a more complete picture of the community than does either alone.VII.A.1.b. Data Sets To provide meaningful analyses of species richness, the communities being compared must be ecologically and taxonomically comparable. A marsh cannot be compared to a desert, and a fish community cannot be compared to a zooplankton community. Moreover, because the vulnerability of most species to capture varies widely with gear type, the samples need to be collected with the same or closely similar gears.Attachment F-I lists the types of data sets available for the Delaware Estuary. The 16-ft.bottom-trawl used by PSE&G is the only gear used consistently during both pre-operational and operational years. Data are available from 1970 through 1998, excluding 1983, 1987 and 1995. For most of these years, sampling was confined to the "near field" area, a region centered on the Salem plant and extending for approximately within ten miles above and below the Station. The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey did not begin until 1980, so no pre-operational years are available. The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey began in 1977, but only for blue crab. Finfish were not included in catch records until 1980. The DNREC Large Trawl Survey has been conducted periodically since 1966;however, there have been frequent program changes., To detect possible effects of Salem, the areas sampled in the pre-operational years must be ecologically comparable to the areas sampled in the operational years. PSE&G conducted baywide data only in 1979-82 and 1995-98. The baywide study area contains a much greater diversity of habitats than does the nearfield area, so that the fish community of the bay as a whole should contain many more species than the nearfield study area. The baywide data are unsuitable for assessing influences of the plant, because sampling during the pre-operational period was confined mainly to the nearfield region.Nearfield sampling using the 16-ft. bottom trawl has been conducted in almost all years since 1970, although sampling intensity and specific sites have varied. The nearfield bottom trawl survey and the W-factor trawl survey, therefore, provides a suitable data forcomparing pre-operational conditions in the Delaware Estuary to conditions during the Salem's operational period. However, certain sampling protocol changes during thisperiod limit the types of analyses that can be performed. Until 1978, tows were made using a fixed-length towline. Tows conducted at some stations did not reach the bottomin the nearfield trawl survey. Beginning in mid-1978, a variable-length towline was used, ensuring that the trawl reached the bottom at all stations. This change would have altered the relative densities of demersal vs. pelagic fish species represented in the trawl samples.Beginning in 1995, the direction of trawling was changed from with the current to against the current. This change would have altered the efficiency of the trawl at collecting fish.These changes limit the use of much of the nearfield trawl data for quantitative analysis of Strends in species abundance. Appendix J, for example, uses only data collected VII-4* PSE&G Permit Application 4 Match 1999 Appendix F between 1979 and 1982, and 1988 to 1994, when a consistent sampling protocol was used. The analyses described in this section utilize only data on the presence or absence of species. As long as all species are vulnerable to collection, the measures of fishcommunity composition used here are relatively insensitive to changes in gear efficiency. Unit 1 of Salem began pre-operational testing in 1977, and commercial operations in 1978. All of the years 1970 through 1977 are considered to be "pre-operational" years if the operation of Salem were adversely affecting the fish community of the Delaware Estuary, it is unlikely that all of these effects would occur immediately. Salem Unit No.2 did not begin commercial operation until 1982. Moreover, for long-lived, slow-maturing species, several years would be required before mortality imposed on early life stages could result in reduced abundance of older fish. The years 1978 through 1985 were identified as a "transitional period." Eight years is greater than the average longevity of the great majority of fish species sampled by the trawl survey. By 1986, the trawl collections would have consisted almost entirely of fish spawned after the startup of Salem. The years 1986 through 1998 were identified as the "operational" period. Fish collections during the months of December through March were sparse and often no sampling was conducted. Therefore, only data from the months of April through November were used in the analysis. For this analysis, the data were evaluated on a seasonal basis. Fish samples collected during April and May were considered springsamples. Those collected in June, July, and August were considered summer, and those collected in September, October, and November were considered fall.VII.A.1.d. ResultsThe impact of Salem on the fish community of the Delaware Estuary was evaluated by comparing species density and numerical richness in the 1970-1977 pre-operational period to the 1986-1997 operational period. Although thenearfield region does not encompass the entire estuary, it is large enough to be representative of the ecological zone (i.e., the highly turbid fresh/saltwater mixing zone)within which the station is located. In addition, these data sets were evaluated for species turnover ("species presence"). VII.A.l.d.i. Numerical RichnessRarefaction curves for each season and time period were plotted (Figures 8 through 10).These curves display the expected increase in numbers of species with increasing collection size. As noted above, rarefaction curves for communities dominated by a few abundant species should be different from rarefaction curves for communities with many rare species.To provide a single curve for the pre- and operational time periods, the rarefaction index was calculated seasonally, for each of the pre-operational and operational years, for VII-5 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Acollection sizes (n) ranging from 100 to 6,000 individuals. For each season and collection size, the year-specific values were averaged over pre-operational and operational years to produce pre-operational and operational rarefaction curves. For each collection size (n), only'year/season combinations for which the smallest observed collection size was greater than n were included in the analysis.As shown in Figures 8 through 10, for all seasons and time periods the expected number of species rises quickly with collection size up to approximately n = 2000. The curves continue to rise slowly at larger collection sizes; the maximum expected number of species per collection is approximately 20 for all seasons and time periods. For spring and summer, the pre-operational and operational rarefaction curves are essentially identical. For fall, the operational curve lies above the pre-operational curve. For this season, species richness appears to be higher at all collection sizes during the operational period. However, statistical tests (below) indicate that the difference is not significant. For statistical analysis of species richness estimates, the collection size (n) chosen for comparison can be no larger than the smallest collection included in the analysis. In the PSE&G. Nearfield Trawl Survey data, the, numbers of individuals collected per season range from a low of 700 individuals in the spring of 1986 to a high of 176,544 individuals in the summer of 1978. A collection size of 650 was selected for the purpose of statistical analysis.Results for each season and year are presented in Figures I 1 through 13. The figures show no apparent difference in richness between the pre-operational and operational periods. Tables I through 3 show the t-test results for spring, summer, and fall, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found.VII.A. I.d.ii. Species Density Figures 14 through 16 present the mean number of species per sample for each year for the pre-operational, transition and operational time periods. These figures show, for each season, an apparent increase in species density in the operational years. Tables 4 through 6 show results of paired t-tests, by season. For all three seasons, the t-tests show-that the mean number of species per sample in the operational time period is significantly greater than the mean number of species per sample in the pre-operational time period.VII.A. 1 .d.iii. Species Turnover Table 7 lists the species that were present in the sampling collections during the pre-operational period and those that were present during 'the operational time period. The majority of species (54) were collected in both pie-operational and operational years.Atlantic mackerel, cownose ray, fourspot flounder, golden shiner, goldfish, hickory shad, inland silverside, largemouth bass, lookdown, mummichog, rough silverside, smooth VII-6 PSE&G Permit Appication 4 March 1999 Appendix F trunkfish, spotfin burterfiyfish, tesselated darter, and threespine stickleback were collected only during pre-operational sampling. American sand lance, feather blenny, fringed flounder, harvestfish, mottled sculpin, northern kingfish, planehead filefish, scup, skilletfish, striped mullet, and yellow bullhead were collected only during operational sampling. Almost all of thesespecies are either marine or freshwater species that should be rarely found in the vicinity of Salem and are common elsewhere. VIL A. I.e. Summary The above analysis of fish community data shows that there has been very little change in the fish community in the vicinity of Salem since the startup of the plant in 1978.Species richness, as measured using Hurlburt's rarefaction method, is unchanged. Species density, as measured by the average number of species captured per sample with the 16-ft bottom trawl, has actually increased. The pre-operational and operational species lists are virtually identical. The above results are similar to results of the Delaware Estuary Program's (DELEP's)analysis of species composition data for the region between Trenton and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (O'Herron et. al. 1994). They found "little difference" between the species reported to occur in the mainstem Delaware prior to 1980 and the species found since 1980. Both analyses indicate that the operation of Salem has not produced an imbalance in the Delaware Estuary fish community as a whole.VII.A.Z Fluctuations in Abundance within Anticipated Range As part of an evaluation of whether Salem's operations have resulted in changes to the balanced indigenous community ("BIC") of the Delaware, it is appropriate to investigate whether the operation of Salem may have led directly or indirectly to changes in the relative abundance of species. Analyses of species presence/absence data do not provide information concerning changes in relative abundance. This section examines changes in the densities of the dominant species present in the nearfield region between pre-operational and operational time periods.A variety of processes have operated to change the relative abundance of species inhabiting Delaware Estuary since the startup of Salem. Water quality in the Delaware River has improved markedly since the 1970s; this improvement should have led to changes in the abundance of fish species that migrate through or utilize the affected river segments. Changes in fisheries management practices, especially restrictions on harvests of predatory fish such as striped bass and weakfish, should have led to increases in the abundance of these species. All of these expected changes could have had indirect consequences as well. For example, increases in the abundance of predatory fish might be expected to result in decreases in the abundance of forage fish. Decreases in forage VII-7 PSEG&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F AO fish abundance might be expected to result in increases in the abundance of predators that depend on them.The evaluation presented here relies on the concept of "impact hypotheses," as described in USEPA's Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998b). An impact hypothesis is an explicit statement of the expected ecological effects of an action being investigated, formulated in terms of variables that can be measured and used to support or refute the hypothesis. The hypothesis that Salem has adversely affected particular species or species groups within the Delaware Estuary is evaluated against the alternative hypotheses that these species or groups have responded to fisheries management actions, habitat quality changes, or other influences independent of Salem.The procedure for making this type of an assessment is as follows: first, the known majorestuary wide changes are summarized. Second, impact hypotheses regarding the likely effects of each of these changes on the fish community in the Delaware are developed. Third, time trends in major fish species of the estuary, as documented in Section VII.B.and Appendix J, are evaluated to determine whether the observed trends are consistent or inconsistent with the various hypotheses. The underlying premises for this exercise are that (1) baywide distribution and abundancetrends, life history, seasonal distribution patterns, and predator-prey relationships are all relevant to interpreting data concerning impacts of Salem, and (2) the influence of Salem.on these characteristics should differ in predictable ways from the impacts of other influences on the estuary.VIZA. 2. a. Recent changes affecting the Delaware Estuary Information concerning large-scale changes in the Delaware Estuary-during the past 30 to 40 years is available from a variety of sources. Appendix B describes the design characteristics and operational history of the Station. Information on changes in water, sediment, and habitat quality within the estuary is available from the Delaware Estuary Program and other sources summarized in Appendix C. Information on fisheries management changes relevant to the RIS and other fish stocks occurring in the Delaware is available from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and is discussed in species-specific reports attached to Appendix C. The most significant changes are briefly summarized below.VII.A.2.a.i. Operation of the Salem Station As described in Appendix B, the Station has been operating at Artificial Island (RM 50)since 1977, when Unit I began pre-operational testing. Unit I began commercial operations in 1978, and Unit 2 began commercial operations began in 1982. The Station's cooling water system produces a thermal plume and, through entrainment and VII-8 PSE.G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F impingement, is a source of mortality to fish populations. The plant is relatively nonselective with respect to trophic groups; both predatory fish and forage fish are affected. Annual entrainment and impingement losses at Salem are provided in Appendix L.VII.A.2.a.ii. Changes in Water Quality According to the Sutton et al. (1996), the Delaware Estuary is "one of the most heavily used estuary systems in the United States." The upper estuary, in the vicinity of Philadelphia, was already heavily polluted in colonial times and currently supports "one of the world's greatest concentrations of heavy industry, the world's largest freshwater port, and the second largest refining petrochemical center in the nation." This intensive development has led in the past to major habitat modifications and severe water-quality degradation. As noted in Section III above, Sutton et al. (1996) documented a wide variety of changes in the Delaware Estuary, both historic and recent. By the 1940s, a large stretch of the river below Philadelphia was anoxic. Sewage plant construction began after 1936, and accelerated in the 1950s and 1960s. By the late 1960s, dissolved oxygen levels in the region between Philadelphia and Chester, Pennsylvania still approached 0 during the summer.Marino et al. (1991) and Najarian (1998) compiled data on water-quality trends in the Delaware from 1968 through 1997 (Appendix C). Najarian documented trends in concentrations of the following parameters: specific conductance, pH, total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate and dissolved oxygen (Appendix C). Through 1980, the data show a pronounced summer DO "sag" from approximately RM 70 through RM 110. Minimum DO values in this reach were well below USEPA's water-quality criterion (3 mg/L) and frequently approached
- 0. By 1990, dissolved oxygen levels had increased dramatically; minimum DO levels are now above 5 mg/L, well above the USEPA criterion.
Over the same period, ammonia concentrations in the same region (RM 70-110) have decreased from above I mg!L to near 0. Trends in nutrient concentrations have been less pronounced. Phosphorus decreased substantially between 1970 and 1980 following the introduction of strict controls on phosphorus releases from wastewater treatment plants; phosphorus levels have since increased slightly.According to Sutton et al. (1996), dissolved trace metals in the Delaware Estuary are "not exceptionally high compared to neighboring East Coast estuaries, with little evidence of serious environmental contamination from human input." In general, Sutton et al. (1996)concluded that substantial progress has been made in bringing the Delaware River and estuary into full compliance with the goals of the Clean Water Act.VII-9 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Their conclusion, which is supported by a variety of other recent reports on the Delaware Estuary (documented in Appendix C), was that water-quality overall has improved throughout the river, especially in the heavily-industrialized Philadelphia vicinity.Impaired conditions due to low dissolved oxygen have been significantly alleviated, andother measures of water quality have shown either stability or improvement. VII.A.2.a.iii. Sediment Quality Toxic substances in sediment were raised as a concern by Santoro (1998). Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Pesticides, polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals were found to be present at potentially toxic levels at numerous sites above the plant, between RM. 80 and RM 115. The sediments themselves were found to be toxic to benthic invertebrates in controlled laboratory tests. Sediment-bound PCBs, DDT-related pesticides, and PAHs can be transferred through the food chain to piscivorous wildlife and to human consumers of fish and shellfish. The spatial extent of contaminated sediments is limited primarily to the same heavily industrialized region (RM 80-115) affected by water-quality degradation. This coincidence indicates that the chemicals found in sediment are probably largely derived from the same industrial sources that were responsible for past water-quality degradation. Although a comparable time series of sediment quality data are not available, it is likely that the reduced pollutant discharges that have contributed to recent water-quality improvement also reduced inputs of chemicals that partition to sediments rather than remaining dissolved in the water column. In other words, the same management actions that have improved water quality in the Delaware very likely have improved sediment quality as well.VII.A.2.a.iv. Habitat Quality Major types of habitat change that have occurred since the startup of Salem including restoration of saltmarsh habitat bordering the lower Estuary by PSE&G, removal of the DO block below Philadelphia as a result of improved wastewater treatment practices, and installation of fish ladders to provide access for American shad and river herring to additional spawning and nursery habitat.Marsh restoration has occurred primarily in the lower Estuary; water and sediment-quality improvements have occurred upstream. There are no known major changes that would have directly affected the quality of the habitat in the immediate vicinity of Salem itself.5VII- 10 PSE&G Pennit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VII.A.2.a.v. Fisheries Management Practices Prior to the 1980s, there was little active management of anadromous or marine fish stocks that utilize the Delaware Estuary. Fisheries records documented in Appendix C and in the species-specific attachments show that peak catches of most species occurred prior to World War II and have declined to historically low levels in recent decades. As noted above, Congress established the ASMFC in 1942 with the objective of promoting the conservation of fisheries resources through interstate fisheries management planning.However, until 1984 the ASMFC had no authority to enforce compliance with management plans and commercial and recreational exploitation of coastal stocks remained relatively unrestricted. As described in Section lV.B.2., three RIS have been the subject of significant fishery management activities under ASMFC: striped bass, weakfish, and American shad. The specific management actions required by ASMFC over the past 30 years in these species follow.The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 directed the ASMFC to certify, at least annually, that all of its member states were in compliance with the Commission's Striped Bass Management Plan. Any state found to be non-compliant would be subject to an immediate, federally-imposed ban on fishing for striped bass. The 1984 ASMFC Striped Bass Management Plan called for a significant reduction in commercial and recreational fishing for striped bass. -Beginning with Maryland in 1985, the ASMFC's member states, including Delaware and New Jersey, imposed stringent limits on striped bass fishing that met or exceeded the ASMFC's goals. In response to the increase in annual recruitment of striped bass that occurred following the fishing restrictions, the Striped Bass Management Plan was amended in 1989 to permit increased commercial and recreational harvests. The allowable rate of fishing was, however, set at a level considerably lower than the level that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, to permit continued rebuilding of the stock. Although the Atlantic coastal striped bass fishery was declared to be "fully restored" in 1994, the rate of fishing continues to be held at a fishing mortality rate level (annual F. = 0.31) below the level (F = 0.3 8), currently believed to produce a maximum sustained yield.The ASMFC has also developed management plans for weakfish and American shad. In response to perceived overfishing during the early 1980s, the ASMFC issued its first management plan for weakfish in 1985. This plan called for elimination of harvest of age-0 weakfish and installation of bycatch reduction devices (BRDS) to reduce the bycatch of weakfish in shrimp trawl fisheries. In response to a perceived failure of the states to implement ASMFC management plans, the federal Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993 empowered the Secretary of Commerce to close fisheries in states that failed to comply with these plans. The most recent stock assessment performed by the ASMFC weakfish working group indicates that the rate of VII- 11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F fishing on weakfish has been reduced significantly since 1992 and that the coastal weakfish stock is now increasing. Fishing for American shad has in the past consisted of a federally-regulated ocean-intercept fishery and a state-regulated in-river fishery conducted during the annual spawning run. The ocean-intercept fishery was closed in 1998 to address potential overfishing concerns. The Management Plan (ASMiFC 1998c) has set a maximum fishing mortality rate for the Delaware River at F = 0.43.In addition, white perch has been under state management. Delaware and New Jerseyhave placed a size limit (8 in.) on recreationally-caught white perch, but no target fishing rate has been set. Target fishing rates have not been set for other exploited RIS in the Delaware, -and little information other than landings data exists with which to evaluate past trends in fishing effort or population abundance. VII.A. 2. b. Expected effects of changes on fish populations in the Delaware Estuary The above changes in environmental quality and fisheries management practices would be expected to have caused measurable changes in the abundance and spatial distribution of fish populations in the Delaware Estuary, independent of any effects due to the operation of Salem. The impact hypotheses developed below summarize the expected effects of each of these changes, considering the expected direction of change (increase or decrease), indirect effects due to predator prey relationships (increase or decrease in predator or prey species) and the spatial pattern of change (local or riverwide). Hypothesis 1: Entrainment and impingement are depleting fish populations According to this hypothesis, entrainment and impingement cause increased mortality of fish, resulting in decreased abundance of the vulnerable populations. Decreased forage fish abundance could lead to decreased abundance of predators. Decreased predator abundance could, on the other hand, lead to increased abundance of forage fish. Since most predatory fish select prey based on size, all forage species within the preferred size range of the depleted predators should increase. This hypothesis is consistent with comments made by Versar in its review of PSE&G's 1984 Section 316(b) submission. Versar stated that "...entrainment mortality of a large proportion of each year's spawn has the potential to adversely impact regional population size.' (Versar 1989).The spatial scale of the depletion would depend on the mobility and habitat specificity of the affected species. Local depletion could occur in species that are relatively immobile or that are restricted for ecological reasons (e.g., salinity preferences) to the immediate vicinity of Salem. For mobile, wide-ranging species, the depletion would be more likelyto be baywide than local. If Salem is the cause of an observeddecline in abundance of a iVII-12 PSU&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F species, then the decline should be limited to the stock component that inhabits the Delaware and should not be observed in other stocks.Hypothesis 2: Improved water, sediment, and habitat quality has increased the abundance of species inhabiting or migrating through the improved regions.Improvements in water, sediment, or habitat quality should affect both predators and prey in the same manner. Species that utilize the improved areas should increase in abundance. For nonmigratory species, the population increase should be limited to the improved area(s). For migratory species, increased abundance could be observed baywide. Most of the dominant finfish species in the Delaware Estuary are migratory;increases in their abundance should be observable baywide even if only part of their habitat is improved.Hypothesis 3: Decreases in harvest rate have led to increased reproductive success ofexploited species. Harvest rates 6f many exploited fish populations have recently been reduced by fisheries managers. Reductions in harvest would be expected to increase the number of fish surviving to spawn. Improved reproductive success should, in turn, lead to an increase in the abundance of juvenile fish. For predatory fish such as striped bass and weakfish, increased abundance of juveniles could lead to decreases in the abundance of forage species.VII.A. 2. c. Observed changes in the abundance offinfish species in the Delaware Estuary As documented in Section VII.B. and Appendix J, seven of the nine RIS fmofish species show clear evidence of increase since 1980: weakfish, white perch, striped bass, bayanchovy, American shad, Atlantic croaker, and alewife. These trends are based on several independent indices of fin.fish abundance, including the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey, and the PSE&G Nearfield Trawl Survey. All of these species show statistically significant increasing trends in one or more of the surveys. Only the blueback herring shows decreasing baywide abundance trends. The trend for spot in the Delaware Estuary is unclear; spot relative abundances havefluctuated wildly over time.VII.A.2. d Comparison of observed changes to expectations These generally increasing abundance trends are inconsistent with Hypothesis 1, whichposits that Salem is depleting fish populations. Clearly, the two major predator speciesthat utilize the Delaware Estuary have increased rather than decreased in abundance. Bay anchovy, the dominant forage species in the Delaware Estuary and the species that VII-13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F experience large impingement and entrainment losses at Salem, appears to have increased in abundance as well. Blueback herring, which may also be considered a forage species, has declined in abundance within the Delaware Estuary. However, as noted in Appendix J, this species has declined coastwide in recent years. Age-0 blueback herring are predominantly found in freshwater except during upstream and downstream migrations, thus, the vulnerability of this species to entrainment and impingement should be low. It seems likely that the decline in abundance of blueback herring in the Delaware reflectsthe continuing coastwide trend rather than the operation of Salem.Analysis of spot data, as discussed in VII.B. and Appendix J, shows wide fluctuations with no clear trends. Furthermore, data on the distribution of spot within the Delaware Estuary suggest that the vulnerability of this species to Salem should be comparatively low. As documented in Appendix G, spot are among the most abundant fish species in marshes and tidal creeks. A large but unknown fraction of the spot present in the Estuary is sequestered in these habitats and should be less susceptible to Salem than pelagic species such as bay anchovy. Moreover, spot is an oceanic spawner, and only a small fraction of each year class is ever present in the Delaware Estuary.Other available data suggest that coastwide rather than local influence are probably responsible for spot abundance patterns over time. Commercial landings data summarized in Appendices J and H show that the abundance of this species is strongly cyclical. New Jersey and Delaware landings averaged more than 200,000 pounds per year from 1952 through 1958, and then fell to near zero throughout the 1960s and 1970s.Landings again rose during the 1980s, and have fallen since 1990. Both landings data and fisheries-independent surveys show that the Delaware Estuary is at the northern limit of the range of this species. Oceanic conditions determine the distribution of the spot population along the Atlantic coast and thus the number of fish that enter the Delaware.For all of these reasons, it is unlikley that the observed fluctuations in abundance of spot in the Delaware Estuary could be related to the operation of Salem.The abundance trends documented in Section VII.B. and Appendix J are consistent with hypotheses 2 and 3, which posit that water/habitat quality changes (Hypothesis 2) orfisheries management changes (Hypothesis
- 3) have led to increased abundance of certain species.Improvements in water and habitat quality are, according to Hypothesis 2, expected to lead to increased abundance of species that utilize the improved area(s). Water and habitat quality between RM 80 and RM 115 are known to have greatly improved between 1980 and 1990 due to elimination of seasonal anoxia and reductions in pollutant emissions.
This tidal freshwater region includes the historic spawning grounds of the Delaware River striped bass stock and also provides preferred habitat for white perch.Both species have increased in abundance baywide. Improved water quality could also have contributed to the increase in abundance of American shad. This species spawns primarily in the nontidal river above Trenton. Both the upstream-migrating spawners and VII-14 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F the downstream-migrating juveniles pass through the region of formerly-degraded water quality. Weisberg et al. (1996) attributed the increased abundance of all three of the above species, as measured by the NJDEP beach seine index, to improved water quality.Reductions in fishing pressure, according to Hypothesis 3, should lead to an increase in the reproductive success of the affected populations. As documented above, fishing for striped bass and weakfish, the two most abundant predators in the Delaware Estuary, has been significantly restricted in recent years. The abundance of both species has clearly increased. It is likely that at least part of the increase in striped bass is related to water quality; however, weakfish are restricted to more saline regions of the estuary and would not have benefited directly from improved water quality.VII.A. 2. e. Summary of evidence concerning fluctuations in species abundance Trends in the abundance of species inhabiting the Delaware Estuary are consistent with expected responses to changes in habitat quality and fisheries management practices that are known to have taken place over the past 30 years. Improvements in water and sediment quality upstream from Salem should have permitted increases in the abundance of finfish species utilizing the improved habitat; increases in abundance of those species have been observed. Reductions in harvest of striped bass and weakfish should have resulted in increased abundance ofjuveniles of both species; these increases have been documented. Changes in abundance of major finfish species are, however, inconsistent with expected depletion by entrainment and impingement at Salem. Reductions in the abundance of vulnerable species should have been observed; however, the abundance of all but a few species has increased. The few cases of recent population decline are attributable to coast-wide phenomena rather than to the influence of Salem. These results indicate that the predominant human influences on the Delaware Estuary finfish community are water/habitat quality and fisheries management, not the operation of Salem.VILA.3. Absence of outbreaks of nuisance speciesNuisance species are species that, because of their high abundance and adverse effects onother species, threaten the balance of a community. The Section 316(a) guidance states that the presence of "excessive nuisance populations" may be a basis for finding that populations are not adequately protected (USEPA 1974). The most common types ofnuisance species outbreaks are blooms of phytoplankton in nutrient-enriched waters and invasions of communities by non-native species.In phytoplankton blooms, the availability of high concentrations of dissolved nutrients enables a few species to become extremely abundant. The die-off and decomposition of VII-15 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F the blooming species can lead to lethal oxygen depletion. Blooms of species that release toxic chemicals, e.g., the species responsible for "red tides," can cause massive mortality to fish and other aquatic organisms. The introduction of a non-native species can have catastrophic effects on communities, if conditions are favorable for its propagation, and predators or diseases capable of reducing its abundance are absent. The asiatic clam Potamocorbula amurensis that has recentlyinvaded San Francisco Bay is a good example of such a species. Scientists havedocumented major and possibly irreversible changes in zooplankton and benthiccommunities throughout the estuary that are attributable to the activities of this species (Carlton et al. 1990, Kimmerer et al. 1994).Such outbreaks have not been observed in the Delaware Estuary. O'Herron et al. (1994)concluded that phytoplankton production in the Delaware Estuary is "in the middle range of values reported for other East Coast estuaries" and found no evidence of adverse algal blooms. USEPA (1998a) also concluded that phytoplankton blooms have not adversely affected the Delaware Estuary. O'Herron et al. (1994) concluded that the benthic invertebrate community of the Delaware Estuary is similar to communities present in other East Coast estuaries. USEPA (1998a) concluded that the benthic community of the Delaware Estuary is adversely affected by toxic chemicals, but did not identify nuisance species outbreaks as a cause of degraded conditions. Neither O'Herron et al. (1994) nor USEPA (1998) identified nuisance fish species as an environmental problem in the Delaware Estuary. Outbreaks of such species, if they occurred, would be expected to adversely affect other fish species, leading to decreased species richness and density. As documented in Section A. 1. above, no such decreases are evident in the available data.Thus, all of the available evidence indicates that outbreaks of nuisance species have not occurred in the Delaware Estuary since the startup of Salem.VIIA.4. Balanced Indigenous Community: Summary The biological community of the Delaware Estuary has changed very little since the startup of Salem. Species richness and density, as measured using widely-accepted techniques, are virtually unchanged. Species density, measured as the average number of species collected per sample, has actually increased. The species lists for preoperational and operational periods are virtually identical. Most of the important fish species present in the estuary have either remained stable or have changed in ways consistent withexpected responses to improved water quality and decreased fishing effort. The few cases of recent population decline are consistent with known coast-wide phenomena rather than with effects caused by Salem. Recent studies of the Delaware Estuary by O'Herron et al. (1994) and USEPA (1998a) have found no evidence for outbreaks ofnuisance species. Aside from isolated areas well upriver from Salem, there is no evidence of dominance or invasion by pollutant-tolerant species. Hence, evaluations of UVII-16 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F all three of the indicators examined here demonstrate that the operation of Salem has not upset or modified the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary. VII.B. Continuing Decline in Population Abundance Benchmark VII.B.1. Rationale This benchmark for determining whether an adverse environmental impact has occurred is drawn from biology and population dynamics which has demonstrated that a declinethat continues long enough will lead to a population crash. One of the first signs of a continuing decline in population abundance is a downward trend in recruitment-the number of young fish produced each year. Therefore, this analysis of trends of abundance focuses on juvenile fish. Declines in recruitment can result fromanthropogenic factors, such as overfishing or long term power plant operations, and non-anthropogenic causes, such as increased abundance of predator species. Populations may undergo natural cycles in response to changes in environmental conditions, that can appear to be unidirectional increases or decreases if observed for time periods less than that of the cycle. For these reasons, the analysis of population trends presented in this Demonstration examines as many years as possible to minimize the probability that natural cycles are mistaken for unidirectional trends.The following sections present the results of PSE&G's analysis of trends of relative abundance of RIS species and blue crab. Appendix J to this Demonstration provides a detailed discussion of these analyses. VII.B.2. Data This section describes the data sets relied upon to evaluate this benchmark and to screen data used for the analysis of trends.VII.B..2.a. Long-Term Datasets on Fish Abundance in the Delaware EstuaryBecause aquatic species can go through natural cycles, long-term data sets covering the reaches of the Delaware Estuary used by the species of interest, that recorded abundance information, and maintained standard methods are most valuable for assessing trends in species abundance. PSE&G. reviewed data from four long-term fish monitoring programs to determine their appropriateness for the purpose of analyzing population abundance trends: the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey, the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, the DNREC Large Trawl Survey, and the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey. These sampling VII-17 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F programs are described in Section VI.B to this Appendix and summarized in Figures 2 through 6, and Attachment F-i.VII .B.2. b. Data Screening Protocols One crucial requirement for conducting a valid trends assessment is. that the field sampling methods producing the data being analyzed remain constant over the period of study, with respect to: spatial area sampled, the times of year sampled, the type of collection gear used, the protocols for deploying the gear, and the sample processing protocols. PSE&G assessed the level of consistency of sampling methods among years for the four sampling programs. The results. of this review are presented below.The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey (see Section VI.B.3) has maintained consistent sampling methods since 1980; therefore, PSE&G selected it for inclusion in the trends assessment. Since the start of the program, samples have always been collected in the region between RM62 (RK.M 100) and RM6 (RKM 10) on the Delaware side of the estuary, from April through October. The only exception is .1990 when no data were recorded in April and May.The DNREC Large Trawl Survey (see Section VI.B.2) has had several major changes in methods since it began in 1966. These changes include the following: type of boat used and possible associated changes in gear efficiencies, and changes in the months and locations of sampling. For these reasons, data from the DNREC Large Trawl Survey were judged to be inadequate for assessing long term trends, and therefore, are not, included in the analysis.The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey (see Section VI.B.4) has also had consistent sampling methods, and was selected for the trends assessment. Prior to 1986, the months and locations of sampling varied among years. However, since 1986 this program has sampled consistently from July through October, from approximately RM 60 (RKM 96)to RM 140 (RKM 224) (roughly from the C&D Canal to Trenton). For this reason, only the data from 1986 on were used in the analysis of trends.The PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey, which sampled from RM 40 (RKM 64) to RM 61 (RKM 97) (Section VI.B. 1) also had important changes in sampling methods since this program began in 1970. As discussed in Section VII.A, between 1970 and 1978 tows were made using a fixed-length towline, which caused some tows in deeper stations to sample above the bottom. PSE&G eliminated this problem in mid-1978 by switching to a variable-length towline--ensuring that the trawl sampled the bottom at all stations. This change in towline length would have altered the relative densities of demersal and pelagic fish species represented in the trawl samples between the 1970 to 1978 data, and the 1979 to 1998 data. Due to this inconsistency, data from 1970 to 1978 are not included in the trends analysis. In an effort to be more consistent with the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, PSE&G changed the direction of trawling from towing VII- 18 PSEG Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F with the current to towing into the current in 1995. This change would have altered the efficiency of the trawl for collecting fish, limiting the use of the data from these later years for a quantitative analysis of trends. Therefore, the data from 1995 through 1998 are not included in the trends analysis. VII.B.3. Methods VIZ B.3. a. Indices of Relative Abundance The analysis of trends in fish abundance rely on indices of relative abundance for each species of interest. Indices of relative abundance represent fish abundance in units ofmeasure such as catch per haul (CPH) that allow for interannual comparisons within asampling program, but do not contain information on the total number of fish in the population. Therefore, indices of relative abundance are appropriate for assessing trends within a sampling program-they cannot be used to chaiacterize the size of the fish population or to compare trends between programs because of differences in sampling methods. Appendix J to this Demonstration provides a detailed discussion of the methods that PSE&G used to calculate the indices of relative abundance for each species of interest.VII.B.3.a.i Temooral and Spatial Boundaries In order to improve the power of the tests for trends, the index of abundance for each species uses data collected in times when juvenile fish for the species of interest are expected to be present, and regions within the Delaware Estuary where they are expectedto be present. The appropriate times and places were identified from species specific life-history information presented in Appendix J and Appendix C. PSE&G then plotted the average catch-per-haul and length frequency in each month, region (PSE&G divided the river from RM 0 (RKM 0) to RM 140 (RK.M 224) into six regions), and year for each sampling program to confirm that catch rates were reasonably high in these times and places, and that the size of fish collected represented juveniles (age-0 fish). Thesetemporal and spatial boundaries for the sampling programs under consideration for the trends analysis are depicted in Figures 2 through 6.VII.B.3.a.ii Determination of Number of Juvenile Fish in Catches In order to determine the number of juvenile fish (i.e. age-0 fish) in catches from the three programs, PSE&G first determined the ages from length measurements recorded by the DNREC and PSE&G programs, then added up the number of fish in the length categories constituting juveniles. The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey dataset did not contain length VII- 19 .PSE&G Permit Application 4 Maxch 1999 Appendix F measurements,. and therefore could not be analyzed for age. Appendix J provides a detailed discussion of how PSE&G determined fish age.VIL.B.3.a.iii Catch per HaulPSE&G used a multi-stage procedure to estimate the average catch per haul (CPH) foreach species described in detail in Appendix J. For each of the three sampling programs, PSE&G calculated the average CPH for each age group for each regionand month selected for the particular species, and year. No indices of abundance were calculated for years without estimates of CPH for all selected combinations of month and region.VI1.B.3.b Statistical Methods for Analysis of TrendsPSE&G used two types of statistical. analyses for detecting trends from the relative abundance indices depending on the nature of the data from the sampling program: a test for difference in average CPH (analysis of differences) if sampling was discontinuous and consisted of two separate series of years (mean CPH from earlier years versus mean CPHfor later years); and linear regression on the remaining abundance index values.Appendix J to this Demonstration describes the statistical methods in detail.PSE&G conducted separate trends analysis for age-0 fish collected by the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, and the PSE&G Nearfield Trawl Survey, and for all fish collected by the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey because length data were not available in the dataset to determine age. Because beach seine surveys generally collect primarily age-0 fish that use the shallow beach areas as nursery ground, the trends analysis for the NJDEP survey is likely to be indicative of trends in juvenile abundance even if all ages are analyzed.For blue crab, PSE&G conducted a separate analysis for four length categories (21 to 50 mm, 51 to 100 num, greater than 100 mm, and all sizes collected). Change in abundance is summarized as percent change in the population per year in order to incorporateinformation on initial abundance, and the length of the period over which the change occurred. For example, a change of five fish per haul per year is more biologically meaningful when the initial abundance is two fish per haul than when it is 200 fish per haul.VIL.B.4 Results Tables 8 and 9 present a summary of the analysis of trends results. Table 8 presents the percent change in abundance per year of age-0 fish for DNREC and PSE&G programs, and all ages for the NJDEP program, and four size categories for blue crab. Table 9 presents the trends in abundance for age-0 fish and blue crab by program. Appendix J tothis Demonstration presents the detailed results of the analysis of trends for each species of interest. These results are summarized in the following paragraphs by species. VII-20 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VII.B.4.a AlewifeData from the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey show a significant increase in the abundance of juvenile alewife of 55.4 percent per year (Table 8). The alewife population appears to have produced several strong year classes during the 1990s (especially in 1993 and 1996), that are responsible for the significant upward trend detected in the DNR1EC Juvenile Trawl data. The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and the PSE&G Nearfield Trawl.Survey both suggested increasing abundance but neither produced statistically significant results (Table 9). Dove et al. (1995) report that alewife have probably benefited from improvements in water quality in the last decade and are now an abundant fish species in the upper estuary in summer and early fall.VII. B. 4. b American Shad The NJDEP Beach Seine survey provides the best information on changing indices of abundance of the three surveys because it samples the upper portion of the estuary where American shad spawn. For this reason, it was the only survey that PSE&G examined for trends. This survey indicated that for the period between 1987 to 1997, the rate of change in abundance per year was a significant increase of 7.3 percent (Table 8).Shad production declined in the Delaware during the early part of this century due to a variety of anthropogenic causes such as water pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, and construction of dams. During the middle of this century, severe water quality problems caused a complete oxygen block to fish passage in the reach between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey (Ellis et al. 1947; Albert 1988).American shad abundance began to recover during the 1960s with the improvements towater quality, and again in the early 1980s (USEPA 1998a). Spawning stock abundance of American shad has increased in recent years, according to the 1998 Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report (Santoro 1998).VII.B. 4. c Atlantic Croaker PSE&G's analysis of the relative abundance indices for all three programs indicates a significant increase in abundance of Atlantic croaker in the Delaware Estuary for age-0 and for all ages collected. For age-0 Atlantic croaker, the PSE&G Bottom Trawl survey indicates an annual rate of change in excess of 3000 percent due to the very low abundance of this species in the earlier years of the survey (Table 8). Although the increases in abundance were statistically significant for all three sampling programs (Table 9), the percent increase per year could not be calculated for age-0 croaker from theDNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey or all-aged croaker from the NJDEP Beach Seineprograms because the predicted initial population sizes were zeros.Atlantic croaker is a southern species that is not found in great numbers north of the Chesapeake Bay unless the coastal population abundance is high, or conditions are VII-21 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F favorable for expanding north in a given year (McHugh 1981). Delaware is considered the northernmost location where Atlantic croaker are caught in inshore fisheries (ASMFC 1987a). Coastwide commercial landings of this species have fluctuated widely over the past 50 years; the peaks in landings and northward expansions in range have been associated with warming trends and mild winters. Declines in landings through the 1960s and early 1970s have been attributed to cold winters and high fishing pressure (ASMFC 1987a). The subsequent increase in landings in the 1970s was attributed to warm winters (ASMFC 1987a). Landings in New Jersey and Delaware have tracked the coastwide landings-consistent with the observation that northward range expansion occurs concurrently with population increases and warmer winters. Delaware and New Jersey landings have shown dramatic increases since 1991, and the Maryland juvenile finfish survey for the Chesapeake Bay has also documented increases in the form of large year classes in 1993, 1996 and 1997 (ASMFC 1998d), and an even higher abundance index in 1998. (MDNR 1998).VIHB.4.d Bay Anchovy PSE&G detected a statistically significant decrease in bay anchovy abundance from the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl data (Tables 8 and 9), but this apparent decline was due to one exceptionally large abundance estimate in 1980 for age-0 bay anchovy. If this one year is removed from the time series, no statistically significant trend would occur. The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey data showed a statistically significant increase (24.4 percent per year, Table
- 8) in bay anchovy abundance (Table 9), and the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey suggested an increase that was not statistically significant (Tables 8 and 9). The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, which samples a much larger geographic area than the PSE&G Nearfield Survey, did not indicate an exceptionally high average CPH in 1980.This suggests that the high catch observed in the PSE&G collections represented a local condition, and was not representative of baywide abundance.
The DRBC has also concluded that the bay anchovy population has increased (Santoro 1998) in recent years. The abundance of bay anchovy in the Delaware Estuary appears to be highly variable; this species experiences considerable annual variation in either absolute or localized abundance or in recruitment from nearby coastal waters (Frithsefi et al. 1991). Many bay anchovy emigrate from the estuary in the fall and remain offshore until spring. Although bay anchovy are abundant in the lower estuary during the summer, an unknown fraction of the population remains offshore.VII. B. 4, e Blueback HerringBlueback herring showed a statistically significant decline in abundance using the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey (Table 9). The estimated rates of change in abundance were -7.6 percent per year (Table 8) based on data from the VII-22 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and -5.5 percent per year based on the DNREC JuvenileTrawl Survey (Table 8).Landings of river herring (which include blueback herring) in the Mid-Atlantic have declined dramatically since the mid-1960s and have remained very low in recent years (ASMFC 1998e). Fishing, deterioration of water quality and blockage of tributaries by dam constructionhave all been cited as causes of blueback declines (see Appendices C and H). The decline observed in the trends analysis for blueback herring were judged to be related to a coastwide decline in abundance. VII. B. 4.f SpotSpot showed statistically significant declines in abundance in data from the NJDEP (-8.1 percent per year) and DNREC programs (-2.4 percent per year) (Tables 8 and 9). Data from the PSE&G Bottom Trawl Survey showed no statistically significant change in abundance (Table 9). The apparent decline for spot was due to the exceptionally high average CPH in 1988. If this one year is removed from the time series, no statistically significant trends would occur.The Delaware Estuary is at the northern extent of the range of spot on the Atlantic coast (Sutton et al. 1996), with the area of greatest abundance extending from the Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina (ASMFC 1993). In the past, most commercial landings of spotwere from the Chesapeake and the south Atlantic (ASMFC 1987b), with landings from the south Atlantic greatly exceeding Chesapeake landings since 1960. Mid-Atlantic landings (New York, New Jersey, and Delaware) were insignificant from 1957 to 1986, and very low after that. NMFS data on commercial landings in Delaware and New Jersey between 1950 and 1997 (NMFS 1998c) suggest a decline in total landings from 1950 to 1970, wide fluctuations until 1983, and low landings since then. In 1987, the ASMFCconcluded that although catches have fluctuated widely since 1930, commercial landings of spot show no apparent trend.In evaluating the time series of spot abundance, PSE&G observed that years of peak in-estuary abundance of spot do not overlap with those of Atlantic croaker, another coastal spawning species in the same taxonomic family. This may be due to hydrodynamicconditions that affect transport from coastal waters, or due to some form of interspecific interaction. Either of these two factors may help explain the recent concurrent period oflow spot abundance and high Atlantic croaker abundance within the Delaware Estuary.VII.B.4.g Striped Bass Data from both the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey and the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey indicated statistically significant increases in abundance (Table 9). The NJDEP program clearly shows a steady increase in Delaware striped bass abundance since 1986 of 5.3 VII-23 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F percent per year for all age fish (Table 8). The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey shows an increase in abundance for age-0 striped bass of 40.4 percent per year (Table 8). For the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Program, an increase in abundance was suggested, but the differences in abundance were not significantly different (Tables 8 and 9). Much of the increases observed.in the trends analysis may be attributed to high CPH observed in 1993 and 1996. This was likely caused by striped bass of Chesapeake Bay origin that entered the Delaware Bay through the C&D Canal.Landings of striped bass along the Atlantic coast declined sharply during the late 1970s.In 1981, the ASMFC developed a fishery management plan to reduce fishing mortalityand rebuild the stock (ASMFC 1981). This plan was designed to protect the 1982 Chesapeake year class, the last abundant year class, until it had spawned a number of times. The first significant spawning of this year class was at age 7 in 1989, and another good year class produced in that year. Good year classes were also produced in 1993 and 1996, and the Chesapeake stock recovered rapidly (NMFS 1998a).During the 1970s and 1980s, the Delaware River stock displayed no indication of any significant production (ASMFC 19980. Until the 1980s, pollution and anoxic conditions had destroyed or blocked access to most of the Delaware Estuary striped bass spawning and nursery areas between Trenton and Wilmington (Kiry 1974; Wang and Kernehan1979). In recent years, striped bass have made a strong recovery in the Delaware Estuary, as shown by the resurgence in spawning success in the river (Santoro 1998). Because of the improved conditions, the ASMFC has declared the Delaware stock restored.VII.B.4.h Weakfish PSE&G identified statistically significant, steadily increasing trends in abundance for weakfish from the DNREC Juvenile Trawl program (Table 9). The estimated rate of increase for age-0 fish for this program was 18.7 percent per year (Table 8). The NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and PSE&G's Nearfield Survey data indicated no statistically significant trends in abundance (Table 9).The increasing trend in weakfish in the Delaware mirrors an increasing trend in the coastwide stock. According to NMFS (1998a), weakfish abundance levels are increasing; recovering from the low stock abundance levels reached of the early 1990s. With continued low fishing mortality rates and good recruitment, NMFS anticipates that the age structure of weakfish stocks should reach levels observed in the early 1980s. NMFS observed that the 1996 abundance at age 5 was the highest since 1984, and that the abundance of age 2 and 3 fish exceeded the values from the 1980s by an order of magnitude (NMFS 1998a). As another indication of an increasing trend, the 1998 Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report (Santoro 1998) concluded that the 1996 annual weakfish density was the highest recorded for the entire time series that began in 1966.VII-24 PSE&G Penrmit Application 4 March 1999 Appcndix F VI. B. 4. i White Perch All three surveys indicated statistically significant increases in abundance for white perch (Table 9). For age-O fish, the rates of increase in abundance were 91.4 percent per year in the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, 12.6 percent per year for the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey , and 41.7 percent per year for the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey (Table 8).White perch have increased in abundance since the mid-1 980s, coincident with water quality improvements in the region between Philadelphia and Camden. Although white perch spawning and nursery habitat is located considerably north of the pollution block (Weisberg and Burton 1993), the block could have affected movements and dispersal of adults and juveniles from spawning and nursery areas in the summer.VII. B.4.j Blue Crab The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey data indicate a significant increase in abundance for the four size categories analyzed (See Appendix J for analysis of individual size classes).The estimated rate of change in abundance is 7.6 percent per year for the size category that combined all sizes (Tables 8 and 9).The blue crab fishery in the Delaware Estuary has increased from less than one million pounds per year in the mid- 1940s to approximately 10 million pounds in 1990 (Killam and Richkus 1992). The increase in landings of blue crabs in the estuary has occurred 0 during a period of increasing blue crab abundance (Figures 17 and 18). Seagraves and Cole (1989) reported that blue crab recruitment appeared to be much greater in the late 1980s than in the 1970s. However, the blue crab population may currently be showing signs of overfishing because the catch per unit effort (the number of crabs caught per pot per day) has decreased (-USEPA 1998a).VII.B.5 Continuous Decline in Population Abundance: Summary Populations of alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch, and blue crab, are increasing in abundance in the Delaware Estuary. Statistically significant declines in average CPH were detected only for blueback herring and spot. Blueback herring appear to be experiencing a declining trend in the Delaware Estuary, mirroring the coastwide decline in abundance that started in the late 1960s discussed in Appendix H to this Demonstration. The apparent decline for spot was due to the exceptionally high average CPH in 1988. If this one year is removed from the time series, no statistically significant trends would occur. Spot is a coastal, ocean-spawning species that occasionally enters the Delaware in large numbers but can also be almost absent. The Delaware Estuary is at the northern limit of its range.VII-25 PSF G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Statistically significant increases in CPH were detected for bay anchovy in the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey; increases, although not statistically significant, were also detected for bay anchovy in the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey. The apparent decline for bay anchovy observed in the PSE&G Nearfield Trawl Survey was due to exceptionally high average CPH in 1980.. The DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, which samples a much larger geographic area than the PSE&G Nearfield Survey, did not indicate an exceptionally high average CPH in 1980. This suggests that the high catch observed in the PSE&G 1980 collections represented a local condition, and was not representative of baywide abundance. For this reason, it was concluded that bay anchovy abundances are increasing in the Delaware Estuary. This increase is consistent with findings of a report by Santoro (1998), who reported a resurgence in bay anchovy abundance in recent years. The results of the trends analysis discussed above clearly demonstrate that there is no evidence of a continuing decline in the abundance of finfish RIS and blue crab. The fact that most of these species have increased in abundance leads to the conclusion that the second benchmark of adverse environmental impact (continuing decline in abundances of aquatic species) must be rejected. This conclusion is strongly supported by rigorous statistical analysis.VII.C. Reductions in Stock Benchmark The methods selected for use in modeling potential current and future impacts of Station operation on the RIS populations in the Delaware use techniques that draw on experiences from fishery management. The primary models utilized in this Appendix evaluate the effect of predicted Station-related losses (at maximum flows) under equilibrium conditions on spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBPR) and spawning stock biomass (SSB), the two metrics most commonly used by fishery managers to establish maximum fishing rates for managed stocks. In this section, these same techniques are used to evaluate and express plant-related losses in the context of stock sustainability. VII. C.1. Rationale for Methods Evaluation of power plant impacts on aquatic populations has been the subject of study over the past 30 years. Models have formed the basis of all previous quantitative analysis of power plant impacts on fish populations and in the absence of a time series of abundance estimates, there is no method available that is not model based. As described in Section IV, the previous Section 316(b) Demonstration at Salem also involved the use of quantitative models including the conditional mortality rate (CMR), Lost Reproductive Potential (LRP), and Equivalent Adult (EAM) models, which attempted to quantitatively measure losses in a population context. The CMR was the primary measure of population-level impacts used in the previous demonstration. The CMR provides a measure of the short-term impacts of entrainment and impingement on individual year classes. However, because, it does not consider the influences of compensatory processes UI VII-26 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F that operate in all fish populations and permit them to persist in spite of intensive harvesting by man, the CMR cannot be used to interpret long-term impacts of entrainment and impingement. As documented in Appendix I, scientific understanding of compensation has increased considerably in recent years and the techniques used by fisheries managers to establish maximum fishing rates for managed stocks either implicitly or explicitly incorporate compensation. For this demonstration, these same techniques are used to assess population-level impacts of entrainment and impingement at Salem.VII. C.i.a. The CMR is Not an Indicator of Stock Jeopardy The CMR is a measure of the impact of station mortality on the abundance of fish populations, independent of the effects of natural mortality. These two sources of mortality can be defined as: M = instantaneous rate of mortality due to natural causes F = instantaneous rate of mortality due to power plants.These mortality rates can be used to calculate the reduction in numbers of a population of fish during a specific time period, e.g., between the time that eggs are spawned and thetime that the young fish reach one year of age. In the absence of mortality due to a power plant, the number of eggs (NO) surviving to reach age I (Nt) is given by: NI = Noe-" (1)The fraction of the initial population surviving to age 1 is equal to eM, and the fraction dying is equal to (1-e M). If, in addition to natural mortality, the young fish are also susceptible to power-plant related mortality, the number of organisms surviving to age I is determined by the sum of the instantaneous rates of natural and power-plant mortality: N, = Noe-(x'.) = Noe. e-M (2)The mortality risk due to the power plant is (1-e-'), the "conditional mortality rate" or CMR. It is called "conditional" because it is an estimate of the probability of mortality due only to the power plant, in the absence of all other sources of mortality. The CMR is also a measure of the reduction in the number of fish due to entrainment and impingement expressed as a fraction of the fish at age 1 that would have been present in the absence of station mortality. Suppose that in the absence of the plant N, fish would have survived. With the plant operating, NI., survive. The reduction in numbers of VII-27 PSE&O Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F surviving fish due to the plant, relative to the number thatwould have survived without the plant is: N, -No (e. e-(W--)o- NICA1(3)=( -e- =CMR The CMR can be used as an input to models that relate reductions in abundance at age 1 to reductions in the abundance (SSB) or reproductive potential (SSBPR) of the adult stock. The CMR does not, however, measure the fraction of the initial population would have survived in the absence of entrainment and impingement. This fraction, which may be termed the additional mortality (AM) due to plant operations, is given by: AM = N, 1- 1 P NO(eT -e-rF))No No (4)e=_e (I _ e-F) = e- (C.fR)The increase in numbers killed due to the plant, relative to the number that would have died of natural causes is a function of the natural mortality rate. If the natural mortality rate is very high, as it always is for early life stages of fish, then even a CMR as high as 20% can result in a very small increase in the proportion of fish that die.The relative importance of natural and power plant mortality or survival to age I is illustrated in Figure 17. Figure 17 shows the decline in 1000 fish at age-0 (N-) to age 1 with natural mortality and with and without power-plant mortality. Line A reflects only a natural mortality rate (M) of 1.0 acting on the abundance of fish at age-0. The resulting abundance at age I is equal to 1000 fish times the fraction surviving from age-0 to age 1: N, = 1000e- =368 Line B reflects a CMR of 0.2 in addition to the natural mortality in line A. The corresponding power-plant mortality rate (F) is determined by: F =-ln(1 -CMR) =-ln(1 -.2) = 0.223 (5)The abundance at age I from line B is equal to: N,= 1 000eC(-0+°-2) = 294 The difference between these two values, 74 fish, is the number of fish that actually would have survived to age I in the absence of power-plant mortality. This is only 7.4%VII-28 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F of the original population of 1000 age-0 fish. In reality, natural mortality rates for early life stages of fish are very much higher than the value used in this example. For a natural mortality rate (M) of 6.9, corresponding to a survival fraction of 0.1% of the age-0 fish, then out of 1 million age-0 fish 999,000 would be expected to die. With a power plant, at the same CMR value (0.2), 999,200 fish would die from the combined effects of power-plant and fishing mortality. The 200 additional fish would represent only 0.02% of the initial population. This is true even if the total losses, i.e., the number of fish entrained or impinged, appear to be high. This number can be calculated from the following equation, which relates the exploitation rate at the plant (up), defined as the ratio of the number of fish killed by the plant (Lp) to the initial population: L _ F(I -e-( +F))up=No M + F(6-NF(l -LP, = ( -O eM " +F) (7)M+FFor the example above with an M of 6.9 and a CMR of 0.2 (F=.223), approximately 31,300 (3.1%) of the original one million age-0 fish would have been entrained or impinged. However, all but 200 hundred of these, or 99.3% of the total losses, would have died anyway from natural causes.Figure 18 illustrates this difference. The upper curve shows the exploitation rate due to the plant corresponding to a CMR of 0.1, as a function of natural mortality (M). The exploitation rate declines with increasing M; as implied by equation (6). The lower curve shows the additional mortality, AM. For an M of 6.9, a CMR of 0.1 corresponds to an additional mortality of only 0.01%. Estimates of reduced abundance at age 1 due to plant operations were calculated for every species and year for which a CMR could be estimated. Results are used in Appendix H to interpret entrainment and impingement losses in the context of natural mortality rates in fish populations. In the remainder of Section VII.C., CMRs are used as inputs to models that interpret entrainment and impingement losses in the context of stock jeopardy.VII. C.1. b. Methods Used to Measure Jeopardy for Fish Stocks The models used for the current assessment extend PSE&Gs earlier impact assessment approaches (described in Section TV), drawing on recent advances in fisheries science and management practice. The SSBPR model as used in the current assessment is essentially the same concept as the LRP used in previous assessments. It is derived from the VII-29 0 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F':Compensation Ratio" approach introduced by Goodyear (1977) as an alternative to stock-recruitment modeling for estimating the long-term impacts of power plants on fish populations. The SSBPR approach was subsequently adapted for use in stock assessments (Sissenwine and Shepherd 1987, Gabriel et al. 1989, Goodyear 1993, Mace and Sissenwine 1993) and is now the most widely used approach for establishing"biological reference points" for exploited fish populations. Appendix I of this application presents a detailed examination of the operation of compensation in fish populations andhow it is used to get these reference points.The SSBPR approach does not quantify density-dependence, and so cannot actually estimate impacts of fishing or power plants on the total abundance of a population (Goodyear 1993). Estimating effects of fishing or power plants on total spawning stock biomass (SSB) requires knowledge of stock-recruitment relationships. Stock-recruitment data are still available for a relatively small fraction of exploited species. However, existing information has advanced considerably and is now sufficient to draw general inferences concerning the influence of fish life history on stock-recruitment relationships (Clark 1991; Winemiller and Rose 1992; Mace and Sissenwine 1993; Myers and Mertz 1998). Knowledge concerning the life histories of the RIS was combined with data on stock-recruitment relationships in species with similar life histories to develop estimates of the probable strength of density-dependence present in the species vulnerable to entrainment and impingement at Salem. The resulting models permit estimation of the likely range of responses of spawning stock biomass to impacts of Salem.Stock assessment models are not applicable to macrozooplankton species such as opossum shrimp and scud. For these species, a local depletion model (LDM) is employed to evaluate the effect of plant operations on macroinvertebrate species in the vicinity of the Station intake.VII. C. 2. Biological Reference Points for Fish Stocks Fisheries managers employ biological reference points to evaluate the status of a fish stock and to guide them in setting allowable fishing rates. Managers commonly set fishing rates using two mortality-based biological reference points: yield per recruit (YPR) and spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBPR) (NRC 1998). YPR, based on measurements of catch, and SSBPR, based on measures of remaining egg production, have been used to determine whether a stock is being "overfished." Current practice in fisheries management is to determine the relationship between these per recruit measures and a specified fishing mortality rate (denoted F), and then to setallowable fishing rates accordingly. These rates are referred to as fishing mortality reference points. Yield-based measures have traditionally been used to determine if"growth overfishing" is occurring -- whether individuals are caught before they have VII-30 PSE&G Permit Appfication 4 March 1999 Appendix F grown to a size that will maximize YPR.' Spawning biomass-based measures are used to determine if"recruitment overfishing" is occurring -- whether fishing will affect the stock's ability to replace itself. Recruitment overfishing, rather than growth overfishing, is now the preferred approach to establishing overfishing reference points because recruitment overfishing has been recognized as the major threat fishing poses to the long-term sustainability of fish stocks. Recent fishery management regulations implementing the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act) call for overfishing definitions to be based on measures of spawning biomass or other measures of productive capacity (NMFS 1998a). Our use of biomass-based measures of recruitment overfishing as measures of the impact of Salem on fish populations is, therefore, consistent with current fisheries management practice.VII. C. 2. a. Use of SSBPR to Define Biological Reference Points SSBPR can be expressed in two ways: as the total weight of mature spawning stock that would be generated over the lifetime of an individual recruit, or as the expected lifetime egg production-of an individual recruit. From the perspective of population dynamics egg production is the more relevant measure, but stock biomass per recruit is often easier to estimate from typical fisheries data. Because the fecundity of most fish is proportional to weight, in practice these two measures of SSBPR can usually be used interchangeably. One of the critical questions in fish population dynamics has been how much spawningstock must be left to sustain a population, i.e., allow a population to replace itself (IMaceand Sissenwine 1993). The use of SSBPR to define biological reference points is grounded in the assumption that the lifetime reproductive capacity of a typical recruit provides an indirect measure of the replacement capability of a population (Goodyear1977, 1993). As fishing mortality (F) increases, SSBPR always decreases. Individuals don't live as long and therefore produce less spawning biomass or eggs per recruit. This is illustrated in Figure 19.Recruitment in many fish populations does not seem to be closely tied to the number of eggs produced. However there is strong evidence that beyond some point reduced egg production will lead to low recruitment (Sissenwine and Shepherd 1987, Mace and Sissenwine 1993, Myers et al. 1995). Analyses of relationships between SSBPR and recruitment in a variety of fish stocks (Clark 1991, Mace and Sissenwine 1993) indicate YPR is the total weight of the catch that can be expected from a single recruit and is simply the sum over all ages of the probability an individual will live to that age, times the probability of being captured at that age times the weight at age. As F increases from 0 the YPR initially increases, but in many cases, as F continues to increase the YPR begins to decline as few individuals survive the fishery enough years to grow to be very large. The value ofF that maximizes the YPR is denoted Fm= and is commonly acknowledged as a guideline for growth overfishing; any F over Fm= results in a loss of yield even if recruitment is constant.VII-31 PSE&G Permit Applica~ion at4 March 1999.Appendix F that SSBPR can be used to define conservative. "default" biological reference points for regulating fishing mortality. (NRC 1998).The two reference points most commonly used in the past are F35% and F, 0%. F35% is thefishing mortality rate that will lead to a SSBPR that is 35% of the value when the stock is unfished (F=0). F35 1% is often used as a default goal for achieving maximum sustained yield (MSY). Similarly F,o% is the fishing mortality rate that will lead to a SSBPR that is 20% of the value when there is no fishing. F 2 ,.% has been used as a default threshold reference point for recruitment overfishing. IfF consistently exceeds F 2 0 , then significant declines in recruitment may occur. Although typical fish stocks may be able to maintain recruitment at F, 0.%, some stocks are more sensitive to fishing and cannotsustain exploitation at this level (Mace and Sissenwine 1993). Hence, for stocks that are believed to have a low compensatory capacity or for which little information on compensatory capacity is available, a more conservative overfishing reference point, F30%,, is often used. On the other hand, when existing information for a'stock suggests a relatively high compensatory capacity exists, stock-recruitment models may (see below)be used to quantify the effects of compensation on stock biomass (SSB) and yield.VII C.2. b. Biological Reference Points Using SSB SSBPR does not explicitly include specific information on the spawner-recruit relationship, which means the predicted stock size output will not take into account population-level responses to mortality such as density-dependent compensation. When sufficient information is available, fisheries managers can set biomass based biological reference points, which are defined by observed stock-recruitment data or from fitted spawner recruitment relationships (NRC 1998). Biological reference points for the Atlantic coastal striped bass, American shad, and weakfish populations are currently defined based on SSB (Crecco 1997; NMFS 1998a).Biomass-based reference points establish an estimated remaining percentage of an unexploited stock size (in total biomass SSB) that would maintain a stock at a desired level. One biomass-based threshold is the SSB corresponding to 50 percent of the maximum expected recruitment from a stock in the unfished state (known as 50% B £, Mace 1994). NMFS regulations implementing the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments adopt this reference point as a biomass threshold (BdMod), because it would be close to 20% SSB (20%B.), a level below which NMFS states that a stock should not be allowed to fall (NMFS 1998). Generally, more data are required to set SSB reference points than those based on SSSBPR and YPR, though SSB reference points are now being employed to manage a number of marine stocks (NRC 1998).VII-32 PSF&G Permit Application 4 Match 1999 Appendix F VII. C.3. Introduction to Stock Modeling ConceptsAs with all modeling, stock assessment modeling rests on certain concepts, limitations and assumptions. These concepts must be borne in mind when evaluating model results, and are described below. In addition, this section briefly describes the two models employed in this assessment. VII. C. 3. a. Differences Between Fishing Mortality and Power-Plant-Related Mortality A fundamental assumption made in this assessment is that the effects of power-plant-related mortality on population sustainability are qualitatively identical to the effects of fishing. Both sources of mortality remove fish from the population, thus eliminating their contributions to future generations of fish. It does not matter if a fish is killed by a power plant or by a fisherman; in either case it is gone from the population. There are, however, two major differences between power plant mortality and fishing mortality: (1) for most species, power plants kill fish at a much earlier age than do fishermen, and (2) for most species, a fish is vulnerable to fishermen for many more years than it is vulnerable to power plants.The importance of these differences is illustrated in Figure 20. This figure shows, for a hypothetical fish population with a relatively long life-span (like striped bass or weakfish), the comparative influence of power-plant-related mortality vs. fishing mortality on SSBPR. The fish are assumed to be vulnerable to entrainment and impingement for only their first year of life. The fish are assumed to become sexually mature at age 5, the same .age at which they enter the fishery. They are then assumed to be vulnerable to fishing at the same rate for the remainder of their lives.As shown in Figure 20, a fishing rate (F) due to power plants of 0.1, which is equivalent to a CMR of 0.095, reduces SSBPR to 90% of the SSBPR of an unexploited population, and a power-plant F of 0.4 (equivalent to a CMR of 0.33) reduces SSBPR to 67% of the unexploited population. In contrast, a fishing F of 0.1 reduces SSBPR to 51% of the unexploited value and a fishing F of 0.4 reduces SSBPR to 17% of the unexploited value, below the F, 0% biological reference point. Commonly, commercial stocks such as weakfish and striped bass are fished at F, at the high end of this range. (See Section VII.C.6). Although the degree of difference between power plants varies with life history-the difference is greater for long-lived species exposed to fishing for many years than for short-lived species exposed to fishing for a few years -the general pattern described above holds for most of the species included in this assessment. VII-33 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F VII. C. 3. b. Use of the Equilibrium Assumption' Detailed information concerning historic trends in spawning stock size, recruitment, natural mortality, and exploitation history are unavailable for most fish populations. In the absence of this detailed information, fisheries scientists employ methods that require less extensive data and, correspondingly, produce less precise results. One frequently used assumption under these circumstances is that the populations being assessed are at or near equilibrium conditions. Given estimates of vital rates and fishing and power-plant mortality, the SSBPR and SBB methods quantify the expected average behavior of populations over long time periods, assuming constant parameter values.Use of the equilibrium assumption greatly simplifies the assessment process. If fishing mortality and plant mortality are held constant for a long period of time and the environment remains unchanged, a population will stabilize at a constant level determined only by the balance between reproduction and mortality. Changes in the equilibrium state of the population can be calculated as functions of alternative rates of fishing and power-plant mortality. These analyses can be used to address questions concerning the average magnitude of changes in yield or recruitment for alternative plant operational scenarios or future fishing rates. This process is similar to a financial analyst evaluating the expected rate of return under different investment strategies. The analyst knows that the actual rate of return on any given stock is a function of a great variety of factors, most of which are unpredictable. However, using sets of simple assumptions about future conditions, the analyst can compare different investment strategies. The results provide information concerning the relative profitability of different strategies, but they cannot reliably predict the rate of return from any given strategy. Both the SSBPR model and the stock-recruitment model used in this analysis to estimate SSB are equilibrium models. They can be used to compare SSBPR and SSB estimated under alternative fishing regimes and plant operating scenarios to the SSBPR and SSB of unfished stocks. However, they cannot provide accurate numerical predictions concerning the future abundance or reproductive success. Moreover, these approaches cannot account for future increases in stock productivity resulting from water-quality improvements or habitat changes (e.g.,,marsh restoration activities). VII. C 3. c. Definition of Population Boundaries A population, defined in biological terms, is a reproductively self-sustaining group of organisms. The purpose of defining biological reference points for recruitment overfishing is to prevent fishing mortality from becoming large enough to threaten the long-term sustainability of self-reproducing populations of fish. The spawning stock, therefore, is the population of interest for assessment of fish population sustainability. For some species, it is fairly easy to define the spawning stock and to estimate that rate of fishing mortality being imposed on that stock. White perch populations are estuarine-VII-34 PSF&G Pemit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F resident, so that the spawning stock in the Delaware Estuary is distinct and reproductively isolated (except for occasional immigration and emigration) from stocks in other eastcoast estuaries. The coastal population of American shad is composed of discrete spawning stocks associated with major rivers such as the Connecticut River, Hudson River, and Delaware River. These different stocks possess different life history characteristics and are subject to different fishing regimes. At least during spawning, the stocks are spatially distinct and can be studied separately.The boundaries of the Delaware River striped bass population are more difficult to define.The coastal stock is managed as a single unit because the species is highly migratory andfish spawned in the Delaware may be caught anywhere from North Carolina to Massachusetts. A subcomponent of the coastal population spawns in the Delaware Estuary, but the degree of reproductive isolation of that population is still uncertain. Evidence summarized in Section VII.C.6.b. indicates that at least in some years a substantial fraction of the age-0 striped bass present in the vicinity of Salem and throughout the lower estuary are actually spawned in Chesapeake Bay, or the C & D Canal.For other species such as bay anchovy, weakfish, spot, and croaker, there is no discretespawning stock associated with the Delaware Estuary. These species reproduce as mixed coastal spawning stocks. Only a fraction of the spawning stock is ever present in theDelaware Estuary. For such species, biological reference points such as F 3 0% are meaningful only if applied to the coastal stock.VII.C.3.d The SSBPR Model The SSBPR model is an equilibrium model that estimates the lifetime reproductive output of a recruit (usually defined as a one-year-old fish), accounting for the expected reproduction of the fish at each future age and the probability that the fish will survive to reach that age. Calculating reproductive potential is analogous to estimating your expected future earnings, accounting for the money you expect to earn in future years and the probability that you will still be alive to earn it. The percent reduction in SSBPR,.as compared to the SSBPR of a stock without the added impact of Salem, is identical to the LRP model employed in previous assessments for Salem. As noted by Goodyear (1993), SSBPR can be defined either in terms of egg production per recruit or in terms of pounds of spawning stock per recruit. Because the number ofeggs produced by a fish is proportional to its weight, assessments performed using both indices usually produce essentially the same result.VII-35 PSE&G Permit Applicarion 4.Njlach 1999 Appendix F VII. C 3. e. Use of Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis to Estimate SSB The SSBPR approach does not explicitly estimate the influence of reduced egg production on future recruitment or spawning stock size (SSB). Any such calculation requires a spaw-ner-recruit model, which expresses the dependence of subsequent recruitment on stock size (reflecting the action of density dependent compensation at different stock sizes). The Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis ("ES-RA") provides a means of calculating this relationship for a particular stock.Models that incorporate the spawner-recruit relationship such as the ES-R.A permit evaluation of stock status against total biomass-based biological reference points (e.g., BNfsy. or B,Q./). The basic data relied upon in the ES-RA are recruitment, natural mortality, growth, maturity, fishing mortality and impingement and entrainment mortality. The analysis employs a spawner-recruit model that allows for density dependence; this model is incorporated into the ES-RA as a parameter referred to as "steepness" in combination with the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment curve. Figure 21 illustrates the relationshipbetween spawning stock and recruitment using the Beverton-Holt curve. The Beverton-Holt curve is precautionary because it does not allow for declining recruitment at higher.stock sizes, which has been observed in some stocks ("overcompensation"). Figure 21 shows that as the spawning stock size rises, the recruitment on average increases. At higher spawning stocks there is little, if any increase in recruitment. In the long term un.fished state spawning stock would be called BO, and the recruitment RO. This figure is drawn with the spawning stock scaled so that the SSB in the unfished state (Bo) is given the value 1.Where data are needed to estimate the compensatory reserve of a particular species of fish (the "steepness" of the stock-recruitment curve for that species), a meta-analysis of stockswith similar characteristics are conducted to obtain this parameter, as discussed in The section that follows. While it is true that estimating distributions of steepness is new inthis application to power plant impacts, such meta-analysis has been used in fisheries management. McAllister et al. (1994) used the Myers et al. (1995) database to estimate a distribution for steepness for a commercial fishery in New Zealand. The biologicalreference points of F20.., F30.,. and F 3 ,, for SSBPR are also derived from meta-analyses by Clark (1991, 1993) and Mace and Sissenwine (1993) on a much smaller database than the Myers et al. (1995) data that are used in this assessment. The rationale for quantifying compensation, documented examples of compensation operating in fish populations, and procedures and data available for quantifying compensation are provided in the Appendix I.Given parameters describing these processes, the ES-RA calculates equilibrium stock size as a function of plant and fishing mortality. Where parameters such as mortality rates are uncertain, a Monte-Carlo analysis using a probability distribution of values from the VII-36 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F literature or best professional judgement is performed to express the range of uncertainty of these parameters. VII. C.3.f Quantifying the Strength of Compensation The use of data from diverse studies to estimate parameters using vigorous statistical methods is known as meta-analysis. Hierarchical meta-analysis (Mace and Sissenwine 1993; Myers and Mertz 1998) can be used to develop a parameter from values for that parameter for other stocks under the assumption that the stocks differ in that parameter. This approach is employed to estimate the compensatory reserve parameter, or"steepness" in the ES-RA.A major area of discussion in past modeling has been the intensity of compensation in fish populations in general, and the specific populations under consideration here.McFadden (1977) argued by analogy that many fish populations show compensation, thus we should expect compensation to ameliorate the impact of power plants. A collection of 550 different spawner recruit data sets from around the world is nowavailable (Myers et al. 1995). This data set was used to develop probability distributions for the intensity of compensation in the fish populations being addressed in this assessment. The procedures used to assign "steepness" values to the modeled stocks are documented in Attachment F-2.VII C. 3.g. Key Uncertainties in Stock Modeling The approaches in this assessment are useful approximations, but require a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify and involve a variety of parameters for which available estimates are usually highly uncertain. The key uncertainties include: The assumption of equilibrium. As noted above, equilibrium models provide many useful insights concerning the impacts of fishing and power plants on fish populations. However, the reliance on the equilibrium assumption limits the analyses to general conclusions concerning the average behavior of populations under constant conditions. Effects of temporal changes that increase or decrease stock productivity cannot be evaluated. Imprecise estimates of key life history parameters. Results of stock modeling exercises can be highly sensitive to estimates of life history parameters, especially mortality rates for early life stages. Natural mortality rates are among the most difficult of all life history parameters to estimate.VII-37 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Imprecise definitions ofpopulation boundaries. For some species, assumptions must be made concerning the contribution of the Delaware Estuary to coastwide spawning stocks.Empirical data to support these judgements are very imprecise. Form of stock recruitment relationship. The Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment model was used in the ES-RA for all species. The Ricker stock-recruitment model would have been equally applicable, and both are at best approximations to the actual unknown forms of stock-recruitment relationships present in real fish populations. Timing of compensation. The equilibrium analysis assumes that compensation is limited to the first year of life, between spawners and 1 year old recruits. Other forms of compensation are well established in fish population studies including density dependent growth and maturity (Appendix I), and density dependent survival after the first birthday (Myers et al. 1995). A related issue is the timing of compensation in relation to entrainment and impingement losses.All of the above uncertainties occur in fish stock assessments as well as power-plant impact assessments. Model-specific limitations are discussed in the description of the models used in the assessment, below.VII. C.4. Methods Used to Measure Biological Reference Points in Fish Stocks Both the SSBPR and ES-RA approaches were used to evaluate affects of entrainment and impingement at Salem on fish stocks in the context of fishing. For each of the finfish RIS. an SSBPR analysis was performed using data available from the ASMFC and from other sources. The SSBPR approach was used to compare the effects of power plants to the effects of fishing and to determine whether the combined effects of both could adversely affect the stocks. The advantage of using this approach is that compensation can be addressed, at least indirectly, without developing stock-recruitment models or other models with density-dependent parameters. In addition, an ES-RA was performed for most RIS stocks, using newly-available scientific estimates of the compensatory capacity of fish populations. This analysis quantifies the influence of a given anthropogenic source of mortality, fishing or entrainment and impingement, on the expected spawning stock size, relative to biomass-based reference points.These assessments are primarily predictive rather than retrospective. The best available evidence concerning the historic impacts of Salem on finfish species is provided by the time series of actual observations of commnunity structure and population abundance, as documented in Sections VII.A. and VII.B. The assessments provided in Section VII.C.are intended to support the retrospective analyses and to address the potential impacts of Salem under future conditions in which the Station operates at full capacity, and thus cooling withdrawal rates are higher than those that have occurred in the past. For this VII-38 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F purpose, the assessment models documented in Section VII.C.A. are applied using projected CMRs (Attachment F-2) estimated assuming rwo-unit operation, design flow withdrawals by each pump, and no shutdowns other than scheduled maintenance. The results provide predictions concerning the potential future status of the modeled stocks, assuming that the fisheries will be managed consistent with the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and ASMFC management plans and that Salem will operate at maximum generating capacity and cooling-water withdrawals. VII. C. 4. a. Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit (SSBPR) Model This section describes the model methods. Results of the modeling appear in Section VII.C.6.VII.C.4.a.i. How SSBPR Model Evaluates Stock Status The SSBPR Model considers the reproductive capacities of organisms entrained and impinged by estimating the fractional change in reproductive capacity (measured as SSBPR biomass per recruit) of a given species as a result of station operation. For fish that spawn prior to their interaction with the Station (and thus have already contributed to maintenance of the population before they are cropped), it allows consideration of this fact and thus provides a more realistic perspective on entrainment and impingement losses as they relate to future generations. The SSBPR compares biomass per recruit with and without station operation, essentially converting life-stage specific CMRs into an0 equivalent reduction in spawning stock biomass. VII.C.4.a.ii. Use of SSBPR Model to Model Effects on RIS SSBPR was estimated using age-specific weights, sex ratios, maturity schedules and mortality rates obtained from the ASMFC (first choice) or from other published sources (if estimates were unavailable from ASMFC). Sources of these parameters are documented in Appendix L. Life history parameters are listed in Tables 10 through 17,The following values were estimated for most of the RIS:-Total SSBPR as a function of F, without consideration of the impact of entrainment and impingement. -Total SSBPR as a function of F, including the impact of entrainment and impingement as estimated from the "predictive CMRs". The station-equivalent, F, defined as the fishing rate that would be exactly equivalent to the impacts of entrainment and impingement in terms of impact on spawning stock biomass. This value is estimated by (1) calculating the combined VII-39 PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F effects of fishing and Salem on SSBPR, and then (2) calculating the fishing rate that produces exactly the same value of SSBPR, assuming no Station operation. The above three measures permit (1) direct comparison, in common units, of the impacts of entrainrnent/impingement vs. fishing on the long-term reproductive potential of the affected populations, and (2) evaluation of whether the combined effects of power plants and fishing reduce spawning stock biomass to a level that would warrant management concern.VII.C.4.a.iii. Model Limitations The SSBPR model is a default approach for assessing the long-term impacts of mortality on the sustainability of fish populations. It does not predict actual numbers or biomass.The biological reference points developed for SSBPR measures are approximations based on observations of stock dynamics in a limited number of fish species. Reference points such as F30 , are deliberately intended to err on the side of stock protection. (Mace and Sissenwine 1993). Recruitment even in populations with low compensatory capabilities is unlikely to be threatened if fishing (or fishing combined with power plants) does not exceed F 3%., VI. C. 4. b. Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis The ES-RA extends the SSBPR approach by considering.(l) uncertainty concerning the values of critical life history parameters, and (2) the relationship between SSB and recruitment. VII.C.4.b.i Use of Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis to Model Effects on RIS SSB was estimated by the ES-RA using the method described in Attachment F-2. Source of these parameters are fully documented in Attachment F-2 and Appendix L. The ES-RA analysis is performed in two steps: First, the impacts of fishing and power plants on spawning stock biomass per egg (SSBPE) was investigated. The influence of uncertainties concerning values of critical life history parameters was quantified using Monte-Carlo analysis. This process involved specifying input probability distributions for key parameters, drawing sets of values at random from those distributions, and using the randomly defined parameter sets to calculate probability distributions of SSBPE for fished populations as compared to unfished populations. VII-40 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F In the second step of the analysis, the SSBPE estimates were combined with species-specific stock-recruitment relationships to obtain estimates of the long-term reduction in total spawning stock biomass (with and without entrainment/impingement) compared to the expected stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield (MSY). For the spawner-recruit steepness, probability distributions of values were derived from the meta-analysis described in Attachment F-2. We drew 1000 values of the parameters from their distributions and calculated the outcomes, which are shown both graphically as frequency distributions, and as the median and percentile values in tables.The following values were estimated for each species:-The total spawning stock biomass, relative to the biomass at B0,, considering effects of compensation. -The probability that the spawning stock biomass will be higher than the biomass at The above two measures permit evaluation of whether, considering the combined effects of parameter uncertainty and biological compensation, entrainment and impingement could have adverse impacts on vulnerable fish populations. VIIC.4.b.ii. Model Limitations Most of the same limitations that apply to the SSBPR model also apply to the ES-RA.However, the spawner-per-recruit analysis is less conservative because it explicitly accounts for compensation using stock-recruitment relationships. This permits a less conservative biomass-based reference point, BQo, to be substituted for the more conservative F30 ,% used in the SSBPR analysis.VII. C5. Local Depletion Model for Opossum Shrimp and Scud The stock assessment models described above are not very useful for assessing impacts of Salem on macroinvertebrates such as opossum shrimp and scud. For these species a local Depletion Model was used.VII.C.5.a.i. Local Depletion Model Populations of opossum shrimp and scud have relatively rapid turnover rates. Several overlapping generations are produced per year, and reproduction rates and mortality rates are both very high. Given the size of the Estuary and the natural renewal rates of these organisms relative to plant withdrawals, it is not plausible that Salem could measurably deplete opossum shrimp or scud populations throughout the entire Estuary. However, it VII-41 PSE&G Permit Application 4March 1999 Appendix F As is possible that Salem could significantly reduce the "local" subpopulations present in the vicinity of the plant.The local depletion issue is addressed for this assessment using a Local Depletion Model (LDNM) that relates entrainment rates of organisms at the Station to tidally-driven exchanges of water and organisms between the region of the Estuary from which the Station withdraws water and the neighboring regions.VII.5.a.ii. Use of LDM to Model Effects on RIS The LDM is applied only to opossum shrimp and scud. Estimates of the volume of the local compartment from which the Station withdraws water were obtained from riversegment volumes presented in Appendix C, Section III. Volumes of the segments RM 45-50 and RM 50-55 were summed to obtain an estimate of the local compartment volume. Tidal exchange rates were estimated using the hydrothermal model described in Appendix E. Tidal exchange is influenced by freshwater flow; model simulations were performed using both high-flow and low-flow assumptions. Station withdrawals were estimated by assuming 12-pump operation, with full flows (175,000 gpm) for each pump.Fractional mortality rates for entrained opossum shrimp and scud were estimated for a range of temperature conditions using thermal and mechanical mortality estimates provided in Appendix L.Qb VII.5-'.Limitations of LDM The LDM assumes complete mixing of all compartments, constant environmental conditions, an infinite source pool of organisms in the baywide compartment, and absence of reproduction. It is an approximation designed to address a very specific question using the simplest possible assumptions. In fact, opossum shrimp and scud are not uniformly distributed either within the Estuary or within any specific region. Both species undergo complex daily and seasonal migrations that are unrelated to mass flows of water, and both are continuously reproducing from April through October. The LI)M provides an approximate answer to the question of whether withdrawals of water by the Station could be sufficiently large to measurably reduce local populations of macroinvertebrates. The same violations of assumptions that limit the accuracy of the model (i.e., reproduction and non-random migratory behavior of the organisms) probably also act to reduce the vulnerability of these populations to entrainment at the Station. VII.C.6. Modeling Results for Each RIS This section presents the results of the model applications documented in Appendix F-2.For finfish, the results of the models are expressed in two forms. If a reliable estimate of the current level of fishing mortality is available, the incremental mortality due to Salem is compared to the current target fishing rate and to the accepted biological reference VII-42 PSE&G PenniC ApplicaCiOn 4 March 1999 Appendix F point for overfishing. If the current level of fishing mortality is highly uncertain or unknown, the effects of a range of values ofF on SSBPR and SSB are compared to the combined effects of fishing and Salem. The results are used to evaluate whether the operation of Salem appreciably increases the likelihood that SSBPR will be reduced below 30% of the SSBPR of the unfished stock or that SSB will be reduced below 20%of the SSB of the unfished stock.For opossum shrimp and scud, the degree of local depletion due to entrainment is presented, as a function of the rate of tidal exchange. VII. C. 6. a. Weakfish Life history parameters for weakfish are provided in Table 10 and are fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" values for the SSB analysis are documeted in Attachment F-2. The ASMEC has not yet approved a virtual population analysis for weakfish, hence, there is substantial uncertainty concerning accepted values for many important parameters. Length-age, length-weight, length-maturity, and lengoth-fecundity relationships published by Shepherd (1982), combined with age-specific lengths and weights published in ASMFC stock assessments (NMFS 1998a), provided the information needed to estimate age-specific fecundity and maturity schedules. Although natural mortality rates based on size have been discussed in ASMFC stock assessment documents, a constant value (M=0.25) was used for this analysis, consistent with the recommendations of the Stock Assessment and Review Committee (SARC) (NMFS 1998a).Weakfish appear to be a mixed coastwide population. Data from Shepherd and Grimes (1984) indicate a latitudinal gradient life history characteristic of weakfish, with northern fish having a greater longevity than southern fish but a lower fecundity relative to lengcth.For the purpose of this assessment it was assumed that the weakfish population from North Carolina to Massachusetts constitutes a distinct breeding population. The contribution of the Delaware Estuary to annual weakfish production has never been rigorously estimated, however, data summarized by the SARC (NMFS 1998a) indicate that from 1990 through 1996 landings for the states of Delaware and New Jersey combined accounted for 17% of the total landings from North Carolina to Massachusetts. If the state landings can be assumed to be a rough index of the relative contribution of different estuaries to the total stock, and if all of the fish landed in New Jersey and Delaware are assumed to be derived from weakfish spawned in the Delaware, then roughly 10-20% of the total Northern stock might be derived from the Delaware Estuary.In addition to fishing mortality, the weakfish stock has been subjected to bycatch mortality by the south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery. Estimates of weakfish bycatch vary according to the data and methods relied upon. The average annual number of age-0 weakfish killed by the shrimp trawl fishery from 1985 to 1988 was estimated at about VII-43 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F 18.9 million (Crecco 1993). Estimates of weakfish bycatch for the years 1982-1992, by both numbers and weight, for the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are available from Table 3 of Vaughan (1994). These estimates indicate that over this period an average of more than 30 million weakfish with a total weight of nearly 5 million pounds were killed in shrimp trawls. Approximately 90% by number of the bycatch consisted of age-0 fish and 10% of age 1 fish. More recent estimates of bycatch from the shrimp fisheries were 33.7 million age-0 and 6.4 million age I weakfish in 1994 (ASMFC 1996); (Gibson 1995) and 26.9 million age-0 weakfish in 1995 (NM.FS 1998a).The NMZFS (1998d) rule requiring bycatch reduction devices in the South Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery outside of state waters stated that the average annual shrimp trawl bycatch of juvenile weakfish since 1979 is 37.3 million age-0 and 4.3 million age I weakfish.The relative magnitude of bycatch to plant losses provides a useful context for the effects of Salem operations on weakfish. The magnitude of the annual age-specific mortality due to bycatch were estimated from the available landings data (Attachment C-1 to Appendix C) and bycatch data (Vaughan 1994) for the years 1982 through 1992. The method used to develop thisestimate is documented in Appendix L. Bycatch mortality was estimated at 0.00 12 per day for age-0 weakfish (juvenile 2 stage) and .00027 per day for age 1 weakfish. These values, when converted to annual mortality rates and combined to obtain an aggregate bycatch mortality rate for age-0 and age I weak-fish, are equivalent to a coastwide "bycatch CMR" of 30.3% (0.303). This value is ten times as high as the predictive CMR for Salem, assuming a 20% contribution of the Delaware Estuary to the coastal stock.Figure 22 shows the relationship between the coastwide CMR and the equivalent fishing rate for weakfish. Assuming that the Delaware Estuary contibutes 20% of the coastwideweakfish population, the estimated coastwide CMR (0.034) is equivalent to raising the fishing rate for weakfish from the current target rate of 0.5 to 0.517. This increase is much too small to be detectable and probably much smaller than the uncertainty concerning the actual current F value for weakfish. An ES-RA was performed for weakfish to estimate SSB. The ASMFC target F (the goal for sustainable fishing) could not be used because, in the ES-RA for weakfish, an F of-0.5 drives the population to extinction. Therefore, the estimated F,. from the spawner recruit analysis (F=0.15) was used instead.The reason for the discrepancy between the sustainable fishing rate determined from the ES-RA and the target rate recommended by ASMFC is not fully understood, but may relate to the type of spawner-recruit model utilized by the ASMFC to calculate the target F, because previous ASMFC SSBPR estimates are consistent with those estimated with the SSBPR model used here. Amendment No. I to the ASMFC Weakfish Fishery Management Plan (Seagraves 1991) recommended a target F of F=0.34. This value is the F,O% derived from an SSBPR analysis. The corresponding value from the SSBPR analysis summarized in Figure 22 is F,,% = 0.38. These two values cannot be completely VII-44 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F reconciled because natural mortality rates, age-specific weight and maturity schedules, and age-at-entry to the fishery differ somewhat between the 1991 AFMSC assessment and the current assessment. However, the qualitative relationships between SSBPR and F are similar in both. Seagraves (1991) did not calculate an F~ ,,, but Figure 5 of the report indicates that for all assumptions about age at entry F 3 ,,, would have been below 0.3.Hence, it appears that the 1991 weakfish stock assessment was consistent with the SSBPR analysis performed for this assessment. The SARC review (NMFS 1998a) declined to endorse a virtual population analysis (VPA) for weakfish, and noted that the ASMFC Management Board has recommended F=0.5 as a "long-term target (year 2000) for stock rebuilding" and F=0.7 as an FMsy overfishing definition. These recommendations were "based on stock-recruitment data and Shepherd's (1982) equilibrium yield procedure." If a stock-recruitment relationship was used, then this relationship must incorporate a greater degree of density-dependence than is present in the ES-RA model. When both models are analyzed in the vicinity oftheir model-dependent MSY, the results of the ES-RA should be conservative relative to a comparable analysis performed using the ASMFC's approach.Figure 23 shows the distribution of total SSB, including the stock-recruitment relationship. Both with and without the plant, SSB is estimated to remain close to the MSY value and well above the overfishing reference point (20% B 0).VII. C. 6. b. Striped Bass Life history parameters for striped bass are provided in Table 1I and are fully documented in Appendix L. The estimate of age-1 natural mortality was derived from mark-recapture data on the Hudson River striped bass population (Coastal Environmental Services 1989). Age-specific fecundity estimates were derived from weight-fecundity relationships for coastal North Carolina (Holland and Yelverton 1973), Albemarle Sound (Olsen and Rulifson 1992), and the Hudson River (Hoff et al. 1988). All other values are taken directly from the 1998 SARC Report (NMFS 1998a).According to Waldman and Wirgin (1994) and Weisberg et al. (1996), the Delaware River supports a discrete spawning stock of striped bass. However, earlier investigators found strong evidence that in the early 1970s the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal provided a large fraction-perhaps more than 50% -of the striped bass found in the Delaware. These conclusions are documented in the Final Environmental Statement prepared to support the construction license application for the Summit Power Station (USAEC 1974), and in supplemental testimony prepared to justify the conclusions presented in the Final Environmental Statement (Christensen et al. 1975).The 50% contribution estimate was an expert judgement, based on the documented high levels of spawning in the Chesapeake end of the canal, the net transport of water VII-45 PSE&G Permit Applicaton 4 March 1999 Appendix F (demonstrated by hydrological modeling) toward the Delaware, and the low level of spawning observed in the Delaware River itself. Support for the conclusions was derived from a variety of sources, including preoperational studies at the Salem site.Ichthyoplankton surveys in upper Chesapeake Bay found extremely high densities of striped bass eggs in samples collected from the canal (Dovel and Edmunds 1971; Johnson and Koo 1975). Studies conducted in the Delaware River in the late 1960s found a virtual absence of striped bass reproduction in historically important spawning grounds above Chester, PA; severe oxygen depletion was determined to be the cause (Chittenden 1971). Murawski (1969) found striped bass eggs and larvae in samples collected from the eastern end of the canal, from water that was flowing into the Delaware. Studies performed by Ichthyological Associates further documented the presence of striped bass eggs in the C&D canal and identified the canal as a principal source of young striped bass in the Delaware (Bason 1971; Kemehan 1974).Later investigators have concluded that the survival of striped bass eggs and larvae transported through the canal is low (Kemehan et al. 1981) and have argued that the striped bass present in the Delaware represent a resident spawning population (Weisberg and Burton 1993; Waldman and Wirgin 1994; Weisberg et al. 1996). However, these most recent studies have focused in the freshwater river above the C&D Canal, the historic spawning grounds of striped bass in the Delaware and the region most affected by recent improvements in water quality. As documented'in Appendix J, the New Jersey Beach Seine Index, which is derived from samples collected in this region, shows no correlation with the Maryland striped bass index for upper Chesapeake Bay, which supports the existence of a discrete Delaware spawning stock, but there also appears to be strong Chesapeake contribution to the Delaware population in certain years. The Delaware Juvenile Trawl Index, which is derived from samples collected in the lower bay, shows strong peaks in 1989, 1993, and 1996. These are the years of recent dominant year classes in Chesapeake Bay. The same peaks are present in striped bass entrainment losses at Salem. (See discussion in Appendix H). According to Appendix E, Section VII.B.2., net flows within the C&D Canal during spring are consistently eastward, potentially carrying early life stages of striped bass from upper Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware Estuary.In the absence of definitive studies, it has been assumed for this analysis that the impact of Salem falls entirely on the Delaware River spawning stock. However, it is quite likely, especially in years when both the Chesapeake Bay striped bass index and entrainment losses at Salem peak, that a significant fraction of the striped bass entrained at Salem are derived from the Chesapeake Bay spawning stock.It was not possible to calculate an entrainment CMR for striped bass. As described in Appendix F-2, two methods are available for estimating CMRs: The Empirical Transport Model (ETM) and the Extended Empirical Impingement Model (EEIM). The ETM requires estimates of the estuary-wide relative density of organisms, by region, and the EEIM requires estimates of absolute population size. The ETM cannot be validly applied VII-46 PSE&G Permi Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F to striped bass because a large fraction of the age-0 striped bass population resides outside the study area. For the same reason, absolute population sizes for striped bass could not be estimated by scaling up bottom and midwater trawl CPUE (as was done for spot). Absolute population sizes for age-0 striped bass are available only from the mark-recapture program for white perch, and only for years when the ratio of striped bass to white perch was tabulated during sampling. These data are available only for the 1997-98 winter season, and provide an estimate of the absolute abundance of the 1997 striped bass year class in the Delaware Estuary. In that year, however, only very limited in-plant sampling was performed during the entrainment period of striped bass because both units were off line and no pumps were operating. Operations and sampling were resumed in time to obtain impingement loss estimates for striped bass, consequently, a CM'fR for striped bass impingement is available for 1997.For the reasons discussed above there was no CMR for entrainment. The combined impact of entrainment and impingement at Salem on the Delaware Estuary striped bass population is unknown. However, the single available impingement CMR (0.0038) is equivalent to raising the fishing rate for striped bass from the current target rate of 0.31 to 0.3109, a percent increase of less than 0.3%. This increase is clearly negligible, even if it is imposed entirely on the Delaware Estuary spawning stock.VII. C. 6. c. White Perch Life history parameters for white perch are provided in Table 12, and fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" values for the SSB analysis are documented in Attachment F-2. Estimates of age-specific natural mortality rates are derived from catch-curve data for the Hudson River white perch population (Attachment 3 to Appendix C); data collected by PSE&G indicate that mortality in the Delaware Estuary population is similar.These data show that the annual survival of white perch is about 50 percent until age 5, but decreases to 20 percent at older ages. Age-specific sex ratios become strongly skewed toward female fish beyond age 5. Age-specific fecundity estimates were derived from data for Delaware Estuary white perch. Studies summarized in Appendix C, Attachment 3 indicate that the majority of female white perch are sexually mature at age 2 and that nearly all are mature by age 3. The 8-inch minimum length limit for commercial and recreational fisheries implies that fishing mortality is imposed primarily on post-reproductive fish. Data summarized in Appendix L indicate that few white perch reach a length of 8 inches before age 5 and the average fish doesn't attain a length of 8inches until age 6.The estimated entrainment CMR for white perch is 0.14. Because white perch are entrained only as early juveniles, this value is applied only to age 0 fish. White perch are vulnerable to impingement for their entire lifetimes, therefore, the estimated impingement CMR (0.0065) is applied to all age groups. Figure 24 shows the influence of fishing on white perch SSBPR, with and without the Station. Because few white perch survive to reach the age of entry into the fishery, even very high fishing rates have virtually no VII-47 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F influence in SSBPR for this species. Even at the highest fishing rate shown in Figure 24 (F=0.4), which is probably much higher than the actual rate of fishing mortality in this lightly-exploited stock, the estimated SSBPR is still greater than 90 percent compared to an unfished stock. Thlis value is far above even the most conservative biological reference point.White perch does not support an intensive commercial or recreational fishery in the Delaware Estuary, and there are no empirical estimates of the current rate of fishing mortality for this stock. For the purpose of the ES-tRA, the true F value was assumed to lie somewhere in the range between 0.1 and 0.2. Figure 25 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. In spite of the considerable uncertainty concerning the value ofF, SSB is projected to be well above 20% B,.VII. C.6.d. Spot Life history parameters for spot are provided in Table 13, and fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" values for the SSB analysis are documented in Attachment F-2. No stock assessment is available for this species, and consequently very little information is available concerning annual rates of natural and fishing mortality. Pacheco (1957) estimated the total annual instantaneous mortality of spot in Chesapeake Bay to about 0.8. Since spot support a significant fishery, it seems reasonable to assume that fishing would account for about half of the total mortality. As with weakfish, bycatch in the shrimp industry is a significant resource management issue for spot. No quantitative estimates of the size or composition of the spot bycatch are available. However, data on per-hour and per-trip bycatch rates (Peuser 1996; NMFS 1998d) indicate that the total bycatch, by weight, of spot is substantially larger than the bycatch of weakfish. In the absence of quantitative estimates, it was conservatively assumed that the bycatch loss, in pounds, of spot is equal to the loss of weakfish. This estimate was used to calculate a bycatch F for spot, using the procedures described in Appendix L. The breakdown between age-0 and age-1 spot bycatch was assumed to be the same as for weakfish. Under the above assumptions bycatch mortality, estimated at 0.0007 per day for age-0 fish (uvenile 2 life stage) and 0.00017 per day for age 1 spot, would be equivalent to a coastwide 20.6% due to bycatch only CMR.Figure 26 and 27 show the relationship between the annual rate of fishing mortality and SSBPR, both with and without the influence of entrainment and impingement at Salem.Two alternative assumptions concerning the contribution of the Delaware Estuary to the Atlantic coastal spot population are used. It is clear from landings data summarized in Attachment 4 to Appendix C that on average only a small fraction of the coastal spawning stock of spot is found in Delaware and New Jersey waters. Relative to weakfish, a much smaller fraction of the spot stock probably utilizes the Delaware Estuary. In Figure 26 it is assumed that 1 percent of annual year-class production is derived from the Delaware Estuary. The CMR for spot, assuming a 1% contribution of 5VII-48 PSE&G Pemitr Appficacion 4 March 1999 Appendix F the Delaware Estuary to the coastal stock, is 0.00049. In Figure 27, it is assumed that 10 percent of annual year-class production is derived from the Delaware. Assuming a 10%contribution to the coastal stock, the CMR is 0.0049. In either case, it is clear that the impact of Salem is quite small compared to the influence of the directed fishery and the bycatch. As with white perch, no empirical estimates ofF for spot are available. However, there is a significant commercial fishery for spot. For the ES-RA, F was assumed to lie somewhere in the range between 0.2 and 0.4. Figure 28 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. Future SSB is projected to remain well above 20% B, VII. C. 6. e. Atlantic Croaker Data needed to calculate a CMR for Atlantic croaker was unavailable. Therefore, amodel-based projection of the impacts of fishing and Salem was not performed for this species. However, a qualitative assessment is still possible because of the close similarity between croaker and two of the other R.IS, weakfish and spot. All three belong to the same taxonomic family (Sciaenidae). All spawn as mixed coastal stocks, so that only a small fraction of the population is present in the Delaware and vulnerable to Salem. All are adversely affected by bycatch in the shrimp fishery. In fact, a recent survey by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 1998d) showed that croaker are among the most abundant species in the shrimp bycatch, intermediate in numbers between weakfish and spot. The lifespan of croaker is intermediate between spot and weakifish implying that the rate of natural mortality is also intermediate. Information presented at the ASMFC workshop on spot and croaker (ASMFC 1993) indicate that the current fishing mortality rate for croaker is within the range used for the spot analysis and somewhat lower than the target fishing mortality for weakfish. Since there is no evidence that croaker are more vulnerable to Salem than weakfish or spot, the impact of Salem on SSBPR or SSB for croaker should be similar to impacts of Salem on these other related species.VII. C.6.f American Shad Life history parameters for American shad are provided in Table 14, and fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" value for the SSB analysis is documented in Attachment F-2. Most values were derived from the most recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission stock assessment for American shad (Crecco 1997) and are specific to the Delaware River spawning stock. Figure 29 shows the relationship between F and SSBPR, both with and without entrainment and impingement due to Salem. As documented in Appendix L, the vulnerability of American shad to entrainment and impingement is extremely low. The estimated CMR for shad is only about 0.0004; at this low level of mortality the combined impact of fishing and Salem on SSBPR is indistinguishable from the impact of fishing alone. Figure 30 shows the relationship between the CMR and the equivalent fishing rate VII-49 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix Ffor American shad. Even at CMR of 0.001, more than twice as high as the actual estimated CMR for Salem, the impact of Salem would be equivalent to an increase in Ffrom 0.17 to 0.1713. This increase is much too small to be measurable and would not affect the future management of the stock.In the 1997 stock assessment for American shad, the ASMFC used F30 1 (i.e., the fishing rate at which spawning stock biomass per recruit would be reduced to 30% of the value for the unfished stock) as a reference point for overexploitation. The current estimated F for the Delaware River stock (F=0. 17) is far below this level (F 3 ,%=0.43).Figure 31 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. A stock assessment is available for American shad, so uncertainty concerning key stock parameters is low.Future SSB is projected to be far higher than the corresponding biological referencepoints. The probability that equilibrium SSB is at sustainable level, either with or without the impact of Salem, is essentially 100%.VII. C. 6.g. Blueback Herring Life history parameters for blueback herring are provided in Table 15, and fully documented in Appendix.L. The "steepness" value for the SSB analysis is documented in Attachment F-2. No stock assessment is available for blueback herring, so estimates of age-specific mortality rates for this species were assumed to be the same as the estimated rates for American shad.Figure 32 shows the relationship between F and SSBPR for blueback herring, with and wkithout entrainment and impingement at Salem. As documented in Attachment F-2, the vulnerability of blueback herring to entrainment and impingement is extremely low. The projected CMR for this species is 0.003. At this low level of impact, the two curves are virtually identical. No estimates of the current rate of fishing on the Delaware River blueback herring stock are available. However, since no directed fishery exists.for thisspecies the current F value should be no higher than the estimated F for American shad.This value (F=0.17) is farbelow F30.%Figure 33 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. Assuming that the F value for blueback is the same as for American shad, SSB is far above their respective biological reference points. The probability that equilibrium SSB is at a sustainable level, either with or without the impact of Salem, is essentially 100%.VII C.6.h. Alewife Life history parameters for Alewife are provided in Table 16, and fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" value for the SSB analysis is documented in Attachment F-2. No stock assessment is available for alewife, so estimates of age-specific mortality S vII-50 PSE&O Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F rates for this species were assumed to be the same as the estimated rates for American shad.Figure 34 shows the relationship between F and SSBPR for alewife. As documented in Appendix L, the vulnerability of alewife to entrainment and impingement is extremely low. The estimated CMR for shad is essentially zero. No estimates of the current rate offishing on the Delaware River alewife stock are available. However, since no directed fishery exists for this species the current F value should be no higher than the estimated F for American shad. This value (F=0. 17) is far below F30%.*Figure 35 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. Assuming that the F value for alewife is the same as for American shad, SSB is far above their respective biologicalreference points. The probability that equilibrium and SSB are at sustainable levels,either with or without the impact of Salem, is essentially 100%.VII. C 6.i. Bay Anchovy Life history parameters for bay anchovy are provided in Table 17, and fully documented in Appendix L. The "steepness" value for the SSB analysis is documented in Attachment F-2. Most parameter values are derived directly from site-specific data for the Delaware Estuary; the only exceptions are the age-specific fecundity rates, which are derived from studies of bay anchovy reproduction in Chesapeake Bay.There is no fishery for bay anchovy. However, there is no reason to believe that the response of a bay anchovy stock to added mortality imposed by Salem would differ from the response of a fished stock. The effects of Salem on bay anchovy SSBPR are plotted in Figure 36 for a range of estimates of the fraction of the spawning population present in the Delaware Estuary and vulnerable to Salem. As discussed in Appendix C, Attachment 9, bay anchovy emigrate from the estuary in the fall and remain offshore until spring.The extent of mixing among stocks spawning in different estuaries is unknown. Even during summer, bay anchovy are abundant in the lower estuary, and an unknown fraction of the population remains offshore. For purposes of this assessment, the percent of the spawning stock present in the Delaware and vulnerable to Salem is assumed to be no greater than 80 percent. Even at that level, and given a projected CMR of 0.185, theestimated SSBPR is greater than 80 percent of the value for an "un.fished" stock.Figure 37 shows the influence of fishing and Salem on SSB. Uncertainty concerning both the percent of the population in the Delaware Estuary is assumed to be high.Therefore, the uncertainty concerning impacts of Salem on SSB is also high.Nonetheless, the estimated value is far above the corresponding biological reference points. The operation of Salem should not adversely affect the sustainability of the Delaware Estuary bay anchovy stock. VII-51 PSE&G Permit Applicadon 4 March 1999 Appendix F VII. C. 6.]. Opossum ShrimpParameter values used to model impacts of local depletion on opossum shrimp are listed in Table 18. Results are presented in Figure 38. These results reflect a range of tidal exchange rates between 5% and 20% per cycle, and entrainment mortality of between 40% and 61%. These rates were calculated using average intake bay temperatures for July, typically the hottest month, when the thermal component entrainment mortality would be expected to be maximal. The lower bound represents the average July temperature for the median year of all the years during which Salem has operated; the upper bound represents the average July temperature for the warmest year.Under reasonable worst-case conditions, i.e., a tidal exchange rate of 5%/o (representing low freshwater discharge conditions) and high July temperatures, the equilibrium reduction in local abundance of opossum shrimp is projected to be approximately 12%.Using the time-to-equilibrium approach described in Section VII.5ciii, the time required to reach this equilibrium from a starting value of 0% reduction would be 16 tidal cycles, or 8 days.VII. C. 6. k. Scud Parameter values used to model impacts of local depletion on scud are listed in Table 18.Results are presented in Figure 39. Exchange rates and temperature scenarios are the same ones used for opossum shrimp. For scud there is essentially no thermal mortality at any of the observed ambient temperatures. Even assuming a 5% tidal exchange rate, the equilibrium reduction in local abundance of scud would be less than 0.5%.VII. C. 7. Stock Jeopardy Benchmark: Summary Observational data such as those employed in Sections VII.A. and VII.B. provide the most reliable evidence concerning the historical impacts of Salem on the Delaware Estuary. However, observational data concerning past conditions may not be fully sufficient to evaluate the effects of future Station operations, if these are expected to bedifferent. Therefore, in addition to the methods used in Sections VII.A. and VII.B., predictive models were used to project impacts of assumed maximum flow operating conditions on the RIS populations. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether, in combination with the known ,effects of fishing on fish populations, the effects of Salem operation could lead to declines in the abundance of the RIS populations. The techniques draw on methods used in previous assessments of Salem, but extend these to incorporate methods now used by fisheries managers to assess the status of managed stocks. The two approaches used for this analysis are termed the SSBPR approach and S VII-52 Permit Applieation 4 March 1999 Appendix F the SSB approach (using the ES-RA). Both approaches rely on the observation that the sizes of fish populations can be reduced by up to 80 percent by fishery exploitation without reducing the average number of young fish (recruits) produced each year. This observation, in concert with relatively simple metrics for estimating the size or reproductive capacity of the spawning stocks, is now widely used by fisheries managers to determine whether stocks are being overfished and to set target fishing levels that willprevent overfishing. The fishing rates that would reduce SSBPR or SSB to the levels beyond which further fishing would threaten the sustainability of the stocks are termed"biological reference points." The analyses show that for all species the incremental effects of Salem are negligiblysmall. For weakfish, the additional reduction in reproductive capacity due to the operation of Salem is equivalent to a 3 percent increase in the current rate of fishing. The combined impacts of fishing and Salem would still be lower than the biological reference point established for this species. For striped bass, the reduction in reproductive capacity due to entrainment at Salem could not be estimated, however, the reduction due to impingement is equivalent to less than a 0.3% increase in the current rate of fishing.The current rate of fishing for spot and croaker are unknown. However, given reasonable estimates of the likely range of fishing rates, the combined effects of fishing and Salem would not reduce the reproductive capacity of the coastwide spot population below conservative biological reference points. A qualitative evaluation of croaker (for which data were insufficient to calculate a CMR) indicates that the impact of Salem on SSBPR or SSB should be similar to impacts on spot and weakfish. Current information indicatesthat American shad, alewife, blueback herring, and white perch are all fished at far below the maximum sustainable rates. Considering the incremental increases in mortality due to Salem, the future SSBPR and SSB of these stocks is projected to be far above theapplicable biological reference points. There is no fishery for bay anchovy. However, the concepts used to define sustainable levels of fishing for exploited species should be applicable to bay anchovy as well. Application of the SSBPR and SSB approaches to bay anchovy demonstrates that the reproductive potential of this species remains far above theapplicable biological reference points.Fisheries concepts are not applicable to opossum shrimp and scud. The reproductive-rates of these species are so high that the probability that the baywide populations could be depleted by Salem is negligible. However, depending on the rate of movement of these organisms relative to their rates of entrainment by Salem, local subpopulations present in the 1 0-mile region from which the station withdraws cooling water could be depleted. An analysis of the potential for local depletion, considering the rate of withdrawal of water by Salem relative to the rate of renewal of water by tidal exchange, shows that the potential for local depletion of both species is negligible. VII-53 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999Appendix F VII.D. Impact Assessment: Summary This assessment has focused on the potential impacts of Salem on population and community characteristics of the Delaware Estuary such as species composition and population abundance which are the proper levels of biological organization for.determining whether Salem's cooling water intake structure has had or will have an adverse impact on the Delaware Estuary. Three benchmarks have been examined: whether adverse changes in the balance of the biotic community have occurred; whether continuing declines in the abundance of aquatic species have occurred, and whether the levels of mortality caused by plant operations are sufficient to jeopardize the sustainability of fish stocks. Evaluations of three different indicators demonstrate that the balance of the community has not been adversely affected.Available data on the composition of the finfish community in the vicinity of Salem from 1970 through 1977 were analyzed using widely-accepted techniques for measuring species richness, defined as the average number of species present in a community, and species density, defined as the average number of species per unit area or volume. This analysis showed that finfish species richness in the vicinity of Salem has not changed since the.startuip of Salem, and that finfish species density has increased. Fluctuations in the abundance of individual fish species were compared to the changes expected to occur as a result of known changes in habitat quality and fisheries management practices, and to the changes expected to occur if Salem were depleting fish populations. The majority of species have fluctuated in a manner consistent with the expected responses to changes in habitat quality and fisheries management but inconsistent with the expected responses to population depletion by Salem. The few observations of apparent population decline (e.g., blueback herring) are attributable to coast-wide phenomena rather than to the influence of Salem. Recent studies of the Delaware Estuary published by the Delaware Estuary Program (Sutton et al. 1996) and the EPA (USEPA 1998a) were examined for evidence of nuisance species outbreaks such as phytoplankton blooms or invasions by non-native species. No such outbreaks were documented by either the Delaware Estuary Program or EPA.Trends in the relative abundance of the RIS species were analyzed for evidence of continuing population decline. Data from three long-term monitoring programs were examined: the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey; the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey; and the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey. Consistent data screening protocols were established for each survey and used to develop indices of juvenile abundance for each species. Trends over time in each index were evaluated to determine whether the relative abundance of each MS has increased, decreased, or remained stable. Statistically significant increases in abundance were found for alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab. Statistically significant declines were detected only for blueback herring and spot. The decline in blueback herring mirrors a well-documented decline in coast-wide landings. The apparent decline in spot is due to exceptionally high abundance in a single year, 1988.The Delaware Estuary is at the northern limit of the range of this species, and the VII-54 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F numbers entering the Delaware Estuary are highl.y variable from year to year., The fact that most populations have increased during the period of Station operations demonstrates that there has been no "continuing decline" in abundance of aquatic species.The impact of Salem on the long-term sustainability of fish stocks was assessed using generally accepted models and biological reference points. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether, in combination with the known effects of fishing on fish populations, the future impact of Salem operation could lead to declines in the abundance of the RIS populations which would put the sustainability of the stocks in jeopardy. The techniques used draw on methods employed in previous assessments of Salem, but extend these to incorporate methods now used by fisheries scientists to assess the status of managed stocks. The two approaches used for this analysis are termed the Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR) approach and the Spawning Stock Biomass (SBB) approach. Both approaches rely on the observation that the sizes of many fish populations can be reduced by up to 80% by fishery exploitation without reducing the average number of young fish (recruits) produced each year. The SSBPR approach, which is the more conservative of the two methods, is essentially identical to the "lost reproductive potential." ((LRP) model used in previous 316(b) submittals for Salem.)The SSB approach extends the SSBPR approach by using an equilibrium spawner-recruit model to translate reductions in reproductive potential to reductions in spawning stock biomass. Both approaches use the CMR, the primary measure of impact in previous 316(b) submittals for Salem, as an input. They translate the CMR, a short-term measure of impact on individual year classes, into long-term reductions in reproductive potential and population abundance. The analysis was performed using "predictive" CMRs that assume that, based on improvement in plant equipment and recent systems operation experience, it is expected that Salem will operate at higher capacity factors and, hence, that water withdrawals by Salem will be higher on average than has been observed historically. The analyses show that, for all species for which valid CMRs can be calculated, the incremental effects ofSalem on SSBPR and SSB, added to the existing effects of fishing are negligibly small.Target fishing rates for weakfish and striped bass are currently maintained by ASMFC below the maximum sustainable rates. The additional reduction in reproductive capacity of the coastwide weakfish stock due to entrainment and impingement is equivalent to a very small (3%) increase in the current rate of fishing. A CMR for entrainment could not be calculated for striped bass, however, the impact of impingement on striped bass is equivalent to raising the rate of fishing by less than 0.3%. The current rate of fishing for spot is unknown, However, given reasonable estimates of the likely range of fishingrates, the combined effects of fishing and Salem would not reduce the reproductive capacity of the coastwide spot population below conservative biological reference points.The impact of Salem on Atlantic croaker should be similar to impacts on spot and weakfish. Current information indicates that American shad, alewife, and blueback herring are all fished well below the maximum sustainable rates. The additional impactson these three species due to Salem are negligibly small. Reductions in SSBPR and SSB VII-55 PSE&G Permit Apli cation-. Ma-ch 1999 Appendix F due to Salem are larger than reductions due to fishing only for white perch and bay anchovy (for which there is no fishery); even for these species the values of SSBPR and SSB are projected to be well above the applicable biological reference points.Fisheries concepts are not applicable to opossum shrimp and scud. A simple model oflocal depletion was used to evaluate whether Salem could significantly reduce the local populations of these important species in the region from which Salem withdraws cooling water, and therefore indirectly potentially affect the abundance of fish stocks. The analysis showed that the potential for local depletion of these species is negligible. In summary, observations over the 20 years of Station operation show no adverse changes in the balance of species present and no continuing downward trends in the abundance of species that are attributable to the plant. Modeling of the impacts of Salem on the sustainability of fish stocks shows that these impacts are negligibly small compared to the impact of fishing. None of these impacts should have affected fish stocks in the past (a fact confirmned by the analysis of historical data) and should not affect them in the future.Thus, the available data demonstrate that, from the 316(b) perspective, Salem has not caused and should not in the future cause an adverse environmental impact on the Delaware Estuary.VII-56 I F Table 1. Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Richness, Spring Season Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<--t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<--t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Pre-12.691433 2.5923004 8 3.0651263 0 17 OP.13.81868 3.3961045 11-1.385669 0.0918796. 1.7396064. 0.1837592 2.1098185' F Table 2. Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Richness, Summer Season Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<--t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<-=t) two-tailt Critical two-tail Pre-12.404367 6.6597026 8 12.436222 5.0153064 11 5.6924107 0 17-0.028734 0.4887056 1.73960641 0.9774113 2.1098185 Ut F Table 3. Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Richness, Fall Season Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df Pre- Op.13.431 15.149 3.7701 2.8652 8 11 3.2378 0 17 t Stat P(T<--t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<-t) two-tail t Critical two-tail-2.0554 0.0278 1.7396 0.0555 2.1098 F Table 4. Results of the Two-Sanplee t-test for Species Density, Spring Season P Mean 3.Variamne 0.Observations Pooled Variance 0.Hypodisized Mean D.ffererie df re-5624 2542.8 6451 0 17 op.4.8397 0.9187 11 tStat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tafl t Critical two-tail-3.423 0.0016.1.7396 0.0032 2.1098 I F Table 5. Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Density, Summer Season Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Differe df t Stat P(T<--t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Pre-3.98143 0.19019 4.81687 0.401888 11 0.31471 nce 0 17-3.205 0.0026 1.73961 0.00519 2.10982 F Table 6. Results of the Two-Sample t-test for Species Density, Fall Season Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df Pre-4.42868 1.07272 8 0.88218 0 17 OP.6.3911 0.7488 11 t Stat P(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tail P(T<--t) two-tail t Critical two-tail-4.4965 0.00016 1.73961 0.00032 2.10982 1S F Table 7. Species Present in Pre-operational and Operational Collections. Unique SEecies are Shaded Pre Op.Species name Species name Alewife Alewife American eel American eel American shad !sand Atlantic croaker American shad Atlantic herring Atlantic croaker Atlantic nackerel. Atlantic herring Atlantic menhaden Atlantic menhaden Atlantic silverside Atlantic silverside Atlantic sturgeon Atlantic sturgeon Bay anchovy Bay anchovy Black crappie Black crappie....Black drum Black drum Black sea bass Black sea bass Blackcheek tonguefish Blackcheek tonguefish Blueback herring Blueback herring Bluefish Bluefish Bluegill Bluegill Brown bullhead Brown bullhead Butterfish Butterfish Channel catfish Channel catfish Connon carp Common carp __Conger eel Conger eel~~ -Crevalle jack __Crevalle jack Eastern silvery minnow Eastern silvery r-annow F@himnw Gizzard shad Gizzard shad Hogchoker sehos Sl~d,'~2 IInshore limardflsh Hoýgc'hoker Lined seahorse F Table 7 (continued.) Inshore lizardfish Naked goby Largemuth bass Northern kiigfish Lined seahorse Northern pipefish Lookdown Northern puffer Mu-mniehog Northern searobin Naked goby Northern stargazer Northern pipefish Oyster toadfish Northern puffer Pbamhead.ilefls..". Northern searobin Pollock Northern stargazer Pumpkinseed Oyster toadfish Scup..Pollock Sea lamprey Pumpkinseed Seaboard goby Rough sierskie-Silver hake Sea lamprey ... Silver perch, Seaboard goby Skilletfih Silver hake Smallnouth flounder Silver perch Spot Smallnouth flounder Spotted hake Smooth Striped anchovy Spot Striped bass Spotfinbuttcrfl --h .Striped cusk-eel'" Spotted hake ... .s ml~t Striped anchovy .. Striped searobin ....Striped bass Sumrmer flounder Striped cusk-eel Weakfish Striped_searobin White catfish Summer flounder White crappie Windowpane Weakfish -Winter flounder White crappie ..Yellowpperch ..White perch Winter flounder Yellow perch d1 F Table 8. Percent Change in Abundance per Year of Age-0 Fish, for DNREC and PSE&G Programs, and All Ages Collected for NJDEP Beach Seine Program.Percent change for blue crab is for all sizes collected. Species Program DNREC NJDEP PSE&G Juvenile Trawl Beach Seine Nearfield Bottom___Trawl Alewife 55.4 2.1 38.7 American Shad NI 7.3 NI Atlantic Croaker *
- 3610.3 Bay Anchovy 1.3 24.4 -4.8 Blueback Herring -5.5 -7.6 NI Spot -2.4 -8.1 3.2 Striped Bass 40.4 5.3 NS Weakfish 18.7 28.6 0.1White Perch 91.4 12.6 41.7 Blue Crab 7.6 NI NI Bold indicates statistically significant change (P<0.05).
- Indicates an increasing trend; percent change not calculated because predicted initial population sizes were zeros.NI Indicates that no index of abundance was calculated.
NS Indicates no significant trend; percent change not calculated because predicted initial population sizes were zero. F Table 9. Trends in Abundance of Age-O RIS and Blue Crab. Species _Program DNREC. NJDEP PSE&G Juvenile Trawl Beach Seine Nearfield Bottom Trawl Alewife NS NS American Shad NA NA Atlantic Croaker Bay Anchovy NS Blueback Herring NA Spot .bM NSStriped Bass NS Weakfish v NS NS White Perch 4, 49 49 Blue Crab 49 NA NA ,NA = not analyzed 4 = statistically significant increase= statistically significant decreasing NS = no statistically significant trend I F Table 10. Life History Parameters for Weakfish.Vulnerability Age M to Fishery % Female % Mature Fecundity Weight (lbs.)1 0.25 10% 50% 30% 6824 0.26 2 0.25 50% 50% 85% 32973 0.68 3 0.25 100% 50% 90% 71387 1.12 4 0.25 100% 50% 100% 130848 1.79 5 0.25 100% 50% 100% 272716 2.91 6 0.25 100% 50% 100% 1041839 6.21 7 0.25 100% 50% 100% 1454325 7.14 8 0.25 100% 50% 100% 2147645 9.16 9 0.25 100% 50% 100% 2778770 10.83 10+ 0.25 100% 50% 100% 3547138 12.50 F Table 11. Life History Parameters for Striped Bass.Vulnerabity Age M to Fishery % Mature % Female Fecundity Weight (kg)1 1.095 0% 0% 50% 0 0.22 2 0.15 6% 0% 50% 0 0.933 3 0.15 20% 0% 50% 0 1.503 4 0.15 63% 4% 50% 400962 2.237 5 0.15 94% 13% 50% 546162 2.947 6 0.15 100% 45% ... 50% 742201 3.89 7 0.15 100% 89% 50% 1098521 5.57 8 0.15 100% 94% 50% 1296779 6.49 9 0.15 100% 100% 50% 1470715 7.29 10 0.15 100% 100% 50% 1742843 8.53 11 0.15 100% 100% 50% 1817953 8.87 12 0.15 100% 100% 50% 2106938 10.17 13 0.15 100% 100% 50% 2570847 12.233 14 0.15 100% 100% 50% 3356147 15.67 t F Table 12. Life History Parameters for White Perch.Vulnerability Age M to Fishery % Mature % Female Fecundity Weight (g)1 0.69 0% 0% 46% 0 9.0 2 0.69 0% 80% 51% 20144 25.7 3 0.69 0% 100% 56% 38744 46.5 4 0.69 3% 100% 55% 61576 68.1 5 1.58 21% 100% 61% 92842 97.2 6 1.54 48% 100% 65% 115460 120.0 7 1.48 84% 100% 72% 163542 161.4 8 1.46 100% 100% 79% 155132 175.5 9 1.46 100% 100% 77% 239383 234.1 10 1.46 100% 100% 57% 239383 280.7 0 F Table 13. Life History Parameters for Spot.Vulnerability Age M to Fishery % Female % Mature Fecundity Weight (g)0 0.82 30% 50% 0% 0 25.640912 1 0.4 100% 50% 0% 0 35.878912 2 0.4 100% 50% 100% 100000 135.62633 3 0.4 100% 50% 100% 169136 230.02468 4 0.4 100% 50% 100% 216226 294.06772 5 0.4 100% 50% 100% 244108 331.9867 6 0.4 100% 50% 100% 259605 353.06267 7 0.4 100% 50% 100% 259605 353.06267 8 0.4 100% 50% 100% 259605 353.06267 9 0.4 100% 50% 100% 259605 353.06267 10 0.4 100% 50% 100% 259605 353.06267 S F Table 14. Life History Parameters for American Shad.Age M (pre- M (Post- Vulnerability % Female % Mature Fecundity Weight (Kg)spawning) spawning) to Fishery 1 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 0.14 2 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 0.53 3 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 1.05 4 0.3 1.5 45% 50% 20% 287905 1.59 5 0.3 1.5 90% 50% 60% 358428 2.07 6 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 415352 2.48 7 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 459748 2.81 8 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 493605 3.07'Applied to the fraction of females that are not sexually mature. bApplied to the fraction of females that are sexually mature. F Table 15. Life History Parameters for Blueback Herring.NI (pre- M (Post- Vulnerability Age spawning)' spawning)b to Fishery % Female % Mature Fecundity Weight (g)1 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 7.24 2 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 41.06 3 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 92.33 4 0.3 1.5 45% 50% 50% 134681 144.31 5 0.3 1.5 90% 50% 100% 188833 187.96 6 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 229715 221.11 7 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 258825 244.84 8 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% .278833 261.25 aApplied to the fraction of females that are not sexually mature bApplied to the fraction of females that are sexually mature 4, F Table 16. Life History Parameters for Alewife.M (pre- M (Post- Vulnerability Age spawning)' spawning)b to Fishery % Female % Mature Fecundity Weight (g)1 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 13.7352366 2 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 56.8526725 3 0.3 1.5 0% 50% 0% 0 115.02987 4 0.3 1.5 45% 50% 50% 131161 172.020519 5 0.3 1.5 90% 50% 100% 165279 219.772303 6 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 190997 256.461969 7 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 209484 283.237228 8 0.3 1.5 100% 50% 100% 222390 302.164219"Applied to the fraction of females that are not sexually mature bApplied to the fraction of females that are sexually mature F Table 17. Life History Parameters for Bay Anchovy.Age M %Female %Mature Fecundity Weight (g)1 1.6 0.5 100% 38,206 1.73 2 1.6 0.5 100% 38,206 2.25 3 1.6 0.5 100% 38,206 2.29 I F Table 18. Parameter Values Used to Model Local Depletion of Opossum Shrimp and Scud.Variable Value Units Source Fractional tidal From 0.05 fraction These rates represent the plausible bounds of actual exchange rates as exchange rate per to 0.2 estimated using the hydrothermal model described in Appendix E, tidal cycle Section V.Volume of Reach 4.69E+08 m3 Estimate of the volume of water within one tidal excursion (-10 a 10 mile (VM.) reach) of the Salem intake structure. the plant. Volumes of segments RM 45-50 and RM 50-55 (Appendix C, Section 111) were summed to obtain an estimate of the local compartment volume.Volume of Tidal Varies with m 3 Volume of water exchanged per tidal cycle within the water in the ten Exchange per Tidal tidal mile reach adjacent to the plant. Specific values are obtained by cycle (V,)) exchange multiplying the volume of the reach by successive fractional tidal rate exchange rate values that range from 0.5 to 0.20.Flow Volume of 6,048,000 m 3 Full flow withdrawal rate (175,000 gpm per pump) with all pumps Plant per Tidal operating. Cycle (Vplat)Fractional Varies with fraction Estimates were calculated for maximum and mean July ambient Entrainment temperature temperatures using the thermal mortality models described in F-2.Mortality (Fp-.,n) F Figure 1. The three Delaware Estuary Zones. F Figure 2. Sampling Design Summary of the PSE&G Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey. , Nearfield Samples Taken From Baywide Trawl Program. F Figure 3.Sampling Design Summary, of the PSE&G.Baywide.Bottom TrawlSur.vey. F Figure 4. Sampling Design Summary of the ONREC Large Trawl Survey. 0-0 F Figure 5. Sampling Design Summary of the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey. F Figure 6. Sampling Design Summary of the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey. 0 Rarefaction curve for community a Species count for 50 community b, (n=500) Rarefaction curve for community b Species countfor. 2 -"-community a, (n=50)Species count for /community b, (n=50) 5 Collection Size Collection size for S .ollection size for community b community a F Figure 7. Illustration of the Use of Rarefaction Curves to Standardize Collection Sizes. Community (b) contains fewer species than community (a), but a collection of 500 organisms from community (b) contains more species than a collection of 50 from community (a). For valid comparison of species richness, the species count from community (b) is "rarefied" to a standard collection size of 50.S Spring Iw 2W 3 W Y w 7 Waer of kdviduals F Figure 8. Rarefaction Curves for Spring, Pre-operational and Operational Years. Summer 20-B-O F Figure 9. Rarefaction Curves for Summer,.Pre-operational and Operational Years. Fall 1,-.9- 0 P 0 1000 ?0(J 3000 4000 5000 o000 7000 Nuntw of kidividuaIs F Figure 10. Rarefaction Curves for Fall, Pre-operational and Operational Years. Spring 20 0 z 0 (D CL)0 E z 18 16 14 12 10 a8_Pre-Transition Op.if ii 4-2 0 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 F Figure 11. Spring Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years.a Summer Pre- Transition Op.20 18 Z 16 C 0 4 12 10 CL 6.0 4 E:3 2 z 0--70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 F Figure 12. Summer Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years.0 Fall Transition 0 LO to z r 0 Eo mn z 20 1B 16-14-12_10 8 6 4 2 Pre-, f IIIj.i+1 Op.I ffif 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 798081 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 919293949697 F Figure 13. Fall Species Richness for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Years. so Spring Pre-9-8-7.E CL 0 C;CD a, 61 41 3 7 4 7 24 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Transition {j jill Iq Op.:TII I I78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 F Figure 14. Spring Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods.r.111,1177" biA6__A Summer 8 Pre- Transition Op.-d I 2 03 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 F Figure 15. Summer Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods. Fall Pre-Transition Op.U)0 (D 0.12 10 8 6 4 2 It I I II I f I I I I{ji I I I I I I 0 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 7778 79 80 81 82 84 85 F Figure 16. Fall Species Density for Pre-operational, Transition, and Operational Periods. 9 o) it Z J 4 Oz4...... .......... ... ..... ...... ....... .... .
- ~~7\\ i~h PIAit 13 (HI<\L......... ........ 294 D 2ue.cr ý4)AgeI Acel F .hiure rv1 7 :Ehi nato Ill, "ýCI6 in AoilmC fir Alle I Fk'th~ Due 1Ii4i.p) 10% lv 9 tO/l 4%-- -----... ..
............ 2 Ad7mr I-otl~I N 2 3 4 6 7 aturaf M ortality Rate (M) 6.9 8 F Ffigu rt ISS. Thv. Iflciike ot,ýAwl Ndrio'ralcl (fi th Deerv~ in~ A\e- I bu da Ie D ie toPln 0 era fio ns.@ 1.00 .9 ..........0.8 N 0.7 _' 0.6 -0.5 F 0.4 0 .3 ---------0.2 0.1 0.0 ,, 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 F F Figure 19. Generalized Relationship Between SSBPR and F.8 W100%8%""" 60%- -----Power~60%, Plant-40%-- Fishingt20%0%, 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Annual F F Figure 20. Comparative Effects of Salem Mortality vs. Fishing on SSBPR for a Hypothetical Fish Population. R 0 1Bo Recruits 0 I Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)F Figure 21. The Relationship Between Spawning Stock and Recruitment for a Beverton-Holt Spawner Recruit Curve.I \eakrish 0.4 0.2 0 FFu 2Z. Weakf1ish -~ hiuig. Rate (F) Equiv-ent to Predicted Etes ijfSalem (,CNlk kd~edto Current Targer F. Wea Po ssi 1-: Stock t niy F Figure 23. of4Wcakfish Spawning Stock $ioma ss (SSB) .With and Without the Effects of F n* ~7I 40%2 0 "%0 iu 24, 1 nflue iene of' Fishing a'M I -S~tdm on White Petrch Sp~iaviingi Stfwl%Biioniass per Recruit (SSBPR).*
- F Fi~ure 25. DVtrbuzi n of White Petch S~a~nin~ Slock Ri ma~. (SB \\ ill and Without tbkhe l.t (o o et ..S0
'Hill6 K H A U #1 0 Annual Fmhing~E K .+~.F Figure 26. IniThen t o II. hing and.Sakmui spot Sj it~ Sr I B> rn~ s~ p~rRecruit (SSBPR); I ~ ~ (Th~n idc.{>6ntriburior e F Figure 27. Influence of Fishing and Salem onaS:iotSpawvning Stock, Bimass per Rlecruit (SSBPRi; 10% Coa:wid. ( Contributioni Spot F Figure 28. Di,-rihution of Sp ot.Spa'.n~vngrStoAk Biomas's~ B With the Effetsc of Suiem.and S a I k: n W!,fT.F F inure 219.. InfllueCRe MJihn ~n ae on .rmxrwan Shad Spawig rc tiqnuias. per Recruit.(S-SBPR.) Americant sha~d 01 F EI, 'ure A:-,,rýikln Sh d -i 1 ing R.*Av (F) EjuivAJnit to i:rud. e I A"!, fhct Sakaia (CN1R) Addedl to Currew Target I:. -Jelaiy 2(~ ~I Withou fe of am I, ! , ,I 1 .1, .1 tr. it ~r..c ~ ~*F, F ., lUre 3 1. Distrib titin of Am erican Sha d Spawvn in iS-,ock B~iomnass (SSB~ t and Withot thel Effects of Sakrn. ~ui Fih~v FFisking F)njdy Sa 40, %20%* Fig-ure 32; Bluehack Rerriml -I fluenc af'sigadS mnH e~c H errin(F Spawning Stodr B~iomatss pvr RerutSSBP:R). F.Figure 33. Distribution of Bltwback itrring Spawning St ckR iomass iSSB) ith and Wkithout thef ffects of Sale 'l-. / Fi~sh shing 7 O ly I..F Figure 34. Alewife -Influance of Fishin" and Salern in Atwfe Spwning Stock BI3onss pcr Recruit(SSBPR)., I usikSlock -JeOrp4 y--:: fEfT so Salem F Eigrc ~ ~tr~btwiiof \1te ife svpdý4 nling Stock Biun stS3 iho @4 0 %2w 1%Yrýitiofa of Spa waing F Fioure 36. Bx, 'lichovy -Influence (i SaIeninon IBav Anch avv Spatwning Stock 13iumiass per Rec~ruit (S'ýBPR), F-- Bay Atc~nivk WIthjit Fffecfýsof ý~il F Fig~ure 31- D)istribution ofBay Anchovy Spaiviing Sto~,k Biomnass (SSB) Witt)an.d-Withow t~ihe Elffects of S.lenl. -Q FxcTidal Exchtc.-V~rtd oum Rphcý( ýý0, ........ ... .. ........ .. ...... .. ........ ... .. ..... ............ ..A 0199 Tidal Exch Uo4 ifNeaeficld Volumc I F Figure 739. Pu~teiaM Lpu thpktiun or Scud as a Function of 11dat APPENDIX F VIII. EVALUATION OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES VIII.A. Introduction Preceding sections of this Appendix have provided a description of the Station including the cooling water intake structure ("COIS"), the Delaware Estuary and the"Representative Important Species" (RIS) as well as informationon the effects (i.e., entrainment and impingement) on the RIS of the CWIS at Salem. This section provides a discussion of the range of options available for reducing entrainment and impingement ("Fish Protection Options") that have been used or considered for use at CWIS or other facilities similar to Salem.This section has five parts. Part A provides an overview of prior evaluations of fishprotection alternatives at Salem Station and Part B summarizes the methodology applied in evaluating fish protection alternatives. Part C describes how, through a preliminary screening process, PSE&G analyzed the universe of Fish Protection Options available today and determined that seven of them could be considered potential alternatives for application at Salem:* wedgewire screens" dual-flow fine mesh screens" modular inclined screens" strobe light/air bubble curtain combination" seasonal flow reductions
- revised outage schedules, and* retrofit with new closed-cycle cooling Part D explains the consideration PSE&G applied in developing detailed evaluations of implementing these seven fish protection alternatives at Salem, including the site-specific considerations that were applied to every analysis as well as the five factors PSE&Ggenerally used to evaluate each alternative.
Finally, Part E provides detailed evaluations of the feasibility of implementing each of the identified fish protection alternatives at Salem Station.VIII.A.1. Prior Evaluations As originally constructed, Salem's CWIS had no provisions for protecting aquatic organisms. Between 1979 and 1981, PSE&G retrofitted the standard traveling screens of the Salem intake structure with "Ristroph screens" to improve survival rates of impinged fish. Ristroph screens incorporate water-filled fish lifting buckets, low-pressure fish removal sprays, and continuous screen rotation (which minimizes the duration of impingement). A bi-directional fish return system with separate fish and debris troughswas also installed. A detailed description of these screens is presented-in Appendix B and Attachment G-1-I.VIE- I In 1984, as part of its original Section 316(b) Demonstration, PSE&G reviewed fishprotection options which might further reduce the entrainnment and impingement of organisms at Salem (PSE&G 1984; Section 8.0, Appendix XIII). PSE&G considered forty-one different alternatives and operating practices, nine of which demonstrated some potential for effective application at Salem. Those nine designs were selected for detailed evaluation using the following general criteria:.engineering feasibility: whether.practical, technical, and engineering considerations allow the use of the option at the Station;* biological effectiveness: whether there is the potential for the option to minimize impact to the aquatic ecosystem; .other environmental effects: whether the option has environmental side effects -which might reduce its potential for net environmental benefits; and* cost: whether the cost of installing the option at the site is economically practicable. In addition to these general criteria, specific consideration was also given to site-specific characteristics in order to evaluate potential applicability of these options for Salem.These characteristics were: the organisms to be protected (species and life stages), water quality characteristics (turbidity, debris, silt, etc.), and the hydraulic environment (flow direction and magnitude). Based on the analysis of the general criteria, and site-specific characteristics, and then available information on the alternatives, PSE&G's 1984 Section 316(b) Demonstration concluded that Salem's then existing intake structure was "best technology available" ("BTA") under Section 316(b).In 1986, NJDEP hired a consultant, Versar, Inc. (previously Martin Marietta Environmental Services), to review PSE&G's Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstrations, including the alternative technology evaluations under Section 3 16(b). Versar found that only two fish protection options, retrofitting the Station to operate with closed-cycle cooling and wedge-wire screens, would be effective in reducing losses at the CWIS but that wedge-wire screens were not an available technology for application without comprehensive on-site testing at Salem since wedge-wire screens had not been applied in an estuary. See Versar, 1989 at VTI-22. Versar concluded that the closed-cycle cooling retrofit was the only available option for reducing fish mortalities at Salem. See Versar 1989 at VIII-2. Versar also concluded that the costs of such a retrofit would not have had a disproportionate impact on PSE&G's ratepayers. In 1990, the NJDEP issued a draft permit proposing to require PSE&G to retrofit Salem with closed'cycle cooling to satisfy BTA requirements under Section 3 16(b). NJDEP's proposal was based primarily on Versar's recommendations. In connection with PSE&G's comments on the 1990 Draft Permit, PSE&G provided anupdated evaluation of fish protection options based onan analysis by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ("SWEC"). This evaluation included not only the fish VIE-2 protection options Versar had- found to be potentially available for application at Salem, but also other options deemed potentially available based on developments in technologies between 1984 and 1990. In regard to the closed-cycle cooling retrofit, PSE&G presented a more comprehensive analysis of the engineering, cost, and environmental effects associated with this alternative, including site-specific considerations. PSE&G also presented updated information on engineering feasibility, biological effectiveness, and engineering costs and impacts of other fish protection options.In addition, in1993 PSE&G submitted an Application Supplement whl :,h provided information on two alternatives which had then recently become available. This new information suggested-that certain modifications to the intake screens and an evaluation of sound deterrents would be available alternatives for application at Salem. In response to the 1990 and 1993 submissions, the NJDEP reconsidered its proposed determination that closed-cycle cooling was BTA at Salem. In the Fact Sheet/ Statement of Basis accompanying the 1993 Draft Permit, the NJDEP evaluated information on various alternative technologies, including their engineering feasibility, potential biological effectiveness and associated costs. The NJDEP proposed that: (1) the estimated cost of closed-cycle cooling was wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefit to be realized;(2) wedge-wire screens, variable speed pumps, and fine mesh screens were not available, technologies for application at the Station; (3) recent improvements to traveling screens and fish bucket design are an available technology at a cost which is not wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits to be realized; (4) a restriction on the cooling water system intake flow to a monthly average of 3,024 MGD (present average flow) is an available technology at a cost which is not wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits to be realized; and, (5) that sound deterrents may be an available technology if determined to be feasible.In its comments on the 1993 Draft Permit, PSE&G again updated information on potentially available fish protection alternatives including closed-cycle cooling, variable speed pumps, fine mesh screens, behavioral barriers and modifications to the CWIS screens as well as an initial evaluation of modular inclined screens. In addition to the SWEC update on fish protection alternatives, PSE&G presented an independent review of the closed-cycle cooling retrofit alternative prepared by Sargent & Lundy P.C. ("S&L").The S&L review concluded that SWEC's engineering analysis and their cost estimates associated with the closed-cycle cooling retrofit were reasonable and consistent with sound engineering practice.In its Response to Comment document issued with the final 1994 Permit, the NJDEP reaffirmed its determination of BTA as the existing CWIS in conjunction with the screen modifications, and an improved fish bucket design, a cooling water intake flow limitation, and a sound deterrent study. The 1994 Permit incorporated requirements for PSE&G to implement those measures through the Special Conditions of the Permit.VIII-3 Response to Comments at 2-3. NJPDES Permit at Part IV, B/C H.1, H.2, and H.5 pp 1-19of31 and 26 of31.VIII.B. Methodology for Evaluating Fish Protection Options The evaluations in this section are consistent with regulatory guidance published in the mid-1 970s by USEPA (USEPA 1973, 1976). The USEPA guidance provides acomprehensive summary of the analytical factors that are relevant to evaluating best technology available ("BTA") for minimizing adverse impacts of a CWIS. As the 1973 guidance indicates atp.v. the identification of BTA has "highly site specific cost versus benefits characteristics." Thus, as indicated in both guidance documents a very important step in the analysis of BTA for an existing CWIS is for the discharger to providebiological study and analysis characterizing the type, extent, distribution and significant overall environmental relation of aquatic organisms in the sphere of influence of the intake and an evaluation of corresponding available technologies to minimize impacts on those organisms. Further, the 1976 guidance provides an appendix summarizing the agency's "Evaluation Approach," (Appendix B). That summary indicates that an evaluation of BTA should include information on: the water body, the age of the CWIS, the economics of the industry, engineering information on the circulating water system and the CWIS, the aquatic community, the effects of the CWIS on the aquatic community, and Fish Protection Options. The specific types of information for certain categories of information are identified below.\Waterbodv: the evaluation should include a description of the CWIS, its location,flow rate of intake water, and other pertinent water quality characteristics. Enqineering Information: the evaluation should include a description of the location, design, construction and capacity of the CWIS and cooling system in use;quantities of water withdrawn; sources and points of discharge; intake velocity throughvarious parts of the intake and screens; transit time through various segments of thecirculating water system; ambient and water temperatures at various segments of the system; specifications on screen mesh sizes, cleaning devices, organism return devices, organism diversion systems, and other operational characteristics; capability of variabledepth withdrawal and seasonal operational modes; and the location, nature and discharge amounts of any chemical additions.Aquatic Community: the evaluation should include a map showing location and times of occurrence, of reproductive and nursery areas, migratory routes, and principal macrobenthic populations; estimates or measurements of redistribution of species or life stages of species, qualitative and quantitative impingrnent data by species and life stage for the shortest intervals for which data are available for each season and seasonalquantitative densities of principal entrainable forms of species; a determination of the seasonal standing crop of important entrainable species in the area of influence of the CWIS and a determination of the percent of damage due to the plant; and available information on the swim speeds of the R.IS at summer and winter temperatures. VIII-4 Alternatives: estimates of the results anticipated, and the costs of alternatives. The costs and benefits associated with the application of alternative options at Salem are discussed in Section LX below. Moreover, the engineering analyses were developed information and consistent with generally accepted engineering practices; the biological effects were predicted based on reasonable assumptions after assessment of empirical data and published laboratory or field studies and sound science. All of the permit applications PSE&G has submitted over the course of permitting Salem, including the current 1999 application, are consistent with USEPA's guidance and sound engineering or scientific practices and provide the full range of information necessary to make an appropriate, site-specific evaluation of BTA.VIII.C. Preliminary Screening of Fish Protection Options A detailed discussion of the full range of fish protection options currently recognized for minimizing CWIS-related effects is presented in Attachment F-3. The information presented in the Attachment is based on a comprehensive review of the most current literature and contacts with regulatory, water-user and utility personnel with knowledge of current developments in Fish Protection Options.To identify from among the universe of options for those it made sense to analyze for application at Salem Station a preliminary screening process was first conducted. In this process all options which have been used, or have been considered for use, to protect organisms at a CWIS were analyzed to identify those options which are reasonable to consider as available and applicable for possible use at the Station. This process was based on an assessment of each option relative to its ability to satisfy generic criteria for applicability. These criteria related primarily to biological effectiveness and degree of engineering development associated with the option.VIII.C.1. Fish Protection Options Available fish protection systems and devices fall into one of four categories depending on their mode of action: behavioral barriers which alter or take advantage of naturalbehavioral patterns to attract or repel fish; physical barriers which physically block fish passage (usually in combination with low velocity); collection systems which actively collect fish for their return to a safe release location; and diversion systems which divert fish to bypasses for return to a safe release location. In addition to these fish protectionoptions, consideration can be given to reducing fish losses by reducing flow rates. Such reductions can be achieved by reducing cooling water flow rates on a seasonal or continuous basis. Reducing flow on a seasonal basis and shifting refueling outages such that flows are reduced during periods of peak organism abundance both can act to reduce the number of organisms entrained or impinged at the CWIS. A list of Fish Protection Options is presented in F-VII Table 1; summaries of available information on these Fish Protection Options are discussed in detail in Attachment F-3.VIII-5 The Fish Protection Options considered in the preliminary screening included all options presented in F-VIIf Table 1. Each of these was subjected to the preliminary screening process to determine which were appropriate for further consideration based on: " known biological effectiveness (not necessarily with the species involved at the Station);* need for further engineering development to be considered an available option;* the relative engineering and/or biological advantage of one option over another. Engineering considerations included the feasibility of constructing the option at the Station, the ability to operate and maintain the option, and the impact of the option on Station operations and generation. Biological considerations were primarily associated with the ability of the options to protect various species and life stages.For an option to be selected for preliminary screening, it had to be judged satisfactory with respect to each of the three criteria listed above.The results of the preliminary screening are presented in F-VIl Table 2. On the basis of this screening, four fish protection alternatives and three flow modification schemes were selected for detailed evaluation:
- wedge-wire screens;fine mesh screens;
- modular inclined screens;* hybrid strobe light/air bubble curtain barriers;* seasonal flow reductions;
- revised refueling outage schedules; and* closed-cycle cooling.As discussed previously in the introductory remarks, the NJDEP included Special Condition H.5, a feasibility study of sound deterrent devices, as a requirement of the Permit. Special Condition H.5 requires PSE&G to assess the feasibility of deterring fish from the area in front of the CWIS through the use of underwater speakers or sound projectors.
Specifically, PSE&G was required to conduct behavioral assessment cage testsand then design, install and evaluate a prototype sound system at the CWIS. The sound deterrent feasibility study began in 1994 and was completed in the winter of 1998.These studies have generated promising data that strongly support the continued evaluation of sound to deter fish from the area in front of the CWIS. These data indicate that sound deterrents have good potential to deter at least some species at least at certain times of the year. At the same time, there were insufficient data to determine statistically significant effectiveness indices for the majority of species impinged during the in situ tests. Thus, the potential to deter these species remains unresolved. It is concluded that additional studies are warranted to better understand and optimize the promising results, as well as to come to conclusions regarding other species. Without these studies, a system cannot be properly designed and the viability of the technology (i.e., its overall effect on the fish population) cannot be evaluated. VTII-6 A detailed presentation of the sound studies and their results is provided in Attachment G-7 to this Application. Accordingly, the sound deterrent alternative is not addressed further in this section.VIII.D. Considerations Applicable to Detailed Evaluations of Potential Alternatives To provide thorough, consistent evaluations of the seven fish protection alternativesselected for detailed evaluation, PSE&G applied a consistent analytic procedure to evaluate each identified alternative. Prior to conducting any evaluations, PSE&G developed a comprehensive understanding of the site-specific conditions that would impact implementation-of the alternatives at Salem Station. Then, utilizing this site-specific information, PSE&G developed analyses of five factors related to evaluating the impacts of implementing each alternative: (I) relevant background knowledge derived from prior analyses of implementing the alternative at Salem; (2) technical considerations affecting implementation at Salem; (3)potential biological effectiveness at Salem; (4) other potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation at Salem; and (5) costs and other engineering impacts of implementing the alternative at Salem. This section provides important background information about the site-specific considerations and analytical factors that were applied in the detailed evaluations. When evaluating alternatives for reducing fish losses at a CWIS, site-specific factors that influence the practicability of installing, operating and maintaining each alternative and the impact that the alternative may have on Station operations must be taken into consideration. The interaction of the Station with aquatic organisms occurs as water is withdrawn from the Estuary into the CWIS and through the circulating water system. The nature of that interaction and the effect that it has on aquatic life is determined largely by the design and operation of the Station, the hydraulic conditions that exist in the vicinityof theStation and the species and life stages present.VII.D.1. The Design and Operation of Salem Station The primary site-specific factors considered in the detailed evaluation of alternatives relate to the location, design and operation of the CWIS. The hydrodynamics of theDelaware Estuary in the near-field area of the CWIS, and the design of the CWIS itself, strongly influence the hydraulic conditions that organisms encounter. In turn, these conditions influence the assessment of whether a fish protection alternative would be practicable to install and would potentially minimize organism losses. A brief description of pertinent location, design, operating and hydraulic conditions follows. A complete description of the CWIS is provided in Appendix B; a detailed discussion of the hydrology of the Estuary in the vicinity of the Station is presented in Appendix C.VIII.D. I. a. Station Location The Station utilizes a once-through cooling water system with a shoreline CWIS and anoffshore discharge. The Station is located on the eastern shore of Delaware Bay about 50 VIII-7 miles upstream of the mouth of the bay. The Station is situated at the extreme southern end of a peninsula known as Artificial Island. The primary components of the cooling water system are the circulating water intake structure, the pumps, the condensers, and the discharge, as shown on F-VIII Figure 1. The intake is a concrete structure housing the traveling water screens and the circulators, six for each unit. The intake structure hastwelve bays, one for each pump. Each bay has an ice barrier, a trash rack, a traveling water screen, and a circulator. Plan and section views of the intake structure are provided in F-VIIf Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The Station is located on the inside of a bend where the river flows in a southeasterly direction downstream of Artificial Island. At the Station, the river is about 2.5 miles wide with a shipping channe4 located on the side of the river opposite the intake. At the intake structure, the river depth varies from about 5 ft deep near the shoreline to a depth of about 30 ft approximately 500 ft offshore from the intake structure. As shown on F-VIU Figure 4, the river bottom was initially dredged for the Station intake and discharge structures. Dredging is periodically performed as part of the routine maintenance to remove silt accumulation from the intake channel. F-VDI Figure 4 shows the relative proximity of the Station intake and discharge structure. The potential for recirculation of the thermal discharge was considered for each alternative evaluated in detail.VIII.D.J.b. River Conditions near the StationThe Delaware River is tidal at the Station with water levels fluctuating an average of about 6 ft. Maximum river velocities are generally 1.0 to 1.5 ft/sec with ebb tide (flow downstream) and 1.5 to 2.0 ft/sec with flood tide (flow upstream) during normal summer hydrologic conditions. Representative river velocities in the vicinity of the CWIS, based on model studies conducted by Hydro-Research-Science (HRS) (1969) during the original design of the intake and other available data, are depicted on F-V1TI Figure 5.In addition to these relatively high prevailing water velocities near the Station, which prevents suspended matter from settling, Salem is located in the transition zone of the Estuary. The transition zone is characterized by high turbidity, variable salinity, and low biological productivity. Turbidity levels and suspended solids peak in this zone as a function of relatively strong tidal currents and resuspension of fine grain sediments. The transition zone is also an area where colloidal particles aggregate due to the mixing offresh and brackish waters. In addition to the finer suspended materials in the water near the Station, larger organic detritus, much of it originating in the marshes along the margin of the bay, accumulate, with the result that this segment of the Estuary typically has, by far, higher concentrations of suspended solids than any other location in the main stem Delaware system.The CWIS is designed to operate at river levels ranging between El. 81.0 ft and El. 100.5 ft Public Service Datum (PSD). Public Service Datum is an arbitrarily assigned scale where Station grade is set at El. 100.0 ft PSD. River levels in relation to PSD are: High high-water El. 97.5 ft PSD Mean high tide El. 92.2 ft PSD VyI-s Mean tide and mean sea level El. 39.3 ft PSD Mean low tide El. 86.4 ft PSD Low low-water El. 81.0 ft PSD Design low water El. 76.0 ft PSD VIII.D.!.c. The Design of the Current CTVIS As described more fully in Appendix B, the Station's CWIS consists of tvelve separate intake bays. Water enters each intake bay through an 11 ft-2 inch wide inlet opening under a seasonal ice barrier. The bottom of the inlet opening is at El. 50.0 ft PSD with the bottom of the ice/debris barrier at El. 78.9 ft PSD. The ice barriers are removed in early spring after the ice is gone and replaced in the late fall when ice is expected. The. ice barriers are removed from May I through October 24. Each intake bay has a trash rack located downstream of the ice barrier. The steel trash racks extend over the full depth of the intake and are sloped at about IH:6.4V. The trash racks are 0.5 inch vertical bars with 3.5 inch bar spacings providing a 3 inch clear opening. The trash racks are cleaned at least once per day between May 1 through October 15 and normally threetimes per week during the rest of the year. Each bay has an intake isolation gate guide located approximately 4 ft downstream of the trash racks at the operating deck, as shown on F-VIfI Figure 3. The vertical traveling water screens are located about 13 ft downstream of the isolation gate guide (about 17 ft downstream of the trash racks at the deck level). The circulators are located 30 ft downstream of the traveling water screens.The traveling water screen baskets are 10 ft wide by 1.75 ft deep with a total of 62 baskets on each screen. In accordance with 1994 Permit Special Condition H.2, the screens were further modified in 1994/1995 to be state-of-the-art Ristroph screens with smooth woven wire mesh having 0.25 inch by 0.50 inch rectangular openings, a dual wash spraywash system with a low pressure spray for fish and a high pressure spray for debris. The previously installed fish and debris return troughs are still in use. The screens can operate at continuous speeds of 6, 12, 17, and 34 ft/min, as necessary, to handle varying debris loads.The circulators are vertical wet-pit type pumps manufactured by Worthington Corporation. The pump motors are 2,000-hp, single speed motors which operate at 300rpm. The pumps have vertical inlets positioned above the bottom of the intake bays as shown on F-VTII Figure 3. The circulators each have a design flow rate of 185,000 gpm, providing a design flow rate of 1,110,000 gpm for each unit or 2,220,000 gpm for the Station. Operation of the circulators is limited to 175,000 gpm per pump, or 95% of the design flow rate, by Permit Special Condition H. 1.Velocities in the intake structure vary depending on tide stage and proximity to the ice barrier, traveling water screens, and pump inlets. As discussed previously, HRS conducted hydraulic model studies prior to original Station construction to predict velocities in the vicinity of the CWIS. F-VIII Table 3 summarizes predicated average velocities at various locations in the intake structure with the circulators operating at design capacity based on the hydraulic model studies. At mean low tide (MLT), the VIII-9 maximum average velocity is 1.3 ft/sec under the ice barrier and 1.0 ft/sec at the screen face, assuming uniform flow distribution. At low water (LLW), the velocity based on uniform flow distribution increases to 1.4 ft/sec under the ice barrier and 1.2 ft/sec at the, screen face. Recognizing that non-uniform screen approach flow conditions exist throughout much of the tidal cycle due to strong tidal currents, the hydraulic model was run under ebb and flood conditions. As shown on F-VIII Figure 6, tidal currents influence velocities both laterally and vertically within the intake bays (referred to as"gates"). Therefore, velocities at the screens can be expected to be lower and higher thanthe average, depending on location, through much of the tidal cycle. For the purpose of the detailed evaluation, it was assumed that screen velocities could be as much as 80 percent higher than the average, as presented in F-VIE Table 3.VIII.D.2. Potential Biological Effectiveness The primary biological criteria to consider in any evaluation of alternatives for reducing organism losses at a CWVIS are the species and life stages to be protected. Appendix C of this Application provides a detailed description of the biota of the Delaware Estuary. In this Application, the species considered in this evaluation of alternatives were the RIS, as summarized in F-VIE Table 4. Attachments C-I through C-12 of Appendix C provide a complete discussion of the life histories of the RIS. The table indicates which life stages of each species occur in entrainment and impingement samples. In addition to the eleven species listed in F-VII Table 4, blue crab were included in the detailed evaluation as an important species.In the evaluation of each alternative, each species and life stage occurring at the Station is considered individually when determining the potential for the alternative to reduce (or increase) fish losses from the base case.The biological models utilized for the assessment are the Equivalent-Adult Model (EAM) and Equivalent-Yield Model (EYM). The EAM provided estimates of the relative benefit of each prospective alternative in terms of the numbers of one-year old fish of species of commercial and recreational interest that would be saved. The EYM converts these losses of one-year olds into pounds lost to the commercial and recreational fisheries.The overall procedure is to: (1) calculate the number of organisms lost to entrainment and impingement by species and life stage for each of the alternatives and for the presentplant configuration; (2) convert numbers of organisms lost to an equivalent number of one-year olds, i.e. recruits; (3) convert these equivalent number of recruits lost to pounds lost to the fisheries; and (4) calculate the number of pounds saved per alternative by subtracting the losses for each alternative from the losses under the present plant configuration. The same procedure was followed for each RIS with the exception of the forage species-bay anchovy, Gammarus, and Neomysis. Losses of the forage species were converted directly to pounds of individual R.IS subject to commercial and recreational fisheries. Computation of pounds of commercial/recreational fish lost due to loss of VI"-_ 10 forage fish involved the application of the Production-Foregone Model (PFM) and biomass conversion factors: The analogous operation for invertebrates involved calculating pounds lost and then applying conversion efficiency and allocation factors to determine the pounds of commercially and recreationally important species lost as a result.The PFM as employed here calculated the biomass that the organisms lost due to Station operations would have contributed to the ecosystem had they died from natural causes instead of entrainment or impingement. Station losses of non-RIS fish of commercial and recreational interest were treated in the same manner as RIS losses by applying representative parameter values gleaned from the RIS data for the loss, EAIM and EYIM calculations. Non-RIS forage fish losses were converted to losses of commercial and recreational interest using the same models and parameters as were used for bay anchovy. A detailed discussion of this procedure is included as Attachment F-4.VIII.D.3. Other Environmental Effects For each alternative evaluated, an analysis of other environmental effects that might result was conducted., For example, reducing intake flows can result in higher ATs that may impact the receiving waters. Alternatives that reduce Station capacity require that replacement power be supplied from other power plants. Increasing the output of other plants can result in increased air emissions and increased entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. Such effects are presented, where relevant, for each alternative. VIII.D.4. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations Information on engineering costs associated with the design, installation and operation/maintenance of each alternative was developed to provide input to the cost-,benefit evaluation presented in Appendix F, Section LX. The information developed and the assumptions used are summarized below.Order-of-magnitude project costs or engineering costs were developed for the alternatives that received detailed evaluation. The order-of-magnitude costs are based on historical data from other projects adjusted for identifiable differences in project sizes and operations as compared to Salem's characteristics. The estimated engineering costs associated with implementation of each alternative, as appropriate, are based on the following:
- present-day prices and fully contracted labor rates as of July 1998;* forty-hour work week with single-shift operation for construction activities which do not impact plant operations and fifty-hour work week with double-shift operation for construction activities which do impact plant operations;
- direct costs for material and labor required for construction of all project features;VIn-I- I
- distributable costs for site non-manual supervision, temporary facilities, equipment rental, and support services incurred during construction (assumed to be 85 percent of the labor portion of the direct costs);* indirect costs for labor and related expenses for engineering services to prepare drawings, specifications, and design documents (assumed to be 10 percent of the direct costs);* PSE&G costs for administration of project contracts and for engineering and construction management (assumed to be 10 percent of the direct costs);* allowance for indeterminants to cover uncertainties in design and construction at this preliminary stage of study; an allowance for indeterminants is a judgment factor which is added to estimated figures to complete the estimate while allowing for indeterminaats in the data used in developing the estimates (assumed to be 10 percent of the direct, distributable, indirect costs, and PSE&G costs);* contingency factors to account for possible additional costs which might develop but cannot be predetermined e.g., labor difficulties, delivery delays, weather;assumed to be 15 percent of the direct, distributable, indirect, PSE&G, and allowance, for indeterminant costs.While the above list indentifies many of the costs associated with each alternative, it is not at all inclusive.
The project costs do not include the following items which are real costs; however, given the stage in the evaluation it would be inappropriate to include them: design, installation, and operation of prototype facilities;* costs to perform additional field studies that may be required including biological effectiveness studies, soil sampling, and wetlands delineation;
- costs to dispose of any hazardous materials which may be encountered during excavation and dredging activities;" escalation; ard* PSE&G permitting costs for installation of both prototype and actual facilities.
If any alternative is given serious consideration for application in the future, the above costs must be identified and included in the overall engineering cost estimate. In particular, costs associated with prototype facilities,escalation and permitting may be substantial. Implementation of some alternatives could impact Station operations. Construction activities could require shutdown of the units. 'Some alternatives require additional power to operate.. All of the alternatives require Station personnel to perform routine inspection and maintenance activities. These considerations are addressed and discussed individually under the description of each alternative selected for detailed evaluation. VIII.E. Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives This section presents detailed evaluations of the seven fish protection alternatives selected for further consideration based on: (1) the engineering considerations associated with design, installation, operation and maintenance; (2) the potential biological 3 VEI-12 effectiveness; (3) other environmental effects, and (4) engineering costs and impacts to Station operations associated with each alternative. VIIE. 1. Wedge- Wire Screens Wedge-wire screens are metallic screen cylinders that are comprised of evenly-spaced, parallel slot openings between evenly-spaced screen bars. The screen cylinders are completely submerged in the water column and are connected to shoreline pump houses via pipe headers and plenum structures,Wedge-wire screens reduce entrainment and impingement by virtue of their cylindricalshape, small slot sizes and low through-slot velocities. They are designed to function passively; that.is, to be-effective, ambient cross-currents must be present in the waterbody to carry waterborne organisms and debris past the screens. Wedge-wire screens utilize"V" or wedge-shaped, cross section wire welded to a framing system to form a slotted screening element.VIII.E. l.a. Technical ConsiderationsWedge-wire screens have been demonstrated to have the p6tential to reduce losses due to impingement and entrainment (Attachment F-3); however, their feasibility in marine and estuarine environments isnot clear. See Versar, 1989 at VII-22. Biofouling has been identified as a potentially severe problem in estuarine applications (Brown et al. 1981;Hanson et al. 1978). Before any implementation of this alternative, it would be essential to test a prototype system in situ to assess the operational feasibility of wedge-wire screens at the Station in the presence of local detrital loadings and fouling organisms. A new intake plenum (a common pool between the wedge-wire screen and the pumps from which all of the pumps would draw cooling water) would be conistructed in front of the existing intake structure, as shown on F-V\m Figure 7. Ten foot diameter header pipes would connect the individual wedge-wire screen modules to the plenum. The plenum would be designed to pass the full flow capacity of the Station. The plenum would extend about 40 feet in front of the existing intake structure and would be a single row of sheetpile with walers and battered pile bracing. The existing intake structure would not require. extensive modification to connect the plenum to the intake structure. Installation of the plenum in front of the intake would have minimal impact on shipping during the construction. The wedge-wire screens would be located more than 1,000 ft from the shipping channel and would have about 9 ft minimum submergence at design low water which should minimize the risk of damage by ship and barge traffic.The wedge-wire screens would be located approximately 2,000 ft from the' circulating water discharge. The location of the intake could result in recirculation of the heated discharge during ebb tide.For maximum fish protection, a slot size as small as 0.5 mm is necessary to protect fish eggs and early larvae of most species. The actual slot size that would be most suitable to VIII-13 protect the P.1s at Salem could only be determined through prototype testing at the site.However, a 2.0-mm slot size was considered to be the smallest practical size for Salem because of the heavy silt and detrital load of the Delaware Estuary and the large volume of intake flow. A 2.0-amm slot size (clear space between screen bars) would yield an open screen area of 50 percent; i.e., 50 percent of the screen surface area that would be open to the flow of water into the Station. The configuration shown on F-VII Figure 7 is based on the use of wedge-wire screens with 2.0 nmn slots and a slot flow velocity of 0.5 ft/sec.To reduce the screen slot size to 1.0 mm and still maintain a slot velocity of 0.5 ft/sec, the number of screens required would have to be doubled.To achieve a screen slot, velocity of 0.5 ft/sec, 240 wedge-wire screen modules (F-VIII Figure 8) would be required. Approach velocities to the screens would be higher than slot velocities due to tidal action during much of the tidal cycle. The 10 ft diameter header pipes and the plenum would have about 5 ft/sec and 0.5 ft/sec velocities, respectively. The low velocities through the intake system would assure negligible headlosses from the river to the pump inlets, assuming that biofouling and debris clogging was not substantial. Hydraulic model studies could be necessary to determine the flow conditions at the pumpinlets. Such model studies were performed for the Eddystone Station prior to installation of 10-mm (0.40-in.) wedge-wire screens (see Attachment F-3).An airburst back-wash system has been shown to be an effective method for maintaining wedge-wire screens in a clean condition and would be incorporated into such screens if installed at the Station. For the air backwash system to be effective, ambient cross currents are necessary to move the backwashed debris away from the screens. Based on available current data, it appears that adequate flows exist on the ebb and flood tides to transport debris and organisms away from the screens; however, they are not assured at slack tides. The screens would be installed in a staggered manner to minimize hydraulic interaction between the screens and to maximize exposure of the screens to ambient river currents to facilitate debris removal. By staggering the screens and providing sufficientair backwashing capacity, debris should be adequately transported away during ebb and flood tides. However, during slack tides, there is a high likelihood that must of the backwvashed debris would resettle on the screens. Therefore, the ability to maintain the screens in a sufficiently clean condition to prevent excessive headloss and severe impacts on Station operations would be highly uncertain. Construction of-the new intake plenum and installation of the modifications to theexisting intake structure would be accomplished over a two-year period and would be sequenced to minimize impacts on plant operation. The plenum walls and bypass gates would be installed prior to installation of the wedge-wire screens, thereby allowing the units to operate during most of the construction period. Installation of the plenum sheetpile walls and support piles would be completed during the first year using a barge-mounted crane. Installation of the twelve header pipes and concrete encasements, and placement of the cylindrical wedge-wire screen tee's would be accomplished over a nine month period, also using a barge-mounted crane. Installation of the air backwash system pipes would require two months. Unit I and Unit 2 would each have to be shutdown for VIE"- 14 about six months to install the plenum and an additional two months to allow time to install the 10 ft header pipe connection to the plenum and air piping.VYIZ.E.l.b. Conclusions Application of the wedge-wire screen alternative to the Salem CWIS: (1) would be a costly endeavor due to the scale of the intake flows; (2) would involve substantial lost power costs; and (3) would present major uncertainties in both engineering feasibility and biological effectiveness. While some of these uncertainties could be reduced by mathematical modeling, laboratory hydraulic model testing and prototype, on-site testing, other uncertainties would remain unresolved. Testing would extend over multiple years and would be costly (e.g., tens of millions of dollars.)The operation of wedge-wire screens at other, smaller facilities does not support application of this alternative at the Station. Salem's cooling water flow rate is more than five times the flow rate of any facility at which this alternative has been applied. In 1989, Versar, Inc. (1989), NJDEP's consultant, determined that wedge-wire screens were not an available technology for Salem, stating that: Wedge-wire screens have never been applied at a location requiring even as much as 20% of the intake flows required by the Salem NGS. Further, wedge-wire screens have never been operationally deployed in an estuarine environment where biofouling and detrital clogging present serious operating impediments. In addition, wedge-wire screens are not suitable for use at Salem due to the high potential for biofouling and clogging from debris and detritus at this location in the Delaware Estuary, in contrast to the water environment at the Campbell and Eddystone Plants described in Attachment F-3. Total suspended solid loads at Salem are higher than at the other two plants, and the Artificial Island area is a known silting area. Detritus loads are also high in the vicinity of Salem. In fact, Salem has had a history of screen pluggage and, during the first four years of operation at Salem, sustained a significant amount of plant outage time attributable to screen problems.The salinity is higher in this estuarine environment and biofouling and detritus wrapping around the screens could be resistant to cleaning by compressed air backflush. Due to its.offshore location, a very complex series of air backflushing piping would be required in order to clean the screens. Thus, biofouling and detrital loading, and the piping necessary for maintenance, would pose very serious operating impediments. The high velocity cross-flows necessary for screen flushing and biological efficacy are not assured at Salem because ambient flow velocities approach zero at slack tides and currents are variable with tide. During periods of slack tide, heavy debris could be deposited on screens since there would be no current to carry backflushed debris away.Further, under any tidal condition, there is uncertainty as to whether the necessary high velocity ambient cross-flows could exist given the 2.2 million gpm plant withdrawal flows at Salem.VIEI-15 Even if PSE&G were to consider the application of wedge-wire screens at the Station, on-site testing and hydraulic modeling would be necessary to resolve all of the issues raised above. Large-scale biological research would be needed to establish the viability and effectiveness of a wedge-wire screen system at Salem. Furthermore, prototype testing at Salem would be required to determine maintainability, effects of siltation and biofouling, and material compatibility of the wedge-wire screens in the water environment at Salem.This testing would require installing a full-scale prototype of a wedge-wire screen intake in the immediate vicinity of the CWIS and operating it for one year or longer. However, no amount of prototype testing could adequately predict the severity of the siltation and debris loading problems, which are virtually certain to occur with the complete system.Due to the high degree of uncertainty regarding potential biological effectiveness and the ability to maintain wedge-wire screens in a condition that will not seriously impact Station operations, the wedge-wire screen alternative is still not considered to be an available technology for Salem. Accordingly, estimates of potential biological effectiveness, engineering costs and impacts on Station operations have not been developed for this alternative. VIII.E.2. Dual-flow Fine Mesh Screens As discussed in Attachment F-3, fine mesh traveling screens have been used at a number of power plant CWIS. The potential for fine mesh screens to reduce organism losses is determined by the ability of egg, larvae, and earlyjuvenile life stages that are entrained through coarse mesh screens to survive collection on, and removal from, fine mesh screens. In some cases, organism' survival has been shown to be higher for entrained species/life stages than for the same organisms collected on fine mesh screens.Fine mesh screening media can be installed on most types of traveling screens. At Salem, backfitting the existing screens with fine mesh was not considered a viable option due to existing velocity conditions and debris loading. In order to achieve low velocities and reduce debris loading rates, dual-flow screens were selected for detailed evaluation due to their large screening area.PSE&G's 1993 comments concluded that there was insufficient data to support implementation of fine mesh screens at Salem. Simple replacement of the existing screen panels at Salem with fine mesh was not feasible due to the presence of severe biofouling and detrital loading conditions and the need to reduce' intake velocity to maximize the survival potential of early life stages of fish which would be impinged rather than entrained. The supplement considered construction of a new screening structure, but concluded that there was insufficient data to allow a determination of whether the screens would function in such an environment. 1993 Comments, Appendix J at 23. N.JDEP agreed with PSE&G's assessment, concluding that it was "unable to demonstrate at this time fine mesh screens are an available technology for application at the Station given the physical and biological conditions at the Station and since fine mesh screens may cause U VII-16 " an overall increase in impingement mortality rates for early life stages of many species." Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis at 143.As discussed below, while recent applications of fine mesh.screens have had some success in reducing intake mortalities, there remain substantial technical issues relative to the application of this alternative at Salem. Overcoming these issues could only be achieved at great expense and with considerable remaining uncertainty as to ultimate effectiveness. A summary of the updated analysis is presented below.Salem's CWIS screens presently are equipped with 0.25 x 0.50 inch smooth-tex mesh panels. See Appendix B and Exhibit G-1-2 for a detailed description of the current intake screens. Replacing those screen panels with panels having finer or differently shaped mesh could be considered as an alternative for reducing entrainment losses. However, the approach velocities to the existing screens (as high as 2.5 fi/sec) exceed the approach velocities at the intake structures currently operating with fine mesh screens (typically 0.5 to 1.0 fi/sec); therefore, existing data on the biological effectiveness of fine mesh would not be reliable for predicting survival rates at Salem. In addition, the heavy debris and detrital loading at the Station raises concerns as to whether the existing screens could be operated reliably if fitted with, fine mesh panels. Accordingly, an alternative system was developed which would involve building a new screen structure as an extension of the existing intake and incorporating dual-flow fine mesh screens. The increased surface area of dual-flow screens and the increase in the total number of screens would reduce velocities and could help to alleviate the biological and reliability concerns associated with installing fine mesh panels on the existing travelling water screens.A new screen support structure would be constructed extending about 65 ft off-shore from the existing intake. The new screen structure would be required to allow for the increased number of screens, thereby reducing screen velocity. Sixteen dual-flow fine mesh screens would be installed in the new intake, as shown on F-VIi Figure 9. Sheet pile walls would be installed between the new screen structure and the existing intake to create an intake plenum that would convey flow from the new intake to the existing pump bays. The existing trash racks and traveling water screens would be removed. A new trash rack system would be installed upstream of the new screens to prevent large debris from accumulating on the fine mesh screens (F-VIfl Figure 10).The new screen support structure would be about 240 ft long and 60 ft wide. The 16 screens would be supported by the deck of the new structure. The bottom of the new intake would be at El. 50 ft PSD with the operating deck at El. 100 ft PSD. A trash raking system would be located in front of the screens. The organism removal troughs would be located on the back side of the screens. Stop log slots would be located in the new screen structure to permit dewatering of the screens and trash racks.The new dual-flow screens would be equipped with fish lifting buckets, a low pressure spray wash for fish removal, a high pressure spray wash for debris removal, and a fish return trough to each end of the intake structure. The fish handling features of the screens VUTI-17 would be similar to the features installed on the existing screens. The dual-flow screens would have 10-ft long baskets. The baskets would be fitted with 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) fine mesh and would be designed for continuous operation. Because of the uncertainty of the impacts of the debris loadings at the Station on operation of fine mesh screens, on-site testing would be required to determine the biological effectiveness and engineering viability of this alternative. However, a pilotscale demonstration of the concept similar to that conducted at Big Bend Station, as described in Attachment F-3, would be required. The pilot-scale demonstration would: (1) evaluate the potential biological effectiveness of the system; (2) identify optimum design features and operating conditions; and (3) identify engineering problems or constraints which might be imposed by site-specific conditions. At Salem, the debris removal capability of fine mesh traveling screens would require testing to determine if debris matting brought about by the fine mesh could be removed adequatel-. In addition, extensive testing would be required to verify the ability of fine mesh traveling screens to perform in the silty environment at Salem, including the effect of continuous operation at the high screen travel speeds that would be required.VIZI.E.2.a. Technical ConsiderationsAn initial review of fine mesh screen concepts for the Station involved an evaluation of the potential for backfitting the existing screens with a fine mesh screen panel. The existing screens contain 62 baskets and are among the largest in use at a power plant today. Assuming non-uniform flow approaching the screens, the maximum approach velocity to the screens would be 2.5 fl/sec at design low water (F-VyIn Table 3). The present Station traveling screens are maintained on a routine basis, including repair and replacement of screen baskets and the screening material. It might be possible to replace the present.screen baskets with baskets having synthetic or metal fine mesh screening material. However, the rigorous operating conditions encountered at the Station, especially debris and sediment loading, raise questions about the operational feasibility and potential biological effectiveness of such an exchange.No fine mesh screening system evaluated to date operates at velocities similar to the velocities at the existing screens at the Station. Further, other systems do not experience the heavy debris and sediment loads occurring at the Station. It is likely that heavy debris loading and high velocities, in addition to impacting the ability to maintain the screens in an operational condition, would also cause increased mortality of most species above the levels observed at other power plant intake structures. For these reasons, it was deemed necessary to construct a new fine mesh screening system upstream of the existing screens to increase the screening area, thereby decreasing velocities at the screen face and debris and sediment loading on individual screens.The new system would incorporate dual-flow traveling screens and would be designed to achieve a screen approach velocity of 0.5 fl/s. A possible layout for the fine mesh screen system is shown on F-VI Figure 9. To achieve the 0.5 ft/s average velocity, a total of 16 dual-flow screens would be required. Each screen would discharge into a new VIE- IS common plenum that would connect the new intake structure to the existing CWIS. The dual-flow screens would have fish handling features comparable to the existing traveling water screens.VIII.E.2.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness Fine mesh screens have been used at a number of power plants to protect aquatic organisms. The biological effectiveness of these installations varies by species and life stage.Implementing this alternative results in a shift in the relative number of organisms that are entrained versus impinged. Smaller organisms that are currently entrained would become impinged undez this alternative. Whether impinging these organisms wouldincrease or decrease mortality depends on whether their impingement survival rates would be above or below their current entrainment survival rates. Entrainment survival of some of the early life history stages of the RIS is already high (e.g., spot, white perch, striped bass, Gammarus, and Neomysis). The potential for increased survival for these species would be small. Species that do not have high entrainment survival, but do have high impingement survival, have the greatest potential for increased survival.There are relatively limited data available on the survival of early life stages following collection and removal from fine mesh traveling screens. Therefore, it is difficult topredict accurately whether the losses of eggs and larvae would increase, decrease or remain the same with the installation of fine mesh screens at the Station. Specific survival data from past studies used for this alternative are presented below. The species entrained as eggs at the Station include bay anchovy, striped bass andweakfish. Data on bay anchovy egg survival from studies at Big Bend Station in Florida (Taft et al. 1981;, Brueggemeyer et al 1988) showed a total (initial and latent) mortality of 72.4 percent unadjusted for control mortality (control mortality= 29.4 percent). The assumed mortality rate for bay anchovy eggs passing through the Station is 100 percent.Therefore, assuming that the data from Big Bend is reasonably representative of rates that might be obtained at Salem, collecting bay anchovy eggs with the fine mesh screens and returning them to the Estuary could result in a mortality rate of approximately 73 percent, with a lower projected mortality rate of approximately 50 percent if control survival is taken into account (F-VIU Table 5). Given a lack of data on survival of striped bass and weakfish eggs, it was assumed that eggs of these species would fall within the expected.range estimated for bay anchovy.Yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae of bay anchovy, striped bass, weakfish and white perch have been collected in entrainment samples at the Station. A limited number of estimates of survival from fine mesh screen studies is available for bay anchovy, striped bass, weakfish (and related Sciaenidae species) and white perch. Mortality data for bayanchovy show a range of latent mortality after collection from fine mesh screens from 63 to 100 percent. Striped bass mortality values fall within the same range. Weakfish mortality also ranges from 63 to nearly 100 percent. A single mortality value for white VII-19 perch is reported as 94 percent. While available data on which to base estimates with confidence is limited, it is considered reasonable to assume that a range of mortality from 63 to 100 percent would apply to yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae of these four species. Mortality of Juvenile 1 fish is based on data on juvenile survival at other power plants. For Juvenile 2 and adult fish, it is reasonable to assume that mortality would not change from the existing rates observed at Salem.The estimated mortality for eggs, yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae presented above were used in deriving the changes in pounds of each RIS presented in F-VyI Table 6.Juvenile and adult mortality was assumed to be the same as with the existing Ristroph screens.VIILE.2.c. Other Environmental Effects If testing of the dredged materials indicated the presence of contaminants at levels in excess of applicable regulations, the spoils would have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste using suitable handling and containment procedures. Implementation of this alternative would result in the continued return of trash and fish from the screens back to the Estuary.VIII.E.2.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations The estimated engineering capital cost for constructing the new intake and installing fine mesh, dual-flow screens is approximately 532.7 million, as shown in F-V1T Table 7. The additional annual costs required to operate and maintain the dual-flow screens would include 4,380 man-hours of PSE&G personnel, S200,000 for component replacement, and 4,705,000 kWh energy to operate the additional screen continuously (F-VIII Table 7).Thirty-six months would be required to construct the new structures and install the screen equipment. However, each unit would only have to be shut down one month to complete construction of the new plenum in front of the intake. These stages could be scheduled during normal Station refueling outages.Construction of the new intake and installation of the 16 fine mesh, dual-flow screen system would take approximately three years. Construction would be sequenced to minimize impacts on Station operations; the intake structure would be installed prior to constructing the plenum walls allowing the units to operate during most of the construction period. Installation of a sheetpile cofferdam for the intake would be completed during the first year using barge-mounted cranes. The concrete intake would then be completed during the second year followed by installation of the screens and trash racks. Unit I and Unit 2 would have to be shutdown for about a one-month period each to connect the plenum walls to the existing intake during the third year. This activity could be coordinated to correspond with a scheduled Station outage.Due to the increase in the number of screens, there would be increased power required for operating and additional maintenance efforts, estimated to be one man-hour effort per screen per shift. Operation of the new trash rake and cleaning of the fish return troughs would have similar power and labor requirements as the existing trash rack and screen debris system. Operation and maintenance required for the dual-flow fine mesh screens VIE-20 would be similar to that needed for the existing screens; however, with incremental labor and energy required due to the greater number of screens. The fine mesh screens would be rotated continuously to optimize organism survival and to prevent excess debris accumulation and headloss.VIII.E.3. Mfodular Inclined Screens A fish diversion screen known as the Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) has been developed recently by the Electric Power Research Institute. The MIS was developed primarily for application at hydroelectric projects and is intended to protect juvenile and adult life stages of fish. An MIS module consists of an entrance with trash racks, dewatering stop logs in slots, an inclined screen set at shallow angle (10 to 20 degrees) to the flow, and abypass for directing diverted fish to a transport pipe. The module is completely enclosed and is designed to operate at relatively high water velocities ranging from 2 to 10 ft/sec, depending on species and life stages to be protected. To date, the MIS has been evaluated in laboratory studies and one small-scale field evaluation at a hydroelectric project. At the present time, no permanent MIS facility has been installed or is planned for installation. Hydraulic and small-scale biological test results of the MIS, as presented in Attachment F-3, indicate that the MIS has potential for effectively diverting fish to a bypass and thereby reducing fish losses at water intakes. Laboratory testing has been conducted with a wide variety of fish I to 3 inches in length, including two of the RIS (i.e., blueback herring and American shad). Results have shown the screens to be effective over a wide range of operating conditions. .VIILE.3.a. Technical Considerations If installed at Salem, eight MIS modules would be constructed about 65 ft in front of the existing intake. The screen modules would divert fish into a bypass system that would allow the fish to be returned to the Estuary on either side of the new intake. As shown on F-V11 Figure 11, sheet pile walls would be installed between the new screen structures and the existing intake to create an intake plenum that would convey flow from the new intake to the existing pump bays. Each module would have an inclined screen and a fishbypass leading to a pump designed to return fish to the river. Hidrostal pumps, which have proven effectiveness in transporting fish with minimal injury, would be used for this purpose. Each inclined screen panel would be rectangular in shape and would be 11 ft wide by 60 ft long. The screen angle would be 15 degrees. The screen material would bewedge-wire with the screen bars arranged parallel to the flow. The inclined screen panels would have a uniform porosity of 50 percent with 2-mm (0.8-in.) bars and 2-mm clear spacings along their entire length. The screen panels would be supported in a steel frame that would be designed to withstand the pressure differential that would result from afully clogged condition. The screens would be rotated for cleaning by a dual shaft operator that could be actuated by a motor or hydraulic system. The existing trash racksand traveling water screens would be used to remove debris from the cooling water during MIS backwashing cycles.Vm-21 'As part of the modular design, a trash rack would be located at the entrance to each module and an isolation gate would be incorporated to permit dewatering of the inclined screen. A trash rake would be installed to facilitate cleaning of the racks. The isolation gates would be used to dewater the screen modules for inspection and maintenance activities, one screen at a time. Each module would have a roof above the screen extending from the module entrance to the fish bypass, as shown on F-VIH Figure 12.The roof would have a rounded transition to the trash rack support wall in order to minimize entrance head losses and to provide uniform screen approach flow conditions. The height of the flow passage upstream of the screen area would be I 1 ft. The submergence of the roof would be 5 ft below the minimum water surface to prevent vortex formation. The bypass entrance at the downstream end of each screen would be 2 ft high by 2 ft wide. The bypass would turn vertically approximately 1 ft downstream from the bypass entrance, would enter the bottom of a 2-ft wide fish bypass, and then would transition into a 2-ft diameter transport pipe. A 2-ft wide bottom drop gate would be installed on each module bypass to independently control flow through each bypass. Each pipe would lead to a Hidrostal pump. The pump discharges from the-eight individual pumps which would induce transport and return flows would combine into a single 5-foot diameter pipe that would return fish to a location upstream or downstream of the intake depending on tide cycle.Despite encouraging biological effectiveness data, the MIS concept is relatively new and has not been installed on a full-scale basis at any site. Therefore, the concept should be considered experimental. Extensive and costly pilot-scale studies would be required to determine the potential for operating and maintaining an MIS facility at the Station.Application of the MIS at the Station would represent the first full-scale application ofthis new screen concept. While the MIS has been shown to divert some species at velocities approaching the screen of up to 10 ft/sec, it is considered appropriate to limit the velocity to a conservatively low level. A conservative maximum velocity of 5 ft/sec was selected for the Station. The headloss through the modules would normally be approximately 1 ft during periods when debris loading was minimal. The screen would be rotated and backwashed when the headloss increased to 2 ft. The screen and support frame would be structurally designed to withstand a hydrostatic differential pressure of 5 ft.Each bypass entrance would be 2-ft wide by 2-ft high to minimize the potential for debris blockage. The trash racks at the upstream end of each module would limit the size of thedebris that could enter the bypasses. The bypass flow would be about 9000 gppm for eachmodule. The total bypass flow from the 8 modules would be about 72,000 gpm. A 2-ftwide by 10-ft high bottom drop gate would control the bypass flow entering the bypass sluice through each module. Two, five foot diameter valves, one on each side of theintake structure, would be operated to convey fish to one side of the intake. During each tidal cycle, the appropriate valve would be opened to return fish to the downstream side VUI-22 of the structure. Operation of the system in this manner would minimize recirculation of fish.Construction of the MIS structures and the new plenum intake would be accomplished over a three-year period. Construction would be sequenced to minimize impacts on Station operation; the screen modules would be installed prior to constructing the plenumwalls, allowing the units to operate during most of the construction period. Installation of the sheetpile cofferdam would be completed during the first year using a barge-mounted crane. The concrete modules would then be poured during the second year followed by installation of the screens, trash racks, and isolation gates. Unit I and Unit 2 would haveto be shutdown for about a one-month period each to connect the plenum wall to the existing intake. This activity would be coordinated to correspond with a scheduled plant outage.Despite encouraging biological effectiveness data, the MIS concept is relatively new and has not been installed on a full-scale basis at any site. Therefore, the concept should be considered experimental. Extensive, costly pilot-scale studied would be required to determine the potential for operating and maintaining an MIS facility at the Station. Suchstudies would involve constructing one full-size module, with associated pumps and piping, near the existing CWIS and performing biological and maintenance evaluations over a period of several years. Design, permitting and construction would require an additional 2 to 3 years.VIILE.3.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness As discussed in Attachment F-3, the MIS has been tested under laboratory and field conditions and proven highly effective in diverting a variety of species with little or no resultant injury or mortality. The combined results of laboratory and field evaluations ofthe MIS to date indicate that this screen has the potential for diverting juvenile and adult fish at the Station. Given the large number of species, the wide range of swimming capabilities and the variety of body shapes that have been evaluated, it appears reasonable to assume that juvenile and adult life stages of species at the Station would be diverted and survive within the range of net passage survivals observed in the laboratory and field studies. For hardier species, including Atlantic croaker, spot, striped bass, weakfish, andwhite perch, the percent mortality ofjuvenile and adult life stages is projected to be 0 to 25 percent (F-VInI Table 8). For more fragile species, including alewife, American shad,bay anchovy, and blueback herring, the low and high survival values observed during studies of the MIS were used as the end points of the projected range of mortality, namely 23 to 78 percent. Although the response of Gammanrs and Neonvysis to the screen islargely unknown, these species survive impingement and high pressure spraywashing on conventional traveling screens well. Therefore, assuming no change in mortality appears to be reasonable. Blue crab survival with the existing screens is also high. However, due to the high velocities to which this species would be subjected (5ft/sec) and the morphology of the crab, there appears to be a high potential for injury with the MIS.Therefore, the conservative range of 23 to 78 percent mortality was assumed. These VlhI-23 Wvalues, based on data from laboratory and field studies were used to derive the change in pounds of fish lost with this alternative, as presented in F-VIII Table 9.Eggs and yolk-sac larvae would be expected to pass through the screen and, since organisms in this bypass flow would be returned directly to the Estuary rather thanpassing through the circulating water system, a 2.7 percent reduction in mortality can be assumed, as reflected in F-VIJI Table 7.VIILE.3.c. Other Environmental Effects Implementation of this alternative would involve environmental impacts associated with shoreline excavation, dredging of the river bottom, and disposal of dredge spoil. If -testing of the dredged materials indicated the presence of contaminants at levels in excess of applicable regulations, the spoils would have to be disposed of as a hazardous wasteusing suitable handling and containment procedures. VIII.E.3.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations The engineering cost to install MIS would be approximately S20 million as shown on F-VIEl Table 10. The additional annual costs required to operate and maintain the MISwould include 12,230 man-hours of PSE&G personnel, S20,000 for component replacement, and 3,97 1,000 kWh energy to operate the new equipment (F-VIII Table 10).Thirty-six months would be required to construct the new structures and install the screen equipment. However, each unit would only have to be shut down one month to complete construction of the new plenum in front of the intake, which could be scheduled during scheduled Station refueling outages.Operation of the existing travelingwater screens with the MIS would be similar to the existing operations. The existing traveling water screens and the circulators with the MIS would have the same maintenance requirements as the existing equipment. However, it is uncertain whether the existing screens could handle the periodic heavy load of debris that would be released onto then during MIS backwash operations. If not, the practicability of installing and operating the MIS alternative at the Station would be doubtful.The new modular screens would require an additional energy to operate. Additional maintenance efforts associated with the new screens would be about a six man-hour effort per shift. The Hidrostal pumps and the screens would require additional energy to operate. Operation of the new trash rake and cleaning of the fish return system would have about the same power and labor requirements as the existing trash rack and screen debris troughs.VIII.E. 4. Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain Combination Strobe lights and air bubble curtains, used alone and in combination, have been studied extensively. Study results indicate that a combination barrier might be biologically effective at the Station. A key concern with this barrier would be the relatively high turbidity levels in the Delaware estuary in the vicinityof the Station (see Appendix C).However, laboratory studies (McInninch and Hocutt 1987) indicate that, in some cases, VM-24 increased turbidity may increase avoidance of certain species. Therefore, this combination behavioral barrier system was evaluated in detail.The 1993 Comments evaluated the potential effectiveness of strobe lights to repel fish, however, they did not address the feasibility of an air bubble curtain.. While recognizing that strobe lights had achieved success repelling certain species of fish, the Comments concluded that application of such a system at Salem would require extensive on-site testing prior to larger scale deployment, and that the turbidity of the water at Salem could reduce the positive repelling effects of strobe lights due to rapid dispersion and attenuation of the light. The Comments also noted that there was some evidence that strobe lights may actually attract fish at some distance due to the attenuation of the pulsed light into an apparent constant illumination, and that strobe lights were likely to be ineffective. 1993 Comments -Appendix J at.31. NJDEP agreed with this analysis. Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis at 123.A strobe light/air bubble curtain system at the Station would include strobe lights and an air bubble system installed in the opening below the ice barrier at the face of the existingCWIS. The strobe lights would be placed and oriented to fully illuminate the air bubble curtain thereby creating a distinct visual barrier. The strobe light and air bubble curtain system would be positioned on the existing intake structure in front of the trash racks as shown on F-VII Figure 13. The light and air bubble barrier system would cover the entire opening.The strobe lights would be mounted on tracks attached to steel support frames in a horizontal and vertical grid at about 10-ft intervals. Eighty-seven (87) lights would be required to cover the entire area below the ice barrier. The lights would point in the upstream direction, away from the intake toward the river. The support frames would be connected to the existing ice barrier guides and the adjacent intake bay piers. The strobe lights would be positioned at three elevations at eight locations, El. 55.0 ft, El. 65.0 ft, and El. 75.0 ft, as shown on F-VIE Figure 14. The lights would be bolted to the support tracks to allow replacement from the intake deck. Synchronized controllers would be used to operate the strobe lights and would flash all the lights simultaneously. The power supplies and controllers would be housed in NEMA-4X enclosures. The flashheads for the strobe lights would be in waterproof housings supplied by the manufacturer. The controller would have the capacity to set the strobe light output (day, twilight, and night intensity settings) and flash rate (40 to 600 flashes per minute).The air distribution piping would be installed about 10 ft upstream of the strobe lights in a position that allows the air bubbles to pass through the lighted zone, as shown on F-VIII Figure 14. Piles driven into the river bottom would support the air piping. The air pipes would be at three elevations, El.51.0 ft, El. 61.0 ft, and El. 71.0 ft. Six, 20 HP air compressors, three at each end of the intake, would be installed next to the light control building to supply air to the distribution piping.VIII.E.4.a. Technical Considerations VIII-25 WThe concerns with the strobe light/air bubble curtain system at the Station include (1) the effect of turbidity on the propagation of the light and (2) the limited nature of the information available to indicate that the species in the area would respond to the hybrid system.The proposed strobe light/air bubble configuration would provide a "wall" of light to deter fish from entering the intake. The system would be located in a moderately high velocity zone (1.4 ft/sec) which could influence the ability of fish to avoid the barrier.Therefore, an evaluation of the avoidance response for the RIS would be useful for determining the potential biological effectiveness of the strobe light/air bubble curtain barrier. Such an evaluation would also allow the optimum spacing of the lights and density of the air curtain to be optimized for the turbidity levels and velocities at the proposed barrier location.The light and air piping support systems would be designed for the expected forces with the Station operating at full rated capacity. The strobe light support system would be designed to facilitate replacement of the lights from the existing intake deck.The power supplies, distribution panels, and controllers for the lights would be located in two 8-fl by 10-ft buildings which would be installed at each end of the existing intake structure. The air compressors and controls would be located adjacent to the light control building. Power would be obtained from the Station service system. Each light would require about 800 watts to operate. The compressors would require about 90 kW. The total power required for the light and air systems would be about 160 kW. Undervater cable would be installed betveen the control building and the lights.Construction and installation of the strobe lights, air supply piping, power cables, support systems, and the control building would take 12 weeks. Installation of the light and airpiping support piles would be completed using a barge-mounted crane. Divers working from a work boat would install the light track and air pipe on the support frames and piles. A diving crew would be required to install the light and air system components. Installation of light control and air supply equipment and associated wiring could be accomplished at the same time as the light and air system installation. Both units would have to be shut down for the one-month period to allow the divers to work in the ice/debris barrier opening. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is assumed that underwater work could be performed during a scheduled outage. Installation of the support piles, cables, control building, air compressor, and control equipment should not affect plant operations. Normal operation of the Station with the proposed strobe light/air bubble system wouldbe identical to its current operation. The system components would not restrict the flow of water into the units and would not, therefore, impact Station operations. VIfi-26 VIII.E.4.b. Potential Biological Effectiveness Based on research conducted to date, strobe lights have the potential to be used effectively at many types of water intakes provided that biological, environmental, and project design and operational conditions are conducive to their application. Strobe lights have been shown to be effective in repelling certain species, including American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, and spot (Attachment F-3). Studies on the Hudson River and recent studies in the Mid-west indicate that a combination of strobe lights and air bubble curtains may be more effective than each device alone. In the Hudson River studies, the strobe/air combination was the most effective behavioral barrier tested, resulting in an overall Effectiveness.Index of 61.8 percent.Strobe light technology-for repelling fish has advanced substantially in the last decade, and it is believed that strobes combined with an air bubble curtain offer a reasonable potential for reducing fish losses at the Station. Such a barrier could be evaluated at the Station at relatively low cost. Given the lack of any highly definitive data on strobe/air barriers, a fairly wide range of reduction in losses of juvenile and adult fishes, namely 30 to 85 percent (F-VlTI Table 11), was used in deriving the changes in pounds lost presented for this alternative in F-VIII Table
- 12. This barrier would not reduce the losses of fish eggs, larvae, and small juvenile fish (Juvenile
- 1) or invertebrates.
Additional research would be needed at Salem to determine the species and conditions (e.g., flows, turbidity, and diel period) for which a strobe light/air bubble curtain would be effective. A pilot scale evaluation would be conducted to determine the ability of the lights to reduce fish impingement. The evaluation would involve installing lights and bubbles on several intake bays and monitoring impingement with the lights on and off.VIILE.4.c. Other Environmental Effects No appreciable effects on air, water, land, or energy resources are anticipated. VIIHE. 4.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations The estimated engineering cost to install the strobe light and air bubble curtain system would be 54.75 million as shown on F-VIfI Table 13. Approximately seven months would be required to complete installation of the lights and air system equipment with a one-month shutdown of each unit to allow divers to work in front of the intake, which could be scheduled during scheduled Station refueling outages.Operation of the light and air supply system would require an additional 1,401,000 kWh per year to operate and would reduce peak capacity by 160 kW. The strobe light and air pipe support systems would be desiged for the expected ice and debris loading and would remiin in place year round. However, the lights would require quarterly inspection to identi fy and replace any damaged equipment. Station personnel operating from workboats would accomplish the inspections. Each inspection would require about 7 days, a total of 28 days per year (about 170 hours per inspection). Additional maintenance efforts associated with the lights and air system by Station personnel would be about 4,400 man-hours per year (about four man-hours per shift). The life expectancy VM-27 of the lights would be about.5 years, equivalent to a replacement rate of about 17 lights per year.VIII.E.5. Seasonal Flow ReductionsCirculating water system flow reductions could be implemented to allow station operations at reduced flow during the periods of highest impingement and/or entrainment. These periods occur primarily during summer. For example, reducing pumping capacity by 50% would reduce water flow by 50%. This would reduce the number of organisms entrained and would lower the average velocity at the screens to about 0.6 ft/sec at mean low tide, thereby also reducing the potential for impingement ofjuvenile and adult fish on the screens. Seasonal flow reductions can be achieved by modifications to Station operations and/or Station design. Attachment F-5 evaluates and discusses in detail the potential operational and design modifications that could achieve seasonal flow reductions. Changes in the system operations that were considered include the following:
- reducing the number of circulators in operation, which would require taking the associated condenser waterboxes out of service, since each circulator discharges directly through separate waterboxes;
.throttling circulator flow which would involve throttling the motor-operated valve downstream of the condenser increasing the system resistance and reducing the circulator flow rate;.opening circulator bypass lines which would reduce the flow into the Station by diverting a portion of the circulating water pump discharge flowback to the intake bay downstream of the traveling water screen;.combining throttling the circulators and opening the bypass lines which would reduce flow to the Station; and.regulating plant electric output which would result in a reduction of steam flow to the main condenser thereby allowing for a reduction in circulator water flow.System design modifications considered included the following: .replacing the existing single pass condenser tube bundles with a modular two pass tube bundle design which would reduce flow but increase circulating water system discharge temperatures;
- installing a helper tower, which is a partial closed-cycle cooling which would reduce the amount of intake flow; and.installing dual speed circulators or variable speed drive controls.
The twosystemdesign modifications would require replacing motors and/or drive controls,thereby allowing the circulators to operate at different flow rates.As discussed in Attachment F-5, all of these alternatives result in reductions in electrical output. The amount of the reduction in electrical output is dependent on the flow rate reduction achieved. Further, as discussed in Attachment F-5, all of the five system 'operational changes listed above have limited flow reduction capability, place unnecessary stress on Station systems or components, and/or may impair the Station's VEI-2S ability to safely respond to upsets or transients. This is the case because nuclear/generating stations are designed to operate as base load units (i.e., units designed to operate continuously at 100% reactor power rather than cycling on a daily or seasonal basis). As also discussed in Attachment F-5, the four system design modifications listed above can all accomplish flow reductions up to 45% and have a lesser impact on Station operations, but they also have greater capital cost impacts. The analysis in Attachment F-5 shows that the installation of variable speed drives has the least impact on the Station during installation and, as shown in F-VIII Table 14, has the lowest estimated capital costs of the analyzed system design modifications. Thus, as a result of the conclusions of Attachment F-5, this section will only address one alternative for achieving seasonal flow reductions: the installation of variable speed drives to the circulators. Water flows can be regulated through installation of variable frequency drive controls for each existing circulator (i.e., six for each unit). This modification also includes the installation of new motors for this type of service. Variable frequency drive controls provide the capability of operating the pumps at a reduced flow during periods of high impingement and/or entrainment. The variable speed drive alternative was analyzed assuming installation of a General Electric GTO induction motor drive which is an adjustable speed control system using solid-state, gate turn-off thyristors to control the motor speed. With the use of this technology, it is possible to vary the frequency of the pump motor from 60Hz to 6Hz to control the motor speed. A reduction in motor speed results in a corresponding reduction of pump flow. Operation at the slowest speed corresponds to a 45% reduction in flow providing a minimum flow capacity for each pump of 92,500 gpm. The variable speed drives would be housed in a new enclosure, directly connected to the existing motors and power supply.PSE&G evaluated the feasibility of flow reductions using variable speed pumps in its 1984 Demonstration and 1993 Comments. 1984316(b) Demonstration Section 8; 1993 Comments Section 316(b) Demonstration Appendix J at 13-15. In both instances, PSE&G concluded that reducing flows at the Station would be technically feasible, but it was unclear whether reduced flows would reduce entrainment mortalities. Moreover, reduced flows would impose extremely high replacement power costs. In issuing the 1994 Permit, NJDEP agreed with this assessment, concluding that while flow reduction alone might produce some reductions in the number of organisms entrained, the greater thermal stress may increase entrainment mortality dependent on ambient river temperatures. Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis at 122. NJDEP further concluded that the costs of variable speed pumps and associated flow reduction would far exceed any environmental benefit. Id. at 138. As explained below, PSE&G reanalyzed reduced flow scenarios including constant and variable changes in temperature, at a range of flow reduction from 10% to 45% of the current operating capacity during the summer, a time of high biological productivity. While implementing such flow reductions is technically feasible at Salem, as shown in the 1993 Comments, the value of the lost power would be extremely high.VM-29 VIII.E.5.a. Technical Considerations Each reactor is designed to operate at the licensed thermal power of 3,411 MWt or a Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) power level of 3,423 MWt (NSSS power includes reactor coolant pump heat). The turbine generators are rated at a gross electrical output of 1162 MWe, resulting in a design energy transfer to the circulating water system of 7.7x 109 BTU/hr. The circulating water system flow rate is designed to remove this amount of heat from the condenser at a sufficient rate to maintain condenser shell side vacuum per turbine manufacturer's specification of no less than approximately
1.3 inches
of Hg absolute pressure at full turbine load. At a design circulating water inlet temperature of 60'F and a normal circulating water system flow of 1,050,000 gpm, this load results in a temperature increase of-I 5F to the circulating water system. Other heat loads discharging through the circulating water discharge paths, such as the service water system, are minor in comparison to the condenser heat load and have negligible impact on the discharge temperature. The performance of the condensers in accomplishing cooling of the turbine exhaust steam is dependent upon the volume of circulating water flow, the cleanliness of the condenser tubes, the turbine's exhaust steam flow rate, and the initial temperature of the circulating water entering the condenser. The need to maintain the turbine backpressure or condenset vacuum (i.e., the pressure of the turbine exhaust steam inside the condenser shell) within the operational range of the turbines is critical to plant operation. Turbine performance is dependent upon the condenser performance, which is affected by turbine backpressure. .An increase in turbine backpressure results in a decrease in turbine efficiency and can lead to a decrease in electrical output from the generators. Temperature and flow are complimentary elements of the circulating water system. The Salem Units are operated as base loaded units at full power operation; consequently the amount of heat rejected into the cooling water is essentially constant. Therefore, if the flow through the condensers either increases or decreases, the temperature differential (a T) between the water entering the circulating water system and the water discharged from the circulating water system will either decrease or increase accordingly. For instance, if the condenser tubes in the system become pluggedwith debris that passes through the screens, the circulating water system's resistance to flow will increase and a lower system flow will result. This will, in tum, result in an increase in the circulating water system A T.Any reduction in circulating water system flow during the summer period is particularly critical to electrical output because this is the period when the peak electrical demand occurs and the ambient River water temperature is highest. Operation during this period (even with the existing circulating water flows) results in an increase in turbine backpressure close to its maximum operating limit. Any further decrease in condenser performance will in turn require the station to reduce the electrical output to maintain the turbine backpressure within the operating range.VIII-30 Because of the interaction between flow, turbine backpressure, and 4ýT, calculations were performed to determine the effects of flow reduction under two different assumptions: (1) assuming that A T would be allowed to vary with flow, up to a limit of 27 0 F, and (2)assuming that AT would be held constant at 15'F by reducing plant power so as to minimize increased entrainment losses from higher temperatures.The calculations demonstrate that the Station power level would need to be reduced to maintain turbine backpressure at an acceptable level. This reduction in power or penalty would be the greatest during peak summer electrical load periods.To determine the power reduction penalty, SWEC performed heat balance calculations at the reduced circulating-flows and the average weekly summer and winter inlet temperatures. The evaluation assessed the impact of reducing circulating water flow up to approximately 45% of operating flow, the lower limit for the variable frequency drives, and determined the power reduction penalty as a result of the reduced flows.The circulating water operating flow rate per unit is 1,050,000 gpm and 175,000 gpm per circulator. The following reduced flow rates were evaluated:Flow per Pump Flow per Unit Approx. Flow Reduction 175,000 gpm 1,050,000 gpm BASE 157,250 gpm 943,500 gpm 10%138,750 gpm 832,500 g-pm 20%92,500 gpm 555,000 gpm 45%Where the results indicated that at a particular power level the circulating water temperature rise exceeded the NJPDES permit thermal discharge limits of 21.6°F (from October through May) and 27.07F (from June through September), the reactor power was reduced to limit the temperature rise. In addition if the condenser pressure exceeded the turbine backpressure limit, the reactor power was reduced. The heat balance calculations also incorporated the increased tube fouling due to the reduced tube velocities at the reduced flow rates. The increased fouling was used in the determination of the tubecleanliness factors used in the heat balance calculations.The power reduction penalties in the summer weeks will vary depending on inlet temperature. Operating at the current NJPDES permit flow limit of 1,050,000 gpm, which is approximately 95% of the design flow capacity of 1,110,000 gpm, represents a power loss as high as 3.65 Mwe. At a 45% flow reduction, the power penalty range is as high as 132 MVWe (with a temperature rise limited to 27.0°F) to 340 MWe (with a temperature rise limited to 21.67F).In addition to the performance impact described above, there are a number of other technical complications associated with implementing seasonal flow reductions that result from operating the equipment and systems at Salem outside their design basis. Salem w-as designed, tested and calibrated to operate at a continuous 100% power level (3423 VTI-31 WMwt) as a base load electric generating unit. Operating.below this level will have serious impacts on plant equipment and operations. Several complications arise from reduced flow velocities. Reductions in circulating water inlet flow velocities would result in increased macrofouling of the condenser. With normal plant operation, debris in the form of sand and silt that passes through the traveling water screens typically remains in solution. At lower velocities it would not do so, resulting in increased maintenance costs for cleaning the condensers and/or requiring the installation of a continuous cleaning system (e.g., debris filters and condenser tube ball cleaning systems). Similarly, reduced flow velocities would increase the ability of organisms to adhere to and grow in circulating water pipes, condenser tubes, and other system components, thus further hindering flow, decreasing condenser performance, and potentially increasing corrosion rates. These effects may require plant modifications,increased maintenance, and the use of chemical treatments which could result in some additional fish mortality. While these complications could have major operational, reliability and cost implications, they cannot be accurately quantified and have not been factored into the costs of this flow reduction alternative. The reduced flow also affects the ability of the condenser to absorb excess steam during a transient event at the backpressure levels generated by reduced flow operations. These impacts would require further. analysis and possible modifications to the bypass valves and condenser. Moreover, the reduction in circulating water flow rate will also reduce the Station's discharge velocities, impacting the discharge plume of the Station. As discussed in Appendix E, the discharge pipes of the Station extend 500 feet into the Estuary and are designed to maintain a discharge velocity of 10 feet per second. Any reduction in the circulating water flow rate would result in a corresponding reduction in discharge velocity that could have an impact on the discharge plume and its design basis. In addition to the complications arising from reduced flow velocities, implementing seasonal flow reductions would result in increased maintenance costs. Operating the Station's pumps at less than design capacity for significant periods of time may result in increased fatigue and potential failure of the pumps.Salem's circulators are designed to operate at a given capacity; deviations of greater than 25% would tend to cause increased vibration. If the pumps were operated at this reduced flow, no margin would exist between their operating point and this unstable operating region. Thus, if condenser failing were to increase the pumps could fail in a relatively short period-of time. The installation of additional monitoring instrumentation would be required to maintain the reduced flow to ensure that the seasonal flow requirements are not exceeded and to alert the operator of any changes which could lead to possible pump failure.VIEI-32 Thus, although seasonal reductions in flow can be implemented, they result in operating the Station at less than design, i.e., 100% power, which causes increased wear, fatigue failure, and lost efficiency. Running the circulators outside intended design capacity may lead to increased component aging and premature failure. Operation of Salem at lower power levels will place additional stress on plant systems, causing premature component failure which could result in a plant trip. Tripping of the unit in this fashion could unnecessarily challenge the nuclear plant safety systems.VIZL.E.5.b. Potential Biological EffectivenessThe change in losses of RIS as a result of seasonal flow reductions was estimated forthree different reduction percentages, 10, 20 and 45 percent. In addition, these reduction's were combined with constant power for a given range of circulating water inlet temperatures and reduced power scenarios. Under the constant power scenario, the AT would be permitted to rise as flow was reduced. As a result, transit times would increase, thus increasing the time that organisms would be subjected to elevated temperatures. As such, reductions in organism entrainment could be negatively offset by increased mortality to certain species and life stages. Also, discharge temperatures would increase which could adversely affect biota not influenced by CWIS involvement. If the AT were held constant by reducing Station output (with associated economic penalties), thermal mortality would remain unchanged from the base case. "Therefore, this scenario would be more beneficial to organisms than the varying AT scenario. In either case, changes in pounds of RIS lost could be positive or negative, depending on the percent flow reduction and the assumed power scenario, as shown on F- VHI Table 15.VIII.E.5.c. Other Environmental Effects When Salem is not operating or operating below design capacity, significant amounts of power production and power capacity are lost. This means increased operation of other facilities or bringing inactive generating capacity on-line to provide needed power. This could have environmental consequences depending upon the locations and kinds of generating stations that are used to satisfy the power deficit. Environmental effects could include any of the possible environmental effects of electrical generating stations.In addition, unless Station power levels are reduced, during the summer the incremental increase in discharge water temperature that occurs due to flow reduction would result inmaximum discharge water temperatures that exceed levels specified by Salem's Permit.Moreover, the flow reduction would result in a Station derating at peak summer electrical load periods.VIIJ.E.5.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations The engineering cost to install variable speed drives for the 12 circulator motors is estimated at approximately 310.7 million, as shown on F-VIII Table 14. Variable frequency drive controls for the circulator motor and related control equipment could be installed on one intake cell at a time, or during a normal refueling outage, minimizing impacts on plant operation during installation of the new motors. The costs of replacement power for Station derating would be substantial (see Attachment F-9) and VIEI-33 would largely depend on the specific operating scenarios described above. If the pumps operated at a 45% reduction in operating capacity for the summer period, power to operate the pumps would be reduced approximately 64,000 M'Nwyr. However, Station output would be reduced by at least 1,193,400 MWh/rT under this scenario.VIII.E. 6. Revised Refueling Outage Schedules Electrical generating Stations require periodic maintenance, repair, and replacement of equipment and materials in order to ensure reliable production of electricity for consumers. Nuclear plants require outages for refueling at periodic intervals. During such periods, the units involved are taken out of production. At Salem, one circulator per unit is typically kept in operation during a refueling outage, and entrainment and impingement are correspondingly reduced. If such outage periods could be managed reasonably to coincide with a period of high biological productivity, then factoring such matters into plant maintenance schedules might reduce cropping at a particular site. As explained in Attachment F-6, outages are ordinarily managed to ensure adequate electrical production, avoid costly and wasteful excess capacity and meet Station-specific maintenance requirements. Balancing these goals is a complex process. This section analyzes the implications of attempting to reschedule Salem's maintenance and refueling outages to reduce entrainment and impingement losses.PSE&G has previously evaluated revisions to outage schedules to place those outages in June and July, the periods of greatest biological productivity in the Estuary. 1994 Comments, Appendix M-I. As those Comments explained, because Salem's outages are planned to occur on an 18-month cycle, power outages would have to be scheduled for summer and winter, resulting in the need to purchase significant amounts of lost power at costly peak demand times. In issuing Salem's 1994 permit, NJDEP agreed that these costs would be excessive~in relation to the environmental benefits of the revised schedule. NJDEP Response to Comments, July 24, 1994.VIHI.E.6.a. Technical Considerations Rescheduling refueling outages to correspond to periods of peak biological activity is another method which has been suggested to reduce potential impact. Each Salem unit has an 18 month fuel cycle with refueling outages typically scheduled to occur in the spring or fall in order to minimize the costs associated with the outages. The effects of altering this schedule so that these refueling outages would occur in the summer and winter were modeled.Given the current efficient nuclear fuel loading configuration, each Salem unit is required to undergo a refueling outage after 18 months of operation. Currently it takes 10 weeks to accomplish the refueling. Over the past 10 years, Salem and the nuclear power generation industry have been working steadily to reduce the number of unplanned outages and the durations of scheduled outages. The Station is working toward the goal that future scheduled outages will be completed within approximately 39 days. Although an outage may be scheduled to occur at any time before the 18 months has elapsed, they are generally scheduled and implemented to occur when they may be most cost-VIII-34 effectively done based on electrical demand and unit availability considerations. PSE&G and all the other utilities in the PJM group attempt to schedule planned maintenance on their efficient baseload units for off-peak months. Because of Salem's role in PJM -the Station's baseload generation capacity represents a large percentage of the system base line capacity - the electricity Salem produces is especially important to meeting system demand in the summer and winter peak demand periods. Practical considerations (including slower-than-anticipated nuclear fuel consumption) may change these scheduled outages at any given time, but long range planning requires Salem's two unit output to be available in summer and winter as often as possible.VIII.E.6.b. Potential Biological EffectivenessThe change in losses of.RIS as a result of rescheduling refueling outages was estimated by shifting unit outages to summer (the period of peak biological productivity) and winter and comparing the differences in losses estimated from the base case. Using methods presented in Attachment F-4, reductions in pounds of RIS losses were developed, as presented in F-VLUI Table 16.VIII.E.6.c. Other Environmental Effects When Salem is not operating, the electricity it would have been generating must be produced elsewhere. This means increased operation of other facilities or bringing inactive generating capacity on line to provide needed power. This could have environmental consequences depending upon the locations and kinds of generating Stations that are used to satisfy the power deficit. Environmental effects could include any of the possible environmental effects of electrical generating Stations.VIII.E.6.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations The PJM Interconnection experiences winter and summer peaks in electrical demand.Consequently, the engineering cost of this alternative relative to retaining the present outage schedule is the added cost of purchasing the power lost during the summer and winter outages, at times when energy is more costly. The price of electricity produced by Salem Station is as little as one-quarter the cost of electricity generated by oil-fired Stations at times of peak electrical demand. Moreover, Salem is capable of producing large amounts of electricity. As a result of these factors even for a 5-10 week outage, costs quickly mount by having Salem Station refuel during summer and winter demand peaks.The cost of scheduling the current 18- month cycle of spring and fall 5-10 week outages to an 18 month cycle of summer and winter outages are the added cost of purchasing lost power during the outages and a Salem capacity deficiency charge that would be owed to PJM. PSE&G's estimates of the present value of costs associated with this strategy are found in Attachment F-9. These estimates are based on the assumption that PSE&G maintains the flexibility to reschedule an outage should the physical status of the plant, regulatory authorities, or core economics dictate the change. If PSE&G is held to a summer/winter refueling schedule, however, the costs will be higher because PSE&G will not be able to schedule refueling outages in the most cost-effective manner. As a result, additional outages may be necessary before and/or after the required summer/winter scheduled outages to accommodate any changes in scope or priority of the maintenance work to be accomplished during the refueling outage as well as the potential for early refueling being required as a result of better-than-forecast performance of the unit, or a later refueling due to a poorer-than-forecast performance. The potential additional outages associated with being required to conduct scheduled outages in summer and winter would substantially increase the cost estimates. Changing only the timing of an I8-month outage would not increase Station operation and maintenance costs.VIII.E. 7. Retrofit With New Closed-Cycle Cooling System The most extreme form of flow reduction alternatives is closed-cycle cooling. A closed-cycle cooling system would substantially reduce Salem's intake flow and subsequent entrainment and impingement losses. Closed -cycle cooling, which can be achieved using a number of engineering methods, rejects waste heat from the operating units to theatmosphere rather than to the River. With the current Salem design, cooling water enters the Station cooling water system through twelve intake bays (six per unit) located at the shore line. The water is pumped through the main condenser and directed back to the River at elevated temperatures. The existing Salem circulating water system is designed to dissipate the maximum condenser thermal heat duty of 7.7 x 109 Btu/hr (per unit). The circulating water system pumps approximately 1,050,000 -pm of river water through eachUnit condenser prior to returning it to the river. The circulating water discharge from each unit is continuously monitored for temperature increase before returning to the river via three submerged 120-in. diameter discharge pipes per unit.In a closed-cycle system, the cooling water is constantly recycled through a man-made heat sink, the cooling tower. The only water taken from the natural water body is make up water to replace the water evaporated in the cooling tower and the blowdown losses.The blowdown is necessary to maintain the concentration of solids in the system at an acceptable level. This blowdown is discharged and returned to the water body. The closed-cycle cooling methods considered in this Appendix are mechanical and natural draft cooling towers. Other methods of achieving closed-cycle cooling are discussed at length in Attachment F-7.Retrofitting any alternative closed-cycle cooling system is a difficult engineering, design, scheduling and construction effort, because the installation was not planned in the original Station design. The complexity and relatively high cost of such a project are due to: (I) the permanence of existing site features and structures; (2) the fundamental differences between the existing Station once-through system and the closed-cycle cooling technologies; (3) the construction work that must accommodate the Station's operational requirements andregulatory restrictions; and (4) the difficulty of installing new, underground, large diameter piping to and from the cooling towers and the existing circulating water intake without encountering buried obstructions. VIfl-36 Ln addition, groundwater is encountered at a depth ranging from 4 to 10 feet below the surface throughout the site. Due to the depths of the subsurface construction activity (about 16 feet), groundwater would continuously infiltrate the excavations and would have to be continuously pumped out of the excavated areas during the construction. The composition of site soils would similarly affect design and construction. The third layer of the soil, encountered at a depth of approximately 70 feet below the surface would provide adequate structural support. As a result, 100-foot-long steel and concrete piles would have to be driven through the non-load bearing soils reaching approximately 30 feet into the load-bearing formation to support the structures and facilities needed for retrofit. SWEC estimates that retrofitting Salem with closed-cycle cooling would require the installation of over 10,000 of these 100-foot long piles.Large amounts of excavation and construction would be required in a highly congested area with a need to assure safety considering the adjacent 500,000-volt transmission lines.Many underground commodities would need to be avoided or rerouted. The majority ofconstruction work would be outdoors and, therefore, construction schedules and estimates are at risk for weather impacts. The schedules have been built around the requirement that concrete not be placed during an assumed period of below freezing weather conditions. If freezing conditions are longer than assumed, there will be a schedule impact. Above normal precipitation could also delay the schedule due to, among other reasons, safety considerations and excessive dewatering requirements for excavation. PSE&G previously evaluated closed-cycle cooling, and concluded that the costs of implementating of such a system would be wholly disproportionate to any environmental benefits that might be achieved. NJDEP agreed with this conclusion when issuing PSE&G's 1994 NJPDES Permit. Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis at 139, 143. As discussed below, the relevant circumstances concerning closed-cycle cooling remain substantially unchanged. VIIL.E. 7.a. Technical Considerations In an electric generating Station, the main cooling water system is one of the first systems to be designed and installed. The design of many of the Station's major capital cost components are inter-related with the cooling water design. Therefore, any subsequent change to the cooling water system can have a significant impact on the plant's ability to perform at expected design conditions. Even minor changes to the cooling water supply (for example a temperature increase a few degrees above design or a reduction in flow)can result in a large decrease in the Station ability to achieve its rated capacity. Becausecooling water systems are one of the first systems to be installed during plant construction, many other Station systems, structures and components are built around and over the system, making retrofitting to closed-cycle cooling complicated and expensive. The installation of cooling towers at Salem would entail an extraordinary engineering and construction effort requiring construction of new facilities and extensive demolition of the existing circulating water system components and piping. A cooling tower retrofit to VTI-37 Salem would be costly and require a lengthy permitting, engineering, procurement and construction time period.There are significant risks involved in retrofit work of this magnitude, due to the large number of simultaneous modifications to both Salem units, on critical path engineering and construction activities. Licensing and permitting requirements pose a major source of uncertainty. It has been assumed that the designs used as a basis for the cost estimates and schedules provided in Attachment F-8 would be approved by the regulatory authorities. If they are not, there would be a cost impact which is not taken into consideration in the estimates. In addition, depending upon the particular permit and schedule, there is the potential forvery significant schedule impacts due to delays in obtaining permits.In addition to the construction of two or more cooling towers, retrofitting to a closed-cycle cooling system would require construction of new pump houses and chemical control system structures, as well as the following: .complex foundation structures for the cooling towers, piping and other major structures; .replacement of existing single-pass condensers with two-pass modular units;.a new major electrical power distribution system.The retrofit would also require, among other construction activities:
- excavation of over 1/4 million cubic yards of soil;* demolition or abandonment of over 3 miles of existing 7-ft and 10-ft diameter circulating water system piping and supports which were permanently installed without consideration of the potential for later retrofitting closed-cycle cooling;* installation of over 4 miles of 7-ft diameter steel reinforced concrete pipe;* installation of over 3000 feet of corrosion-resistant steel liner approximately seven feet in diameter to reinforce the existing buried piping from the closed-cycle pipe tie-in points to the condenser (a large portion of which is located under the Turbine and Administration Buildings);
- installation of approximately 10,000 100-foot long steel and concrete piles to support foundations for the new piping, cooling towers and miscellaneous new structures; and.temporary removal and sometimes demolition of permanent structures.
Two scenarios were developed in order to estimate costs for retrofitting Salem with closed-cycle cooling. They are:.Scenario I -one natural draft cooling tower per unit with a design objective of a 14'F approach.Scenario 2 -three concrete mechanical draft cooling towers per unit with a design objective of a 7°F approach VIII-3 S Retrofitting a closed-cycle cooling system at Salem will reduce its energy output. This is due to the increased back pressure on the turbine exhaust as a result of increased cooling water temperature as well as the increased electrical loads associated with the operation* of the closed-cycle cooling system. Note that the low pressure turbine-blade path is not optimized for the exhaust conditions that will be associated with a cooling tower. Thespecific capacity penalties expected will fluctuate during the year for both assumed tower configurations. The added (auxiliary) power required to operate the circulators and (in the case ofinstalled mechanical draft towers) fans will also result in a decrease in plant generationoutput capability. Compared to the existing once-through system these decreases cause a significant loss in Station generation.The capacity loss for natural draft and mechanical draft cooling tower systems at winter and summer peaks are:* 127,800 kW net summer rating and 4,800 kW net winter rating for the natural draft cooling tower scenario* 87,600 kW net summer rating and 21,000 kW net winter rating for themechanical draft cooling tower scenario This capacity loss data was used as the basis for the replacement power analysis in Appendix F.Vendor cost data have been used to estimate capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and to develop a comparative cash flow analysis for each scenario. An Allowance For Indeterrminants (A.FI) was applied separately to each item in the cost estimate to account for the level of engineering/design that was performed to develop each activity and the pricing structure on which the estimate is based. It reflects moneys which will be expended during the course of the retrofit for activities that have not been explicitly developed.The schedule assumed would require "overnight" capital costs of more than S550 million (1998 dollars), and operating and maintenance costs of more than 54 million per year, and would require at least five years for permitting, engineering, procurement, and construction. The capital costs were developed by SWEC by contacting equipment suppliers, or where appropriate, various 1990 or 1993 capital cost values were escalated to 1998 using a total combined escalation of 21.4% or 14%, respectively. The retrofit would also involve additional costs to purchase the lost power, as set forth in Attachment F-9.The maintenance costs of mechanical draft cooling towers are very high compared to natural draft cooling towers because of the large number of fans involved. Themechanical draft cooling towers would use 66 multi-bladed 40 foot diameter fans, each ofwhich would require 300 hp motors, whereas natural draft towers have no moving pans.Local environmental effects of a mechanical draft cooling tower are also more severe and VIE-39 include higher noise levels and a lower vapor discharge plume. There is also a higher potential for forced power reduction associated with mechanical draft cooling towers because of the inherently lower reliability of the moving parts.The major environmental factors that would influence the permitting cycle and approvals required to convert Salem 1 and 2 to closed-cycle cooling are: " the height and visual obstruction of the towers; the impacts of the make-up and blowdown systems on marine biota and populations; tower plume effects due to size, frequency, or trajectory;" local weather pattern influences resulting from the aggregate tower plumes of Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2;" salt drift from the towers onthe nearby surroundings;
- noise impacts on neighbors; and" impact of increased particulate emissions on air quality (due to procurement of lost power from alternative generation sources).VILLE.7.b.
Potential Biological EffectivenessThe biological effects of closed-cycle cooling were estimated using the methods presented in Attachment F-4. Reductions in losses to RIS (in pounds) are presented in F-VIII Table 17.VIII.E. 7.c. Other Environmental Effects When Salem is not operating or operating below design capacity, the electricity it would have generated must be produced elsewhere. This means increased operation of other facilities or bringing inactive generating capacity on-line to provide needed power. This could have environmental consequences depending upon the locations and kinds of generating stations that are used to satisfy the power deficit. Environmental effects could include any of the possible environmental effects of electrical generating stations.VIII.E. 7.d. Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations There are also recurring annual operating and maintenance costs associated with both natural and mechanical draft tower designs. Estimates of these costs are from several sources. Where possible, the experience of the Hope Creek cooling tower has been utilized; lacking that, the general cooling tower experience of the utility industry is employed as a basis.There are several facets of operating costs. Both cooling tower schemes require 4,000 kW of additional energy (compared to the existing once through cooling system) to pump a total of about 550,000 gpm per unit through the lengthy piping network to and from the two-pass condensers and up to the top of the hot water distribution systems on the towers.Considerably more pumping power will be expended than used by the existing system because of the greater length of the circuit and the static head which must be overcome at the cooling tower. Further, the mechanical draft cooling towers for each unit require an additional 8,000 kW of energy to power the 66 fans (40 feet in diameter each) which provide the necessary ambient cooling air.VmI-40 Other operating costs are associated with the frequent.detailed inspections of theinternals, externals and air. moving equipment (applicable to mechanical draft tower design only); and the operation, sampling, testing and cost of chemicals that provide continuous chemical control of the over 1.5 billion gallons of water circulated through the cooling towers each day.Maintenance costs are appreciable because of the large quantity of materials andequipment associated with what would be an immense installation of cooling equipment. These costs are expended in upkeep, repairs and modifications to the structure, fillsection, lighting, chemical control systems, hot water spray distribution system, fans,motors, switchgear, drift eliminators and basin. Make-up and blowdown system components which serve the tower complex also require periodic upkeep and repair.0 VIm-41 F-VIII Table 1. List of Fish Protection Options Category. Mode of Action System/DeviceBehavioral Barriers Alter or take advantage of Strobe lights natural behavior patterns toattract or repel fishAir bubble curtains Acoustic sound Infrasound Mercury lights Electric screens Water jet curtainsHanging chains Chemicals Visual keys Hybrid barriers Physical Barriers Collection Systems Diversion Systems Physically block fish passage (usually in combination with low velocity)Actively collect fish for their return to a safe release location Divert fish to bypasses for return to a safe release locationInfiltration intakesPorous dike Gunderboom Wedge-wire screens Barrier nets.Bar racks Traveling screens Stationary screens Rotary drum screensModified traveling screensFish pumps Angled screens Angled rotary drum screens Inclined plane screensEicher screens Modular Inclined Screens Submerged traveling screens Louvers F-VIII Table 2. Results of Preliminary Screening Of Fish Protection Options AdvantagesBiological Engineering Over Other Option Effectiveness Feasibility Options Potential for Application at Salem Behavioral Barriers Acoustic Infrasound Strobe Lights Mercury Lights Chemicals Electric Screens Air Bubble Curtain Water Jet Curtain Hanging Chains Visual Keys Hybrid Barriers Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Physical Barriers Fixed Screens Traveling Water ScreensRotary Drum Screens Barrier Net Bar Rack Barrier Infiltration IntakesPorous DikeGunderboom Filter System Cylindrical Wedge-WireScreen Intakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes 0 lw F-VHI Table 2. (Continued) Results of Preliminary Screening Of Fish Protection Options Advantages Potential for Biological Engineering Over Other Application at Option Effectiveness Feasibility Options Salem Collection Systems Modified Traveling Water Yes Yes Yes Yes Screens Fish Pumps Yes Yes No No Diversion Systems Louvers/Angled Bar Yes Yes No No Racks Angled Screens (Fixed or Yes Yes No No Traveling) Angled Rotary Drum Yes Yes No No Screens Inclined Plane Screens No Yes No NoEicher Screen Yes Yes No No Modular Inclined Screens Yes Yes Yes Yes Submerged Traveling No Yes No No Screens NU-Alden Weir Yes Yes No No Modify Project to Reduce Intake Flow Limit Pump Flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Revise Planned Outage Yes Yes Yes Yes Schedule Install Variable Speed Yes Yes Yes Yes Pumps Install Closed-Loop Yes Yes Yes Yes Cooling System 0. F-VIII Table 3. Estimated Velocities at Salem Intake Average Velocity a (ft/sec)Maximum Local Velocityb (ft/sec)LLW / MLT Water Level Location Under Ice Barrier Approach to Trash Racks Through Trash Racks Approach to Screens Through Screen Mesh LLW / MLT 1.4/ 1.3 1.2/ 1.0 1.4/1.2 1.2/ 1.0 1.8/ 1.6 2.5 /2.3 2.2/ 1.8 2.5 /2.2 2.5/ 1.8 3.2/2.9 a Average velocity is based on circulating water pump design capacity (185,000 gpm) and uniform flow distribution. b Maximum local velocity estimated as 80% higher than average velocity based on hydraulic model studies (HRS 1969).C Water levels are Low Low Water (LLW) at El. 81.0 ft PSD and Mean Low Tide (MLT)at El. 86.4 ft PSD. F-VIII Table 4. Representative Important Species and Life Stage Occurrence at the Salem Generating Station Common Name Egg YSL PYSL Ji1 J2 Adult Alewife X American shad X Atlantic croaker x x Bay anchovy X X X X X X Blueback Herring X X Spot X X X Striped bass X X X X X X Weakfish X X X X X XWhite perch X X X X X Gammarus X X Neomysis X X I F-VIII Table 5. Projected Mortality With -Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Screens Percent Mortality American Atlantic Bay Blueback Blue Shad Alewife Croaker Anchovy Herring Crab Eggs M.1. M.I. M.I. 50-73 M.I. N.I.YS Larvae M.I. M.I. M.I. 63-100 M.I. N.I.PYS Larvae M.I. M.I. M.I. 63-100 M.I. N.I.Juvenile 1 M.I. M.I. 12-46 23-50 M.I. N.I.Juvenile 2 no change no change no change no change no change no change Adult M.I. M.I. M.I. no change M.I. no change Percent Mortality Eggs YS LarvaePYS Larvae Juvenile I Juvenile 2 Adult Gammarus N.i.N.I.N.I.no change N.I.no change Neomysis N.I.N.I.N.J.no change N.I.no change Spot M.I.M.I.M.I.12-46 no change no change Striped Bass 50-73 63-100 63-100 9-52 no change no change Weakfish 50-73 63-100 63-100 12-46no change no change White Perch M.I.63-100 63-100 M.I.no change no change Juvenile I =entrained juveniles Juvenile 2 = impinged juveniles N.I. not involved at Salem M.I. minimally involved no change = base case F-VII Table 6. Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Traveling Screens a Fish Species Alewife American shad Atlantic croaker Bay anchovy Blueback herring Spot Striped bass Weakfish White perch Gammarus Neomysis Blue crabBase Case a Losses 64 653 983,534 54,727 1,046 467,532 723,418 1,656,881 1,225 24,264 210,755 23,381 Losses with Alternative 59 634 1,209,218 41,996 744 152,097 817,388 1,522,099 543 24,264 210,755 23,381 Change+5+19-225,684+12,731+302+315,435-93,970+134,782+682 0 0 0 a Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. F-VIII Table 7. Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Dual-Flow Fine Mesh Screens Item Estimated Engineering Direct Costs CostMobilization/ Demobilization Install new plenum Construct new intake structure Install new screens Direct Costs (July 1998 $)1,561,000 464,000 11,569,000 3,579,000$17,173,000 4,361,000 2,154,000 2,154,000 25,842,000 Distributable Costs Indirect Costs PSE&G Costs Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies Subtotal 6,848,000Total Estimated Project Costs (July 1998 $)$ 32,690,000 Impacts on Plant Operation Item Impact Construction Duration 36 months Unit 1 Outage 1 month Unit 2 Outage I month Incremental Annual O&M Labor 4380 manhrs Component -Replacement $ 200,000 Energy 4,705,000 kWh Peak Power 200 kW F-ViI Table 8. Projected mortality with modular inclined screens Percent Mortality American Atlantic Bay Blueback Blue Shad Alewife Croaker Anchovy Herring Crab Eggs M.I. M.I. M.I. no change M.I. NI.YS Larvae M.I. M.I. M.I. no change M.I. N.I.PYS Larvae MI M.I. M.I. no change M.I. N.I.Juvenile 1 M.I. M.I. no change no change M.I. N.I.Juvenile 2 23-78 23-78 0-25 23-78 23-78 23-78 Adult M.I. M.I. M.I. 23-78 M.I. 23-78Percent Mortality Striped WhiteGammarus Neomysis Spot Bass Weakfish Perch XT T T I- U ...W XT YS Larvae PYS Larvae Juvenile 1 Juvenile 2 Adult N.I.N.I.no change N.I.no change IN .1..N.I.N.I.no change N.I.no change lvi.x.M.I.M.I.no change 0-25 0-25 lni c an.gl 1 no change no change no change 0-25 0-25 nIU cLid lLa no change no change no change 0-25 0-25 lv.'.no change no change M.I.0-25 0-25 Juvenile 1 = entrained juveniles Juvenile 2 = impinged juveniles N.I. = not involved at Salem M.I. = minimally involved no change = base case S F-VIII Table 9. Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Modular Inclined Screens aFish Species AlewifeAmerican shad Atlantic croakerBay anchovy Blueback herring Spot Striped bass Weakfish White perch Gammarus Neomysis Blue crab Base Case a Losses 64 653 983,534 54,727 1,046 467,532 723,418 1,656,881 1,225 24,264 210,755 23.381 Losses with Alternative 110 1,120 978,060 54,706 1,307 472,600 719,430 1,612,594 1,332 24,264 210,755 200,782 Change-46-467 5,474 21-261-5,068 3,988 44,287-107 0 0-177,401 a Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. F-VIII Table 10. .Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Modular Inclined Screens Item Estimated Engineering Cost Direct Costs Mobilization/ Demobilization Install New Plenum Install MIS Modules 949,000 752,000 8,733,000 Direct Costs (July 1998 $)$ 10,434,000Distributable Costs Indirect Costs PSE&G Costs Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 2,799,000 1,323,000 1,323,000 Subtotal$ 15,879,000 4,208,000 S 20,087,000 Total Estimated Project Costs (July 1998 $)Impacts on Plant Operation Item Impact Construction Duration 36 months Unit 1 Outage 1 month Unit 2 Outage I month Incremental Annual O&M Labor 12,230 man hours Component Replacement $20,000 Energy 3,971,000 kwh Peak Power 570 kw F-VIII Table 11. Projected mortality with air bubble/strobe light Percent Mortality REDUCTION American Atlantic Bay Blueback Blue Shad Alewife Croaker Anchovy Herring Crab Eggs M.I. M.I. M.I. 0 M.I. N.I.YS Larvae M.I. M.I. M.I. 0 M.I. N.I.PYS Larvae M.I. M.I. M.I. 0 M.I. N.I.Juvenile I M.I. M.I. 0 0 M.I. N.I.Juvenile 2 30-85 30-85 30-85 30-85 30-85 30-85 Adult M.I. M.I. M.I. 30-85 M.I. 30-85Percent Mortality REDUCTION Eggs YS Larvae PYS Larvae Juvenile IJuvenile 2 Adult Gammarus N.I.N.I.N.I.0 N.I.0 Neomysis N.I.N.I.N.I.0 N.I.0 Spot M.I.M.I.M.I.0 30-85 30-85 Striped Bass 0 0 0 0 30-85 30-85 Weakfish 0 0 0 0 " 30-85 30-85 White Perch M.I.0 0 M.I.30-85 30-85 Juvenile 1 =entrained juveniles Juvenile 2 = impinged juveniles N.I. = not involved at Salem M.I. = minimally involved no change = base case O F-VIII Table 12. Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain a Fish Species Alewife American shad Atlantic croaker Bay anchovy Blueback herring Spot Striped bass Weakfish White perch Gammarus Neomysis Blue crab Base Case a Losses 64 653 983,534 54,727 1,046 467,532 723,418 1,656,881 1,225 24,264 210,755 23,381 Losses with Alternative 44 444 977,465 54,680 932 463,437 714,589 1,620,553 1,156 24,264 210,755 9,820 Change 20 209 6,069 47 114 4,095 8,829 36,328 69 0 0 13,561 a Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. F-VII Table 13. Estimated Engineering Costs and Impacts on Station Operations -Strobe Light/Air Bubble Curtain System Item Estimated Engineering Cost Direct Costs Mobilization/ Demobilization Install Strobe Light SystemInstall Air Bubble System 229,000 1,755,000 537,000$ 2,521,000 Direct Costs (July 1998 $)Distributable Costs Indirect CostsPSE&G Costs 607,000 313,000 313,000 Subtotal$ 3,754,000 Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingenci es 994,000 Total Estimated Project Costs (July 1998 $)$ 4,748,000Impacts on Plant Operation Item Impact Construction Duration 7 months Unit 1 Outage 1 month Unit 2 Outage 1 monthIncremental Annual O&M Labor 4,400 man hours Component Replacement 1 $231,000 Energy 1,401,000 kwh Peak Power 160 kw I Includes diver time F-VIII Table 14. Estimated Capital Costs Seasonal Flow Reduction Variable Speed Drives $10,707,000 Two Speed Circulators $10,200,000 Two Pass Condenser $123,429,000Helper Tower $36,000,000 U F-VIII Table 15. Change of Alternative Measured as Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Seasonal Flow Reductions a Losses with Losses with Losses with Losses with Losses with Losses with Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Base Case 10% Delta T 20% Delta T 45% Delta 10% Delta T 20% Delta T 45% Delta 'Fish Species Losses Vary Change Vary Change T Vary Change Constant Change Constant Change Constant Change Alewife 64 62 2 61 3 57 7 62 2 61 3 57 7 American shad 653 653 0 651 2 651 2 653 0 651 2 651 2 Atlantic croaker 983,534 983,672 -138 985,840 -2,306 984.843 -1,309 983,003 531 982,046 1,488 979,652 3,882 Bay anchovy 54,727 51,547 3,180 48,234 6,493 39,950 14,777 51,547 3,180 48,234 6,493 39,950 14,777 Blueback herring 1,046 1,045 I 1L044 2 1,042 4 1,045 I 1,044 2 1,042 4 Spot 467,532 561,072 -93,540 626,423 -158,900 510,197 -42,665 506,647 -39,115 467,856 -324 370,878 96,654 Striped bass 723,418 665,221 58,197 611,666 111,752 489,651 233,767 663,322 60,096 599,279 124,139 440,679 282,739 Weakfish 1,656,881 1,611,911 44,970 1,599,204 57,677 1,339,367 317,514 1,570,383 86,498 1,432,363 224,518 1,083,816 573,065 White perch 1,225 1,187 38 1,147 76 1,056 169 1,186 39 1,145 80 1,043 182 Gammarus 24,264 24,535 -271 26,792 -2,478 36,062 -11,798 24,235 29 24,027 237 23,526 738 Neornysis 210,755 242,491 -31,736 276,397 -65,642 259,593 -48,838 224,299 -13,544 214,612 -3,857 188,014 22,741 Blue crab 23,381 22,984 397 21,549 1,832 19,322 4,059 22,439 942 21,549 1,832 19,322 4A059'Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. F-VIII Table 16. Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Revised Planned Outages aFish Species Alewife American shad Atlantic croaker Bay anchovy Blueback herring SpotStriped bass Weakfish White perch Gammarus Neomysis Blue crabBase Case a Losses 64 653 983,534 54,727 1,046 467,532 723,418 1,656,881 1,225 24,264 210,755 23.381 Losses with Alternative 68 750 927,972 49,561 1,164 397,882 554,708 1,379,408 1,116 24,698 205,061 22.969 Change-4-97 55,562 5,166-118 69,650 168,710 277,473 109-434 5,694 412 a Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. F-VIII Table 17. Change in Pounds of Fish Lost -Closed Cycle Cooling a Fish Species AlewifeAmerican shad Atlantic croaker Bay anchovyBlueback herring Spot Striped bass Weakfish White perch Gammarus Neomysis Blue crab Base Case a Losses 64 653 983,534 54,727 1,046 467,532 723,418 1,656,881 1,225 24,264 210,755 23,381 Losses with Alternative 2 40 235,513 3,911 61 83,393 84,787 176,037 100 36,205 73,519 0 Change 62 613 748,021 50,816 985 384,139 638,631 1,480,844 1,125-11,941 137,236 23,381'Base case data for current Salem CWIS with Ristroph Screens required by Permit Special Condition H.2. ?3 E -Z*? Z./L'I-.-':: Z --: ý, , -Di.kz-Sae P.- L i\Di~:z~0 II L I--F-= Figure 1. coo!: I I:xl.,; 11111t, 1111;11ýc C'Jitihihng Wii I'Jiiiibcg
- i ~ 1--2 1T----------I
('\4 Iýk71 Fish scap.. Ie 11lt-il. Fsh C illi-.ig Poo V-V 112 ae 111( ttc e -, Pla'llR J1 ?S!~Z ?~-: V ---~-Me~LwTe i L 36.4, '1 'B ZZ-" e___ I K) F/'IN i: a
- o'-.- SLI CALEz F1' ~\I I I Figtt I *rt. CI Icuil I I Iig W\aIt!r Sys I em I iuIikc Iual DI~ixhargje Isc:;iv;iI I; o/\,A re; (Ilwxcý uI (m I IRS 1969) 1 lydrao I ic 0 'idlSidc.
?S EZ ?~---2. 5*. -N 6 0.1.10 I V N'I '-~-"'N N II~ 17'/ 'I~ I; \ i/li~ r 1~~ I'I/ I FLCCJ IL: II I I 2 3 4 --IC II*3TCTY TR~E~-i~~cz's aI ?5~!~: ?~-23 A. * *C.ff C AT Z315-7 2 _____ D~-- .3 LS :o 2_____ v11 IiI--7-~ I I I iI I II I _ _I 777.3-..3 0 !-S .3 r= 7 -!!%C.ATE --2 2,'I 1 1 1 f Ij 5 :Q I ; I: i i i I7 -..____ it II i 1-~~~~ Ii j IIl It I I I I ~ L..+/-...L.~I IL, .' I I I _ _ _I 1 .1 1 11 1 tol 7- 7 i -I f II :1 1 11 5 3 C S 0 .3 L.s 0+/-2 1-3 a to U 2 30--.F- VIE1 Fisur-e 6. &c.Dsiu:s H F- \f Figure-.Ve- ýsr 1:7".-'. iO F-VIfl Figure S. X~~\~ ~e D'u -. Fio','S¢,.:!= 100'0" F-II Fgre S.F: e> 'a-h. ~::-eezs -? ScI.Cull Suppoll ý;Illlcllllc Iflialic Niflicillic 1'.1 Titic I:. 9)2.20'TId 1:1..~9fl Ict; Italli CI (A fiIMAl 1.3\I1 I I VI'igiiiC
- 10. 1:111C Mesh~I !)ljaI-1 1.3'. *1.:5C1.CL -e Ml Oolo[ GuIidec:: I) LI
>~/Mc..iu:a 5 c j !:-: ; , =t 0 a I L; -C-ý-: L I IA I I 11. (IV-6-Ill Iz z -Z /--,?F'- V./I I I Figillt- 12. Mvodular hi cl I I I ed 5-LScrel -11A liva ItOR I I 0 .911 0 141I1l)C," Il111::li l kI el 1.,1clulrt 1'4iii1ihei. 2 Vi 11* .. .... r l ..,'/ -.. .--" ...--" i " -. --_.__,__ \ ':h , _ _ , _, ._ _ I I ],.,] ii,, ! -C, t ,-. .. I IT- ~I 1)2 \~ 3/4 111 11.1 116 /I1~ 111(1 1)12 JIll I 11'20 1122 ,1 " I/ /26 .111 11H )%op.p.llqr I lVile 1116 F- VlIl I,'lgu rr 13..Strobe I..lh/Air ICllblu (. -;ll Nall'ml O ._ .oVr. rI. .1'- a" IvIcaff I tlp'l(c ):1. 92.20 Top 1; ' .66.0' .______SII 1 3jX)II Vile I,'- Vill I-Igiitc 14. Sorobc ,01111\11-IlUbbic Curtain -IFIevall(II (1.'0t S REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F, SECTION VIII Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 1975. Hydraulic Model Study, Circulating Water Intake Structure, Hudson Generating Station Unit No. 2. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company.Brown, R. E. 1997. Utilization of Strobe Lighting as a Cost Effective Deterrent for FishTurbine Mortality. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Bruggemeyer B., D. Cowdrick, and K. Durrell. 1988. Full-Scale Operational Demonstration of Fine Mesh Screens at Power Plants. In: Proceedings of theElectric Power Research Institute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam andHydro Plants, San Francisco, CA, October 28-30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.Davis, R. W., J. A. Matousek, M. J. Skelly, and M. R. Anderson. 1988. Biological Evaluation of Brayton Point Station Unit 4 Angled Screen Intake. In: Proceedings of the Electric Power Research Institute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco, CA, October 28-30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.Electric Power Research Institute. 1992. Evaluation of Strobe Lights for Fish Diversion at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. Prepared by Stone & WebsterEngineering Company, EPRI Report No. TR-101 703, Project 2694-01.Electric Power Research Institute. 1994. Research Update on Fish Protection Technologies for Water Intakes. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Company, EPRI Report No. TR- 104122, Project No. 2694-01. Hanson, B. N., W. H. Bason, B. E. Beitz, and K. E. Charles. 1978. A Practical Intake Screen Which Substantially Reduces the Entrainment and Impingement of Early Life Stages of Fish. In: L. D. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977.Lifton, W. S. 1979. Biological Aspects of Screen Testing of the St. Johns River, Palatka, Florida. In: Proceedings of the Passive Intake Screen Systems Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December 1979.Matousek, J. A., A. W. Wells, P. M. McGroddy, M. W. Daley and W. C. Micheletti. 1988. Biological Evaluation of Behavioral Barrier Devices at a Power Plant Intake Located on the Hudson River. In: Proceedings of the Electric PowerResearch Institute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco, CA., Oct. 28-30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR. McCauley, D. J., L. Montuori, J. E. Navarro, and A. R. Blystra. 1996. Using Strobe Lights, Air bubble Curtains for Cost-Effective Fish Diversion. Hydro Review, April 1996, 15(2)42-51. Mclnninch, S. P. and C. H. Hocutt. 1987. Effects of Turbidity on Estuarine Fish Response to Strobe Lights. Sonderdruck aus Journal of Applied Ichthyology Bd., 3:97-105.Public Service Electric & Gas Company. 1994. Appendix MI: Cost Benefit Analysis of Proposed Alternatives. PSE&G 1994 Comments on NJPDES Draft Permit, January 15, 1994.Ronafalvy, J.P., Chessman, R.R., and Matejek, W.M. 1997. Circulating Water Traveling Screen Modifications to Improve Impinged Fish Survival and Debris Handling atSalem Generating Station. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., ConteAnadromous Fish Research Center, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Taft, E. P., T. J. Horst, and J. K. Downing. 1981. Biological Evaluation of a Fine-Mesh Traveling Screen for Protecting Organisms. Presented at the Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology, San Diego, CA, April 22-24, 1981.Taft, E. P., A. W. Plizga, E. M. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1997. Protecting Fish withthe New Modular Inclined Screen. The Environmental Professional 19(1 ):1 85-191.Wiersema, J. M., D. Hogg, and L. J. Eck. 1979. Biofouling Studies of Galveston Bay -Biological Aspects. In: Proceedings of the Passive Intake Screen System Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December 1979. PSE&G Permit Appiication 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX IX. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES IX.A. Introduction This section evaluates the costs and benefits of the fish protection alternatives for which detailed cost and biological effectiveness information is developed in Section VIII and related attachments. This subsection provides an overview of cost-benefit methodology and an outline of the remainder of the section.IX.A.1. Cost-Benefit Methodology This section provides background on cost-benefit methodology. The background includes a discussion of the rationale for cost-benefit analysis and an overview of the types of costs and benefits included in this analysis.IX.A. 1.a. Rationale for Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-benefit analysis is a well-established methodology for providing information to decision makers faced with the task of determining whether a project should be undertaken, and if so, at what scale of activity (see, e.g., Stokey and Zeckhauser 1978, Nas 1996). The approach involves systematic enumeration of benefits and costs that would accrue to members of society if a particular project were undertaken. Cost-benefit analysis provides an ex ante perspective; a project is evaluated in advance to aid in deciding in what form it should be undertaken and, indeed, whether the project should be undertaken at all.The rationale for undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of a particular decision-such as the decision on additional fish protection measures at Salem-is to allow society's resources to be put to their most valuable use. In choosing among alternatives, the basic cost-benefit principle is to select the alternative that produces the greatest net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs). It is possible that all project alternatives produce net benefits that are negative. In that case, the higher value alternative is to "do nothing," which at least produces a net benefit of $0.Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) determine what constitutes "best technology available" ("BTA") for minimizing adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures at facilities within its jurisdiction. The determination of BTA requires a consideration of the costs and benefits of alternatives. Each of the alternatives developed in Section VIII could provide additional fish protection benefits beyond the protection afforded by the current cooling water intake structure. Each alternative also would require various expenditures and other costs. Using appropriate economic techniques to value benefits and costs, we can calculate the net benefits for each alternative, including the "do nothing" alternative. IX.A.I.b. Types of Costs and Benefits Considered in this Study Chapter VIII provides detailed information on selected alternatives to protect fish at Salem. All alternatives are evaluated relative to the protection afforded by the existing IX-1* p PSE&G Permit Application 4 ,farch 1999.Appendix F, Section IX intake technology, which includes the modifications to the cooling water intake system included in the 1994 Permit Special Conditions.The costs quantified in this study include three major categories: (1) the costs for construction and installation of equipment; (2) operating and maintenance costs; and (3)the value of lost power at Salem as a result of construction and changes in continuing plant operations. The value of lost power includes capacity, energy, and the costs related to air emissions at plants that increase generation in response to reduced power generation at Salem.Some of the alternatives would have environmental effects that are not quantified in this study. These include the impacts of closed-cycle cooling options on habitat and aesthetics, as well as any increased fish losses at the other electric power facilities whose output increases. (These other environmental effects are discussed in Section VIII and summarized in Attachment F-16.) The values of these effects are not calculated due to lack of necessary information to make reliable and defensible estimates. Because these environmental effects are not included in this analysis, and because virtually all of the effects would be negative, the costs reported in this study are likely to understate the true costs of the alternatives.The benefits quantified in this study consist of commercial and recreational fishing benefits due to additional fish protection at Salem. The additional fish are measured in terms of increases in equivalent adult biomass (weight) for each representative importantspecies (RIS), for oneof the other non-RIS (Atlantic menhaden) and for the aggregate of all other non-RIS. In this section, RIS refers to all RIS species plus blue crab, a macroinvertebrate with commercial and recreational value. The RIS include various finfish as well as other macroinvertebrates and forage fish whose fish protection benefits are represented by estimates of the additional pounds of commercial and recreational fish that would be generated by increases in these species. (The termfish is used throughout this section to refer to both fin fish and macroinvertebrates.) Attachment F-4 provides details on the estimation of the biomass increases for RIS and non-RIS fish. Increases in the equivalent adult biomass caught by commercial and recreational fishermen are valued by developing estimates of commercial and recreational fish values, expressed in dollars per pound.In contrast to the costs, the empirical estimates of the benefits of fish protection alternatives developed in this section are likely to overstate the true benefits. First, the benefit estimates presented in this section ignore the effects of natural compensatory mechanisms that operate to maintain the fish populations despite losses at early life stages. As discussed in Appendix F, Section VII, and Appendix I, these compensatory mechanisms mean that the alternatives may result in substantially smaller fish protectionbenefits than the estimates used in this section. UIX-2 PSE&G Permit Appli;:aion 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Section IX Second, fish benefits in each year are based upon estimates of the adult equivalent fish corresponding to the totals in various pre-adult life stages. Because it would take several years for these pre-adult fish to grow large enough to be commercially or recreationally harvested as adults, there is a lag between the time when benefits are assumed to begin and when they would actually begin. Because benefits are assumed to occur before they would actually occur, benefits would be over-stated. Third, the value for some of the non-RIS fish is based upon the average of the RIS values. This assumption will overstate benefits because the non-RIS are valued less highly as commercial and/or recreational catch.The combined effect of understating costs and overstating benefits produces conservative assessments of the ne--benefits and cost-benefit ratios of the fish protection alternatives. IX.A.2. Outline of Section JX The remainder of Section IX is organized as follows. Section IX.B provides brief overviews of the selected fish protection alternatives. Section IX.C presents the cost estimates for these alternatives. Section IX.D provides estimates of the benefits. Section IX.E provides cost-benefit comparisons. Section IX.F provides a summary of omitted factors that would affect the cost and benefit calculations as well as sensitivity results using different discount rates. Attachments provide additional information on the methodologies and results.The estimates of the costs and benefits of fish protection alternatives are based upon sound economic principles and methodologies. The cost estimates are based upon detailed technical and economic information on annual expenditures and other costs related to each alternative as well as economic methodology to aggregate the annual values into estimates of the present value of costs for each alternative. The benefit estimates are based upon detailed information on the additional fish protected by each alternative as well as on detailed estimates of the values of additional fish caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. As with the costs, the annual benefit values are aggregated into estimates of the present value of the benefits for each alternative using standard economic principles. All of the procedures described in this section reflect sound cost-benefit methodology. IX.B. Overview of Fish Protection Alternatives Considered for Application at Salem The available fish protection devices that modify the cooling water intake structure fall into several categories depending on their mode of action: behavioral barriers which alter or take advantage of natural behavioral patterns to attract or repel fish; physical barriers which physically block fish passage (usually in combination with low velocity); collection systems which actively collect fish for their return to a safe release location;and diversion systems which divert fish to bypasses for return to a safe release location.In addition to these fish protection devices, additional fish protection can be provided by 9 IX-3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Sac'ion IXreducing cooling water flow rates on a seasonal basis and/or shifting refueling outages to reduce flows during periods of peak organism abundance.This section provides an overview of the alternatives for which detailed cost and benefit information are developed. Full descriptions and discussions of each alternative are provided in Section VIII.IX.B.1. Modifications to the Current Cooling Water Intake Structure Three alternatives are evaluated that modify the cooling water intake structure. They are:* Dual-Flow Fine M1fesh Screens. This alternative provides the potential to reduce fish loss by preventing early life history stages from being entrained through the Station cooling-water system.f Modular Inclined Screens. This alternative uses a series of inclined screens to divert fish into a bypass system that would allow fish to be returned to the Estuary on either side of the intake.* Strobe Light andAir Bubble Curtain System. This alternative produces disturbances-strobe lights and air bubbles-that deter fish from approaching the intake structure. IX.B.2. Reductions in Cooling Water Flow Other alternatives would reduce the amount of river water used for cooling at Salem by rescheduling planned refueling outages, reducing flow during the peak fish season, or constructing a closed-cycle cooling system. Rescheduling refueling outage schedules to occur during the summer when fish are more plentiful would increase the level of fish protection. The flow reduction alternatives would involve installing variable speed pumps that would allow flow to be reduced during the months of maximum fish activity. The specific alternatives involve flow reductions of 10, 20 and 45 percent during the summer months. The costs and benefits of the flow reduction modifications differ considerably depending upon whether the change in cooling water temperature (AT) is allowed to varyfreely .or constrained not to exceed a constant level. Two closed-cycle cooling tower alternatives would reduce substantially the flow of cooling water.In summary, the nine cooling water flow alternatives are the following. .Revised Refueling Outage Schedule. The planned refueling outage schedule would be shifted to coincide with the period of greatest fish abundance. (The durationsfor both the baseline refueling outages and the revised refueling outage schedules are based on projected times for planning purposes).
- Seasonal Flow Reduction of 10 Percent with AT Varying. Cooling water flow would be reduced by 10 percent during a 13-week period of greatest fish abundance. The temperature would not be constrained.
.Seasonal Flow Reduction of 20 Percent with AT Varying. Same as above except that the seasonal flow reduction would be 20 percent..Seasonal Flow Reduction of 45 Percent with AT Varying. Same as above except that the seasonal flow reduction would be 45 percent.IX-4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX" Seasonal Flow Reduction of10 Percent with JT Constant. Cooling water flow would be reduced by 10 percent during a 13-week period of greatest fish abundance. The temperature increase would be constrained.
- Seasonal Flow Reduction of 20 Percent with AT Constant.
Same as above except that the seasonal flow reduction would be 20 percent." Seasonal Flow Reduction of 45 Percent with AT Constant. Same as above except that the seasonal flow reduction would be 45 percent." Natural Draft Cooling Tower. Two hyperbolic cooling towers would be erected, each 450 in diameter and 540 feet high. The complex would be sited about 2,000 feet from the facility and require 18 acres of land." Mlfechanical Draft Cooling Tower. Six mechanical draft towers would be erected, each 250 feet Fn diameter and 70 feet high. The complex would be sited about 2,000 feet from the facility and require 18 acres of land.IX.C. Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives This section presents the costs of the altematives evaluated in this study. The firstsubsection provides an overview of the methodology used to estimate costs. The following subsections provide methodology and results for the major cost categories. The final subsection reports the total costs of the alternatives. IX.C.1. Overview of Methodology Costs are measured as the present value of expenditures and other relevant costs related to each of the alternatives. As discussed above, this study develops estimates for three major categories of cost: " Construction costs;" Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs; and' Value of lost power at Salem.Construction costs include the costs of installing equipment. Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs include the annual costs of operating and maintaining equipment once it hasbeen installed as well as any change in O&M costs for the facility as a whole.Power value losses are incurred if Salem has to be shut down during construction of an alternative, or if the alternative requires changes in continuing operation that lead to changes in power produced. The dollar value of the losses relate to losses in energy (i.e., kilowatt-hours), losses in capacity (i.e., megawatts), and costs associated with changes in air emissions that would result from each alternative. Costs are developed as estimates of the changes in expenditures or other costs incurred in each year due to each alternative. The analysis assumes that Units 1 and 2 will cease operation in 2017 and 2021, respectively. Total costs are calculated as the present value of annual costs as of January 1, 2001, the date at which implementation of the alternatives is assumed to begin. The inflation-adjusted discount rate used in the analysis is 6.19percent, based upon PSE&G's estimate of its current cost of capital.' All costs are in 1998 dollars." IX-5 p PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section [X IX.C.2. Construction Costs Construction costs consist of the capital, labor, and materials costs associated with the construction and installation of the alternatives. IXC. 2. a. kethodology F-IX Figure 1 illustrates the methodology used to estimate construction costs. SectionVIII and its attachments provide detailed estimates of the overnight capital costs (expressed in 1998 dollars) required to develop each of the alternatives. Overnight capital costs are engineering estimates of the cost of installing the necessary structures and modifications using 1998 prices for materials, equipment and labor, and assume the modifications can be completed immediately (i.e. "overnight"). The actual timing of the expenditures, however, affects their present value. Incurring expenditures later lowers their present value, since a return could be gained in financiai markets during the interim. Section VIII provides estimates of the duration and timing of capital outlays for each of the alternatives. The time required to complete construction of the alternatives differs substantially, from one month to six years. The overnight cost estimates and the information regarding the timing of expenses are used to develop estimates of the annual e.penditures associated with the capital costs of construction for each of the twelve alternatives. These annual values are provided in Attachment F-I I, Tables 2-13. Annual costs are translated into present values in Attachment F- 11, Table I, using the discount rate based upon PSE&G's cost of capital.IX.C.2.b. Results The present values of the construction costs for each of the twelve alternatives are provided in F-IX Table 1 and shown graphically in F-IX Figure 2. The construction costs for the alternatives differ greatly; there is over a hundred-fold difference between the lowest and highest values. The strobe light and air bubble curtain (S4.7 million) has the lowest construction cost of all the alternatives with the exception of the revised planned outage schedule alternative, which does not involve construction. The two closed-cycle cooling alternatives have the largest construction costs, ranging from $460.4 million to $576.0 million. The seasonal flow reduction alternatives have a construction cost of $21.1 million. Construction costs to modify the existing intake structure are S 18.4 million for the modular inclined screens and $29.9 million for the dual-flow fine mesh screens.IX C.3. Operating and Maintenance Costs Many of the alternatives proposed for Salem involve the installation of equipment that requires continuous care to function properly. Maintaining this equipment entails O&M costs. In addition, installation of the alternatives can change the O&M costs for the facility as a whole.IIX-6 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX LX. C. 3. a. Methodolog' As seen in F-IX Figure 3, which illustrates the methodology used to calculate the present value of O&M costs, O&M costs are broken into three categories: annual labor costs, annual component replacement costs and annual scheduled inspection costs. Section VIII provides detailed information for each of these cost categories. Annual labor costs are estimated by multiplying the PSE&G average wage rate by estimates of additional annual manpower hours for each alternative. The PSE&G average wage rate is assumed to be S50 per hour (1998 dollars).Attachment F-l I provides estimates of the annual O&M costs for each of the alternatives during the period 2004-to 2021. Note that O&M costs begin later than 2001 foralternatives, that require more than one year to construct. Annual costs are translated into present values using the discount rate based upon PSE&G's cost of capital.IXC.3.b. Results F-IX Table 2 provides the present value of O&M expenses for the alternatives. These results are shown graphically in F-IX Figure 4. Like the construction costs, these costs vary considerably across the various alternatives, although the general level of O&M costs is substantially lower than the construction costs.The present value of O&M costs ranges from zero for alternatives that have no additional O&M costs to a cost of 335.9 million for the natural draft and S73.6 million for the mechanical draft cooling tower. O&M costs for the closed-cycle cooling systems are significantly larger than the costs for other alternatives. There are no O&M costs for therevised planned outage schedule or seasonal flow reduction alternatives. (That is, there are no additional O&M costs to implement these alternatives.) O&M cost for the intake modifications range from 33.5 million (dual-flow fine mesh screens) to 35.3 million(modular inclined screens).IX. C.4. The Value of Lost Power Fish protection alternatives would lead to lost power at Salem. The value of this lost power is one of the elements of the costs of the alternatives.IX.C.4.a. Components of the Value of Lost Power The value of lost power consists of three distinct components: I. Lost Capacity Value. Lost capacity value is the value of the reduction in the net amount of power (i.e., kilowatts) that Salem is able to provide.2. Lost Energy Value. Lost energy value is the value of reduced energy production (i.e., kilowatt-hours) at Salem.3. The Value ofAir Emissions Costs Due to Lost Power. Air emissions costs result from increases in air emissions due to the increased power produced by fossil fuel plants to offset reduced energy production at Salem; their value represents the IX-7 PSE&G Permit Application" Marh 1999 Appendix F, Se::ion IX costs of either the environmental impacts of those emissions or the added pollution control costs of preventing those from occurring. Attachment F-9 provides information on the value of capacity and energy losses for each alternative, including projections of future capacity and energy prices. (Note that somealternatives would produce power gains in particular years. For ease of exposition, however, the phrase "power losses" is used to refer to losses and gains.) It should be noted that impending deregulation of the electric sector in New Jersey creates substantial uncertainty, in the projection of the future values of energy and capacity. The estimates presented in this section reflect PSE&G's current projections of the future value of power in New Jersey. Attachment F-10 provides information on the value of air emissions costs.We estimate the value-of lost power for two situations:
- 1. Powver losses related to construction.
These are the losses related to reduced facility output while Salem (or an individual unit) is shut down during construction; and 2. Power losses related to continuing operation. These are losses due to a decrease of net output at Salem, from decreased facility capacity, increased auxiliary powerrequirements, revised refueling outage schedules, or seasonal flow reductions. IX. C. 4. b. The Value of Lost Power Related to Construction This section provides estimates of the value of lost power associated with Salem shutdowns during the construction and installation of the cooling tower alternatives, which are the only alternatives with power losses during the construction period. The construction of all other alternatives can be scheduled during planned refueling outages, so that no additional plant outages would be necessary to complete construction.IX.C.4.b.i. MethodologyF-IX Figure 5 summarizes the methodology used to calculate the value of power lost during the cooling towers construction outages. Facility construction outages are assumedto be continuous and- are determined by the detailed construction schedules listed in Section VIII. The estimates assume a double-shift construction schedule designed to reduce the period Salem is not operating. During a construction outage at Salem no energy is produced for sale on the market, and no capacity is available. The value of lost power-as measured in lost capacity, lost energy and increased air emissions-depends upon the timing of the construction outages due to differences in seasonal demands and seasonal regulatory requirements. The value of lost energy associated with construction outages is calculated as the increase in Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland ("PJM") system energy costs resulting from making Salem unavailable to produce energy during construction. The value of lost energy is calculated by multiplying monthly changes in net energy output by monthly changes in PJM system costs (per unit of energy). The value of lost capacity is calculated UIX-8 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX by summing PSE&G estimates of the price of capacity for all months during the construction outage.The cost of changes in air emissions is calculated using estimates of the cost per ton of the air emissions changes and PSE&G estimates of the quantity of emissions changes resulting from additional power production at other facilities. Depending upon the emission, the per ton values are based on either allowance price forecasts or pollutant impact estimates. The annual value of lost power is derived by adding the value of the lost energy, the lost power and the air emissions costs to arrive at an annual estimate of the value of lost power. All annual valiies are translated into present values using the discount rate based upon PSE&G's cost of capital.IX.C.4.b.ii. Results F-IX Table 3 lists the capacity, energy, and air components of the value of lost power due to construction outages and F-IX Figure 6 shows totals for the two cooling tower alternatives graphically. The construction-related losses for both closed-cycledalternatives would be $131.1 million, most of which would be lost energy value.IX C. 4. c. The Value of Lost' Power Related to Continuing Operations This subsection provides estimates of the value of lost power related to continuing operations at Salem. In contrast to construction outages-which are only relevant for the two cooling tower alternatives-all alternatives incur power losses related to continuing operation. IX.C.4.c.i. MethodoloevContinuing operation of the fish protection alternatives can cause a loss of net output at Salem in two basic ways: I. Increased auxiliary power requirements. Auxiliary power requirements reflect theadditional in-plant power requirements of the alternatives. Energy used in plant operations is not available for sale within the P11vf system.2. Decreased facility capacity. Intake alternatives may also change the total amount of power that can be generated by the facility. For example, closed-cycle coolingsystems create higher cooling water temperatures that in turn causes higher turbine backpressure. This higher backpressure reduces the amount of energy that can be produced, i.e., the facility's capacity. The seasonal flow reductions alsodecrease the amount of power that can be generated during flow reduction periods.Some alternatives lead to lost power value due to a shift in the timing of power output.Implementation of the revised planned outage schedule leads to power value losses because the value of energy and capacity is not the same across months. Shifting outages to periods when energy is valued more highly results in power value losses.IX-9 PSEUG Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX IF-IX Figure 7 summarizes the methodology used to calculate the value of lost power due to changes in continuing operations. These losses include capacity, energy, and air emissions values. The methodology details are similar to those used to estimate losses related to construction outages.IX.C.4.c.ii. Results Estimates of the value of lost power related to continuing operations are provided in F-IX Table 4 and shown graphically in F-IX Figure 8. Power value losses are by far the largestfor the seasonal flow reduction options. Lost Value exceeds $100 million for three of the six seasonal flow reductions. The 45 percent reduction (AT constant) has the highest lost power value of all options at $843.7 million. The 45 percent reduction (AT vary) also has power value losses exceeding one-half of a billion dollars. After these two alternatives, the 20 percent reduction (AT constant) and revised planned outage schedule alternatives have the next highest power value losses at $306.3 and $134.7 million, respectively. Lost value for the closed-cycle cooling systems is also relatively high at $84.6 million for the mechanical draft and $68.5 million for the natural draft cooling towers.IX. C.S. Total Costs of Alternatives Combining the various cost components produces estimates of the total costs of eachalternative, expressed as the total present value of costs as of January 1, 2001. These total costs are listed in F-IX Table 5 and shown graphically in F-IX Figure 9.The costs of the alternatives differ greatly. Total costs range from approximately $10.0 million for the strobe light and air bubble curtain to $864.8 million for the 45 percent seasonal flow reduction (AT constant), a factor of over 80. The costs for the closed-cycle options are dominated by large construction costs, while the costs of the seasonal flow reduction alternatives, which represent three of the five most expensive options, are the result of large power costs related to continuing operation. The revised planned outageschedule alternative also has large costs ($134.7 million).IX.D. Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives This section provides estimates of the benefits associated with each fish protection alternative. As with the cost estimates, the benefit estimates are expressed as present values as of 1 January 2001 in 1998 dollars.The first subsection provides an overview of the overall benefits methodology, which focuses on estimating benefits of changes in the commercial and recreational catch of each RIS resulting from implementation of each alternative. The second subsection summarizes the methodology used to estimate increases in the projected RIS catch by commercial and recreational fishermen. The third and fourth subsections provide estimates of the dollar values of benefits for commercial and recreational RIS catch, respectively. The fifth section describes the methodology and results for benefits from IX-10 PS_&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IXincreases in the non-RIS catch. The final subsection reports the total benefits of each alternative. XD.1. Overview of Methodology F-IX Figure 10 illustrates the methodology to develop estimates of the benefits for eachalternative. The methodology consists of a series of steps to develop estimates of the annual benefits to commercial and recreational fishermen and to calculate the present value of these annual benefits over the life of the plant.1. Additional pounds of equivalent adults to the fishery. Determine the change in equivalent adult fish weight (pounds) for each of the RIS. This weight includes the change in commercial/recreational fish weight due to changes in the abundance of forage RIS.2. Commercial and recreational split. Divide the total change in catch to the fishery for each RIS between commercial and recreational fishermen.
- 3. Wholesale commercial values. Determine the wholesale prices used to value RIS caught by commercial fishermen.
- 4. Recreational values. Determine the value that recreational fishermen would place on additional RIS fish catch.
- 5. Benefits from increases in RIS. Use the quantities (from Steps I and 2) and values (from Steps 3 and 4) to calculate the annual benefits of changes in the commercial and recreational catch for the RIS.6. Additional pounds of non-RIS. Determine the change in equivalent adult fish weight (pounds) of non-RIS.7. Benefits from increases in non-RIS. Split the non-RIS catch between Atlantic menhaden and all other non-RIS. Using appropriate per pound values for each of these two categories of non-RIS, calculate the annual benefits from changes in non-RIS fish.8. Annual benefits.
Add benefits from RIS and non-RIS to produce an estimate ofthe total annual benefits.9. Present value of benefits. Aggregate the annual benefits over Salem's remaining lifetime using the same discount rate used to calculate the present value of costs.This methodology produces estimates of the present value of benefits for each of the alternatives as of January 1, 2001. These benefit estimates can be compared directly to the cost estimates developed in the previous section.IX.D.2. Changes in RIS Fish Caught by Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Estimates of the changes in fishery catch for the RIS fish under each alternative are based upon detailed biological and engineering estimates as reported in Section VIII. Thissection provides brief overviews of the methodology to develop estimates of the added commercial and recreational catch for the RIS fish.IX.D.2.a. Changes in RIS Fishery Catch IX-11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX Section VIII provides estimates of the changes in overall catch-measured by pounds of equivalent adults-for each of the RIS due to the fish protection alternatives. Three of theRIS are forage fish (or in the case of Neomysis and Gammarus converted to forage fish), i.e., fish that are not caught but rather are a food source for commercial/recreational fish.(The term commercial/recreational fish is used to refer to fish with recreational or commercial value.) The catch estimates for the RIS commercial/recreational fish therefore reflect contributions due to the three forage fish species. F-IX Table 6 lists the RIS by benefit category. Attachment F- 15, Tables 2 to 13 provides estimates of increases in the weight for the RIS commercial/recreational fish due to each of the alternatives.The magnitude of fish protection varies considerably for the different alternatives. In addition, the patterns of protection differ by RIS species within a given alternative. Indeed, some alternatives lead to fish losses for some species. The seasonal flow reduction alternatives, for example, lead to fish losses for some species due to the increases in water temperature that result when cooling water flows are reduced.IX.D. 2. b. Commercial and Recreational Split for RIS Fish have substantially different values depending upon whether commercial or recreational fishermen catch them, and thus it is necessary to estimate percentages caughtby commercial or recreational fishermen for the RIS. F-IX Table 7 shows the commercial and recreational percentages -for each of the RIS commercial/recreational fish. The percentages are based upon the relative weight of recreational and commercial harvest over each species' geographic range and represent averages over the period from 1990 to 1996. Attachment F-12 provides details on these calculations. IX.D.3. Commercial RIS Fishing Benefits This section develops estimates of the RIS commercial fishing benefits for each of the alternatives. IX.D.3.a. Commercial RIS Fish Prices Attachment F-13 provides the data and methodology used to estimate RIS commercial values in this study. The values are based upon wholesale prices at the Fulton Fish Market in New York City as reported by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The commercial prices used in this study are average values over the last eight years of available data (1990-1997). F-IX Table 8 shows the commercial values for each of the RIS. The commercial values range from $0.19 per pound for river herring to $3.05 per pound for striped bass.As discussed in Attachment F- 13, the wholesale prices provide upper bound estimates ofthe value of additional commercial catch. The estimates assume that commercial fishermen spend no additional resources catching the additional fish. However, some increase in resources devoted to commercial catch (e.g., more commercial boats)typically accompanies any increase in stocks in open-access fisheries. The theory of open-access fisheries (explained in more detail in Attachment F-13) suggests the IX-12 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX additional effort may reduce significantly the value of additional commercial catch (see, e.g., Anderson 1986). Indeed, for valuable species for which there is considerable commercial competition, the increased resources put in place could completely eliminate the benefits from the increased commercial catch. The estimates in this study ignorethese considerations. IX.D.3.b. Commercial RIS Fishing Benefits F-IX Table 9 shows estimates of the commercial benefits for each of the alternatives. Commercial benefits are measured as the present value of benefits over the period from the year the alternative takes effect to the scheduled shutdown of the Salem units in the years 2017 and 2021. (Detailed commercial benefits by year are provided in Attachment F-15.) The alternatives are listed in the same order as in the cost analyses in the previoussection. The commercial fishing benefits are shown graphically in F-IX Figure 11.Commercial benefits vary over a wide range from a loss of $1.1 million (modular inclined screens) to an increase of $14.9 million (through either natural or mechanicals draft cooling towers). The benefits from the cooling tower alternatives are more than twice those from the next closest alternative, the seasonal flow reductions alternative (45percent with AT constant), which provides $6.4 million in commercial benefits. Among other alternatives producing fish gains, commercial benefits range from $0.5 million (forthe strobe light and air bubble curtain) to $3.6 million (revised outage schedule). Three alternatives, modular inclined screens, 10 percent seasonal flow reduction (AT vary) and 20 percent seasonal flow reduction (AT vary) produce commercial losses.IX.D.4. Recreational RIS Fishing BenefitsThis section considers the benefits to recreational fishermen from the fish protection alternatives at Salem.IX.D.4.a. Recreational RIS Fish Values Attachment F-14 develops the estimate of the value that recreational fishermen would place on additional RIS catch, which is equal to $3.52 per pound. The value is based upon a detailed assessment of the empirical literature on the value that recreational fishermen place on additional catch in the Delaware Estuary and other recreational fisheries on the East Coast. As explained in Attachment F- 14, this detailed assessment provides an economically-sound basis for estimating the benefits of additional recreational catch due to fish protection alternatives at Salem.IX.D. 4.b. Recreational RIS Fishing Benefits F-IX Table 10 shows estimates of the recreational benefits for each of the alternatives. As with commercial benefits, recreational benefits are measured as the present value of benefits over the period from when the alternative would be implemented to the scheduled closure of the Salem units by the years 2017 and 2021. (Detailed recreational benefit estimates by year are provided in Attachment F-15.) The recreational fishing estimates are shown graphically in F-IX Figure 12.IX-13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX Benefits for the twelve alternatives range from a loss of $0.4 million for the dual-flow fine mesh screens alternative to $32.2 million for the two closed-cycle cooling alternatives. Other alternatives with benefits greater than $10.0 million include two seasonal flow reduction alternatives (45 percent AT constant with $18.8 million and 45 percent AT vary with $12.7 million), and the revised planned outage Schedule ($10.6 million).JX.D.5. Non-RIS Fishing Benefits Species other than RIS also would be affected by the alternatives. In calculating the total benefits of each alternative, therefore, the benefits from changes in the catch levels of non-RIS should be included. The basic methodology for calculating the benefits for non-RIS is equivalent to that for RIS.IX.D.5.a. Changes in Non-RIS Fishery Catch Changes in non-RIS catch for each alternative are provided in F-15 Tables 2 to 13.Attachment F-4 provides information on the methodologies used to estimate changes in the weight of adult equivalents for non-RIS fish due to each alternative. Separate estimates are developed for Atlantic menhaden, which are accounted for separatelybecause they comprise a large proportion of the non-RIS changes and information is available to calculate their equivalent adult weight.IX.D.5.b. Non-RISFish Values Separate values are developed for Atlantic menhaden and all other non-RIS. Atlantic menhaden is exclusively a commercial fish and thus its value is based upon its average commercial price ($0.07 per pound). This average price is calculated using the methodology outlined above for commercial prices and explained in more detail in Attachment 13.The value of the other non-RIS is based on the average value (per pound) for all RIS based on the commercial and recreational catch. The data and methodology used to develop this average value is summarized in Attachment F-15 and F-15 Table 14. Notethat this average tends to overstate the value of the non-RIS because the non-RIS are likely to be less desirable as commercial and recreational catch than the RIS.IX.D.5.c. Non-RIS Fishing Benefits F-IX Table 11 shows estimates of non-RIS benefits for each of the alternatives. These results are presented graphically in F-IX Figure 13. The benefits for non-RIS species range from less than $0.1 million for three of the alternatives, (modular inclined screens, 10 percent seasonal flow reduction (AT vary), and 10 percent seasonal flow reductions (AT constant)) to $10.8 million for the natural and mechanical draft towers. Aside from the closed cycle cooling alternatives, the only alternatives with non-RIS benefits of $1 million or greater are the revised outage schedule ($1.0 million) and the dual-flow fine mesh screens ($2.0 million).IX-14 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX IX.D. 6. Total Benefits of Alternatives Total benefits are equal to the sum of commercial RIS benefits, recreational RIS benefits, and non-R.IS benefits. F-IX Table 12 lists total benefit estimates for all alternatives. F-IX Figure 14 shows the total benefit results graphically. Total benefits for the fish protection alternatives range widely, from a loss of $0.8 million for the modular inclined screens to a gain of $58.0 million for the two closed-cycle cooling tower options. Five of the options produce benefits in excess of $10 million, including the closed-cycle cooling alternatives, two seasonal flow reduction alternatives (45 percent AT constant with $25.4 million and 45 percent AT vary with$15.8 million), and the revised outage schedule ($15.3 million).IX.E. Costs and Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives F-IX Table 13 summarizes the estimates of costs and benefits for each of the fish protection alternatives. The first two columns show estimates of costs and benefits. The third column shows estimates of the net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs). The fourthcolumn provides estimates of the ratio of costs to benefits. F-IX Figure 15 summarizesthe estimates of total costs and benefits graphically. F-IX Figure 16 provides a graphical summary of the net benefits.Costs exceed benefits for all of the alternatives. The net benefits range from negative$8.5 million for the strobe light and air bubble curtain to negative $839.3 million for the 45 percent seasonal flow reduction (AT constant). The mechanical draft tower has a net benefit of negative $791.3 million and the natural draft tower has a net benefit of negative $654.0. The net benefits also are negative for all of the seasonal flow reductions, which range from a 10 percent reduction to a 45 percent reduction. These results indicate that net benefits would be negative for seasonal flow reductions between these three levels, i.e., between 10 percent and 45 percent. Moreover, since the fixed costs of seasonal flow reduction exceed the benefits of a 10 percent flow reduction, it can be concluded that the net benefits for seasonal flow reductions below 10 percent would be negative as well.F-IX Figure 17 provides a graphical summary of the cost-benefit ratios. One alternative, modular inclined screens, has negative benefits and thus the cost-benefit ratio is not relevant. The cost-benefit ratios range from 7.0 for the strobe light and air bubble curtain to 34.0 for the seasonal flow reduction (45 percent, AT constant). All alternatives except the strobe light and air bubble curtain, the dual-flow fine mesh screens, and the revised refueling outage schedule have cost-benefit ratios greater than 10.In summary, none of the fish protection alternatives have benefits that exceed their costs.IX.F. Sensitivity Analyses for Fish Protection Alternatives The cost and benefit calculations are based upon some assumptions that cannot be quantified, but whose qualitative effects can be assessed. This section summarizes these IX-15* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX factors and their implications for the cost-benefit results. It also provides quantitative estimates of costs and benefits for the alternatives using different discount rates.In addition, this cost benefit assessment does not consider the benefits or the costs of the wetlands restoration and the fish ladder Special Condition measures required by the 1994 permit. Taking these measures into account could change the nature of the cost-benefit analysis. Those measures have the effect of reducing the net effect of the Station on the fish population. If credit were given for the benefits of the wetlands/ladders measures, the potential benefits from additional fish protection measures at the Station would be correspondingly reduced. The additional costs would be the same as calculated in this section (assuming that the wetlands/ladders measures do not influence the construction or operation of each alterative). The additional benefits, however, would be reduced if credit were given for the benefits associated with the wetlands/ladders measures.IX F.1. Factors that Understate Costs and Overstate BenefitsThe results are based on assumptions that tend to understate the costs and overstate the benefits. Most of these assumptions have been discussed above. The following is a summary: I. Benefit assumptions that tend to overstate estimated benefits:.Ignores natural biological compensation that reduces the effects of Salem cropping on the population of adult fish;* Ignores lags in adult fish production; .Assumes the value per pound for some non-RIS is the same as the average value for the RIS;, Ignores increased commercial fishing costs, which may reduce or even eliminate, commercial fishing benefits; and..Ignores recent declines in commercial fish prices, particularly striped bass prices, which suggests that the actual prices will be lower than the values used in this study.2. Cost assumptions that tend to understate estimated costs:* Ignores added environmental costs;.Ignores some costs of the alternatives that were not quantified, such as field tests and disposal of hazardous materials; Ignores the costs of developing prototype test facilities; and* Ignores the additional costs of obtaining permits.The result of including information on these omitted factors, therefore, would be to increase the costs and decrease the benefits for the alternatives. In summary, consideration of these factors reinforces the conclusion that none of the fish protection alternatives has benefits that exceed its costs.IX-16 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Section IX I.F.2. Results Using Alternative Discount Rates The above results are based upon a discount rate of 6.19 percent, which is PSE&G's estimated real cost of capital. To test the sensitivity of the results to the discount rate, we also calculated costs and benefits for two other discount rates: 3 percent and 9 percent.F-IX Table 14 lists the results of these sensitivity analyses, and F-IX Figures 18 and 19 show graphically the cost-benefit ratios under the 3 percent and 9 percent discount rate assumptions, respectively. Costs and-benefits both decrease as the discount rate is increased. The net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) also decrease in absolute valve as the discount rate increases. The basic results, however, are not sensitive to the changes in discount rate. Net benefits are negative for all fish protection alternatives even at a 9 percent discount rate. Moreover, the cost-benefit ratios do not change substantially at different discount rates. Indeed, the pattern is mixed; for some alternatives the cost-benefit ratio increases at higher discount rates and for some alternatives the cost-benefit ratio decreases. The general ranking of the alternatives in terms of net benefits and cost-benefit ratios is the same under the different interest rate assumptions. In summary, changes in the discount rate do not affect the conclusion that none of the fish protection alternatives has benefits that exceed its costs.* 0 IX-17 FSE&G PremiL Appliz-ation 4 March 1999 Appendix E, Section IX ENDNOTES PSE&G's cost of capital is currently 8.42 percent. NEPA assumes an annual inflation rate of 2.1 percent, based upon future projections of the Implicit GDP Deflator by the Congressional Budget Office (1998), to adjust this figure to an inflation-adjusted value of 6.19 percent. The nominal interest rare is adjusted for inflation using the following formula: [(I+PSE&G Cost of CaPital)/(l+Projected GDP Deflator) -I]. Using this formula and the data above, the real discount rate based on PSE&G's cost of capital is (1,0842)/(1.02
- 1) -1 = .0619, or 6.19 percent.
The distinction of 1998 dollars deals with theadjustment of dollars for inflation to account for the fact that the value of a doitar (generally) declines over time. This is not to be confused with the time value of money, or the fact that money can earn interest over time, which is accounted for by using discount rates to calculate present values as of January 1, 2001.0)0 0 Ix-iS, 47~ F-IX Table 1. Construction Costs of Fish Protection Alternativesa Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble CurtainFine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens Modular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) AlternativesRevised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant Natural Draft Towers Mechanical Draft Towers Present Value of Construction Costs (millions of $1998)$ 4.7$ 29.9$ 18.4$ 0.0$ 21.1$ 21.1$ 21.1$ 21.1$ 21.1$ 21.1$460.4$576.0'All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.F-IX Table 2. Operating and Maintenance Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value of O&M Costs Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens Modular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT ConstantNatural Draft Towers Mechanical Draft Towers (millions of $1998)$ 4.8$ 3.5$ 5.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$35.9$73.6* All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.S F-IX Table 3. Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value of Construction Outage Power Costs (millions of $1998)Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens Modular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant Natural Draft Towers Mechanical Draft TowersCapacityEnergy Air Total$$$0.0 0.0 0.0$$$0.0 0.0 0.0$$$0.0 0.0 0.0$$$0.0 0.0 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$12.7$12.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$104.3$104.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$14.1$14.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$131.1$131.1' All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.F-IX Table 4. Value of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operations of Fish Protection Alternatives" Present Value of Power Costs of Changes in Continuing Operations (millions of $1998)Alternative Capacity Energy Air Total Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 0.1 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.5 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 0.1 $ 0.9 $ 0.5 $ 1.4 Modular Inclined Screens $ 0.1 $ 0.7 $ 0.4 $ 1.3 Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule $12.7 $74.2 $47.9 $134.7 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 1.5 $ 6.3 $ 4.7 $ 12.6 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 3.5 $ 14.7 $ 10.9 $ 29.1 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $54.9 $257.4 $191.0 $503.4 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $10.7 $ 43.7 $ 32.4 $ 86.8 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $34.4 $156.1 $115.8 $306.3 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $94.8 $448.1 $300.7 $843.7 Natural DraftTowers $13.5 $ 44.4 $ 26.7 $ 84.6 Mechanical Draft Towers $ 9.3 $ 37.0 $ 22.3 $ 68.5*All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. F-IX Table 5. Total Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value of Total Cost (millions of $1998)Replacement Alternative Construction O&M Power Total Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 4.7 $ 4.8 $ 0.5 $ 10.0 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 29.9 $ 3.5 $ 1.4 $ 34.8 Modular Inclined Screens $ 18.4 $ 5.3 $ 1.3 $ 25.0 Flow Reduction (F.R.) AlternativesRevised Planned Outage Schedule $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $134.7 $134.7 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $ 12.6 $ 33.7 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $ 29.1 $ 50.2 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $503.4 $524.5 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $ 86.8 $107.8 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $306.3 $327.4 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $ 21.1 $ 0.0 $843.7 $864.8 Natural Draft Towers $460.4 $35.9 $215.7 $712.0 Mechanical Draft Towers $576.0 $73.6 $199.6 $849.2 8 All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.F-IX Table 6. Representative Important Species by Benefit Category Benefit Category Species Commercial Recreational Forage Fish FinfishAmerican Shad Yes Yes Atlantic Croaker Yes Yes Bay Anchovy Yes River Herring Alewife Yes Yes Blueback Herring Yes Yes Spot Yes Yes Striped Bass Yes Yes Weakfish Yes Yes White Perch Yes Yes MacroinvertebratesBlue Crab Yes Yes Gammarus Yes Neomysis Yes In section IX, the term Representative Important Species (RIS) is used to refer to RIS and blue crab, a species with commercial and recreational value.Sources: French et al. (1996); Miller & Lupine (1996); NMFS (1998a); Whitmore (1998); Attachment F-4.U F-IX Table 7. Commercial and Recreational Percentages of Total Catch for Species Considered aAverage Annual Percentage of Total Catch Species Commercial Recreational American Shad 44% 56%Atlantic Croaker 90% 10%Atlantic Menhaden 100% 0%River Herring' 27% 73%Spot 82% 18%Striped Bass 3% 97%Weakfish 69% 31%White Perch 58% 42%Blue Crab 96% 4%a River herring includes alewife and blueback herring. Source: Attachment 12.F-IX Table 8. Average Wholesale Commercial Prices for Species Considered Species Do Finfish American ShadAtlantic Croaker Atlantic Menhadenc River Herringb.c Spot Striped Bass WeakfishWhite Perch Macroinvertebrates Blue CrabY liars per Pound'$0.69$0.67$0.07$0.19$0.81$3.05$1.19$1.15$0.98'Average of Fulton Fish market prices over the period 1990-1997, in 1998 dollars.b Alewife and blueback herring are combined for the purposes of commercial valuation. Atlantic menhaden, river herring, and blue crab prices are calculated by multiplying ex-vessel prices by the average ratio of wholesale to ex-vessel prices for other species.Source: Attachment 13.0 F-IX Table 9. Commercial Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value of Commercial Benefits Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain Fine Mesh Dual-Flow ScreensModular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT ConstantNatural Draft Towers Mechanical Draft Towers (millions of $1998)$ 0.5$ 1.9 ($ 1.1)$ 3.6 ($ 0.2)($ 0.5)$ 2.9$ 0.6$ 2.2$ 6.4$14.9$14.9'All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.F-IX Table 10. Recreational Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives" Present Value of Recreational Benefits S Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain Fine Mesh Dual-Flow ScreensModular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant Natural Draft TowersMechanical Draft Towers (millions of $1998)$ 0.8($ 0.4)$ 0.3$10.6$ 2.1$ 3.9$12.7$ 3.1$ 7.6$18.8$32.2$32.2' All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.U F-IX Table 11. Non-RIS Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives' Alternative Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens Modular Inclined Screens Flow Reduction (F.R.) AlternativesRevised Planned Outage Schedule Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant Natural Draft TowersMechanical Draft Towers Present Value of Non-RIS Benefits (millions of $1998)$ 0.1$ 2.0$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.2$10.8$10.8 8 All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.F-IX Table 12. Total Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value of Total Benefits Alternative (millions of $1998)Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 1.4 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 3.5 Modular Inclined Screens ($0.8)Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule $15.3 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 2.0 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 3.5 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $15.8 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $ 3,8 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $ 9.9 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $25.4 Natural Draft Towers $58.0 Mechanical Draft Towers $58.0 8 All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits.Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. 1W Table 13. Total Costs and Benefits for Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value (millions of $1998) Ratio of Costs to Benefits Alternative Total Costs Total Benefits Net Benefits Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 10.0 $ 1.4 ($ 8.5) 7.0 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 34.8 $ 3.5 ($ 31.3) 9.9 Modular Inclined Screens $ 25.0 ($ 0.8) ($ 25.8) NR Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule $134.7 $15.3 ($119.4) 8.8 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 33.7 $ 2.0 ($ 31.7) 17.1 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 50.2 $ 3.5 ($ 46.8) 14.5 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $524.5 $15.8 ($508.6) 33.1 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $107.8 $ 3.8 ($104.1) 28.7 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $327.4 $ 9.9 ($317.4) 32.9 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $864.8 $25.4 ($839.3) 34.0 Natural Draft Towers $712.0 $58.0 ($654.0) 12.3 Mechanical Draft Towers $849.2 $58.0 ($791.3) 14.7 l 11 values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative Wenefits.b NR = Not relevant, because benefits are negative and thus the cost/benefit ratio is undefined. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.* F-IX Table 14. Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative Discount Rates of Fish Protection Alternatives' Present Value (millions of $1998) Ratio of Costs to Benefits Alternative Total Costs Total Net Benefits Benefits 3 Percent Discount Rate for Costs and Benefits Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 11.6 $ 1.9 ($ 9.7) 6.3 Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 38.0 $ 4.6 (S 33.4) 8.3 Modular Inclined Screens $ 28.2 ($ 1.1) ($ 29.3) NR Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule $ 171.4 $19.6 ($ 151.8) 8.8 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 37.9 $ 2.5 ($ 35.4) 15.1 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 59.8 $ 4.4 ($ 55.4) 13.5 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $ 689.2 $20.3 ($ 6.68.9) 34.0 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $ 136.2 $ 4.8 ($ 131.4) 28.3 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $ 427.6 $12.7 ($ 414.9) 33.6 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $1,139.1 $32.5 ($1,106.5) 35.0 Natural Draft Towers $ 830.7 $80.6 ($ 750.0) 10.3 Mechanical Draft Towers $ 988.2 $80.6 ($ 907.5) 12.3 9 Percent Discount Rate for Costs and Benefits Intake Modifications Strobe Light and Air Bubble Curtain $ 8.9 $ 1.2 ($ .7.8) 7.6Fine Mesh Dual-Flow Screens $ 32.6 $ 2.9 ($ 29.8) 11.4 Modular Inclined Screens $ 22.8 ($ 0.6) ($ 23.4) NR Flow Reduction (F.R.) Alternatives Revised Planned Outage Schedule $ 111.6 $12.7 ($ 98.9) 8.8 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Vary $ 31.1 $ 1.6 ($ 29.4) 19.1 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Vary $ 44.3 $ 2.9 ($ 41.5) 15.5 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Vary $ 424.5 $13.1 ($ 411.5) 32.4 Seasonal F.R. 10% AT Constant $ 90.6 $ 3.1 ($ 87.5) 29.1 Seasonal F.R. 20% AT Constant $ 266.6 $ 8.2 ($ 258.4) 32.4 Seasonal F.R. 45% AT Constant $ 698.3 $21.0 ($ 677.2) 33.2 Natural Draft Towers $ 629.6 $44.3 ($ 585.4) 14.2 Mechanical Draft Towers $ 752.7 $44.3 ($ 708.4) 17.0 8 All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits.NR = Not Relevant, because benefits are negative and thus the cost/benefit ratio is undefined. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. /6- ui4j'Af/g~ F-IX Figure 1. Methodology for Construction Costs:* C Szwbc Uglir aid Air Bubbl MIod ubc tend~ed Screens Revised R.flrnllo OwaSC Schledu.Seasonml FR. 10 %DerT Vary Seaotal FR. 20 %WDvlto T Vany Seasoral O'R. 45 L 1 Va T Seuional 14. 10,%QM11T YCOsUi4 Seasonl FMR.2f0edAia 'rco0131211 NsuanlF Anrs %Dgsf Thwenru M Vchantai LDta 'Ine 54.7.$0.0 wS2 I~1S21-t M $2 1 ,$0076,0 W0 Present Value (millions $1998)F-IX Figure 2. Construction Costs or Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in m'llions of 1998 dollars. Source:. NERA calculations as explained in text.a*+ Annual Manpower hour Estimates PSE&G Average Wage Rate Annual Annual Labor Component Scheduled Costs Replacement Inspection Costs Costs AnnualOperation and Maintenence Cost Estimates nTiming Present Value as of January 1, 2001 F-IX Figure 3. Methodology for Operating and Maintenance Costs FA Strobe i hi, ztWd Air HubbItCfri ai 41 $4 8 DUýPfoinemt Mh sefensE $3 5"'Scos ,oral F I,R i0 oll T Vary W0 O:. ....-" !{R evi :ii R f lt.2n ta 'la S :~d $0.0) " !Smosln F:R. 2o%,Uti T Vary~ SO,.0 S ottif FR:- i 4% Dc " C $0 I L~~i -,-,jh $773 6i 0 $0 $50 $ 0 S Present Value (millions $1998)F-IX Figure 4. Operating and Maintenance Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are presen values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. F-IX Figure 5. Methodology for Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages mx_Reiw!P Rurliz C114A StheFle s,~a i i R b~ %fl'It T.V,: y ScasoialR. 10%NkItaTCunsan1 Sca50131 k. 05 %Wlal C0111811 Na Nwn~r riif 1'~mcutitaI arzfl o 50j-0$0.0 SL S, U'1 40 Present Value (millions S1998)F-IX Figure 6. Value of Lost Power from Construction Outages of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as -of January 1, .2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Source :NERA calculations as explained in text.* Costs of Continuing Opeartion Timing Present Value as of January 1, 2001 F-IX Figure 7. Methodology for Value of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operation* PW. 1/2tt.J~~ -:rrn'w.... -* Suiobr LUct 3dAuc~kb~r~~ Rcwcscd Refuling Outage, cThlu".SviorrAl F.Ri %ll4ckua Tccry.Scasonal FRR, 4$%DLta T Conaz NaIvral Draf iTowers Met harrie Draf Ti;er$1 ;4$1.3$1341.7*29.S306.3$5 {)34 843J7 4e -Do P.04 $300 $400 $500 $60 7 Present'Value (ilos$1998) 00 $~0 $00 e F-IX Figure 8. Value of Lost Power from Changes in Continuing Operations of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.* 4s~'0'.L.DulFlo ii e ce R ie cf6,i o.mq s;*VScaom F riki[ 7TA Tow Mrchaiia in')1 Tow I4PkaV S1)0:0$13437 550'.2 S1 07.8$327.4 S524.5.7120$8:64+8 y1 Present Value (millions $1998)F-IX Figure 9. Total Costs of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of aniuary 11 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars, Source: NERA calculations as.explained in text. NNOnnRIS Annual Benefits T otal Annual Benefits-TimingPresent Value as of January 1, 2001 F-IX Figure 10. Methodology for Benefits Q ............
- S, C EN" 4-Stihe Ligh ftd Airk a Cotmbh, Dal-I FDow FR NI rh Screean RtýViscd ~fwr 0)nale 51chevkr ScnaIPRJFA I U9IDfja T Vany Scagonal FR, 45%ficaT Vary ScBsouil F.it IO%Dci~a VIConsrn ,seasonal FRi. 20%bt k TCormraz stinan FAt. 4.5 '4tlk A ?tTO .Natural Win)] Thwen Mceiianh-t;~ U~fltowcn S U'51$36,$06....... .. 1 9 e>2' 0 $2 $4 $6 $8 £0 S12 $t4 $16 Present Value (millions
$1998)F-IX Figure 11. Commercial Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of January 1., 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Parentheses indicate negative benefits. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. A~t BUIW.3 Iat~ 30..6 rC asCpglo Fi utc'tksS N5~i 1 FK10 UXw 1Vrl Mo.itiJ L UDA 50.3$10.6--I 51>5 32$342 50 10 51,5 520 $25 .530 >535 Present Value (millions $1998)F-IX Figure 12. Recreational Fishing Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives.,All values are present v,%alu s as of.January
- 1. 201, in mniýions of 199 doulars. Parntheses indicate)egat benefis. Source: NERA calculations as explaned :in text.0 0 L!iCobe adr4qAvrBvbbk~w~r
- u1kwFi Mtcislrsm.
I4U4Lý lnclked Scrt u-h R~sdM1Ilifig OitagrSchc litSc'nt1lH QW)dI~ TVwry H45 6L II Vary Snanstl P.R. Ii PIRl T.a gC~n4 StrctuzI FA 4. 1):R TCoi ,Nrmral 12-f !Thwcr Mcl ngici F( btD$0A3 S0'I0$01 2$0o¶0.0$1 C.I 1.1, 10 V SO. 52 .$4 SO $8 0 Present Value (millions S$1998)F-LX Figure 13. Non-RIS Benefits of Fish Protection.Alternatives. Al! ?alucs are presentvalues as of lanuary 1, 2,001, in millions of 1998 dollars. Sour e: NERA calkulations as explained in text., S
- Simibt Light aW Aiý IBuibbi Cwrtuvi 1 .4 'F I *ý D FL, to F fI- fs3 5*Modu rklfiw1r Scftns i" ,nd: Refue~ng O4 ta -$ I'cc,5 3*SenoiF TAVary $9 T .0* Sa~on~IFM*45",k~T" : ' " " s~eusolu{lR* 'I.!! ýO2mlar NtwI rafc'rom S558-ji) 0 1 $20 $ s 40 $ $60 570 Present Value (millions
$1998)F-IX Figure 14. Total Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of January 11,2001, in millions of 1998 dollars, :Parentheses indicate negative benefits. Source: NERA calculations as explained in Itext. Srobe Utbi Ulta Air Hwt~tifCrtacini M o lr kkw I rsc*Seasora FR 10 %ic ka T Vary 0: Suoorat F,Rý 20 %i:~w. T Vary Scsa nl F.R. '0 %Aktt T Cojn"am Merhanwl Draft Tow'tts~TotlCost imToal'knefitos so ~IPr S100 $ sio $400 M) Sn0 57Ce (m0 io00 s$198:Present Value (millions $1998)0 F-IX Figure 15. Total Costs and Benefits of Fish Protection Alternatives. All values are present values as of January 1, 2001, in millions of 1998 dollars.. Parenthesesindicate negative benefits, Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.* 1E'Dial-Flow~ Fine Mesh Screcas MoNIdular tIM14Cd S~.cric R ct caned Refuelng Outnage Schedluket Seasonal FP. 10 %Dckn T Vary Scasa jt F.R, 10 *Ekha T COnnssIanz Sm nosal 1. R 2 0*De Isa T Conwi am P Seasonst FL.. 451.13its, T C 5LJm NamuraltDraf TA)Ws Mrclunk &. TJr4f Towmr Present: Value .(millions $1998)F-T1X Figure 16. Net: Benefits of. Fish Protection Alternatives. AUi values are present values as Lof January. 1, 2001, In millions of 1998 dollars, Parentheses..indicate negat I ve benefits, Source: NERA calculations as explained Mt~ext,* M-4-Sib qrg gn AirR~IbIe CiuE mhr Su som R ý4 %rira T Vury Scaso~wi FIA. I2rVI T Cw)r w S,-5vtir~l ,R4Mj~qjT 7 Cn N~u rahTo", Mcilanki DA rft U 9-9g 17J 14.5 33.1'k 7 341.0 14,7 S 7 15 20 25 ) D 35 40 Ratio of Costs to Benefits F-4X Figure 17. Cost-Benefit Ratios. of Fish Protection Alternatives. NR Not Relevant, because benefits are-negative and thus the.cosUeroiefit: ratio iS undefined, Source: NERA calculations as explained in text.@ 6.Siroe ljgh Wrr Air IUhh Careti Dual-FIow FNem Mesh Screern MouaWr Inclinhd Screras Revised Rclut-hn 4 (,}s Schedule.Srtrssal FA,.45%Dclla Tar IStasunul FR1 Dlt onan ScowtuId R.20 %flchAT Scno R.l c5 Constan-Natural Towmrs.mvc aca War 1,415 <vr 1.3 83 NR t35j 34.0 36 28.3 2 103 12.3 I .5 DO 5 20 .0 $5 40 Ratio-of Costs to Benefits F-IX Figure 18. Cost-Benefit Ratios Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate of Fish Protection Alternatives. NR = Not Relevant, because benefits are .negative and thus the cbst/benefit ratio is undefined. Source; NERA calculations as explained in text. -O Strobe light and Air Bubble Curtain Dualt Rr Fs* N1M est &crnw Mudsksl bwtlsed Screen Revised Refucling Outage Scher.uI Seasow ] F .R.. 10l Dela T ViN Seaonal FR 20 %DeMa T Va 'Scasural FRt 45 %Dela 'r Vary Seasonal FR. 10 %Delta T Const an srMo ml FR.i 20 %D w T Seasnml FR., 4i'LLielts I1 Constant, Metltfinstzl DnF I Tow rs USm 19.1 11.4 NR -324 29.1 3214 14.2 0 5 10 Ib 20 25 30 35 Ratio of Costs to Benefits F-X .Figure 19. Cost-Benefit Ratios Using a 9 Percent Discount Rate of Fish Protection Alternatives-NR= Not Relevant, because benefits are negative and thus the cost/benefit ratio is undefined. Source: NERA calculations as explained in text. I0 Appendix F X. REFERENCES Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 1998. The First Year in the Life of Estaurine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, New Jersey. p. 342.Albert, R.C. 1988. The historical context of water quality management for the Delaware Estuary. Estuaries 11:99-107. Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 1975. Hydraulic Model Study, Circulating Water Intake Structure, Hudson Generating Station Unit No. 2. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company.Anderson, Lee G. 1986. The Economics of Fisheries Management. Revised and enlarged edition.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.ASMFC 1981. Fisheries Management Report No.1. Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Striped Bass.Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1987a. Atlantic Croaker FisheriesManagement Plan. FM Report No.10 of the ASMFC.ASMFC 1987b. Fisheries Management Plan for Spot. FM Report No. 11 of the ASMFC ASMFC 1993. Proceedings of a Workshop on spot (Leiostomus xanthurns) and Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus). Special Report No.25 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 160 pp.ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Amendment
- 5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.ASMFC May 1996. Amendment 43 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish.May 1996.ASMFC 1998a. 1998 Status of the Atlantic Striped Bass. August 1998.ASMFC 1998b. 1998 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis).
7 pp.ASMFC 1998c. American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Report. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.ASMFC 1998d. 1998 Review of ASMFC Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker.ASMFC 1998e. Options Draft. Amendment I to the Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Shad and River Herring. 54 pp.X-1 A:peidix F ASMFC. 1998f. Amendment
- 5 to the Interstate Fishers" Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. Addendum III: 1999 -2000 Fisheries Albemarle/Roanoke Stock Recovery, Delaware River Stock, Recovery.
5 pp.ASMFC 1998d. ASMFC Striped Bass Technical Committee, Stock Assessment of Atlantic Striped Bass. January 1998. 116 pp.Avallone, E. A., T. Baumeister, UI. Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 9 h edition.Avery, M. L., P. F. Springer, and N. S. Dailey. 1978. Avian Mortality at Man-made Structures: an Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/58:108 pp.Bachman, J., and M. Ferrari. 1995. Quality and Geochemistry of Groundwater in New Castle County, Delaware. USGS-Geo Survey Report of Investigation No. 52.Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants, Inc. (BWEC). 1995. American shad spawning migration hydroacoustic monitoring study at the Interstate 202 Toll Bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, 1 April to 9 May 1995.Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants, Inc. (BWEC). 1996. American shad spawning migration hydroacoustic monitoring study at the Interstate 202 Toll Bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, 1 April to 31 May 1996.Bason, WV. H. 1971. Ecology and early life history of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware Estuary. Ichthyological Associates Bulletin No. 4 Bason. W.H., S.E. Allison, L.O. Horseman, W.H. Keirsey, and C.A. Shirey. 1975. Fishes. In Ecological Studies in the vicinity of the Proposed Summit Power Station, Annual Interpretive report, January through December 1974. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Summit, DE. p. 327.Bason, W.H., S.E. Allison, L.O. Horseman, W.H. Keirsey, P.E. LaCivita, R.D. Sander, and C.A.Shirey. 1976. Fishes. Volume I in Ecological studies in the vicinity of the proposed Summit Power Station. Annual interpretive report, January through December 1975.Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Summit, DE. p. 392. [not seen; cited in PSE&G (1984)]'Beatty, H.R., J.M. Boylan, R.P. Webster, and E.L. Wenner. 1994. Seamap-SA-SA Annual Report. Results of Trawling Efforts in the Coastal Habitat of the South Atlantic Bight, FY-1993. A report of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department and South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute. Prepared for NOAA.Beck, S. 1995. White Perch. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary (L.E. Dove, and R.Nyman, eds.), 235-243. The Delaware Estuary Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 530 pp.I -X-2 Appendix F Berrien, P. L. 1973. Range and distribution of some estuarine fishes, spot. Page 262 in A.L.Pacheco, editor. Proceedings of a Workshop on Egg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages of Fish in Atlantic Coast Estuaries. NOAA Mid. At. Coast. Fish. Cent. Tech. Publ. 1. (Cited in PSE&G, 1984).Brown, R. E. 1997. Utilization of strobe lighting as a cost effective deterrent for fish turbine mortality. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997.Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Bruggemeyer B., D. Cowdrick, and K. Durrell. 1988. Full-scale operational demonstration of fine mesh screens at power plants. In: Proceedings of the Electric Power ResearchInstitute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco. CA, October 28:30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR. Bums, J. M., and D. Brocard. 1985. Cooling towers. In: Handbook of Energy Systems Engineering. J. Wiley & Sons, NY.Bums, J. M., J. M. Nicholson, J. H. Annet, and D. N. Alexander. 1994. The impacts of retrofitting cooling towers at a large power station: EPRI Cooling Tower Conference. Burton, D.T. and J.F. Garey. 1986. Chlorine Minimization and Chlorine Decay Studies at PSE&G's Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey (1984-1985). Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company.Caddy, J. F. 1993. Toward a comparative evaluation of himan impacts on fishery ecosystems of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. 'Reviews in Fisheries Science, l(1):57-95. Carlton, J. T., Thompson, J. K., Schemel, L. E., Nichols, F. H. 1990. Remarkable invasion of San Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the Asian clam Potomocorbula amurensis. I.Introduction and dispersal. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 66:81-94.Chittenden, M. E. 1971. Status of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware River. Ches.Science 12:131-136. Christensen, S.W., W. Van Winkle, and P. C. Cota. 1975. Effect of Summit Power Station on striped bass populations. Supplemental testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of Delmarva Power and Light Company, Summit Power Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-450 and 50-451, March, 1975 Clark W. G. 1993. The effect of recruitment variability on the choice of a target level of spawning biomass per recruit. pp. 223-246 In G Kruse, D. M. Eggers, R. J. Marasco, C.Pautzke, and T.J. Quinn HI (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Management Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations. Alaska Sea Grant College Progam Report No. 93-02. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. X-3 Apper.dix F Clark, W. G. 1991. Groundfish exploitation rates based on life history parameters. Can J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 48: 734-750.Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. 1989. Hudson River Striped Bass Vols I & II. Prepared for the N\Y Power Authority. Linthicum, MD.Cole, R.W., I.C. Tinsman, and R.J. Seagraves. 1985. Technical assistance to commercial fisheries. Annual report, May 1, 1984-April 30, 1985, Project 3-358-D-3. For National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Dept. of Commerce, by Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE.Cole, R.W., J.C. Tinsman, and R.J. Seagraves. 1986. Technical Assistance to Commercial Fisheries. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE.Cole, R.W., J.C. Tinsman, and R.J. Seagraves. 1988. Technical Assistance to Commercial Fisheries. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE.Congressional Budget Office. 1998. Current Economic Projections. http://w'Vw.cbo.gov, November 24.Costlow, J.D., Jr. 1967. The Effect of Salinity and Temperature on Survival and Metamorphosis of Megalops of the Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus. Helgol. Tiss. Meersunters 15:84-97.Crawford, M.K., C.B. Grimes, and N. Buroker. 1988. Stock identification of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the middle Atlantic region. Fishery Bulletin (US) 87:205-211. Crecco, V. 1993. Changes in F20 and FOso for Atlantic Coast Weakfish Following Increases in the minimum size limit and Reductions in Current F. A Report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, May 1993. 18 p.Crecco, V. 1997. Draft Stock Assessment of American Shad from Selected Atlantic Coast Rivers. Report to the American Shad Stock-Assessment Subcommittee of the ASMFC, Washington, DC.Crecco, V. 1998. Stock Assessment of American Shad from Selected Atlantic Coast Rivers.Report to the ASMFC External Peer Review Panel. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.Cronin, L.E., J.C. Daiber, and E.M. Hulburt. 1962. Quantitative seasonal aspects of zooplankton in the Delaware River Estuary. Chesapeake Sci. 3(2):63-93. [not seen;cited in PSE&G (1984)]Daiber, F.C., and R.W. Smith. 1972. An Analysis of the Fish Populations in the Delaware Bay Area. 1971-1972 Annual Dingle-Johnson Report F-13-R-14, Job I-1. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover.*X-4 Appendix F Dayton, P. K., Thrush, S. F., Agardy, M. T., Hofmnan, R. J. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 5:203-232.Dove, L. E. and R. M. Nyman [eds.], Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Delaware Estuary Program, 1985.Dovel, W.L. and J. R. Edmunds. 1971. Recent changes in striped bass (Morone saxatilis) spawning sites and commercial fishing areas in upper Chesapeake Bay; possible influencing factors. Ches. Sci. 12:33-39.DRBC. (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1996. Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment: 1994-1995 305(b) Report. DRBC, West Trenton, New Jersey.DRBC. (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1998. Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment: 1996-1997 305(b) Report. DRBC, West Trenton, New Jersey.Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992. Evaluation of Strobe Lights for Fish Diversion at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. Prepared by Stone & Webster EngineeringCompany, EPRI Report No. TR-101703, Project 2694-01.Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1994. Research Update on Fish Protection Technologies for Water Intakes. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Company,EPRI Report No. TR-104122, Project No. 2694-01.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1993. Survey of Benthos: Delaware Estuary: From the Area of C&D Canal Through Philadelphia and Trenton. Final Report to Delaware Estuary Program, Delaware River Basin Commission, and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 100 S. Cass St., Middletown, Delaware. FAA. 1975. Letter from A. P. Riccio, Chief, Airspace and Procedures Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration to J. Shissias, General Manager, Environmental Affairs, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Personal communication. FAA. 1976. Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation, dated September 8, 1976.Field, J., Anadromous Species Coordinator ASMFC. 1998. 1998 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for American Shad and River Herring.Ford, S.E., H.H. Haskin, and J.N. Kraeuter. 1995. Eastern oyster. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary (L.E. Dove and R. Nyman, eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 530 pp.X-5 Appendix F Freeman III, A. Myrick. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental andResource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Frithsen, J.B., K. Killam, and M. Young. 1991. An Assessment of Key Biological Resources in the Delaware River Estuary. Submitted to the Delaware Estuary Program. 59-81 pp.Gabriel, W. L., M. P. Sissenwine and W. J. Overholtz. 1989. Analysis of spawning stock.biomass per recruit: an example for Georges Bank Haddock. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9: 383-391.Gibson, M. R. 1994. Alternative Estimates of Weakfish Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries in the South Atlantic Using Shrimp Effort and Relative Abundance Data. Report to theASMFC weakfish technical committee. November, 1994.Goodyear, C. P. 1977. Assessing the impact of power plant mortality on the compensatory reserve of fish population pp. 186-195. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects-of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. Pergamon Press, N.Y. W. Van Winkle, [ed].Goodyear, C.P. 199T. Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation and current use p. 67-81. In: S. J. Smith, J. J. Hunt and D. Rivard [ed.] Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management. Can. Spec. Pub!. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 120.Gotelli, N. J. and G. R. Graves. 1996. Null models in ecology. Chapter 2, Species Diversity. In: Smithsonian Institution Press.Graves, J.E., J.R. McDowell, andM.L. Jones. 1992. A genetic analysis ofweakfish Cynoscion regalis stock structure along the mid-Atlantic coast. Fishery Bulletin (US) 90:469-475. Hanson, B. N., W. H. Bason, B. E. Beitz, and K. E. Charles. 1978. A practical intake Screen which substantially reduces the entrainment and impingement of early life stages of fish.In: Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, L.D. Jensen (Ed.), Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977.Harding, L.W., B.W. Messon, and T.R. Fisher, Jr. 1986. Phytoplankton production in two east coast estuaries: Photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci. 23:773-806. Heck, Jr., K. L., G. van Belle, D. Simberloff. 1975. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology, 56:1459-1461.X-6 Appcndix F Herman, S.S., and B.R. Hargreaves. 1988. Chapter 9: First order estimate of secondary productivity in the Delaware Estuary. In: Ecology and Restoration of the Delaware River Basin (S.K. Majumdar, E.W. Miller, and L.E. Sage, eds.), 148-156 pp. Pennsylvania Academy of Science.Hoff, T. B., J. B. McLaren, and J. C. Cooper. 1988. Stock characteristics of Hudson River.striped bass. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 59-68.Holland, B. F. and G. F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous fishes offshore North Carolina. Div. Comme. Sport Fish., NCDep. Nat. Econ. Resource Spec. Sci. Rep. 24. 132 p.Hoskin J. 1975. Casualties at the CKVR TV Tower, Barrie. Nat. Can. 4(2):39-40. Hsieh, B. and D. Richards. 1996. Three Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Seasonal Flow and Salt Transport for the C&D Canal. USACOE, Waterway Experiment Station, Philadelphia, PA. Tech. Rep. 96-14. 124 pp.Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The non-concept of species diversity: A critique and alternative parameters. Ecology, Vol. 52, No. 4.Hydro-Reseach-Science. 1969. Circulating Water Intake Hydraulic Model Studies -Nos. I & 2 Units, Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Project Report HRS-020-69. In the Matter of Florida Power Corp., Crystal River Power Plant (Findings and Determination Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1326, Sept. 1, 1988).In the Matter of Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Case No. 76-7 (Decision on Remand Aug. 4, 1978).Jackson, W. B., M. Temme, and W. A. Peterman. 1977. Semi-Annual Report, Davis-Besse Bird Hazard Monitoring Contract. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 21 pp.Johnson, R. K. and T. S. Y. Koo. 1975. Production and distribution of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) eggs in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Ches. Sci. 16:39-55.Joseph, E. B. 1972. The Status of the Sciaenid Stocks of the Middle Atlantic Coast. Ches. Sci.13:87-.100. Kemper, C. A. 1964. A tower for TV, 30,000 dead birds. Audubon Magazine 66(2):86-90. X-7 Appendix F Kernehan, R. J. 1974. An ecological study of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in the vicinity ofthe proposed Summit Power Station: Annual Interpretive Report, Vol. 2, ichthyoplankton. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., May 1974.Kernehan, R. J., M. R. Headrick, and R. L. Smith. 1981..Early life stage and history of striped.bass in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and vicinity. Trans. A4"merican Fishery Societ 110:137-150. Killam, K.A., and W.A. Richkus. 1992. An Assessment of Fisheries Landings Records in the Delaware River Estuary. Prepared for the Delaware Estuary Program, c/o US Delaware River Basin Commission. 7-59 pp.Kimmerer. W. J., Gartside, E. Orsi, J. J., 1994. Predation by an introduced clam as the likely cause of substantial declines in zooplankton of San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 113:81-93 Kiry, P.K. 1974. An Historical Look at the Water Quality of the Delaware River Estuary to 1973. Contribution No. 4. Department of Limnology, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia.
- p. 76.Krause. 1988. Management of the Hackensack River Basin -An interagency approach.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium: Mitigation of Wetlands Impact and Loss Association of State Wetland Managers. October 8 -10, 1986, New Orleans, LA.Lawson, T. A. and R. Hilborn. 1985. Equilibrium yields and yield isopleths from a general age-structured model of harvested populations.. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1766-1771. Lifton, W. S. 1979. Biological Aspects of Screen Testing of the St. Johns River, Palatka, Florida. In: Proceedings of the Passive Intake Screen Systems Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December 1979.Lupine, A.J. and E. Kuc. 1987. The 1986 Delaware River American shad population estimate.Miscellaneous Report No. 49, Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife.Mace, P. M. and M. P. Sissenwine. 1993. How much spawning pre recruit is enough? p. 101-118. In: S. J. Smith, J. J. Hunt and D. Rivard [ed.] -Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 120.Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management.strategies. Can. I. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 110-122.Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.X-8 Appendix F Marino, G. R., J. L. DiLorenzo, H. S. Litwack, T. 0. Najerian, and M. L. Thatcher. 1991.General Water Quality Assessment and Trend Analysis of the Delaware Estuary. Part One: Status and Trends. For DELEP, USEPA, by Najerian Associates, L. P. Eatontown, NJ. 217 pp. Appendices. Marshall, H.G., and R.W. Alden. 1993. A comparison of phytoplankton assemblages in the Chesapeake and Delaware estuaries (USA), with emphasis on diatoms. Hydrobiologica 269/270:251-261 pp.Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1998.http://www.dnr.state.md.us/news/press release/980924.html Matousek, J. A., A. W. Wells, P. M. McGroddy, M. W. Daley and W. C. Micheletti. 1988.Biological evaluation of behavioral barrier devices at a power plant intake located on the Hudson River. In: Proceedings of the Electric Power Research Institute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco, CA., Oct. 28-30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR. Maurer, D., L. Wading, R. Lambert, and A. Pembroke. 1978. Seasonal fluctuation of zooplankton populations in lower Delaware Bay. Hydrobiol. 61:149-160 pp.McAllister, M. M., E. K. Pikitch, A. E. Punt and R. Hilborn. 1994. A Bayesian approach to stock assessment and harvest decisions using the sampling/importance resamplingalgorithm. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.. 51:734-742. McCauley, D. J., L. Montuori, J. E. Navarro, and A. R. Blystra. 1996. Using Strobe Lights, Air bubble Curtains for Cost-Effective Fish Diversion. Hydro Review, April 1996, 15(2)42-51.McCloy, T., T.W. Baum, T.A. Allen, R.L. McClain, J.A. Dobarro, J.C. Normant, M. Borick, S.F.Michels, C.A. Smirey, E.J. Stetzar, and M.L. Kaufman. 1997. Assessment of Fisheries 1997. DELEP Coordinating Conference. October 29, 1997.McFadden, J. T. 1977. An ar gument supporting the reality of compensation in fish populations and a plea to let them exercise it, Pages 153-183. In: Proceedings of the Conference onAssessing the Effects of Power-Plant-Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. W. Van Winkle (ed.) Pergamon Press, NY. 380 pp.McHugh, J.L. 1981. Marine fisheries of Delaware. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv. Fish. Bull. 79(4):575-599 pp. [not seen; cited in PSE&G (1984)].McInninch, S. P. and C. H. Hocutt. 1987. Effects of turbidity on estuarine fish response to strobe lights. Sonderdruck aus Journal of Applied Ichthyology Bd., 3:97-105.X-9 Appendix F Meadows, R.E. 1974. Food habits of white perch, Morone americana, weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, and bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, in the Delaware River near Artificial Island.In: An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island.Schuler, V.J. (Ed.) 1974. Progress report for the period January through December 1971.457-517 pp.Mercer, L.P., North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries in conjunction with ASMFC. 1987.Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker. Michels, S.F. 1996. Annual Report: Coastal Finfish Assessment Survey April 1, 1995-March 31, 1996. Project F-42-R-7. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover.Michels, S.F. 1992. Coastal Finfish Assessment Survey. Annual Report, 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992. Project F-42-R-3. For United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, by Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE.Michels, S.F. 1993. Coastal Finfish Assessment Survey. Annual Report, 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993. Project F-42-R-4. For United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, by Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE.Miller, J.P. 1995a. American shad, Pages 251-257. In: Delaware Estuary Program. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (editors), Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary.Miller, J.P. 1995b. Striped bass. Pages 135-141 In: Delaware Estuary Program. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (editors), Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary.Mills, C. E., and F. Sommer. 1995. Invertebrate introductions in marine habitats: two species of hydromedusae, Cnidaria, native to the Black Sea, Maeotias inexspectana and Blackforida virginica, invade to San Francisco Bay. Marine Biology, 122:279-288. Murawski, W. S. 1969. The distribution of striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, Eggs and Larvae in the Lower Delaware River. Bureau of Fisheries Miscellaneous Report No. IM. FederalAid to Fisheries Project 7-15-R. Division of Fish and Game, New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Trenton, New Jersey. 14 pp.Myers, R. A. and Mertz. 1998. The limits of exploitation: A precautionary approach. Ecological Applications 8(1) Supplement pp. S 165-S 169 Myers, R. A., J Bridson, and N. J. Barrowman. 1995. Summary of Worldwide Spawner and Recruitment Data. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2020.Najarian Associates. 1998. Addendum Report-to: General Water Quality Assessment and Trend Analysis of the Delaware Estuary. X-10 Appendix F Nas, Tevfik F. 1996. Cost-Benefits Analysis: Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998c. Personal communication with the Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, July-November (available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stl / index.html). NMFS. May 1998b. Final Rule; Magnuson-Stevens Act; National Standard Guidelines, 63 Fed.Reg. 24212, 24219 (May 1, 1998)NMFSd. 1998. Report to Congress: Southeastern United States shrimp trawl bycatch program.October 1998.NMFS. 1999a. <http://www.nefsc.rnfs.gov/125th/timeline/1970.html> and <..../1980.html>. NMFS. 1999b. <http://www.nmfs.gov/irf/acfcmaac.html>; and<http://www.nmfs.gov/irf/ijact.html>. NMFS. 1998a. Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus Summary of Assessments. 26th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop.National Research Councel (NRC). 1998. Improving Fish Stock Assessments. Committee on Fish Stock assessment Methods, Ocean Studies Board. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.O'Herron, J.C., II, T. Lloyd, and K. Laidig. 1994. A Survey of Fish in the Delaware Estuary from the Area of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to Trenton. Prepared for Delaware Estuary Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Olsen, E. J. and R. A. Rulifson. 1992. Maturation and fecundity of Roanoke River-Albemarle Sound Striped Bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:524-537. Pacheco, A. L. 1957. The Length and Age Composition of Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, in the Pound Net Fishery of Lower Chesapeake Bay. MS Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 34 p.Peet, R. K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 5:285-307. Pennock, J. R. 1988. Phytoplankton. In: The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource, T .L. Bryant and J. R. Pennock, eds. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program. pp 55-60.X-11 Appendix F'Peuser, R. (ed.) 1996. Estimates of Finfish Bycatch in the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery.Prepared by the SEAMAP South Atlantic Committee, Shrimp Bycatch Work Group, Final Report. ASMFC, April 1996, 64 pp.PSE&G 1974. A Report on the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Artificial Island, SalemCounty, New Jersey: U.S. Environmental Agency Section 316(a) Demonstration Type 3.18 September 1974.PSE&G 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration. NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. PSE&G, Newark, New Jersey. PSE&G 1985. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration: Study Plan and Methods.Appendix 1, Materials, Methods and Rationale. Vol. 1 and 2.PSE&G 1991. Company Comments on Section 316(a) and (b) Issues in Draft NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. PSE&G, Newark, New Jersey. 14 January.PSE&G 1993. Appendix I, PSE&G Comments. NJPDES Draft Permit. Permit No.NJ0005622. PSE&G, Newark, New Jersey.PSE&G. 1994. Appendix MI: Cost Benefit Analysis of Proposed Alternatives. PSE&G 1994 Comments on NJPDES Draft Permit, January 15, 1994.,Rapport, D. J., H. A. Regier, and T. C. Hutchison. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress.American Naturalist. 125(5):617-638. Ronafalvy, J.P., Chessman, R.R., and Matejek, W.M. 1997. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve impinged fish survival and debris handling at Salem Generating Station. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Rowe, P.M., and C.E. Epifanio. 1994. Tidal stream transport of weakfish larvae in Delaware Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 110:105-114. Rybak, E. J., W. B. Jackson, and S. H. Vessey. 1973. Impact of cooling towers on bird migration. Proceedings of the Sixth Bird Control Seminar, Bowling Green State University, p. 187-194.Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine Benthic Diversity: A comparative study. The American Naturalist, Vol. 102, No. 925 Santoro, E.D. 1998. Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report. Delaware Estuary Program.* Seagraves, R. J. 1991. Weakfish fishery management plan amendment
- 1. ASMFC, Washington, D.C. Fisheries Management Report No. 20. 68 pp.X-2 X-12=g Appendix F Seagraves, R.J. 1992. Atlantic States Fisheries Commission Weakfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment No. 1. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, Delaware.Seagraves, R.J. 1995. Weakfish, Pages 293-298. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary, L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (editors), Delaware Estuary Program.Shepherd, G. R. 1982. Growth, reproduction, and mortality of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, and size/age structure of teh fisheries in the Middle Atlantic region. Master's Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
69 pp.Shepherd, G. R. and C. B. Grimes. 1984. Reproduction of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the New York Bught and evidence for geographically specific life history characteristics. Fishery Bulletin Vol 82 No. 3 p. 501-511.Shuster, C.N. 1959. A biological evaluation of the Delaware River Estuary. Univ. Del. Mar., Inf. Ser. Publ. 3. p. 77. [not seen; cited in PSE&G (1984)]Simberloff, D. 1971. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. The American Naturalist, pp. 414-418 Sissenwine, M. P. and J. G. Shepherd. 1987. An alternative perspective on recruitment overfishing and biological reference points. Can. ... Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:913-918. Smith, R.W. 1987. Marine fish populations in Delaware Bay. 1982-1987 Federal Aid in Fisheries Restoration Project F-34-R, Final Report, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover.Stearns, D.E. 1995. In Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary (L.E. Dove and R. Nyman, eds.), 33-42. The Delaware Estuary Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 530 pp.Stevensen, H. M. 1956. Fall Migration: Florida Region. Audubon Field Notes 10(1):19-22. Stevensen, H. M. 1958. Fall Migration: Florida Region. Audubon Field Notes 10(1):21-26. Stevenson, R.A. 1958. The biology of the anchovies Anchoa mitchilli (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1848) and Anchoa hepsetus (Linnaeus, 1758) in Delaware Bay. M.S.Thesis. Univ. Delaware, Newark.
- p. 56. [not seen; cited in PSE&G (1984)]Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser.
1978. A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.Sullivan, J.K. 1994. Habitat status and trends in the Delaware Estuary. Coastal Management 22:49-79.X-13 Appendix F Summers, P. 1987. Fish population study. Delaware River Basin Commission report, W. Trenton, New Jersey. 4 pp.Suter, G., and L. Bamthouse. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. (Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL) p. 26.Sutton, C., J.C. O'Herron, II, and R.T. Zappalorti. April 1996. The Scientific Characterization of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program, DRBC Project No. 321; HA File No. 93.21, 200 pp and appendices. Taft, E. P., A. W. Plizga, E. M. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1997. Protecting fish with the new modular inclined screen. The Environmental Professional 19(1):185-191. Taft, E. P., T. J. Horst, and J. K. Downing. 1981. Biological Evaluation of a Fine-Mesh Traveling Screen for Protecting Organisms. Presented at the Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology, San Diego, CA, April 22-24, 1981.Thomas, D.L. 1971. The early life history of six species of drum (Sciaenidae) in the lower Delaware River, a brackish tidal estuary, Part III. In: An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island. Progress report for the period Januarythrough December 1970. Ichthyological Assoc. Bull. 3. p. 247. [not seen; cited in PSE&G (1984)]Tietenberg, Thomas. 1992. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. USAEC. 1974. Final Environmental Statement Relates to the Proposed Summit Power Station Units I and 2. Docket Nos. 50-450 and 50-451, Directorate of Licensing, USAEC.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998a. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. USEPA 1973. Development Document for Proposed Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures at v.USEPA 1974. Draft 316(a) Proposed Guidelines. 18 April 1974.USEPA 1975. Guidelines to Determine Best Available Technology for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500, at 61-63 (Dec. 5, 1975)USEPA 1976. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at 1-2.X-14 Appendix F USEPA 1977. Office of Water Enforcement, Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500, at p.4, 11, 16, 34 (May 1, 1977).USEPA 1981. Letter from Charles S. Warren, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region II, to James S. Shissias, General Manager, Environmental Affairs, PSE&G (March 18, 1981).USEPA 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. USEPA 1995. The Delaware Estuary. Discover its Secrets. A management plan for the Delaware Estuary. Delaware Estuary Program Policy Committee, Draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, January, 1995.USEPA 1998b. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 63 Fed. Reg. 26846 (May 14, 1998).U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final rule to amend Special Rule Allowing Regulated Taking of the Utah Prairie Dog. 56 Fed. Reg. 27438 (June 14, 1991). Codified at 50 C.F.R. 17.40(g).Vaughan, D. S. 1994. Assessment of Atlantic Weakfish Stock, 1983-1993. Report to Weakfish Scientific and Statistical Committee, ASMFC, August 5, 1994.Vaughan, D., R. Seagraves, and K. West, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 1991.An Assessment of the Status of the Atlantic Weakfish Stock 1982-1988. Versar, Inc. 1989. Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects Studies and CoolingWater Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station: Revised Final Report. Prepared for NJDEP. Prepared by A. F. Holland, S. B. Weisberg, J. K. Summers, L. R. Cadman, and J. M. Hoenig.Waldman, J. R., and I. I. Wirgin. 1994. Origin of the present Delaware River striped bass population as shown by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:15-21 Waterfield, G.B. 1995. River herrings, Pages 191-197. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary, L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (editors),. Delaware Estuary Program. Webster, R.P., H.R. Beatty, and E.L. Wenner. 1990. Results of trawling efforts in the coastal habitat of the South Atlantic Bight, FY-1989. Seamap-SA Final Report. p66.Welsh, W. W. and C. M. Breder, Jr.. 1923. Contributions to life histories of Sciaenidae of the eastern United States coast. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 39:141-201. (Cited in PSE&G, 1984).X-15 Appendix F Weisberg, F. Jacobs, W. H. Burtor, and R. Ross. 1983. Report on Preliminary Studies Using the Wedge-wire Screen Model Intake Facility. Prepared by Martin Marietta Environmental Services; Prepared for the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program.Weisberg, S. B. and W. H. Burton. 1993. Spring distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the tidal Delaware River. Fishery Bulletin 91(4):78-797. Weisberg, S.B., H.T. Wilson, P. Himchak, T. Baum, and R. Allen. 1996. Temporal trends in the abundance of fish in the tidal delaware river. Estuaries 19:723-729. Weisberg, S.B., W.H. Burton, and H. Wilson. 1991. Delaware River Striped Bass Studies: Population Estimate of the 1990 Year Class and an Evaluation of Young-of-Year Index of Abundance. Prepared for the Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. Prepared by Versar, Inc. and Coastal Environmental Services.White, M.L. and M.E. Chittenden, Jr. 1976. Aspects of the life history of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. Texas A & M Univ., College Station. Sea Grant Publ.TAMU-SG-76-205.
- p. 54. (Not seen; cited in Knudsen and Herke, 1978.)Whitmore and Cole. Cited in Table 11-6 of the PSE&G Species Report for Atlantic Croaker, Attachment C-5.7 Wiersema, J. M., D. Hogg, and L. J. Eck. 1979. Biofouling Studies of Galveston Bay -)Biological Aspects. In: Proceedings of the Passive Intake Screen Systems Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December 1979.Wihlm, J. L. and T,C. Dorris. 1968. Biological parameters for water quality criteria.BioScience.
18:477-481. Wilson, K.A., K.W. Able, and K.L. Heck Jr. 1990. Habitat Use by Juvenile Crabs: A Comparison Among Habitats in Sourthern New Jersey. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46 (1):105-114. Winemiller, K. 0., and K. A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: Implications for population regulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.49:2196 -2218.X-16 APPENDIX F, ATTACHMENT I BAYWIDE AND IN-PLANT SAMPLING PROGRAMS AND SAMPLING METHODS SPONSORED BY: L. W. Barnthouse, Ph.D.PSE&G RENEWAL APPLICATION SALEM GENERATION STATION PERMIT NO. NJ0005622 4 MARCH 1999 o Appendix F. Attachment ITable of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ I ................................ .................... II LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) ............................................. III LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... IV I. INTRODUCTION ................................. I ...................................................................................... I I.A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ......................A. 1. Preoperational Monitoring Studies ............................................................................... 1.A .2. 316 Leg islation .................................................................................................... .... 2 I A.3. 316(b) Sampling Program ............................................... 1.A.4. Post 1984 Demonstration ........................................................................................ 4 I A.5 1994 Permit Renewal ............................... 1 .............................................................. 4 II. PSE&G PLANT EFFECTS STUDIES .................................................................... a .............. 5 II.A. PLANT OPERATIONS ...........
- ............................................................
.5 1.,A. 1 Reactor Thermal Power and Net Electric Power ........................................................ 5 II. A. 2. Intake and Discharge Temperature ......... ................ ........I1,4.3. Number of Pumps/CWS and SWS Flow Rates ........................... 7 II.B. AMBIENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 8 lI.B 1. Water Temperature .............................................................................................. 8 II C .E NTRA IN M ENT .................................................................................................................... 12 IL C .I .A bundance ................................................. ........................................ .... ...... 13 I .C .2. S u rviva l .................................................................. ............ ................... 16 II.D. IMPINGEMENT ............ ............ ......................................... 21 If. D. 1. Abundance and Initial Survival, and Extended Survival of Impinged Organisms ..... 22 1I. D. 2. Sampling Frequency ............................................................................................ 25 I.D.3. Collection Efficiency ........................................................................................ 28 lID.4. Age Composition ................................................................................................... 29III. FISHERIES-INDEPENDENT DATA ............................................... ................................ 31 III.A .PS E & G .STU D IES ............................................................................................................... 3 1 III.A. I. Macrozooplankton Studies ................................................................................. 31 1IIA.2. Ichthyoplankton Studies ..................................................................................... 37 liA. 3. Finfish and Blue Crab Studies ........................................................................... 45 lI.A. 4. Special Studies .................................................................................................. 63 III.B. NJDEP STUDIES ...................... ................................................................................ 67 III.C.DNREC STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 68 III C. 1. Large Trawl (1979-1984) ............................................. 7 .................... ...................... 68 III. C.2. Juvenile Trawl.Survey (1980-1996) ................................................................. 69 III.D. OTHER AGENCY STUDIES ..................................................................................... 70 III.D. I. Striped Bass ................................................ 70 lII.D.2. American Shad ............................... ........................................... 71 IV. FISHERIES-DEPENDENT DATA ................................................................................. 72 IV.A. NMFS COMMERCIAL HARVEST DATA (1950-1997) ................................................. 72 IV.B. NMFS RECREATIONAL HARVEST DATA (1981-1998) ........................... ...73 V. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 75 a' Appendix F. Attachment I LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number F-1 Figure 1 F- I Figure 2 F-I Figure 3 F-I Figure 4 F-1 Figure 5 F-I Figure 6 F-1 Figure 7 F-I Figure 8 F-1 Figure 9 F-1 Figure 10 F-I Figure II F-I Figure 12 F-1 Figure 13F-I Figure 14 F-i Figure 15 Title The Delaware River (RKM 75 to 92) with reference to Artificial Island and the USGS Monitoring Station at Reedy Island Abundance Sampling Chamber Diagrammatic Plan View of Salem Station with Cooling Water Piping Arrangement Cross-Sectional View of Intake Forebay 12B Showing Entrainment Sampling Location Salem Station Discharge Pipe with Access Standpipe and Entrainment Sampling Tube Larval table Low-velocity flume Entrainment sampling apparatus Screen collection system Schematic view of Salem circulating water structure with fish and debris troughs Fish trough and counting pool Map of Delaware River and Bay Sampling Grids Dennis Township Creek Sampling Locations Moores Beach Creek Sampling Locations IP W-factor sampling transect, comprised of five offshoreand one intake zone(s) between Salem CWS and the Delaware Shore Appendix F. Attachment I 0 LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)F-1 Figure 16 Collection Strata in Finfish W-factor transect -RKIM 80 F-1 Figure 17 White perch mark-recapture study zones in the Delaware River.0 I Appendix F. Attachment I LIST OF TABLES Table Number F-1 Table I F-I Table 2 F-1 Table 3 F-1 Table 4 Title Entrainment Abundance Sampling by Location and Year Entrainment Abundance Sampling -Overall Program Entrainment Abundance Sampling by Week and Year 1980 Fishing Distance in Meters/10 min Tow From Flow Meter Counts (Surface Hauls) by Vessel 0 iv Appendix F. Attachment I W I. INTRODUCTION I.A. Introduction LA. 1. Preoperational Monitoring Studies In 1968, after review by the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and public hearings by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, construction permits were issued for the Salem Generating Station andconstruction began at Artificial Island. Although there was no specific legislationrequiring ecological studies, it was anticipated that the growing national environmental interest would likely produce such legislation. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. determined it advisable to establish baseline ecological information prior to the completion of Unit 1, then expected in 1971, and engagedIchthyological Associates, Inc. (IA) to.design and implement suitable studies.When environmental studies for Salem Station were initiated in April 1968, the objective was simply stated as "to make an ecological study of the Delaware and adjacent waters in the vicinity of Artificial Island" (Raney et al., 1969). Emphasis was placed on describing the relative abundance and temporal-spatial distribution of fishes and a few selected invertebrates in the region potentially influenced by the heated effluent or cooling water from the station. This study area was defined as approximately 10 miles north and south of the station.In 1969 Congress enacted Public Law 91-190, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal decision-makers to consider and report thepotential environmental consequences of their actions. Under this legislation the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) now had to address the environmental consequences of their licensing of Salem Station.Through the early 1970's the environmental study program's objective was "to gather biological and related physiochemical information to which findings in the postoperational phase of the study can be compared" (Schuler, 1974). The scope of studies was also expanded. Ichthyoplankton and benthos studies were added, as well as additional investigations on age and growth, feeding habits, and life histories of some of the more common fish species. Laboratory investigations ofthermal and chemical preference and avoidance, the effects of gas supersaturation, swim speed, and stamina of fishes were also initiated. After reviewing reports on early studies, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)in April 1973, published their Final Environmental Statement (FES) in which they concluded:. 8 1 Appendix F. .ttachment I"The small losses of zooplankton, attributable to stresses imposed during passage through the cooling-water system will not be measurable in terms of effects on the biomass or productivity of adjacent waters. Similarly, water-intake screen losses or fish are judged to be small and insignificant in terms of potential impact on the aquatic ecosystem" (USAEC, 1973).To verify that these expectations were correct, the AEC followed recommendations made in comments by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, and required PSE&G to continue the baseline studies and to monitor entrainment and impingement during operations at the site (USAEC, 1973).LA.2. 316 Legislation Less than 6 months before the AEC completed its FES, Congress enacted Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA). This legislation, administered by EPA, established.".. .That wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983," Section 301 of the Act directs EPA to establish, for existing facilities, effluent limitations "which can reasonably be expected to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of ... water quality", 0 while Section 306, for new facilities, requires standards of performance for the control and discharge of pollutants. For steam electric plants, such as Salem Station, two immediately relevant aspects of the Act are Sections 3 16(a), regarding cooling water, and 316(b), regarding cooling water intake structures. Provisions of these sections are implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) via Section 402 and in New Jersey are administered by the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Under this law anyone discharging pollutants, including heat from steam electric stations, into navigable waters is required to obtain a permit.During late June of 1978, the number ofjuvenile weakfish occurring in routine impingement samples increased many times over the 1977 season, the first year of sampling. This event relatively early in the history of operational monitoring focused public and regulatory attention on Salem. In response to this event, on July 13, 1978, EPA Region II (EPA-II) convened a meeting with representatives of NRC, Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), NJDEP, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as well as PSE&G and Ichthyological Associates (IA).One question of primary interest to this group was whether this increase in localyoung weakfish represented a baywide population boom or an upriver shift in thepopulation center. To try and answer this, the study area was expanded 2 Appendix F. Attachment I southward to the mouth of the bay RM 0, (RKM 0). The first baywide survey was conducted July 21, 1978.During a July 24, 1978 meeting, the Chief of Energy and Thermal Waste Section, EPA-II, suggested a technical meeting of biologists to discuss a 316(b) Plan of Study (POS). The original 316(b) POS was drafted, based largely on the comments and concerns raised during the weakfish experience, and was submitted to EPA on October 16, 1978 for review.The basic approach was to quantify levels of entrainment and impingement involvement and relate these to prevailing population levels. Standing crop estimates of both early life stages and adults were to be generated for Gammarus spp., striped bass, white perch and river herrings (alewife, blueback herring and American shad) for RM 131-190 (RKM 82-119), and for bay anchovy, weakfish, Neomysis americana, and Atlantic croaker for RM 0 -131 (RKM 0-82). These, which were referred to as "Target Species", included species with relatively high potential for involvement with Salem, species of particular commercial and recreational value, species important to the food web and overall ecology of the Delaware system, and species of particular regulatory concern. On December 12, 1978 PSE&G transmitted to EPA revisions to the POS and, on May 25, 1979 EPA approved this revised POS. The POS was further revised and approval by EPA was issued on March 18, 1981.ILA.3. 316(b) Sampling Program In the context of this on-going learning process, EPA-II, PSE&G and IA held discussions on the direction of the Salem 316(b) sampling program. As part of the May 25, 1979 approval of the POS, EPA recommended that regular meetings to discuss progress be initiated. An outreach of this suggestion was the formation of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), consisting of EPA-II, NRC, NJDEP,NMFS, DRBC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). A series of quarterly meetings were held with PSE&G and IA, and over the next two years the study program began, through mutual agency and utility agreement, to slowly evolve from one of biological monitoring only to incorporate direct impact assessment. On May 30, 1980, PSE&G and IA submitted a request for a change in the POS.During late 1979 through early 1980, PSE&G/IA had independently investigated the applicability of available models and concluded that the most promising included the Empirical Transport Model (ETM) and Empirical Impingement Model (ELM). EPA-II and TAG concurred with this conclusion. EPA's concurrence on the use of the ETM and ELM helped focus and directfurther refinements in the general study plan. One of the first was a prioritization of the target species. It was becoming increasingly evident that the likelihood of 83 Appendix F. Attachment I obtaining all required data simultaneously for all species was poor because of seasonal and regional variation in life histories. If the sampling effort were reduced or eliminated for some species on an agreed upon basis, it could be reallocated to species for which the data could likely be obtained with the limited time and dollar resources. Weakfish, bay anchovy, and white perch were believed to be the species for which modeling data were most likely to be obtained and these were designated primary target species. The remaining species were designated as secondary target species. In 1980, the field program was realigned to emphasize the primarytarget species. The study design associated with the direct impact modeling approach is substantially different than that of the monitoring approach. Direct impact assessment requires estimation of specific parameters. Consequently, studies tend to be more concentrated and are highly goal oriented.LA.4. Post 1984 Demonstration After submission of the 1984 Demonstration, the Salem biological sampling program went into a period of reduced sampling effort. Monitoring took place in plant vicinity only and was directed toward continued monitoring. During this period there were no specific monitoring requirements. Initially, only the impingement and W-factor trawl programs were implemented. Impingement sampling was reduced to one sampling event per week. Entrainment sampling was reinstated in 1985. This low level sampling continued until the Salem permitrenewal was issued in 1994.LA.5. 1994 Permit RenewalIn 1994 the Salem Permit was renewed with certain monitoring conditions. In addition to routine entrainment and impingement abundance monitoring, the permit required an unspecified bay-wide abundance monitoring program. Considering the importance of the DNREC trawl programs and NJDEP beach seine program for showing the status of fish populations within Delaware estuary, PSE&G developed a program to augment these existing programs. Most of this post 1994 sampling was conducted with oversight from the Monitoring Advisory Committee (MAC). MAC has representatives from numerous regulatory and academic institutions, including: the North East Fisheries Science Center, NJDEP, NMFS, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Georgia Marine Institute, DNREC, Louisiana University Marine Consortium, and DRBC.4 Appendix F, Attachment I The 1994 Permit also required the Salem operating permit to be renewed in five years. Given this knowledge, PSE&G also implemented a program to collect the data necessary to estimated anticipated impact assessment modelparameters. This program included bay-wide sampling for estimating relative distributions of RIS life stages, W-factors, and mark-recapture programs for estimating absolute population size for several species.II. PSE&G PLANT EFFECTS STUDIES II.A. Plant Operations II.A.1. Reactor Thermal Power and Net Electric Power Two parameters of the Salem Generating Station's power output are Reactor Thermal Power (RTP) and Net Electric Power (NEP). RTP is a measure of the heat generated by the nuclear reactor expressed as a percentage of the rating.NEP is electrical energy sent to the distribution system. Both RTP and NEP are used in calculations of circulating water flow and heat. The calculations are shown in Attachment F-2.RTP is determined by measuring the neutron flux and converting the value to MWT. NEP is measured with conventional electric meters. It is calculated by subtracting the in-house electrical demand from the gross electrical power generated. RTP measurements are taken continuously; equipment for measuringNEP runs continuously, and is recorded as a daily average. All information on RTP and NEP is fed into the plant computer. Equipment used to measure RTP is calibrated in accordance with regulatory requirements schedule using approved procedures. Electric meters used to calculate NEP are calibrated once per outage, unless more frequent calibration is indicated. I.A.2. Intake and Discharge TemperatureIntake and discharge temperatures are routinely measured in compliance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Permit. Intake and discharge temperatures are also important parameters in the assessment of plant effects on aquatic organisms. This is discussed in detail in Appendix E VI, and Attachment F-2 III B 1.3 5 Appendix F. Attachment I II.A.2.a. Sampling Equipment The intake and discharge temperature-monitoring devices installed at Salem are I 00-ohm RTDs (TEMEX NOW Temperature Systems Model 1186-31861). They have platinum wires embedded in a magnesium oxide ceramic powder, with an epoxy seal.I.A. 2.b. Sampling Location The intake RTDs are located on the Circulating Water System (CWS) intake bay dividers, approximately eight feet apart, at Bays I IA and 21A. They are located between the trash racks and the traveling screens at elevation 75 ft. PSD (Public Service Datum), approximately 25 ft above the concrete base of the intake structure. The RTDs are numbered as follows:* Unit 1 Intake (IIA) 1TA4562" Unit 2 Intake (21A) 2TA4562" No.II Discharge (DSN 481) 1TA4563" No.12 Discharge (DSN 482) 1TA4564" No.13 Discharge (DSN 483) 1 TA4565[[.A.2.c. Sampling Procedure The electronic RTD data is automatically recorded in the Control Room. The RTDs are calibrated annually using the PSE&G Station Instrumentation and Controls procedures. The calibration testing is performed at the junction box in the Circulating Water Building and at the P-250 computer in the Control Room.The procedures require the DC voltage reading to be within 0.2 volts of the junction box reading, and the temperature reading to be within 0.25°F of the temperature reading at the intake. Salem is required by the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Permit to use certified methods and a State-certified laboratory to perform monitoring related to its NJPDES Permit. NJDEP, after review of calibration frequency, calibration procedures, calibration limitations, and the error band, has certified the temperature-monitoring equipment for NJPDES reporting. During the summer of 1998, RTD accuracy was checked with thermocouples fabricated by Maplewood Testing Services. Thermocouple wire with soldered junctions was used to transmit the signal to a FlukeTM Hydra Data Acquisition 6 Appendix F. Attachment I Unit (recorder). The thermocouples were calibrated using MTS Mechanical Division Procedure MECH-7, "Calibration of Thermocouples" (PSEG 1996a).The calibration showed all thermocouples to be calibrated to within 0.10 F of true readings. The locations where the thermocouples were used are provided in Appendix B. (See Appendix B, Attachment 1, Exhibit 3 for more information.) Records of plant intake and discharge temperatures may be divided into three periods: 1977 -1986, 1987 -1991, and 1992 through the present. Documentation of data collection for the first period is scarce, and it is believed that no records exist for the earliest data (Dean Alexander, PSE&G, pers. comm. 1998). These data, originally in the form of hard-copy computer output, were key-entered into a plant operations database around 1983, with updates for the 1984 316(b)Demonstration. Data for the second period (1987-1991) are from the Salem Monitoring System.This system recorded plant operating information electronically on an hourly basis for purposes of discharge reporting and plant monitoring. The software for collecting and processing the plant operating data is, however, no longer available, and the data cannot be regenerated for checking or for quality control purposes.Data for the third period (1992-present) are from the Salem Thermal Monitoring System. The source code used to process these data is still available. Because the data can be regenerated if necessary, confidence in the data from this period is the highest of the three periods.II.A.3. Number of Pumps/CWS and SWS Flow Rates The Station operates with six Circulating Water System (CWS) pumps per unit.There are also six Service Water System (SWS) pumps per unit, although during normal operation, there are typically four SWS pumps in operation (See Appendix B, section IV. A. I Service Water System). The amount of water used by these pumps is fundamental to assessment of plant operations. Flow is calculated by multiplying pump rate by the number of pumps in operation. CWS and SWS pumps are either fully on or off; there is no throttled operation. Information on the number of pumps is used to calculate through-plant flow and transit time.Number of CWS Pumps in Operation -Currently, the plant computer takes an instantaneous reading once per hour, recording which pumps are on and which are off. Plant computer accuracy was verified as part of the facility acceptance criteria. CWS pump flow is measured yearly using Rhodamine WT dye.Number of SWS Pumps -The number of SWS pumps operating is recorded in the plant operating database. For the entire period of record, prior to recording SWS pumps in the plant operating database, the number of SWS pumps in operation 17 Appendix F. Auachment I was calculated using the number of SWS pumped hours totaled by month, as reported on a quarterly basis to the regulatory agencies. The monthly average number of pumps was computed as the total number of SWS pumped hours divided by the number of hours in the month. For months when the relevant quarterly report was not available, the average for that month calculated over the period of record was used. II.A.3.a Sampling Equipment Routine observation during entrainment and impingement sampling is used to supplement electronic monitoring data with respect to the number of pumps in operation at the time of sampling. This information is required to calculate through-plant flow and transit time (Attachment F-2).II.A.3.b. Sampling Procedure Dye tests were performed during: July 1993, May and June 1994, March 1995, July 1997, August 1997, and May, June, August, and September 1998 byMaplewood Testing Services Laboratory. Dye tests performed from 1994 through 1997 were carried out to compute the flow rate. The test involved the injection of Rhodamine WT dye into the CWS at a controlled rate and monitoring the dye concentration. Since the mass of dye injected was known, the flow rate could be accurately calculated. The ratio of the injected dye concentration to the fully mixed dye concentration is proportional to the dilutant volume (pump flow).These dye studies were performed in accordance with NJPDES Permit NJ0005622, Part IV-B/C, Dye studies'are an appropriate method for determining pump flow in systems such as the CWS. The dye testing performed by Maplewood Testing Services Laboratory followed generally accepted procedures and protocols. The dye dilution flow measurement test data and measured inlet and discharge heads were analyzed relative to the manufacturer's design Pump Curve to define an expected operational flow for the plant. II.B. Ambient Conditions II.B.). Water Temperature H.B. .a. Reedy Island 8 Appendix F. Attachment I Ambient water temperature is an important parameter for carrying out biothermal assessments or for permitting. The ambient temperature used for these purposes at Salem is normally the temperature at the intake, but ambient temperature is also measured at a location presumably less affected by the Plant, namely, at Reedy Island, approximately 6 km (3.5 miles) upstream. Temperatures measured at Reedy Island can be used as a predictor of Salem intake temperature when on-site temperature data are missing. They also form a useful database in themselves for quantifying ambient thermal conditions. II.B.1.a.i. Sampling Equipment Until early 1997, instrumentation consisted of flow-through monitors with USGS-developed thermistors, and a submersible pump. In June 1998, due to the possibility of pump-induced temperature effects, the submersible pump was eliminated. Currently, the temperature probe is in direct contact with the water column. Whether the measurement was taken of pumped water or whether it was measured directly in the water column, measuring instruments have routinely been calibrated with a precision thermometer certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. II.B.I.a.ii. Sampling Location Temperature measurement at Reedy Island is carried out at 39030'03" N, 75O34'07 W, in Hydrologic Unit 02040205, Newcastle County, Delaware.Temperature is measured from a platform about 0.4 mi. downstream from Reedy Island, near Port Penn (Durlin, et al. 1998) (F-I Figure 1).II.B. I.a.iii. Sampling Procedure Water temperature measurements taken at Reedy Island, measured in the water column, are recorded to the nearest 0.1 'C, +/- 0.3°C.II.B.1.a.iv. Sampling Frequency Daily maximum, minimum and mean values are reported.II.B.I.b. Nearfield 3 9 Appendix F. Attachment I An alternate source of ambient temperature data is from biological sampling programs conducted near Artificial Island. Water temperature is routinely measured in all biological sampling, including W-factor, ichthyoplankton, and finfish sampling. The nearfield water temperature/W-factor survey is outlined in Sections III.A.2.b and III.A.3.c, of Attachment F-I, Baywide and In-Plant Sampling Programs and Sampling Methods. This independently gathered temperature data set has served as a check on intake temperatures measured at Salem as part of the Thermal Monitoring effort.II.B.I.b.i. Sampling Equipment Through 1987, water temperature was measured using a Yellow Springs Instrument Model 51A (0.2°C graduations). In 1998, either a field thermometer with 0.5°C graduations (+/-0.5°C), or a YSI Model 51A or 51B Oxygen Meter with I .0°C graduations (+/-0.5°C) was used to measure water temperature. II.B.l.b.ii. SampIing Location W-factor temperature measurements weremade near the intakes, both at thesurface and near the bottom. The W-factor survey measurements were made approximately 100-200 ft offshore of the CWS intakes, at a point perpendicular to the shoreline near the discharge. II.B.1.b.iii. Samplinq Procedure Temperature-measurement procedures of the W-factor survey are described in Sections IIIA.2.b, and IlI.A.3.c. IIB;lI.b.iv. Sampling Frequency The frequency of measurement of the nearfield water temperature/W-factor survey is described in Sections III.A.2.b, and III.A.3.c.II.B.2.c. River Flow River flow determines the degree of water salinity and influences the location of biological communities along the river. Mainstem Delaware River flow data acquired for this study were taken from the USGS gauging station at Trenton, NJ, 10 Appendix F. Attachment I approximately 80 miles upstream of Salem. This is the furthest-downstream USGS gauging station on the river.II.B.2.a Sampling Equipment A water-stage recorder is used to measure river flow.II.B.2.b. Sampling Location River flow is measured at 40013' 18" N, 74°46'42" W, Mercer County, NJ, RM 134.5. The gauging station is located on the left bank of the river, 450 ft upstream of the Calhoun St. bridge, and 0.5 miles upstream of Assunpink Creek.II.B.2.c. Sampling Procedure Water surface elevations are recorded with a floating gauge. They are converted to flow using a stage/discharge relationship ("rating curve").Gauge records include the following: a water-stage recorder set at 7.77 ft above mean sea level, and a nonrecording gauge 450 ft upstream of the Calhoun St.bridge.II.B.2.d.. Sampling Frequency Water stage is recorded continuously. Daily mean values are then calculated and published. The periodof record ranges from February 1913 to present. In October 1912 and February 1913 only monthly discharge was recorded, published in Water Supply Paper (WSP) 1302. Water stage records collected in this vicinity between 1904 and 1912 are contained in reports of the National Weather Service. The following records have been revised: WSP 951-Drainage area.; WSP 1302: 1913-20.;WSP 1382: 1924, 1928.£ 11' Appendix F, .Attachment I H.B.3. Salinity Salinity is a critical factor in the distribution of organisms throughout the estuary.In addition to its role in affecting species distribution, salinity is also needed toestimate density and specific heat.II.B.3.a. Samnliniz Eauinment Salinity values for most programs were determined using an American Optical Corporation (AO) 10419 refractometer (PSE&G App. 1).II.B.3.b. Sampling Location Salinity values were recorded during entrainment, impingement and trawl surveys.II.B.3.c. Sampling Procedure Procedures used to record salinity are described in the various surveys conducted by PSE&G.II.B.3.d. Sampling Frequency The frequency at which salinity values were recorded is discussed in the descriptions of the various surveys. 11.C. Entrainment Entrainment abundance and mortality estimates are an essential component of the models used to estimate entrainment losses at Salem. See Attachment F-2 for a description of how these parameters are used. The following sections describe the sampling equipment, locations, procedures, and schedules for determining entrainment abundance and survival.12 Appendix F, Attachment I 5II.C.J. Abundance IT C La. Overview The entrainment abundance sampling program at Salem was instituted in 1977.In 1977 and 1978 the targets of the sampling program included both zooplankton (micro- and macro-) and ichthyoplankton. Beginning in 1979, the collection of ichthyoplankton stressed nine species of fish: (alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, blueback herring, spot, striped bass, weakfish, and whiteperch), and two of macroinvertebrates (Neomysis americana and Gammarus spp.). These taxa were referred to as Representative Important Species (RIS).Sample processing for all other organisms was discontinued at this time. A summary of the 1977-78 sampling results is presented in PSE&G 1980 (Interpretive Analysis of Impingement and Entrainment). Sampling for Neomysis and Gammarus was continued only through 1980, not to resume until 1998.Sampling for the nine species of finfish was carried on throughout the 20 sampling years.II.C.b. Sampling Equipment The abundance collection apparatus consists of one or more fish pumps and a net-in-tank "abundance chamber." Sampling pumps are of 15.2-cm (6-in), single-port, centrifugal design with a variable-rpm electric drive. Typically a Neilsen Model 5-1506 has been used. Sample volume is measured with a Sparling Envirotech flowmeter (Model PDS- 115); a valved "tee" assembly is used to divert water to the abundance chamber. The abundance chamber consists of a 1-m (3.3-ft) plankton net positioned atop a 1.0-m3 (260-gal) cylindrical tank with 0.5-mm (0.02-in) mesh (F-1 Figure 2). The net is fitted with a screened (0.5-mm.mesh) plastic catch bucket at the cod end, and the net mouth is positioned approximately 30 cm. (1.8 in) above the tank top to allow overflow through the plankton net mesh.II. C. l.c. Sampling Locations Entrainment abundance samples were collected at, the CWS intake bays 11 A, 12B, or 22A and at discharge standpipes 12 or 22 (F-I Figure 3). During a plant outage in 1979, samples were also taken in front of the trash racks at forebay 21A, since this was the only circulator in operation during the collection period.Samples collected at the intake locations were taken at a point inboard of the vertical traveling screens and upstream of the circulating water pumps* 13 Appendix F. Attachment I (F-I Figure 4). This sampling location was chosen to ensure capture of specimens that had been entrained and to eliminate possible sample contamination by larger, potentially impingeable, specimens. During the period August 1977 through May 1980, samples were collected exclusively from intake bays 1 IA or12B at a point near mid-depth (approx. elevation 75 ft). Although intake samples were originally to be integrated over depth, this proved impossible due to mechanical limitations and space restrictions within the intake structure. To avoid biases related to possible species-specific vertical distributions, an alternate sampling location at the discharge was chosen. This was done under the assumption that through-plant passage would homogenize any vertical component of plankton distribution. The only practical access to post-condenser cooling water was through standpipes located approximately 499 ft (152 m) upstream of the point of discharge into the Delaware River (F-1 Figure 5). The standpipes, 30.5 cm (12 in) in diameter, extend some 10 m (33 ft) below grade to the discharge pipe., Discharge water was withdrawn through a 15.2-cm (6-in) PVC tube inserted through the standpipe to the discharge pipe. The discharge pipe always contains water. Any effects of turbulence along the pipe wall at this intersection on sample composition are assumed minor relative to the general homogenization of the water column caused by turbulence of through-plantpassage. Samples were taken at a depth between 15-20 ft (4.6 and 6.1 m) below the water surface.In June 1980, to evaluate the suitability of the discharge sampling location, 14 pairs of simultaneous intake and discharge abundance samples were collected. A detailed description of this study and analysis of the data is presented in Attachment F-2. Following this paired intake-discharge study, the discharge standpipes were adopted as the primary sampling location, and sampling was conducted at the discharge standpipes through 1982. The intake locations were used only if mechanical difficulties or plant operating conditions (such as excessive foam or back-pressure) made sampling at the discharge unfeasible. By the time sampling resumed in 1985, after a two-year hiatus, the standpipe location had been modified to such an extent that it was no longer possible to sample there. Sampling was then moved to intake 22A. Beginning in 1988, depending on availability, intake 12B was also used. A summary of sampling effort per location by year is provided in F-I Table 1.II.C.l.d. Sampling Procedure Abundance samples were collected by pumping water through the abundance net and chamber at a rate of 1.0-1.5 m 3/min. The sample volume typically ranged from 50 to 75 M 3 , depending on the concentration of detritus and/orjellyfish and ctenophores. Following sampling, the net was washed and the contents rinsed into ajar and preserved in a 10% formalin-rose-bengal solution.14 Appendix F. Attachment I Samples were then returned to the laboratory and washed. Macroinvertebrates and ichthyop lankters were removed and stored in 40% isopropanol. Larval, juvenile, and adult fishes were identified to the lowest practicabletaxonomic level, then counted. Up to 25 specimens per life stage per sample were measured to the nearest 0.5 mm TL. Fish eggs were identified to the lowest practicable level, counted, and an assessment of viability made. This was done on the basis of clarity of the perivitelline space and integrity of embryo and yolk material. In 1979 -1980, and 1998, macroinvetebrates (Neomysis americana and Gammarus spp.) were counted. Up to 50 of each taxon per sample were measured to the nearest 1.0 mm.A Folsom plankton splitter or a 10-ml Hensen-Stempel pipette was used to subsample entrainment abundance collections that met a minimum specimen-number criterion. Criteria were based on the best-fit relationship between the coefficient of variance and mean number of specimens per subsample as determined by repetitively subsampling collections containing a known number of specimens and the chosen level of precision. Taxa and life stages were considered separately within each sample. Exceptionally large specimens were removed prior to subsampling. Subsampling techniques were applied typically to macroinvertebrates and fish eggs; larval fish were subsampled on only a few occasions. Samples were suspended in 700, 1,400, 2,300 or 5,600 ml of water and subsampled several times with a 10 ml Hensen-Stempel pipette. The mean number per subsample was used to indicate if the sample could be split, if additional pipette samples were needed, or if the whole sample must be processed. Field data recorded at the time of collection included time, location, gear, flowmeter readings, tidal stage and height, air and water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen level. Field sheets were returned to the laboratory and proofed twice before data were entered into an electronically readable form.II.C.lIe. Sampling Frequency Entrainment abundance sampling began in the fall of 1977. As is shown on F- 1 Table 2, early schedules called for the collection of samples 12 times (every two hours) over a 24-hour day, but in 1979 the schedule was changed to sampling six times (every four hours) a day. To evaluate diel- and tidal-related variability in plankton abundance, replicate samples were also collected, although, because of sampling-location limitations, sample "replication" was consecutive rather than simultaneous. In June 1980, to improve the accuracy of the loss estimates and to better accommodate the data requirements of the modeling procedures proposed for the 198 4 316(b) Demonstration, the monitoring program was modified. The modification was designed to increase both the accuracy and precision of abundance estimates, particularly with respect to bay anchovy and weakfish. The 15 Appendix F, Attachment I modification consisted of shifting the weight of the sampling program from spring and fall to the period May through September, the period of maximumichthyoplankton abundance. Sampling frequency within this period was intensified to four samples per day, every fourth day, making seven to eight sampling episodes per month. This intensive sampling schedule was kept in place through 1981 and 1982, and, following a program hiatus in 1983 and 1984, again through 1988 (with the changes described below).The three-per-day sampling effort that began in the spring of 1985 resulted in the collection of daylight-only samples, twice a week, for virtually the entire period of peak entrainment abundance (now April through September). The influence of daylight-only samples on loss estimates is discussed in Attachment F-2. This schedule was maintained through 1987, when, in recognition of the expanding striped bass, white perch, and Atlantic croaker populations, intensive sampling was extended to March, October, November, and December, covering ten months of the year. In 1989 the sampling frequency was reduced from twice per week to once per week, but the annual sampling period was kept essentially the same.In 1990, the program was expanded to 12 months, one day a week, with the daylight-only component as before. This schedule was maintained until 1995, when sampling frequency reverted to six samples per day (one every four hours).Despite an intention to increase the number of samples taken per week in 1996, this change--due to a prolonged outage of both units at this time--was not instituted until April 1998.The preceding paragraphs describe the sampling program as designed. For various reasons, including plant outages, these planned schedules were not always met. Actual numbers of samples collected are shown by location in F-I Table 3 and by date in F-1 Table 4. For the sampling period September 1977 through September 1998, 3,135 ichthyoplankton samples, and 437 macrozooplanktonsamples (including invertebrates) were processed. For ichthyoplankton, the numbers of samples processed annually ranged from 24 to 522 (average 164 annually for 20 sampling years); for macrozooplankton, the range was 23 to 182 (average 109 annually for 4 years).IlC.2. Survival The purpose of entrainment survival sampling was to estimate the proportion of organisms that survive passage through Salem's circulating water system.II.C.2.a. Sampling Equipment 16 Appendix F. Attachment I In 1977-1980, entrainment survival samples were collected using pump and larval-table systems consisting of a 15-cm (6-in) Paco centrifugal fish-transferpump and a single-screen larval table (F-I Figure 6). The system used at Salem, described in detail in PSE&G (1978, 1980b), was chosen because it represented then state-of-the-art technology. The larval-table system was effective in reducing collection-induced mortality over net collections (McGroddy and Wyman 1977).Its size (3-7 m3), however, was inadequate for the processing of a sufficient number of specimens to generate statistically meaningful estimates of entrainment mortality. Therefore in 1981, a new method was instituted to collect entrainment survival samples: a low-velocity flume (LVF). This device was developed to increase sample volume without substantially increasing collection-induced mortality. The LVF employed the standard larval-table frame (8.1 1.2 x 0.9 m) and the same drains used in the larval-table mode of operation. The most significant modification was the elimination of the table collection box and the substitution of a 3.3-m long, 1.0-m diameter net of 505-gt mesh attached at the point of water entry (F-l Figure 7). This net was used in 1981. Because it was found to be somewhat unwieldy, in the 1982 sampling its diameter was reduced to 0.5 m. At the same time its length was increased to 4.5 in, permitting more efficient subsampling. The fish-pump and other components of the water delivery system were not changed.Gear efficiency tests were conducted from 1979 through 1981 to isolate various components of collection-induced mortality. Tests described in PSE&G (1 980b)provided estimates of mortality due to holding, larval-table passage, and fish-pump passage. Tests in 1981 examined only holding and LVF effects. A fuller description of the studies and their results is presented in PSE&G (1985).II.C.2.b. Sampling Locations From 1977 through 1982, sampling locations for entrainment survival were the same as for entrainment abundance, namely, CWS intake bays 11 A or 12B and discharge standpipes 12 or 22. Intake and discharge locations were sampled concurrently using duplicate collection gear to equalize gear-induced mortality. Mortality among specimens collected at the intake was both gear-induced and natural. Since the intake sampling location is inboard of the traveling screen, the intake mortality estimate may contain an additional component of mortality related to through-screen passage. This is particularly relevant to the survival estimate for larger specimens that may be momentarily impinged prior to being entrained. Discharge estimates included all of these components in addition to through-plant mortality. II.C.2.c. Sampling Procedure 17 Appendix F. Aitachmerne WAfter the initiation of sample collection at the intake, collection of the sample at the discharge was delayed several minutes according to which forebays and discharge standpipes were being sampled, and whether one or both circulators of a pair were in operation. This interval corresponded roughly to the plant transit time, and allowed both intake and discharge samples to be taken from the same"block" of entrained water.Collection procedures used with the larval table are described in PSE&G (1980b).They include filling the larval table with filtered river water, adding 3-7 m 3 of sample water at a rate of 1.0 m 3/min, and draining the table until the condensed sample could be removed via the final drain into one or more transport trays. In 1980 a procedure was developed to subsample entrainment survival samples by draining the condensed sample from the table through a series of"Y" drain tubes into three transport trays representing two quarters and one half sample (F- 1 Figure 8). Specimen condition was assumed to be (in the same proportion as the relative tray volumes) live, stunned, and dead in each of the trays. Because fishes were never sufficiently abundant to warrant subsampling, all three trays were processed. Neomysis americana, however, was abundant enough to require the processing of only one quarter or one half of the sample.During 1981 and 1982 the following procedures were followed with the LVF: the flume was filled with unfiltered river water and sampling commenced when the mouth of the collection net was placed into flow. A flow of 1.3 m 3/min was maintained and subsamples were removed from the cod-end of the net at 10-min intervals for typically 50 min, resulting in five 15-mi 3 subsamples for a total sample volume of approximately 75 in 3.The net mouth remained in the sampling position as subsamples were removed by gently lifting the net out of the water,starting near the net mouth and working back to the cod-end. This permitted thecontinuous filtration of a relatively large volume of water while keeping organism exposure to the apparatus brief. In 1981, gear-efficiency tests with larval and juvenile white perch (n = 260), spot (n = 200), and Atlantic silverside (n = 856)indicated that 98 percent of the specimens introduced into the flume at the beginning of sample collection had been recovered after two subsamples, for amaximum apparatus exposure, time of about 20 min.After larval-table or LVF sampling, and gear-efficiency tests, specimens wereimmediately taken to the laboratory for a determination of condition. Live and stunned specimens were held for subsequent latent mortality studies. In order to minimize holding-time mortality due to predation, cannibalism, or competition, specimens were grouped for latent holding according to species, size, behavior, feeding mode, and general interspecific compatibility. Details of specimen, transfer, condition criteria, processing, and holding techniques are given in PSE&G (1978 and 1980b).0 18 Appendix F. ALtachment I From samples that had been subsampled for N. americana, live and stunned specimens were removed until 100-200 specimens had been obtained for latent mortality determinations. All dead specimens were removed and the remaining live and stunned specimens were preserved for later enumeration. Proportions oflive and stunned specimens were assumed to be equal in both the latent-mortality and the preserved sample.From 1977 through 1981 specimens were held for latent mortality studies in 0.47-37.8 liter glass jars. In 1977 and 1978, too few specimens were taken for latent mortality studies to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of jars as holding containers. Problems first became apparent during gear-efficiency tests in 1979 when large numbers of specimens were being held. Jars were found to be inadequate because water quality was difficult to maintain, especially in small volumes held static in the containers. Moreover, larger specimens, especially pelagic specimens, were not adaptable to close confinement, resulting in apparent holding-related mortality. Modifications to the latent holding procedure were instituted in 1979 and 1980; these included the use of filtered water, frequent water changes, better aeration control, and the placement of dark shields around some jars containing larger specimens. Nevertheless, jars proved to be inefficient as containers for some specimens. Therefore, from 1982, all but the smallest larvae (still held in jars) were held in 2 1-liter aquaria. These tanks had black sides and rounded interior comers to reduce swimming activity and the risk of injury.Tanks were fitted with biological undergravel filters, double-filter discharge pipes set in opposite directions along opposite walls to establish a circular current, a crushed dolomite substrate, and a small quantity of an ammonia-absorbing resin.Together these provided biological and particulate filtration, pH control, nitrogenous waste removal, and aeration. The flow encouraged pelagic fishes to swim in a circular pattern and avoid collision with tank sides. Similar but less extensive miniaturized systems were installed in small larvae holding-jars. During 1977 and 1978 the NRC Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS)-specified holding period for latent mortality studies was 12 hr. During 1979 and 1980 the USEPA Plan of Study (POS)-specified holding period was 12 to 24 hr.However, during 1980 a series of range-finding tests was made to evaluate the feasibility of extending holding periods to 24, 48 or 96 hr. Based on the results of these tests, an agreement was reached with USEPA and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) in mid-1981 that bay anchovy would be held for 24 hr, white perch for 48 hr, and weakfish for 96 hr, and that secondary target species would not be held. In most cases where weakfish were held for 96 hr, and facilities were available, any specimens of bay anchovy or secondary target species in the collection were also maintained throughout the observation period.Because of the short holding period (12 hr), and because reported latent mortality studies had not indicated a need for feeding, specimens were not fed during latent observation periods in 1977 or 1978 (EA 1976, 1979a). As the latent mortality observation periods were extended, the need for feeding to prevent malnutrition S .19 Appendix F. Arttchment I and cannibalism became apparent. Feeding was begun in 1979 and continued through 1982. Neomysis americana was fed Artemia nauplii. No special efforts were made to feed the Gammarus tigrinus group since it was felt that these specimens would find sufficient nutrients in the detritus inevitably present in the holding jars. All fish except the smallest larvae and some of the largest juveniles were fed Artemia nauplii. Larger weakfish were fed living Neomysis, Gammarus, and adult Artemia; they rejected frozen and dried foods. Spot of all sizes fed readily upon frozen adult Artemia, which were occasionally augmented with live Neomysis. Very small larvae were fed cultured rotifers or field-collected rotifers and copepod nauplii when available. Some larvae and juveniles accepted brewer's yeast and commercial powdered dry fish foods. Specimens were typically fed twice daily as determined by food availability. Provision of sufficient and appropriate live food, which was a concern throughout these studies, represents an unquantifiable bias, particularly under 96-hr study condi. ns.II. C.2.d. Sampling Frequency During 1977 and 1978, in accordance with ETS, sampling was scheduled twice per month during June-August, and once per month, in September-May. During 1979 and 1980, essentially the same schedule was specified under the POS. The only change was the cessation of sampling during December through February. Few samples, however, were collected in 1977 (two events, 15 samples) and 1978 (three events, 48 samples). No samples were taken in 1979. In 1977 the entrainment sampling program did not begin until late August, and therefore fewsamples were scheduled. The scheduled number was further reduced by a plant outage from mid-September through mid-November. During 1978, Salem Unit 1 was not in commercial operation from 17 March through 13 June, nor from 10 October through 13 November. Sampling between these outage periods washampered by the intermittent operation of the specific circulating water pumps required for sampling, as well as by other equipment and plant maintenance-related problems. In 1979 the Unit I reactor was shut down for refueling and maintenance on 4 April, with this outage continuing through the entire scheduled study period (to 31 October). Since Unit 1 circulators did not operate for essentially all of the specified entrainment sampling period, it was not possible to take entrainment survival samples. In 1980, sampling was begun in April andcontinued through October (10 events, 204 samples).During 1981 and 1982, the 316(b) POS sampling schedule was intensified to include sampling events four times monthly in June and July, twice monthly in May and August, and once each in September and October. During May through October at least six pairs of intake-discharge samples were collected during each event, with a total of 30 pairs per month taken in June and July. In 1981, sampling was conducted from May through October (11 events, 170 samples), and in 1982, from June through September (12 events, 197 samples).20 AppendiK F. Attachmernt INo entrainment survival sampling was conducted in 1983 or 1984. When entrainment studies resumed in 1985, plant modifications precluded sampling at the discharge. Entrainment survival sampling was discontinued at this time.II.D. Impingement In the CWS, large organisms such as fish and blue crabs are caught in the intake flow and impinged on the traveling screen that is designed to keep them and debris out of the system. In its present design, the screen lifts the organisms and debris out of the water, where a combination of back-flowing spray and surface spray rinses them off the screens and into a sluice that returns them to the estuary.(F-1 Figure 9-Ristroph modified traveling screen).The objectives of the impingement sampling program were to determine the numbers of RIS that were impinged by the CWS and to determine the rate of survival of impinged organisms after their return to the source waters via the fishreturn system. Researchers also investigated the efficiency of the screen collection system.In order to assess the abundance and density, and initial condition of impinged organisms, investigators sampled the intake water by diverting the screen wash water flow for designated times from the estuary-bound sluice into the fish-counting pools. (F- I Figures 10 and 11, "Schematic view of Salem circulating water structure with fish and debris troughs," and "Fish trough and counting pool"). They recorded the ambient conditions, the number of organisms and their initial survival status--dead, damaged, or alive-using standard criteria.Some organisms may meet the criteria for "alive" but may die later from impingement stresses. In extended impingement survival studies, investigators transferred the diverted organisms into separate tanks according to the criteria foralive, damaged and dead organisms. Dead organisms were measured and the data recorded. For living organisms, conditions in the tanks were maintained close to the condition of the estuary. The organisms were observed and deaths recorded for a designated number of days.To assess the efficiency at which the traveling screens collected the fish present in the intake water, investigators marked a known number of dead fish with red dye,released them in front of the screened intake, and then sampled that water as it came through the intake. The number of marked fish in the sampling pool were counted, which gave them the percentage of fish caught by the screens. Other fish in the sample presumably were swept into the CWS.321 Appendix F. Attachment I The age of impinged fish and crabs has been estimated by analysis of fish scales'otoliths and measurement Of length.Traveling screens at Salem have been improved several times over the years. See Appendix B, II.B.2 for a description of the original design and subsequent modifications. Two studies of the modifications required by the 1994 NJPDES Permit were conducted. The Screen Comparison Study was designed to compare survival rates resulting from operating the new screens at Unit 2, to rates currently seen on the old screens at Unit 1. The Trough Comparison Study was designed to determine whether high debris concentrations were detrimental to impingement survival when fish and debris comingle in the return trough (ECSI & LMS 1996). Both the Screen Comparison Study and the Trough Comparison Study were performed in 1995. A more detailed discussion of both of them may be found in Exhibit G-1-2.II.D. 1. Abundance and Initial Survival, and Extended Survival of Impinged Organisms Abundance and initial survival studies are parts of the same study. Due to time constraints and other factors, however, initial-survival was not assessed on all abundance samples. Survival studies were conducted in two phases. In the initial survival studies, investigators counted the number of impinged organisms in the samples and determined their immediate physical condition. In the second phase, extended-survival studies, investigators quantified any mortality that was delayed for hours or days, and allowed for potential adjustment of the initial mortality estimates. Sampling for both initial and extended survival could be conducted only whenone or more circulating pumps were in operation and when conditions in the counting pool would not affect survival of the specimens before their condition could be determined. II.D. l.a. Abundance and Initial Survival The abundance and initial survival samples were taken at the north and south counting pools. The north counting pool originally measured 9.0 x 4.5 m (29.5 x 14.8 iR), and received samples via a discharge trough hatch and vertical drop gate. In June 1980, the north counting pool was modified and reduced in size to 8.3 x 3.4 m (27.2 x 11.2 ift), with samples now diverted by a swing gate. A 22 Appendix F, Attachment I submersible pump was installed in the north pool to allow for drainage duringhigh tides. The south counting pool measured 9.3 x 4.5 m (30.5 x 14.8 ft). Samples were diverted to this pool by opening a swing gate across the discharge trough. Both pools had a maximum water depth of 0.9 m (3.0 ft), maintained by water overflow pipes. The floor level of each pool was 1.5 m (4.9 ft) below the level of thedischarge troughs at the point where screen water was admitted to the pools.Samples were diverted to the pools through steel slides designed to reduce water velocity (PSE&G 1985).During 1978 through July 1980, initial-survival sampling began by filling the counting pool with 25 cm (10 in) of filtered screenwash "cushion" water to minimize damage to specimens entering the pool. This cushion of filtered screenwash water entered the pools through a nylon filter bag with a 3.2-cm (1 '1/4-in) stretched mesh and 1.3-cm (Yz-in).stretched mesh inner liner attached to a wooden frame inserted into the discharge trough immediately upstream of the pool entrance. In July 1980, guillotine valves were installed to permit screenwash water to enter the pool from behind the fish pool screens (PSE&G 1985).Samples were taken by diverting screenwash water into the fish counting pool.The sampling duration ranged from one to ten minutes (averaging three minutes), while the samples were diverted into the pool. Investigators recorded the date and the starting and ending times of the sampling period, the number of pumps and screens in operation, screen rotation speed, tidal stage and elevation, sky condition, wind direction, wave height, and air temperature. Individual organisms in the sample typically were identified, counted, and their condition (live, damaged, dead) determined as they swam in the pool. Samples were kept in the pool for five minutes following the sample collection to permit the specimens to regain orientation. Temperature and salinity were then recorded.I.D.l.b. Extended survival When extended survival studies were conducted following the initial-survival phase, water was drained from the pools for the extended-survival tests. As the water level dropped to one foot, crabs and fish were collected with a dip-net and sorted into separate holding tanks as (1) live (swimming vigorously, no apparent orientation problem, normal behavior), (2) damaged (struggling or swimming on side, indication of severe abrasion or laceration), or (3) dead (no vital signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing). Specimens in each of the three condition classes were identified to species. The total number and weight, and minimum and maximum length and weight of each species in eachcondition class were recorded. Fork length to the nearest 5 mm was recorded for 823 Appendix F. Attachment I up to 100 individuals per species, the composition being proportional to its occurrence in the three condition classes (PSE&G 1985).Holding tanks, situated at Salem and at the test facilities of Ichthyological Associates (IA) Delaware Experimental Laboratory, were initially located in the fish collection pools and in the IA on-site laboratory trailer. The tanks situated in the fish pools were aerated, 190-liter (50-gal), oval, equipped with removable screened dividers permitting more than one test per tank. Tanks in the trailer were aerated 19-liter (5 gal) aquaria: All on-site facilities used static water systems. Aquaria were maintained in a water bath at ambient river temperature. Close to ambient river temperature was maintained in the oval tanks by their frequent immersion in river water during impingement sample collection and by the relatively constant air temperature in the cinderblock buildings. The system was designed to hold 40 specimens per 100 gallons, although only 50-gal tanks were used. Sample sizes Were limited to a maximum of 20 specimens per 50-gal tank per sampling event (a total of 120 specimens in the-six available tanks). This was done to eliminate overcrowding. When it became apparent that overcrowding was not a problem, the tank limit was increased, first to 30 specimens per 50-gal tank (180 specimens per event), then to 50 specimens per 50-gal tank (300 specimens per event)Unchlorinated screenwash water was used in all tests at Salem. An attempt was made to keep fish in filtered water. However, because heat generated by the pump supplying water to the test tank raised the temperature in the tank, the procedure was changed. Test water was obtained some 24-48 hours prior to test initiation, which allowed suspended sediment to settle out. Although the temperature and salinity of this water were not always the same as the collection water of the test fish, the differences were within the daily range experienced by the test subjects over a tidal cycle in the river. To ensure suitable water quality, the tanks were emptied and refilled weekly, usually upon test termination (PSE&G 1985).All test specimens were held for a 96-hr observation period. Fish were fed during the test period to prevent starvation, and in some cases (e.g., weakfish) to reduce cannibalism. Observations were made continuously for the first 30 min following capture, at hourly intervals for the next four hours, and at approximately 24-hr intervals thereafter. Investigators recorded the number of live (swimming vigorously, no apparent orientation problem, normal behavior), damaged and loss of equilibrium (LOE) (struggling or swimming on side, indication of severeabrasion or laceration), or dead (no vital signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing) fish. They also noted the water temperature at each observation. Dead fish were removed and measured. After 96 hours, the test was terminated and the remaining fish were measured. 24 Appendix F. ..\ttachmentti In 1982, a diagnostic key for terminal appraisal of damaged fish was developed, and at 96 hours, damaged fish were judged as to their likelihood of recuperation or death. Until 1980, all target species were tested as available. Thereafter, in order to maximize data for conditional mortality rate determination, only the primary target species (bay anchovy, white perch and weakfish) were intensively tested (PSE&G 1985).Extended-survival studies were initiated in 1995 to evaluate the effectiveness of the screen modifications required by the 1994 NJPDES Permit. In order to do this, the new screens installed on Unit 1 were compared with the old screens remaining on Unit 2. Sampling and holding procedures are described in Appendix I of the Salem 316 Demonstration document. Only bay anchovy, weakfish and spot were processed and only weakfish were collected in sufficient numbers to provide statistically meaningful results.Changes to the collection system and holding facilities begun in 1995 and completed by 1998 included the following: 0 New screens installed on both units a New fish-return sluice a New screenwash water volume systems on both units 0 Modified fish slide terminus (where washwater entering collection pool decelerates abruptly)e Holding facilities located on site S Damaged fish held in the same tanks& Twelve screens with washwater discharging into the fish collection pool 0 New fish collection pool screens installed* Fish holding tanks placed on racks II.D.2. Sampling Frequency Unit I went into operation in 1977. During 1977-83, intensive and extensive impingement abundance studies were conducted at Salem. These studies, which focused on a list of "target species" for the purposes of a 316(b) Demonstration, were designed to determine the number of specimens impinged at the station (PSE&G 1985).Samples to assess the abundance of organisms that had been impinged on the CWS screens were collected, conditions permitting, at least four times per day, at about six-hour intervals, three days per week from 2 May 1977 to 10 July 1978.Samples were collected day and night at all tidal stages. Because of greatly fluctuating impingement rates during June and early July 1978, the sampling schedule was intensified beginning 11 July to provide greater precision in the estimates. Samples were then collected seven days per week: on three days, four* 25 Appendix F. Attachment samples were collected at approximately six-hour intervals and as many additional samples as practical were taken thereafter. On the remaining four days, 8-12 samples were typically collected. By 24 September 1978, sampling frequency increased to 10 times per day and six days per week. This was in response to results of the optimum-frequency analysis, which showed that 60 samples per week were sufficient to afford 95 percent confidence that the weekly impingement estimate was +/- 20% of the true value. This schedule was incorporated into the 316 Plan of Study (POS) that was approved by EPA on 25 May 1979 (PSE&G 1985).Due to time constraints and other factors, initial-survival was not determined for all abundance samples. Between 2 May 1977 and 31 October 1982, 12,484 initial-survival samples were processed. Initial-survival samples were collected at least four times per day at six-hour intervals, three days per week from 2 May1977 to 17 October 1978, conditions permitting. From four to ten survival samples were collected each sampling day. After 17 October 1978, when impingement levels for selected target species exceeded predetermined criteria for two samples in a 24-hr period, the frequency of survival sampling increased to six days per week. Normal sampling frequency resumed when impingement rates dropped below the criterion for six consecutive days (PSE&G 1985).Because of further optimum-frequency analyses, the impingement schedule was revised in spring 1980 to reduce the number of samples to four on days when entrainment abundance samples were collected (see Section I.C. 1.). This procedure was incorporated into the final POS approved by EPA on 18 March 198 1. In addition to this schedule, sampling occurred on the seventh day when the impingement rate of target species was >30 fish per minute for five consecutive samples during any 24-hr period in a standard six-day sampling week. This was done to increase accuracy of the impingement estimates when both rates and variance were greatest (PSE&G 1985).SWS impingement abundance samples were collected during three 24-hr periodsper week from 18 April 1977 to 20 September 1979 (PSE&G 1985).Post-1984 316(b) Demonstration monitoring at Salem during 1984 through 1987 consisted of reduced sampling levels for impingement abundance and initial survival. These monitoring programs were designed to provide data that could be used to augment the Salem 316(b) Demonstration, to provide estimates of impingement atthe station for comparison to the historical database, and to satisfy permit conditions and commitments. As minimally specified, from 1984 through 1987, initial impingement survival sampling was conducted one day per week from January through mid-April, and from October through December, and three days per week, mid-April through September. Five samples were collected on each sampling date. Small specimens were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g using an Ohaus 1600 series triple-beam balance. Larger specimens were weighed to the nearest gram with a Salter suspended scale. A Dillon 5-indynamometer 26 Appendix F. Aktachment I (Model AN) was used to weigh the detritus taken with the sample (V.J. Schuler Associates 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989). In 1988, after it became evident that the 316(b) Demonstration database would not require supplementation, investigators designed a database aimed long-term monitoring. The impingement program's sampling period and frequency were modified, allocating consistent effort over a longer period of study.During 1988, initial-survival sampling was conducted one day per week during January and February and two days per week for March through December. In January and February, a total of five samples were collected on each sampling date, and in March through December, a total of six samples were collected on each date (except for 8 March, when only five were taken) (ECSI 1989).In 1989, impingement survival collections were made two days per week during January and February and one day per week during March through December, except during the week of 25 June due to the Presidente Rivera oil spill.Six samples were collected on each date, except for 27 April and 4 May, when only four were taken because of a malfunctioning sluice gate (ECSI 1990).From 1990 through 1994, initial-survival sampling occurred one day per week from January through December. A typical sampling day consisted of six survival samples taken at approximately 2-hr intervals during a 12-hr sampling period to provide for monitoring over a full tidal cycle. In 1990, on three occasions only five of the scheduled samples were taken. In 1991, this schedule produced 312 impingement samples. On seven of the scheduled sampling days in 1992 fewer than the six specified samples were taken, for a total of 294 samples.The 1993 sampling produced 308 impingement samples due to three occasions when fewer than the six specified samples were taken. For a variety of reasons including inclement weather, 17 of the specified 312 samples were not taken in 1994 (ECSI 1991, 1992. 1993. 1994, 1995).Impingement survival sampling during 1995 was scheduled one day per week from January through December. Samples were collected ten times per day at approximately 2-hr intervals over a 24-hr period. The 24-hr sampling event provided for monitoring over a complete diumal period and two full tidal cycles. Due to non-operating circulating water pumps (resulting from ongoing outages at both units), no scheduled samples were taken during 5 of the 52 scheduled sampling events. As a result, 470 scheduled samples were collected in 1995 (ECSI 1996).The impingement abundance/initial survival sampling schedule during 1996 was the same as 1995: one day per week from January through December. Sampling consisted of taking ten samples at approximately 2 2-hour intervals over a 24-hr period. The 24-hr sampling event provided for monitoring over a complete diurnal period and two full tidal cycles. Sampling procedure followed those listed in 1 27' Appendix F, Attachment I Appendix I. During 14 of 52 scheduled collection events, due to severe weather and to circulating pump outages, none of the originally scheduled samples could be collected. This schedule produced a total of 380 impingement samples in 1996 (PSE&G 1996).In 1997, initial-survival sampling was increased to three days per week fromJanuary through December. Sampling consisted of taking 10 samples at approximately 2-hr intervals during each of three 24-hr periods, monitoring over a complete diurnal period and two full tidal cycles. Procedures followed those in Appendix 1. During 1997, 1,481 of the originally scheduled 1,560 samples were taken. Those that were not able to be taken were due to outage-related maintenance on Units I and 2 and to general electrical outage in the circulatingwater intake system (PSE&G 1997).For the special extended studies initiated in 1995 to evaluate the effectiveness of the screen modifications, collections were made on 19 dates between 20 June and 24 August, once per week from mid-June through September. Samples were collected ten times per day at approximately 2-hr intervals over a 24-hr period.The 24-hr sampling event provided for monitoring over a complete diel period and two full tidal cycles. Due to non-operating circulating water pumps (resulting from ongoing outages at both units) during 5 of the 52 scheduled sampling events, none of the scheduled samples was taken. As a result, only 470 of the 520 scheduled samples were collected in 1995 (ECSI 1996).II.D.3. Collection Efficiency Collection efficiency studies are conducted to estimate the proportion of fish specimens impinged but not collected during impingement sampling. Fish may not be collected because of leaks in traveling screens, because they are forced through the screens and become entrained, because they are preyed upon, or because they are present in the sample but are overlooked (ECSI 1998).The collection efficiency studies at Salem began in 1979 and continued through February 1982. To check collection efficiency, large numbers of dead fish, measured for length and stained red, were planted in front of the collection intake screens. If collection efficiency were 100 percent, they should all be picked up in the sampling as impinged fish. The screenwash containing these fish was sampled and investigators identified the stained fish, assessing the proportion of the stained fish that were found in the fish counting pools. Fish showing no sign of stain were separated and processed as an abundance sample.Specimens used in the study were collected during normal field activities. Target species were retained and placed in a 5 percent formalin/rose bengal solution, in a container with a tightly fitting lid for 2-3 days. Containers were labeled with date collected and the group number to which the collected fish belonged. The fish 28 Appendix F. Attachment I were rinsed with water and allowed to soak for another 2-3 days. They were then 40 transferred to isopropanol containing a relatively large amount of rose-bengal stain, for another 2-3 days. At this time, fish lengths were recorded to the nearest 5 mm , and the fish were separated into groups of varying sizes of about 100 each, placed in jars with tightly sealing lids, and the jars labeled (ECSI 1998).Specimens of one or more species were released from a distance of 3.5 to 5 m in front of an operating traveling screen over a two-minute period. A recovery sample was taken by diverting a minimum 12-min flow of screenwash water to a counting pool. All fish collected in the sample were examined for any sign of stain. Those that showed stain were measured to the nearest 5 mm and recorded.The number of stained fish collected divided by the number of fish stained and released yielded the collection efficiency. Collection efficiency tests were conducted when screenwash flow and detritus rates allowed long-duration abundance sampling in the counting pools and at randomly selected times to reduce any tide-related bias (IA 1982).In 1998, collection efficiency testing was conducted between April and September. For these studies, all target species were collected and separated into two species groups. Group 1 consisted of bay anchovy, blueback herring, alewife, and American shad. Group 2 consisted of white perch, striped bass, weakfish, spot, and Atlantic Croaker (ECSI 1998). Specimeni of all target species from 20 to 75 mm in length were collected and separated into 11 length groups. The studies were conducted with 200 fish per species group and length group, totaling 4,400 fish (ECSI 1998).II.D.4. Age Composition Studies conducted on blueback herring, alewife, white perch, and bay anchovy resulted in age-length relationships necessary to determine age-class composition of these target species.Scale analysis to assess age of alewife and blueback herring allowed the determination of spawning history. Otolith analysis was also used to check age determinations from the scale-reading method. The study of age composition for alewife and blueback herring was conducted from March through June 1981 (the period when both scale and annuli are formed). Scale analysis was also used for white perch, since it had proven to be successful in previous studies on Delaware Estuary white perch. For white perch, the study was conducted between February and April 1983, a period prior to annulus formation. Alewife and blueback herring specimens were obtained from the Fred Lewis shad fishery at Lambertville, New Jersey RM 149 (RKM 240). Twenty-nine female and 28 male blueback herring, as well as 35 female and 55 male alewife were subjected to age composition analysis. For the white perch portion of the study, 29 Appendix F. Attachment I specimens were collected by 7.6-m (24.9-ft) otter trawl in the Delaware River between the Smyrna River and Reedy Island RM 43.5-56 (RKM 70-90). This gear was selected for its ability to minimize size selectivity. Age analysis for alewife and blueback herring was carried out as follows.Approximately 20 scales were removed from the dorsal surface posterior to the dorsal fin of fresh specimen. Scales were soaked in a trypsin solution to remove adhering tissue. and dirt and then pressed between microscope slides and air-dried.Scales were viewed using an EPOI LP-6 profile projector with a 20x lens.Regenerated and damaged scales were discarded. Four to six scales were pressed between microscope slides for reading. Two independent reads were performed. When age and spawning checks were interpreted the same way by both readers they were accepted. When age or spawning checks were evaluated differently the scales were again read, and if agreement was not reached the sample was disregarded. For length-at-age analysis, the distance from the focus to the right margin of the freshwater zone and the distance from the focus to each annulus was measured in millimeters on the EPOI screen.White perch age analysis consisted of removing 10-20 scales from the side of the body under the posterior two-thirds of the dorsal fin above the lateral line.Samples were stored dry in scale envelopes on which total length, fork length, and standard length of the fish were recorded.Five non-regenerative scales from each sample were cleaned in trypsin solution and mounted dry between glass slides. Scale images were observed in projection with a Bausch and Lomb or EPOI profile projector. Annuli were identified and enumerated. As with the alewife and blueback samples, those that were not interpreted the same way were re-read, and discarded if the readers were not in agreement.Bay anchovy age analysis employed otolith analysis because the bay anchovy has caducous scales. They cannot be collected without losing a major portion of the scales usable for age analyses. The bay anchovy age composition analysis was conducted from April through August 1983, a period during which the new annulus was formed.During this study, a target of 300-500 bay anchovy were processed for otolith analysis per month. The number of specimens actually analyzed was 485 in April, 500 in May and June, and 300 in July and August. These were selected from a larger sample to provide for a representation offish from all available size ranges.Bay anchovy were collected for analysis during ongoing field and impingement sampling programs during April through August. During April, numbers of 30 Appendix F. Atlachment Ianchovy captured in impingement samples at Salem RM 50 (RKM 80) were insufficient to fulfill the target sample size, so bay anchovy collected by trawls (taken between about RM 40 (RKM 64) and RIM 44 (RKM 70) were utilized.During May through August, all necessary bay anchovy impingement sample specimens were collected for this study.Anchovy specimens were frozen as soon as possible and kept frozen until otolith extraction. The procedure was carried out by removing the gill arches and extracting the otolith using a forceps. The otoliths were then placed in a water bath, and remaining tissue was removed using forceps. Following this, they were placed in a glycerin bath to displace water at their surface. At this point they were removed, dried with a paper tissue, placed in an empty gelatin capsule, and labeled with their length and date of collection. Otoliths were placed in a drop of glycerin on a watch glass with a blackbackground. This was viewed under a beam of light from a microscope lamp directed on the otoliths at a low angle.A completed annular ring was defined as the interface between an inner dark hyaline zone and an outer white opaque zone. Only completed white rings, excluding the nucleus, were counted for age determination. Deformed, broken, calcified and clear 6toliths were not used.Like alewife, blueback herring and white perch, two readers examined bay anchovy otoliths. If there was no initial agreement on age, the otolith was re-read. If there was still no agreement, the otolith was discarded. After reading, the otoliths were removed from the glycerin, dried, and saved in a gelatin capsule forfuture use if needed.Impingement age composition studieswere conducted from 1995 through 1998 and targeted bay anchovy, white perch and striped bass. In 1995, sampling was conducted from April through December. Bay anchovy, striped anchovy, white perch, and striped bass were the only species sampled. In 1996 through 1998,sampling took place between January and December, resulting in the collection of bay anchovy, striped bass, and white perch for age composition analysis.III. FISHERIES-INDEPENDENT DATA III.A. PSE&G StudiesIII.A.1. Macrozooplankton Studies 0 Appendix F. Attachment I IJ.A. l.a. Estuarine Plankton Net Studies Zooplankton greater than 0.5 mm in length, (namely, macrozooplankon), form an important trophic link to juvenile and small fishes of the Delaware Estuary. Of particular importance is the opossum shrimp, Neomysis americana and the scud, Gamtnarus spp. These species commonly occur in the vicinity of the Salem intake and are important food items in the diet of juvenile weakfish, Atlantic croaker, spot and others.Information on the relative concentration and size frequency distribution of these organisms is needed from the Salem nearfield region as well as from DelawareRiver reaches upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of the Station. See Section F2.III.B. 10 and F2.III.C. 1 for a discussion of the assessment model and its parameters. Relative concentration and length frequency distribution information was obtained from PSE&G's macrozooplankton sampling programs conducted in 1979-80 and 1998 as described below. III.A.l.a.i. Sampling Equipment To maintain continuity and comparability with the historical database, the sampling gear used during 1979-80 was the same used in the collection of historical data from 1968 to 1978. A 0.5-m (1.6-ft) net with 0.5-mm (0.02-in)mesh was used to sample the macrozooplankton N. americana and Gammarus spp. in conjunction with the nine ichthyoplanton target species. Sources of sampling bias related to the 0.5-m net (e.g., net avoidance, mesh clogging, and extrusion) are discussed relative to ichthyoplankton in Section II.A.2.a. Species-specific factors, such as possible baywide differences in growth rate as they affect vulnerability to gear, could also affect net avoidance factors. Such factors are, to the extent possible, discussed in each of the species-specific Attachments to Appendix C.No specific sampling for macrozooplankton was conducted, and no samplescollected for ichthyoplankton were analyzed for macrozooplankton, from 1981 to 1997. The macrozooplankton program was reinstated in 1998, at which time a larger but similar 1-m plankton net, with the same mesh size and fitted with a GO (Model 2030R) digital flow meter, replaced the 0.5-m net that had been used in previous years.Since 1971, consultants for PSE&G working in the Delaware Estuary had conducted ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton sampling programs using the 0.5-m plankton net. Although a 1-m net is generally regarded as a more efficient sampling device, the 0.5-m net was used for the 1979-80 macrozooplankton processed sampling to ensure comparability with historical data. With the resumption of intensive sampling as part of the Estuary Enhancement Program 32 Appendix F. Attachment I (EEP), PSE&G had the opportunity to reevaluate the choice of macrozooplankton and ichthyoplankton sampling gears.In order to assess the potential consequences of a change in nets, a side-by-side comparison study was conducted in 1995. This study is discussed in section IV.A ofthis attachment The results of the study indicated that average concentrations measured with a 1-m net could be expected to differ somewhat from those measured with the historically used 0.5-m net. Although concentrations estimated with the 1-m net will often be higher than corresponding estimates from 0.5-m nets, the extent of the differences may vary over time and by species. When measured over a season, however, differences in average concentrations may not be statistically significant. Attempts to develop any type of "correction factor" to facilitate comparisons with the historical mean concentrations would be difficult at best, and when data are reviewed as gross averages, likely unnecessary. III.A.l.a.ii. Sampling Location Initially (1979-80), the study was temporally stratified by location based on the historical period of occurrence and areas of maximum abundance of selected target species groups. The "northern region" RM 40 to 73 (RKM 64 to 117) was sampled from March through mid-May for white perch, striped bass, American shad, the river herrings (blueback herring and alewife), N. americana, and Gammarus spp. The baywide region RM 0-73 (RKM 0- 117) was sampled from mid-May through November for bay anchovy, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, Gammarus spp. and N. americana. During 1979, the sampling locations within the two study regions were chosen using a simple random design. However, during planning for the 1980 sampling program it became evident that the random design was inefficient because of inadequate coverage of certain sampling regions and that a change in design was necessary. To ensure better coverage of those regions and to provide more stable estimates of regional density, a systematic design was implemented. Sampling regions and specific locations were determined on the basis of(1) historical information on the spatial distribution of the combined target species, (2) sampling allocation as determined by experimental design (i.e., random, systematic or stratified random), and (3) practical limitations imposed by sampling hazardous areas.In 1998, sixty random samples for macrozooplankton/ichthyoplankton were taken from the mouth of Delaware Bay RM 0 (RKM 0) to a point just upriver of the Delaware Memorial Bridge RM 73 (RKM 117). The overall study area was divided into eight regions, labeled I through 8 in F-I Figure 12.33 Appendix F. A-tachment I III.A.l.a.iii. Samplini Procedure For the 1979-80 program, N. americana and Gammarus spp. were collected during daylight simultaneously with the ichthyoplankton target species. Sampling procedures used for the baywide program were modified to meet the goals of the regionally expanded multi-species study. The principal modification was the implementation of a stepwise oblique tow procedure. One stepwise oblique tow was pulled from near surface to near bottom at 3-m (10-ft) intervals. Earlier, from 1971 to 1978, a vertically stratified collection procedure was used in the ETS monitoring studies. Sampling bias types are discussed in the Ichthyoplankton Studies Section III.A.2.Procedures were designed, to minimize or at least standardize gear-related sampling error. For example, active net avoidance and losses due to extrusion were minimized by towing the 0.5-m net in the direction of the tidal flow at speeds of 0.7-1.0 m/s (2.2-3.3 ft/s) and by implementing procedures to reduce net clogging. These procedures reduced the hydrostatic pressure cues preceding the collection gear (thereby reducing active avoidance), and reduced the hydraulic pressure against the net meshes (thereby reducing extrusion through the meshes). Allen (1978) demonstrated that towing gear in the direction of the tidal flow resulted in greater collection efficiency (i.e., approximately 10 times greater catch) of N. americana than did towing against the current. Procedures used to minimize net clogging are described in the Ichthyoplankton Studies Section III.A.2.In 1998, the 1-m net was towed in the direction of the tide at 0.7-1.0 m/sec for 4-6 min. All samples were collected during daylight. One stepwise oblique tow per station per location was pulled from near the bottom to the surface at 3-m (10-ft) intervals. The minimum sample volume required was 200 m 3 (7,063 ft 3).Samples collected for ichthyoplankton were also analyzed for macrozooplankton. N. americana and Gammarus spp. were the only macrozooplankton organisms identified and enumerated in 1979-80. Samples were sorted completely orsubsampled with a Folsom Plankton Splitter and/or a Hensen-Stempel pipette, depending on sample density and the amount of detritus present. Specimens were identified and enumerated under a dissecting microscope. Senior personnel supervised identification and enumeration of the samplet from 1979 to 1980. Laboratory personnel underwent a training phase followed by a prolonged period during which their work was closely scrutinized. Periodically, a quality control test was conducted for all technicians, which consisted of a senior researcher randomly selecting a sample from those already processed and re-analyzing it. A difference of 10% or less was considered acceptable. 34 Appendix F. Attachment IIn 1998, a Continuous Sampling Plan, Type-I (CSP-1) was used for Quality Control (QC) inspection to ensure that over 95% of the two taxa were removed from the samples during processing. This resulted in a maximum AverageOutgoing Quality Limit (AOQL) of 5%. Each technician was examined independently and one tray of sample was the unit inspected. A technician had to initially (Mode 1) remove at least 95% of the two taxa present in that tray to pass inspection. Eighteen consecutive trays had to be processed without a failure (<95%) to advance to the second QC level. At the second level (Mode 2), 14 out of the next 100 trays were randomly inspected. Following a failed QC inspection, a technician reverted to the 100% inspection mode (Mode 1), and had to pass 18 consecutive inspections before going ahead to random inspections once again.If more than 400 N. americana or 100 Gammarus spp. were present in the sample, subsampling was initiated. A minimum of 200 N. americana or 50 Gammarus spp. had to be removed from a split sample for it to be considered a valid subsample. A CSP-1 was also used for split-QC inspection. Mode I consisted of eight consecutive samples in the laboratory passing QC inspection, and Mode 2 was a random inspection of 14 out of 100 samples in the laboratory. QC inspection required a x2 test on three fractions randomly chosen from three different larger fractions of the sample. If the calculated value of X 2 was less than 5.99 (two degrees of freedom, P<0.05), the splits of the sample were considered random and the sample passed the split-QC.As part of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program in 1979 and 1980, transcribed data received two independent proofs before computer input.The initial computer output was then proofed against the original data sheets followed by a proof of the corrected listing. A computer edit was then run, and.the database considered correct after a proof of a table printout.The 1998 program included an initial proofing by the field or laboratory personnel who generated the data to ensure that data were complete and legible. The data were then keyed into a sequential database. Upon completion of a set of data, the entire listing is proofed against the original data sheets to correct any input errors.If more than one field per thousand entry fields was in error, the entire data set (sampling event) was re-proofed until 0.1% compliance was accomplished. A field was considered to be one cell in the database.III.A.l.a.iv. Sampling Frequency During 1979-80, samples were collected monthly during March and April and once in early-May in the "northern region" RM 40-73 (RKM 64 -117). Samples were collected once to twice during mid-late May, once in November, once to twice monthly during September and October, twice in August and three times each in June and July in the "baywide region" RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117).*35 Appendix F. Attachment I In 1998, the schedule was once a month in April and October and twice a month from May through September. III.A. I.b. Estuarine Epibenthic Sled Studies The preferred habitat of the opossum shrimp is adjacent to the bottom. In 1998 the epibenthic sled was added to the program to obtain better baywide distribution patterns for Gammarus spp. (the scud) and N. americana (opossum shrimp).Epibenthic sled samples were paired with the samples collected with the oblique 1-m net tows in the ichthyoplankton program.Each oblique tow in 1998 was paired with a 1-m epibenthic sled tow. The sled had a net with the same 0.5-mm mesh as the 1-rn net and also had a GO flowmeter attached. The flow through the net of the epibenthic sled was monitored, but no minimum volume of water was required. All samples were collected during daylight.The order of the sampling was as follows: the sled was towed first for the initial pair of samples and the plankton net was towed first for the second pair of samples. Then the sled was towed first for the third pair and so on. While the 1-m net was towed in the direction of the tide at 0.7-1.0 m/sec for 4-6 min, the epibenthic sled was towed against the tide at 0.9-1.0 rn/sec (2.9-3.2ft/sec) for 5 min. N. americana and Gammarus spp. were the only macroinvertebrates identified and enumerated in the laboratory. Laboratory procedures, laboratoryQA/QC procedures, data entry, and data entry QA/QC procedures were the same as described in Section III.A.l.a.iii. III.A. 1. c. Marsh Creek Epibenthic Sled StudiesIn 1998 a Marsh Creek Epibenthic Sled Macrozooplankton Study was implemented to quantify the relative densities of seasonal N. americana (opossum shrimp) cohorts in the tidal creeks at the Dennis Township restoration site and the Moores Beach West reference marsh.A 0.5-mr epibenthic sled, with 0.5-mm mesh and a GO flow meter attached was used. Four creeks were sampled: two constructed tidal creeks (off West Creek) at the Dennis Township restoration site (F-1 Figure 13), and two natural marsh creeks (off Riggins Ditch) at the lower Moores Beach West reference site (F-1 Figure 14). Three stations per creek were sampled and three replicates per station were taken in each collection period. The sled was towed against the tide at approximately 1.6 m/sec (5.1 ft/sec). The minimum volume of water filtered was 50 m3 (1,755 ft 3) and samples less than this amount were redone. Samples were taken when the tide was at full bank, but not flooding the marsh plain. A 36 Appendix F. Attachment I total of 108 samples were collected in late June and July, and early September. N.americana was the only organism identified and enumerated in the laboratory. Laboratory procedures, laboratory QA/QC procedures, data entry, and data entryQA/QC procedures were the same as described in Section III.A.l.a.iii. III.A.2. Ichthyoplankton Studies IH.A.2.a. Estuarine Plankton Net Studies The ichthyoplankton field program was designed to provide relative density estimates and length frequency data on early life stages (eggs, larvae, and juveniles) of river herrings (alewife, blueback), American shad, bay anchovy, white perch, striped bass, weakfish, spot, and Atlantic croaker in the RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) region of the Delaware Estuary. Data on weakfish and bay anchovy were collected during their respective periods of occurrence during 1979-82; data were collected on the other seven ichthyoplankton species during 1979-80.III.A.2.a.i. Sampling Equipment Historically, the area in the vicinity of Artificial Island was sampled sporadically for ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) from 1968 to 1970. This was part of the pre-operational inventory phase for Salem. The main sampling gear employed was a 0.5-m (16-ft) conical plankton net with a 0.5-mm (0.02-in) mesh screen in the cod end bucket. The net was towed 15.2 m (50 fi) behind the boat in the direction of the tide. The tows were 10 min long and the engine speed 1,300 rpm.A specially adapted 2.7-m (9-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl and a 1-im (3.3-fl)plankton net (same mesh as 0.5-m net) were also used on a limited basis. Thesewere found to be less suitable than the 0.5-m net. Samples were collected during the day and at night.During 1971-78 in the region RM 40-61 (RKM 64-97) and during the "baywide" RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) studies from 1979-82, a 0.5-mi conical plankton net with 0.5-mm mesh was used to collect ichthyoplankton. The net was fitted with a one-pint screened (0.5-mm bolting cloth) plastic catch bucket and a depressor to ensure proper fishing attitude. The 0.5-mm net, which was generally regarded as a standard gear when these studies began in 1971, was described by Bowles et al.(1978) as the most frequently used ichthyoplankton sampling gear in the United States. Although the program objective after 1978 was changed from a general survey of the ichthyoplankton within a restricted segment of the estuary to a regionally expanded study of selected target species, the 0.5-m net was retained as the preferred gear to ensure comparability with historical data.37 Appendix F, Attachment I In order to assess the potential consequences of a change in nets, a side-by-side comparison study of the 0.5-m and 1r-m nets was conducted in 1995. This study is described in Section IV.A. 1.a.i.For 1996 and 1998 ichthyoplankton sampling, the 1-m plankton net, with the same mesh size and fitted with a GO (Model 2030R) digital flow meter, replaced the 0.5-m net that had been used in previous years.IILA.2.a.ii. Sampling Location Sampling regions and specific locations within the study area were determined on the basis of (1) historical information on the spatial distribution of the combined target species, (2) sampling allocation as determined by experimental design (i.e., random, systematic or stratified random), and (3) practical limitations to navigation. During 1979 and 1980, the "location" or extent of the study area shifted seasonally according to the temporal and spatial distributions of the target species groups indicated by the historical data. During March through early May, samples were taken in the "northern region," RM 40-73 (RKM 64-117), to provide data on early life stages for white perch, spot, striped bass, American shad and the river herring. During mid-May through November, sampling was conducted throughout the entire sampling area RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) to provide data on bay anchovy, weakfish, spot and Atlantic croaker.The method of effort allocation was varied during the course of the study to reflect progressive changes in experimental design of the program. Stations were always located on grid coordinates based on Loran C.Sites sampled during 1979 were chosen from a simple random design since there were few a priori data to design a stratified collection effort which would effectively address the 11 ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton species.Sample allocation was based on two simultaneous sampling schemes: (1) a baywide scheme designed to estimate regional density within the entire study area RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) and (2) a "plant-intensive" scheme designed to enable the correlation of population densities in the "nearfield" RM 40-61 (RKM 64-97)with entrainment levels at Salem RM 50 (RKM 80). The "plant-intensive" samples were randomly allocated in the nearfield region and, in combination with samples allocated as part of the bay scheme, provided better coverage of this area and thus a more stable estimate of near-field regional density. The number ofsamples taken in the nearfield region was based on the varying number of randomly chosen baywide samples plus the necessary plant-intensive samples to equal a totalsample size of-20.38 Appendix F, Attachment I An evaluation of 1979 data indicated that estimation of regional density based on simple random design was disadvantaged. This is the result of the occurrence of large unsampled areas into which density levels had to be extrapolated and the irregular spacing of sampling locations. To remedy these problems, a change in design to either systematic or stratified-random was examined for use. Stratified-random design, a typical first-order consideration in continuing sampling programs, was not adopted because of the difficulty of defining discrete strata for each of the 11 target species. The systematic sampling design was adopted following the rationale that this design would make better use (than simple random) of limited data during the inevitable periods when samples could not be taken because of weather-related or mechanical problems. Computer simulations using 1979 data indicated that a systematic design, given the identical number of sampling stations, yielded estimates at least as precise and accurate as did the simple random design, and probably more so.In 1981, with approval of EPA-Region II, and TAG, the number of target species to be considered for field study in 1981-82 was reduced to three: bay anchovy, weakfish and white perch. The reduction in number of target species allowed a reasonable stratified random sampling program to be developed. During development of the 1981 and 1982 sampling programs, two stratification designs and three sample-allocation schemes were investigated based on 1979 and 1980 ichthyoplankton field data. The two stratification designs were (1) stratification by 16.1 km (10 mile) interval, and (2) stratification by 16.1 km interval with the lower bay (the first two strata) divided along the 9.1 -n (30-ft) depth contour, forming east-, west- and offshore strata. The three sample-allocation schemes investigated for each of the stratification designs were: (1) equal, (2) proportional and (3) optimal. Of the three sample-allocation procedures, the optimal allocation scheme in conjunction with either stratification design resulted in a relatively high level of expected precision (+/- percent of R).The onshore-offshore design was chosen for compatibility with the fisheries program because it was the optimum design for juvenile weakfish collected by trawl. Since ichthyoplankton data for weakfish and bay anchovy were to be collected simultaneously, the stratum-allocations by species and life stage were averaged. Final allocations were based on seasonal changes in spatial distribution. Two general patterns were evident; one during April through August and the other during September and October. The allocation of samples in September and October deviated from the optimal scheme, with little change in precision, because of logistical conflicts. For each sampling period, stations within strata were chosen randomly from all possible grids within that stratum. A few altemate stations per stratum were chosen in case some "primary" stations could not be sampled due to hazardous conditions. No samples were collected for the standard ichthyoplankton program from 1983 to 1995. The program was reinstated for the years 1996 and 1998. Sixty random 39 Appendix F. Attachment samples were taken from eight regions ranging from RM 0 to RM 73 (RKM 0 to RKM 117). The required minimum sample volume was 200 m 3 (7,063 ft 3).III.A.2.a.iii. Sampline Procedure In 1979-82, one stepwise oblique tow with the 0.5-m net was pulled from near surface to near bottom at 3-m (10-ft) intervals during daylight hours. In order to minimize the sampling error related to gear, avoidance, clogging and extrusion, standard gear deployment and rigging procedures were developed. The nets were towed at 0.7-1.0 m/s (2.2-3.3 ftis) as suggested by the MARMAP sampling procedures (Jossi et al. 1975). The tow speed reflects a compromise between opposing problems in that it is low enough to minimize hydrostatic pressure cues (that could lead to avoidance) and extrusion (that could lead to loss of specimens). Yet, it is sufficiently fast to minimize avoidance by ichthyoplankton. Procedures used to minimize net clogging, which can intensify hydrostatic disturbance in front of the net and thereby increasing avoidance, included: (1) repeating the initial samples which had a volume filtered of less than 40 m 3 (1,413 ft3) and (2) sampling obliquely from near surface to near bottom. EA (1976) concluded that the 0.5-m net would not begin to clog until about 40 m 3 ofwater were filtered. Sampling obliquely from surface to bottom decreased the potential for early net clogging since the greatest concentration of detritus in the lower Delaware River is generally near the bottom (PSE&G 1980). To determine if clogging and associated turbulence effects were equally allocated among all samples, representative volume-filtered data collected during the PSE&G study (March 17- June 6 1980) were examined. Since clogging of a net reduces filtration efficiency (Barnthouse et al. 1982), identification of a clogging problemcan be made indirectly by testing the frequency distribution of volume filtered for a number of samples. Given the assumption that under ideal conditions (i.e., no net clogging and standard tow duration of 4-6 minutes) the frequency distribution of the volume-filtered data would be normally distributed around a mean value. The inclusion of a large number of low volumes (i.e., those resulting from netclogging) would negatively skew the frequency distribution of volume filtered and the distribution would therefore deviate from normality. No significant (P<0.05) deviation from normality was detected for any of the six sampling periods.To minimize error in sample volume data, two procedures were implemented in the PSE&G study. First, a detailed flowmeter calibration program was implemented to maintain accuracy of each flowmeter with respect to factory calibration standards. Secondly, bias related to inaccurate flowmeter readings as a result of turbulence within and around the towed nets was minimized by placing the flowmeter off center in the mouth of the net. Studies by Mahnken and Jossi (1967) and Tranter and Smith (1968) have demonstrated that center-mounted flowmeters registered a lower volume than was actually filtered in bridled nets 40 Appendix F. Attachrneni I while flowmeters placed two-thirds of the distance out from center measured flow more accurately. The major change in the field procedure when the program was reinstated for the years 1996 and 1998 was that the stepwise oblique tows were taken from near the bottom to the surface, rather than from the surface to bottom. Also, the required minimum sample volume was 200 m 3 (7,063 ft 3), reflecting use of the larger 1-m net.The samples were processed for all nine ichthyoplankton target species in the laboratory during the years 1979 through 1982. Samples were sorted completely or subsampled with a Stempel pipette depending on sample density(>800 specimens) and the amount of detritus present. All eggs and larvae were identified and enumerated under a dissecting microscope. For each target species present in a sample, a maximum of 25 larvae and 25 young were selected at random and measured (TL > 0.5 mm).The laboratory procedures for ichthyoplankton analysis were very similar to earlier procedures and were previously described in the macrozooplankton Section III.A.1.a.iii.). The samples were analyzed for the early life stages of blueback herring, alewife, American shad, bay anchovy, white perch, striped bass, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden and silverside species.Senior personnel supervised identification and enumeration of the samples from 1979 to 1982. As described previously in Section III.A.l.a.iii., laboratory personnel were trained prior to conducting the sampling. QC procedures involved a senior researcher randomly selecting a sample from those already processed and re-sorting it. The senior researcher or supervisor determined the frequency of QC checks based on sample condition and recent accuracy of technicians. Initial picking was considered satisfactory if 95% of the specimens were removed.III.A.2.a.iv. Sampling Frequency Sampling frequency for the ichthyoplankton program was premised on temporal distribution patterns of the eggs, larvae and/or juveniles of the combined target species determined from historical ichthyoplankton catch data.During 1979-80, samples were collected monthly during March and April and once during early-May to provide data on early life stages of white perch, spot, striped bass, American shad, and the river herrings (alewife and blueback) in the region of RM 40-73 (RKM 64-1.17). Samples were collected once or twice duringmid-late May, once in November, once to twice monthly during September through October, twice in August and three times each in June and July in the region RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) to provide data on bay anchovy and weakfish.3 41 Appendix F. Attachment I During 1981-82, sample-number per collection period during the expected season of occurrence for ichthyoplankton of weakfish and bay anchovy (mid-May through mid-October) ranged from 64 to 70. Samples were collected in late April of both years to verify the absence of weakfish and bay anchovy during that period; 69 in 1981 and 47 in 1982. Samples were collected in the entire RM 0-73 (RKM 0-117) region during all sampling periods (i.e., May-November in 1981-82).No samples were collected for the standard ichthyoplankton program from 1983 to 1995.When the program was reinstated for the years 1996 and 1998, 60 random samples were taken from eight regions (F-I Figure 12) ranging from RM 0 to RM 73 (RKM 0 to RKM 117). The sample frequency was monthly in April and October, and twice per month from May through September. IILA.2.b W-factor Studies With the adoption of the Empirical Transport Model (ETM) assessment procedure, an estimate was required of the abundance of organisms in the Station intake water relative to their average abundance in an idealized cross-section of the river in front of the power plant. This parameter, known as W-factor, was derived from one pair of collections taken near the intake and in one of five offshore zones. The samples were taken during daylight and darkness.The ichthyoplankton W-factor program was conducted during 1981,! 1982, 1984-87, 1996, and 1998 to determine the relative densities of early life stages of bay anchovy and weakfish in the Salem CWS and in an adjacent cross-section of the Delaware River. The program included field samples collected with similar gear and procedures immediately off the intake structure and at five offshore horizontal strata on a transect to the west shore of the river, and on-site collections (with a pump-sampler) from Salem's cooling water. Pump-samples were collected as part of the ongoing entrainment abundance program. The field samples collected just offshore of the intake structure were assumed to reasonably reflect actual densities of entrained organisms and can, in that context, be compared directly with offshore strata samples. On-site pump samples were compared with Salem inshore net samples.III.A.2.b.i. Sampling Eguipment All field samples in the W-factor program for 1981, 1982, 1984-1987 were collected with a metered 0.5-m net (0.5-mm mesh) conical plankton net. In 1996 and 1998, very few changes were made. A Model 2030 MKII GO flow meter 42 Appendix F, Attachment I was used. One-meter plankton nets, with the same mesh size and a similar GO (Model 2030R) flow meter attached, replaced the 0.5-m nets that were used in previous years.III.A.2.b.ii. Sampling Location During each sampling period, W-factor samples were collected from horizontal strata along a transect between the Salem CWS and the Delaware shore (F-I Figure 15). Samples were collected as five pairs, each consisting of adiscrete inshore sample from immediately in front of the intake (Section 101) and an offshore sample from one the five horizontal strata (001-005). The order in which sample pairs were collected was determined randomly.The inshore sample (101; F-i Figure 15) was collected as close to the intake structure as practically possible considering obstructions to navigation and weather conditions. When conditions allowed, samples were collected on a course parallel to and within 88-210 feet (27-64 m) of the intake structure; distance offshore never exceeded 180 m.During 1981, there was no sampling of vertical stratification. However, during 1982, two vertical strata were established in all zones except W005 where thedepth was less than three meters. The strata varied from near-surfaceto mid-depth (S-M) and from mid-depth tonear-bottom (M-B). This stratificationremained constant for the remainder of the W-factor program..III.A.2.b.iii. Samplini Procedures During 1981, single samples were collected along the river transects by stepwise oblique tow from surface to near-bottom (within 3 ft). During 1982, vertically stratified samples were collected. Sampling consisted of two stepwise (1.5-m intervals) oblique tows done simultaneously, the first from near-surface to mid-depth (S-M) and the second from mid-depth to near-bottom (M-B). Tow speed and duration were specified at 1.0 m/sec and 6 min, respectively. This procedure remained constant through 1985.In 1996 and 1998, one stepwise oblique tow was pulled, at 3-m (10-fR) intervals starting at 1.5 m (5 ft) from the bottom and ending 1.5 m from the surface. Thetow speed was, adjusted to 0.7-1.0 m/s (2.2-3.3 ft/s). There were five offshore zones as in the 1980s, but only three were randomly selected for sampling during each diurnal period (day and night). These three samples were each coupled with an intake zone sample.43 Appendix F. Attachment I A potential source of bias in the W-factor collection procedures was the potential contamination of the M-B sample with organisms from the upper half of the water column. However, any effect of the bias would be minimal because of the relatively short time that the M-B net samples the upper strata during deployment and retrieval (-0.5 min) compared to the total collection time (-0.5 min + 4-6 min of sampling). Laboratory processing and QA/QC of all W-factor was the same as for samples collected in the macrozooplankton studies (See Section III.A. l.a.iii.). Data entry and QA/QC of all W-factor samples from 1981 to 1987 was also the same as for the samples collected in the macrozooplankton studies (See Section I1I.A.2.b.iv. Sampling Frequency During 1981, 20 samples (five inshore-offshore pairs during total darkness and five during daylight) were collected during each sampling period for a total"seasonal sample" of 160. During 1982, 38 samples were collected on each sampling date for a total "seasonal sample" of 264.Based on historical data, the collection effort for the ichthyoplankton W-factor program was restricted to the period of moderate to maximum abundance of early life stages of bay anchovy and weakfish. Collections during periods of relatively low abundance yield little useful information since the W-factor estimation gives greatest weight to dates on which specimens are most abundant and when impact through entrainment is most probable. During 1981, samples were collected during eight periods (four in June, three in July and one in August) from June 3 through August 5. During 1982, samples were collected during seven periods (three in June, three in July and one in August) from June 8 through August 4.W-Factor ichthyoplankton samples were not collected in 1983. Sampling resumed in 1984. Sampling occurred once in March, twice each in April and May, and weekly from July to September. The 1985 program was basically the same as in 1984. The schedule was slightly adjusted as follows: April and May (twice per month) and June through September (weekly), No W-Factor ichthyoplankton samples were collected from 1988 through 1995.W-Factor ichthyoplankton sampling was reinstated for the years 1996 and 1998.Samples were taken twice per month in May and October, and three times per month from June through September. 44 Appendi.x F. Attachment I!II.A.3. Finfish and Blue Crab Studies Fishes are. the principal upper level consumers in the Delaware River aquatic ecosystem, being at or near the pinnacle of the energy-transfer structure. They continue the predator-prey relationship established at lower trophic levels and in their inter- and intra-community relationships occupy a diversity of habitats.Blue crab is an exceptionally capable predator in tidal marshes (Kneib 1997).They are potentially important aquatic predators on fishes in confined habitats such as isolated tidal marsh pools. The blue crab was reported as a major predator on various species of shellfish such that crab foraging influences the density, distribution, and population structure of these species. Blue crabs move among estuarine habitats, including marshes, as well as between estuaries and other systems, providing important information on the ecological linkages both within and between these areas (Jivoff and Able 1998).Since mid-1968, the fishes and blue crab in the river and tidal tributaries have been sampled with a variety of gear types. The initial objective was to inventory the fishes that occurred in the Artificial Island area. After a period of extensive and intensive sampling, the seasonality of community structure was defined and study goals were expanded to include seasonal and spatial distribution, and annual variation by life stage. Studies of life history aspects (e.g., age, growth, and food habits) of selected (target) species were conducted. Eventually a program of standardized trawling and seining was established as being the most suitable and dependable in defining structure and behavior of the fish community during the monitoring program. Beginning in 1979, the emphasis switched from structure and behavior to assessing the effect of Salem on the Delaware Bay fish population. III.A.3.a. Estuarine Bottom Trawl Studies Bottom trawls were chosen for use in the river and tidal tributaries because of their capture efficiency in deeper waters. The bottom trawl program study estimates the relative spatial distribution ofjuvenile and small fishes, and blue crab in the Delaware Estuary.III.A.3.a.i. Sampling Equipment The.4.9-m (1 6-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl is the generally accepted standard gear for the collection of demersal juvenile fishes of the type and size vulnerable to Salem's CWS. The otter trawl was employed as the standard bottom gear in the PSE&G study from 1968 through 1978, and has been maintained as the gear-of-45 Appendix F. Attachment I choice during subsequent baywide studies to ensure data comparability with the historical database. Nets used in these studies, purchased from the same manufacturer to ensure uniformity, are described as follows: 16-ft semi-balloon trawl; 17-ft headrope; 21-ft footrope; net body I Vz-in stretch mesh; cod end I 11/4-in stretch mesh; and innerliner Y2-in stretch mesh. General characteristics that may have affected estimation of specimen density based on otter trawl were the area of the net mouth, and gear-and species-specific collection efficiencies. Marinovich Trawl Co., Inc., the manufacturer of the otter trawl, determined through underwater observations, that the actual mouth opening was -3.7 m (-12 ft) wide and 0.6 m (2 ft) high (S.J. Marinovich, pers. comm.).To corroborate these values a series of in situ measurements of the net-mouth opening were made in 1980 (PSE&G 1985).Estimates with 95% confidence limits for trawl width, center height, and quarter height for the trawl fished on the bottom were 3.26 +/- 0.12 m (n = 52), 0.90 +/- 0.22 m (n = 51), 0.64 +/- 0.13 m (n = 39), respectively. Trawl width vs.trawl height was plotted and polynomial equations were then fitted to both curves representing trawl height. Finally, the area under the curves was computed, to estimate the maximum effective fishing area of the net mouth on the bottom of 2.0455 m 2. The average effective fishing height for the 4.9-m otter trawl fished on the bottom was 0.5275 m (PSE&G 1985).Estimates of trawl width, center height, and quarter height for the trawl fished at the surface were 3.04 +/- 0.87 m (n = 22), 0.84 +/- 0.22 m (n = 19), and 0.56 +/- 0.18 m (n = 20), respectively. The maximum effective fishing area of the net mouth was 1.7125 m-2 at the surface. The average effective fishing height for the 4.9-m otter trawl fished at mid-water was 0.5663 m (PSE&G 1985).III.A.3.a.ii. Sampling Location Sampling regions and specific locations within the study area were 'determined on the basis of. (1) historical information on the spatial distribution of the combined target species, (2) sampling allocation as determined by experimental design (i.e., random, systematic or stratified random), and (3) practical limitations to navigation. The method of sample allocation was changed during the course of the study, reflecting the evolution in experimental design of the program. Stations were located on grid coordinates based on Loran C and/or Global Positioning System (GPS). The methods of station allocation and designation were the same for both the bottom and pelagic trawl programs.Sites sampled during 1979 were chosen from a simple random design within RM 0 to RM 73 (RKM 0-117) since there was little a priori data upon which to design a stratified collection effort. However, specific sampling regions were designated by target species based on their historical areas of maximum abun-46 Appendix F. Attachment I dance. As specified in the POS, the sampling regions were R-M 0-61 (RKM 0-97)for bay anchovy, RM 0-73 (RKM 0- 117) for weakfish, spot and Atlantic croaker, RM 40-73. (RKM 64-117 for white perch and striped bass, and RM 40-61 (RKM 64-97) for blueback herring, alewife and American shad. Additionally, a"plant-intensive" sampling scheme was designed to make possible the correlation of population densities in the nearfield RM 40-61 (RKM 64 to 97) to impingement levels at Salem.An evaluation of 1979 data indicated that estimation of regional density based onsimple random design was difficult in some areas because of the irregular spacing of sampling locations and the extrapolation of density levels to large, unsampled areas. As was previously discussed in Section III.A.2:a.ii, a systematic samplingplan was adopted in 1980. The sampling plan included stratification designs and three sample allocation schemes as previously discussed in Section III.A.2.a.ii. No bottom trawls were collected from 1983 through 1987. In 1988 through 1994,there were 10 set stations in an area reaching from RM 40 to RM 60 (RKM 64 to RKM 96). In 1995, there were 40 fixed stations between RM 0 and RM 50 (RKM 0 and RKM 94). In 1996 through 1998, 40 random samples were collected in eight regions between RM 0 and RM 73 (RKM 0 and RKM 117).III.A.3.a.iii. Sampling Procedure S In the earlier bottom trawl studies (1968-77) a standard warp length of 100 ft for inshore and offshore stations, and 150 ft for channel stations was a procedural requirement. This resulted in the trawl fishing off the bottom (up in the water column) in the channel and for some of the offshore stations. Beginning in 1978, the otter trawl was fished on the bottom at all stations by deploying a standard towline to water depth ratio of 6:1 (A.L. Maiden, pers. comm. 1998).For the 1979-82 studies, research vessels were calibrated to the standard tow speed of-3 knots (-1.6 m/s or 5.1 ft/s). All bottom trawl samples were of 10-min duration and taken in the direction of the tide during the daylight. All trawl samples were taken at predetermined locations designed by either Loran C coordinates or visual landmarks in conjunction with water depth.No field procedure changes were made from 1988 through 1994, except that the towline to water depth ratio ranged from 5:1 to 8:1. In 1995, the towline length towater depth ratio was adjusted to a 10:1 standard, and all trawls were towed against the tide at 1.8 m/s. The field procedures remained constant from 1995 through 1998.Sampling processing procedures remained relatively constant during the course of the study. Target and non-target species were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (usually species) enumerated and measured in the field. When an 8 47 Appendix F, Attachment I extremely large number of a species was taken (more than 500 specimens) their number was estimated by counting a representative subsample. Any fish captured which could not be identified to species was preserved in 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory for identification. If unknown specimens were too large (e.g., sharks and rays) to be preserved onboard, a series of standard morphometric and meristic characters were recorded for later identification. For each target species measurements were taken on up to 100 specimens. If more than 100 of a target species were captured, a random subsample of 100 was selected for measurement. Lengths were recorded in 5-mm increments for length-frequency analysis. Species with an emarginate or forked tails were measured for fork length (FL) and species without a caudal fork were measured for total length.All blue crabs were enumerated. If fewer than 30 specimens were taken, carapace width, sex, maturity, and molt phase were recorded. When more than 30 specimens were taken, a random subsample of 30 specimens was processed. Carapace width was measured between the tips of the lateral spines. Sex is determined from the shape of the abdomen. The male has a longer slender abdomen, which resembles a "T". The maturity of the male is determined by the adherence of the abdomen to the sternum. The abdomen of an immature male is fused (seemingly glued) to the sternum, while that of the mature male can be readily lifted from the shell. The abdomen of the immature female is triangularly shaped and fused to the sternum, while that of the mature female is broadly rounded and free of the shell. The phase with respect to molting was recorded as either soft, hard or molting. A hard crab is any that is not soft (fleshy to the touch). A molting (or peeler) crab has a distinct red or orange rim that can be observed along the outer margin of the fifth segment of the backfins or paddlers.This marking is actually the new shell forming underneath the old.Senior personnel supervised identification and enumeration of the samples. Less experienced personnel underwent a training phase followed by a prolonged period during which their work was closely scrutinized. Periodically, a quality control test was conducted for all technicians, which consisted of a senior researcher randomly selecting a sample from those already processed and re-analyzing it. A difference of 10% or less was acceptable. As part of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control. (QA/QC) program in 1979 through 1982, transcribed data received two independent proofs before computer input. The initial computer output was then proofed against the original data sheets followed by a proof of the corrected listing. A computer, edit was then run, and the database considered correct after a proof of a table printout.' The 1996-98 programs included an initial proofing by the field or laboratory personnel who generated the data to ensure that data were complete and legible.The data were then keyed into a sequential database. Upon completion of a set of data, the entire listing is proofed against the original data sheets to correct input errors. A field was considered to be one cell in the database. If more than one 48 Appendix F, Attachment I field per thousand entry fields was in error, the entire data set (sampling event)was re-proofed until 0.1% non-compliance was accomplished. Any errors found were corrected. III.A.3.a.iv. Sampling Frequency During 1979, a maximum of 107 samples were scheduled for each sampling period. Of these, 90 samples were scheduled to estimate baywide population densities; two additional samples were later added at the northern boundary of the study area RM 73 (RKMI -1[7) to improve regional density estimates. An additional 15 samples were scheduledas part of the "plant-intensive" RM 40-73 (RKM 64-117) program which was designed to correlate the population densities in the vicinity of Salem RM 50 (RKM 80) to impingement and entrainment levels.The number of bottom trawls completed per sampling period ranged from 24 to 106, with a median of 84 per period, and the number of pelagic trawls completed ranged from 59 to 109 samples, with a median of 98. As specified by the POS, the collection schedule with bottom trawl was as follows: white perch and striped bass biweekly to monthly during November through March; spot biweekly during May through August; biweekly during June through August; Atlantic croaker biweekly to monthly during October through January.During early 1980, the sample-number per collection period was reduced to 70, a logistically reasonable number. Computer simulations using 70 samples per collection period in conjunction with the simultaneous change to systematic sampling indicated that precise and accurate estimates of standing crop could be made. During 1980, the number of bottom trawl samples taken ranged from 5 to 107 per collection period; the median number of samples completed was 69.The collection frequency was increased to include collections in all months for all target species in order to produce more precise and accurate estimates of standing crops and mortality rates. Bottom trawl collections were scheduled twice per month during October through April and three times per month during May through September. However, sampling scheduled during November 1980 through April 1981 was cancelled due to the realignment of target species and the beginning of the White Perch Mark-Recapture Program.During 1981 and 1982, a combined total of 70 bottom and pelagic trawl collections were scheduled per sampling period within the stratified random sampling design adopted upon the realignment of target species. The number of collections taken in each stratum was determined using the optimal sample allocation analysis. The number of either bottom or pelagic trawls collected during each period was based on the same analysis. The collection frequency was based on the temporal distribution patterns of the target species as determined from the historical database. Bottom trawling was scheduled twice per month during May and October and three times a month during June through September. I 49 Appendix F. Attachment I No bottom trawl samples were collected from 1983 through 1987.Bottom trawl sampling was conducted at 10 set stations from RM 40 to RM 60 (RKM 64 to RKM 96) in 1988. Samples were taken twice each month from March through December. January and February were added to the schedule for 1989 through 1994.The schedule was changed in 1995 to monthly samples from April to October at 40 fixed stations between RM 0 and RM 59 (RKM 0 and RKM 94). In 1996, the sampling regime was changed to 40 random samples in 8 regions from RM 0 to RM 73 (RKM 0 to RKM 117). In 1996 and 1998, the sample frequency was once in April and twice per month from May to October. In 1997, it was monthly from April through October. IX.A.3.b. Estuarine Pelagic Trawl Studies Pelagic trawls were chosen for use in the river and tidal tributaries because oftheir capture efficiency in producing estimates of the vertical distribution of fish in the Delaware Estuary. They also helped in the estimation of the relative spatial distribution ofjuvenile and small fishes, and blue crab.III.A.3.b.i. Sampling Equipment The 4.9-m (16-fl) otter trawl was the sampling gear used in the pelagic trawl program in 1979-80. It was modified for use as a pelagic trawl until a more suitable replacement could be developed. Trent (1967). described an otter trawl conversion utilizing hydrofoils to fish the net near the surface. However, similarresults were achieved by altering the pitch of the trawl doors. Nets used in these studies were purchased from the same manufacturer to ensure uniformity, and are described as follows: 16-ft semi-balloon trawl; 17-ft headrope; 21-fl footrope; net body 1 '/2-in stretch mesh; codend I V4-in stretch mesh; and innerliner 1/2.V2-in stretch mesh.During 1981 and 1982 a 1.2 x 1.8-in (4 x 6-fl) fixed-frame trawl replaced the modified otter trawl as the pelagic gear. It is described by the manufacturer as follows: 4 ft high, 6 ft wide and 15 ft long with a 5/16-in body mesh and 1/4A-in cod-end liner. It was chosen for use because other proven pelagic nets had been employed principally on a commercial basis in ocean situations and were too large for use in the relatively shallow estuarine environment of the Delaware River and Bay. The fixed-frame net was fitted with various floats and depressors to fish at the surface and various depth ranges.50 0 Appendix F, Attachment I General characteristics that may have affected estimation of specimen density based on the fixed frame-net were the area of the net mouth, and gear-and species-specific collection efficiencies. The area of the mouth opening on the fixed-frame net was essentially a straightforward calculation. Based on its dimensions, an opening area of 2.2 m 2 was determined. The average effective fishing height was 1.3 m.A trawl gear comparison study was conducted in 1990 (preliminary) and 1995.The objective was to determine the relative sample efficiency of the 1.2- x 1.8-m fixed-frame pelagic trawl in turbid water. The fixed-frame trawl was compared to the 3.3- x 3.3-m (10 x 10-ft) Cobb trawl (LMS 1996b). The trawl comparison study is described in Section IV.A.4.b.III.A.3.b.ii. Samplin, Location'The methods of sampling station allocation and designation were the same forboth the pelagic and bottom trawl programs. These rfiethods have been previously described in the Estuarine Bottom Trawl Studies (Section III.A.3.a.iii.). During all years, stations were located on grid coordinates based on Loran C and/or GPS.No pelagic trawls were collected from 1983 through 1987. Samples were collected at 10 set stations in an area reaching from RM 40 to RM 60 (RKM 64 RKM 96) in the years 1988 through 1994. In 1995, samples were collected at 40 fixed stations from RM 0 to RM 59 (RKM 0 to RKM 94). In 1996 and 1998 (no pelagic trawl sampling in 1997), 50 random samples were taken in eight regions from RKM 0 to RKM 117.III.A.3.b.iii. Sampling Procedure During 1979-82, research vessels were calibrated to the standard tow speed of-3 knots (-1.6 m/s or 5.1 ft/s). All pelagic trawl samples were of 10-min duration and taken in the direction of the tide during the daylight.The depth of the otter trawl fished at mid-water in 1979-80 was achieved by deploying a 5:1 ratio of warp length to desired fishing depth. The fixed-frame trawl depth was achieved by measuring the line angle and deploying a warp length calculated from trigonometric tables contained in the procedures manual.In mid-1980 GO MK II flowmeters were positioned in the net mouths of the surface and mid-water trawls as standard equipment to estimate this distance. All surface and mid-water samples taken thereafter were metered and the specimendensities calculated accordingly. To update data collected in 1979 and early 8 51 Appendix F. Attachment I 1980, density estimates were recalculated based on vessel-specific average values of distance traveled generated during the period when flowmeters were used (F-I Table 4). In cases where vessel-specific values were unavailable, the average value for all vessels, 1,062.3 m/10-min tow was substituted. Pelagic trawl samples, as part of the stratified sampling programs of 1981 and 1982, were taken at random depths selected from a random numbers table in the procedures manual.No pelagic trawl samples were collected from 1983 through 1987. Tow speed was changed to approximately 1.3 m/s (4.4 ft/s) in 1988 when sampling resumed.No other procedural changes were made for sampling conducted from 1988 through 1994. In 1996 and 1998, towline to mid-depth ratio was changed to 10:1, and eight regions from RM 0 to RM 73 (RKM 0 to RK.M 117) were sampled randomly.Sample processing (field and laboratory), data entry, and QA/QC procedures have been previously described in the Estuarine Bottom Trawl (Section III.A.3.a.iv.). III.A.3.b.iv. Sampling Frequency The collection frequency was based on the temporal patterns of the species as determined from the historical database. During 1979, as specified by the POS, pelagic trawl collections were scheduled for bay anchovy biweekly to monthly during April through August, and for blueback herring, alewife, and American shad weekly to biweekly during October through November. During 1981 and 1982, pelagic trawling was scheduled twice per month during May and October and three times a month during June through September. No pelagic trawl samples were collected from 1983 through 1987.Pelagic trawl sampling was conducted twice every month from March to December in 1988. January and February were added to the schedule for 1989 through 1994.Pelagic trawl samples were collected in 1995 from August through October.Sample frequency in 1996 and 1998 was once in April and twice per month from May to October. No pelagic trawl samples were collected in 1997.'ý52 Appendix F, Attachment IIIJ.A.3.c. W-factor Trawl Studies With the adoption of the ETM assessment procedure, an estimate was required of the abundance of organisms in the power plant intake water relative to their average abundance in an idealized cross-section of the river in front of the power plant. This parameter, known as W-factor, was derived from one pair each of surface, mid-water, and bottom collections taken near the intake and in a zone offshore. The bottom trawl was selected as the gear to sample the bottom portion of this study, and the pelagic trawl was selected as the gear to sample the surface and mid-water portion.III.A.3.c.i. Sampling Equipment The 4.9-m (16-ft) otter trawl with a 1.3-cm (0.5-in) mesh liner in the cod end was used for bottom trawling. The 1.2- x 1.8-m (4 x 6-ft) fixed-frame trawl with a 1.3-cm (0.5-in) mesh liner in the cod end and a GO digital flow meter (Model 2030) mounted in the mouth of the net to monitor the volume of water filtered was used for pelagic trawling.III.A.3.c.ii. Sampling Location A transect was designated stretching from Salem to the Appoquninmink River RM 50 (RKM 80). Along this transect there were four offshore bottom zones, and one bottom intake zone (F-I Figure 15). The transect was also divided into nine offshore pelagic zones (1-9) and two intake pelagic zones (F-I Figure 16;101 and 102).III.A.3.c.ii. Sampling Procedure Each bottom trawl pair consisted of one of the five randomly chosen offshore bottom zones and the intake bottom zone. Each pelagic trawl pair consisted of one of the nine randomly chosen offshore pelagic zones and the intake zone at the corresponding depth. Several paired tows with each gear type were made during each collection period.A reliable determination of collection depth for the fixed-frame trawl was needed for the W-factor program. Collection depth was determined using the standard wire angle and warp length relationship. Towline length was based on a predetermined line angle for the desired depth. This technique was evaluated to determine the accuracy of initial depth measurements and the amount of variation 6 Appendix F. Attachment in collection depth, which occurs during a sample as a function of gear stability in the water column. The position of the fixed-frame trawl was monitored by'affixing a chart recorder transducer to the upper frame member and attaching the transducer cord along the net warp line to a chart recorder on board a research vessel. This device would accurately chart the distance between the top member of the frame and the top of the water column indicating depth. It was determined that the depth of the fixed-frame trawl could be accurately measured and that it was relatively stable when deployed, showing no vertical movement.In 1981 and 1982 the trawls were towed in the direction of the tide at 1.6 m/s (5.1 ft/s). Sample duration was 10 min and samples were collected both during the day and at night. Towline-length to water-depth ratio was specified as a range of 6:1 to 8: 1. Random paired samples were collected. No W-factor trawls were collected in 1983. The program was resumed in 1984,and the technique remained the same, except that tow speed was lowered to 1.3 m/s (4.4 ft/s). No other procedural changes were made as W-factor trawlscontinued through 1987.The sampling procedures remained the same for the years 1996 and 1998, except that the number of samples taken per event was specified at eight pelagic trawls (four during the day and four at night) and four bottom trawls (two during the day and two at night).TII.A.3.c.iv. Sampling Frequency The W-factor trawl program began in 1981 and the effort was duplicated in 1982.Sampling was conducted weekly from May to October during the day. No W-factor trawls were collected in 1983.The program was resumed in 1984. Samples were collected twice per month in the spring and fall, and weekly in the summer from 1984 to 1987.No W-factor trawls were collected from 1988 through 1995. The W-factor trawl sampling was reinstated for the years 1996 and 1998. Samples were collected twice per month in May and October, and three times a month from June through September. The laboratory, data entry and QA/QC procedures were the same for all years of the W-factor trawl samples as those described for the Estuarine Finfish and Blue Crab Bottom Trawl Program in Section III.A.3.a.iii. III.A.3.d. Beach Seine Studies 54 Appendix F. Attachment I Beach seines are used to sample finfish and blue crab in shallow waters of the shore zone. A combination of seines and trawls can yield a relatively accurate estimate of seasonal and spatial distribution, and annual variation by life stage ofthe fish community. The importance of fishes as the principal upper level consumers (at or near the pinnacle of the energy-transfer structure) in the Delaware River aquatic ecosystem has been discussed at the beginning of Section TIl.A.3.III.A.3.d.i. Sampling Equipment Seine sampling in 1995 through 1998 employed a 30-m (100-ft) bag seine with0.95-cm (0.375-in) mesh.III.A.3.d.ii. Sampling Location The 1995-98 sampling scheme consisted of 40 fixed stations between Cape Henlopen RM 0 (RKM 0) and the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal RM 59 (RKM 94). This is an extension of the NJDEP Beach Seine Monitoring Program. NJDEP personnel conduct seine sampling from the C&D Canal upstream to Trenton.III.A.3.d.iii. Sampling Procedure The 30-mi bag seine was set from the shore by boat and played out in an arc back to the shore in the direction of the tide. One haul was made at each station.With each collection, all finfish and blue crab were identified in the field to the lowest practical taxonomic level (usually species) and enumerated. For each haul, the fork length (FL) tothe nearest millimeter was measured and recorded for up to 100 specimens of each target species. If more than 100 of a target species were captured, a random subsample of 100 was selected for measurement. Data entry and QA/QC procedures were the same as those described previously in Section II.A.3.a.iii. S 55 Appendix~ F. Attachment I III.A.3.d.iv. Sampling Frequency Samples were collected twice per month from August through October or November in each year.XI.A.3.e. Marsh Creek Push Net Studies The primary objective of the Push Net Sampling Program was to provide data and information on small pelagic fish, which are present in tidal creeks along the lower Delaware Estuary. Certain species and length classes of pelagic fishes were not adequately sampled by the existing monitoring programs employing variousother gear types. As a result, little data exists on a potentially significant portion of the total productivity associated with the tidal creeks. The collected data were designed to provide a relative measure of restoration success when restoration sample results are compared to the reference site, and as a component of the bioenergetics model. To accomplish these objectives, the study identified the following population characteristics: species composition, relative abundance, and residence time and movement patterns within the tidal creeks, to the extent possible utilizing the push net sampling methodology.III.A.3.e.i. Sampling EquipmentPush net collections were taken with a 0.8 x 1.5-m (2.5 x 5.0-ft) fixed-frame pelagic trawl modeled after those used by the Delaware Division of Wildlife in their Impoundment Estuarine Interactions Survey (Delaware Division of Wildlife, 1995) and additionally described in Hartman and Herke (1987). The net is 2.4 m (8 ft) long, with a mouth opening area of 1.2 mi 2 , and constructed of 3.2-mm (1/8-in) bar mesh knotless netting. Each net was fitted with a GO (Model 2030 MK II) digital flowmeter suspended slightly off center within the net mouth to measure the volume of water filtered.III.A.3.e.ii. Sampling Location The small pelagic fish assemblage was sampled with a push net trawl in two constructed tidal creeks (West Creek #3 and #4) at the Dennis Township Salt Hay Farm Restoration Site, Cape May County, NJ (F-1 Figure 13) and in two naturalmarsh creeks (Riggins Ditch #4 and #7) at the lower Moores Beach West, NJ, reference marsh site (F-I Figure 14). At each site, three locations were sampled;upper tidal creek, lower tidal creek, and source. The latter two locations represent 56 Appendix F. Attachment I areas before and after the intersection of the tidal creek with the next higher magnitude body of water.III.A.3.e.iii. Sampling Procedure Conditions permitting, the progression of sampling within each creek was against the prevailing tide to preclude sampling the same water mass and attendant fish distributions. Tow speed was -1.5 m/s (-5.0 ft/s) or full throttle with a 9.9-hp outboard engine, whichever was practically obtainable or limiting. The tow speed was measured by placing a flowmeter or speedometer probe over the side of the vessel below the water surface and beyond the wake turbulence. All collections were of 2-min duration and were timed with a mechanical timer or stopwatch. When deployed, the push trawl sampled the upper 75 cm (30 in) of the water column. While trawling, waters <1 m (3.3 ft) in depth were avoided. If the trawl became hung up on the bottom or entangled with an obstruction, the tow was aborted and the collection was repeated.Those fish that were considered endangered or rare, or thrashing about, or sensitive to prolonged exposure were processed first. Any unidentifiable specimens were preserved on ice or in 10% formalin. If a specimen was too large for preservation or retention, a photograph was taken of it prior to release. On days when catches were large, entire samples were preserved and returned to the laboratory for processing. Processing included identification and enumeration of all finfish and blue crabs.For each collection, randomly chosen subsamples of 30 fish per species were selected for length measurement to the nearest millimeter. If fewer than 30 specimens of a species were collected, all of them were measured. Forked-tailed fish (emarginate caudal fins) such as bay anchovy, white perch, striped bass, spot, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and yearling and older weakfish were measured by fork length (FL). Pointed-tail fish such as Atlantic croaker and juvenile weakfish were measured by total length (TL). Carapace width was measured for blue crab. All other fish were returned to the water alive and as quickly'as possible.A minimum of 5 min was allowed to elapse from the end of the tow to the start of the next replicate. A quality assurance program was implemented for all field, laboratory, and data handling activities of the push net study to ensure that work protocols met high standards of accuracy 57 .\ppendix F. Attachment i The sampling crew leader (with at least two years of fisheries collection experience) was responsible for ensuring that all field-related functions wereperformed according to approved operating procedures as outlined in the procedures manual, and was accountable for verifying field data sheets. All data collected as part of this study were entered into the EEP-Engineering andScientific Database (ESD) on a monthly basis. The ESD resides on a server at PSE&G and specialized software was used to connect and enter data.III.A.3.e.iv. Sampling Frequency Samples were collected at the restoration and reference sites on respective consecutive days during three monthly collection events during the summer of 1998, i.e., 24-26 June, 27-29 July, and 24-26 August. Each 24-hr sampling event consisted of day and night samples on both the flood and ebb tides. Threereplicate tows were taken at each of three locations in each of two creeks on each of two tidal stages during the day and at night. A total of 72 push net trawls were collected at each of two sites during each sampling event for a total of 432 trawls over the study duration. Due to the limited window of time to complete sampling on a given day, a sampling schedule of three tows per hour was maintained. III.A.3.f UpriverSpot Sampling Studies 0 As a result of previous studies, it was apparent that not all of the spot population was available to the sampling program. In 1998, the study area wasi extended upriver as far as RM 100 (RKM 162) in order to encompass a greater portion of the population within the study. Because spot are predominantly a demersal species, the expanded study region was sampled only with the bottom trawl.III.A.3.f.i. Sampling Equipment The 4.9-m (16-ft) semi-balloon otter trawl, as previously described in SectionIII.A.3.a.i, was used in the Upriver Spot Sampling Studies.III.A.3.f.ii. Sampling Location The upriver sampling reach was divided into three zones, and a random allocation of trawl samples was made from within each zone for each survey., The Delaware River from RM 73 and RM 100 (RKM 117 and RKM 162) was partitioned into 58 Appendix F. Attachment I Jh -Zone 9 bounded by RM 73 to RM 82.5 (RK.M 117 and RKM 132), Zone 10 RM 82.5 to RM 92 (RKM 132 to RKM 147), and Zone II RNM 92to RM 100 (RKM 147 to RKIM 162). Each of the three zones was partitioned into kilometer segments and marked on the NOAA navigational chart. Kilometer and stratum boundaries were determined in the field from the NOAA chart using aids to navigation and shoreline features.III.A.3.f.iii. Sampling Procedure Field, laboratory (if necessary), data entry, and QA/QC procedures, as previously described in Section II.A.3.a.iii, were used in the upriver sampling program.III.A.3.f.iv. Sampling Frequency Within each of the three zones, ten tows were randomly selected from the trawl-sampling habitat. Two surveys per month were conducted during the months of July through October 1998, for a total of eight trawl surveys.II.A.3.g. White Perch Mark-Recapture Population estimates for YOY white perch in the Delaware River were calculated using PSE&G (1984, 1997, 1998) data from a series of mark-recapture studies conducted 1980-1983, and 1996-1998. The population estimates were calculated using a Petersen model (Ricker 1975) for the 1980-1983 programs, and for the 1996-1998 programs. In addition, a Fisher-Ford open population model (Begon 1979) was used to estimate the age-0 white perch population size, and white perch age-I survival rates (Youngs and Robson 1975) were calculated for the 1996 year class using age-I recapture data during the 1997-1998 program.III.A.3.g.i. Sampling Equipment Whiteperch were captured by 4.9-m bottom trawl during 1980-1983 and 1996-1998 during both the marking and recapture phases. During the recapture phases of each program, impingement sampling was conducted at industrial intake screens along the Delaware River. In 1997, a trap net (4 x 4-ft mouth with two 5 x 10-ft wings, /4 in. sq. knotless mesh in the body and 1/8 in. sq. knotless mesh in the cod end) was set on one sampling occasion during the marking phase.S 59 Appendix F. Attachment I III.A.3.g.ii. Sampling Location The study area encompassed the region from just south of Artificial Island RM 50 (RKM 74) to the Burlington-Bristol area RM 119 (RKM 190) and was divided into eight zones for the 1980-1983 programs; the study area was expanded for the 1996-1998 programs to include a ninth zone south of Artificial Island to Ship John Shoal RM 35 (RKM 56) in response to perceived abundance. During themarking phases, sampling areas were restricted to those less than 30 ft deep to minimize stress related to pressure change and subsequent collection-induced mortality. The sampling programs were designed to maximize the number of white perch captured; thus fishing effort was nonrandom both among and within zones. However, fish were randomly released within the zone they were captured from. During the recapture phases, the same gear was used though no time limit or depth restriction was used. In addition, white perch were collected fromindustrial water intake screens along the Delaware River during the irecapture phases of each program and examined for marks. F-I Figure 17 illustrates the study area in the Delaware River and Bay.lII.A.3.g.iii. Sampling Procedure During the markingphases, the standard unit of effort was a 5-min tow at a trawl speed just fast enough to maintain vessel steerage. Samples were taken randomlywithin zones at depths _ 30 ft (9 in). Any fish injured during collection were not marked, and those fish marked were held for observation for a minimum of 10 min prior to release-any marked fish that did not recover by the end of the day were sacrificed. In 1980-1983, age-O white perch were marked with zone-specific fin-clips. Length-frequency distributions in previous years determined the size break between age-0 and age-1 white perch to be 85 mm FL, so only those fish less than 85 mm FL were marked. Aging by scale reading in 1981 indicated that the size break was closer to 100 mm FL, so only those fish < 100 mm FL were marked in 1981 and 1982.In 1996-1997, age-0 white perch < 100 mm FL were marked with coded wire tags. Because the second marking phase of the 1997-1998 program extended through March 1998, age-0 white perch < 104 mm FL were tagged duringFebruary and age-0 white perch < 108 mm FL were tagged during March. During the sorting process in the 1996-1998 programs, all age-0 and age-i Iwhite perch were examined for tags with a handheld wand detector. All previously tagged fish were sacrificed and returned to the laboratory for tag removal and reading.60 Appendix F. Attachment I During the recapture phases, all specimens in the length ranges listed below were enumerated and examined for marks. Scale samples were obtained from white perch that were in the size ranges overlapping age-0 and age-I fish. The scaleswere later read in the laboratory and age-I fish were subtracted from the total number of age-O examined. During the 1997-1998 program, the recapture phase overlapped the marking phase from January through March 1998& Thus to maximize the total number examined and to ensure that only age-0 white perch were marked, the size range of age-0 white perch examined for marks was slightly larger than those marked and released. The length ranges (mm FL) during each program were as follows: Age-0 Scale Age-1 Month Examined Samples Examined 2 Jan <109 100-109 109-160 Feb <113 104-113 113-160 Mar 117 108-117 117-160 Apr 121 112-121 May' <121 112-121 1. 1996-1997 program only.
- 2. 1997-1998 program only.Laboratory studies of mark mortality and mark retention of white perch were conducted during each program to provide an approximation of the number of marked-released fish actually available to recapture.
Normal capture, marking, and holding procedures were employed in obtaining specimens. It was assumed that both mark-retention and mortality would be essentially the same in the laboratory as in the wild and that marking-related mortality could be determined by comparison with controls. During the 1980-1981 study, 100 unmarked age-0white perch were collected by trawl as controls and two groups of fin-clipped test fish were collected to accommodate the potentially different mortality related to temperature, salinity and mark type. The first group (n = 99) represented fish marked in the freshwater region, and the second group (n = 106) the mesohaline region (8 ppt salinity). Since field efforts concurrent with the collection of thesecond group indicated that the majority of the natural population was then in the mesohaline region of the estuary, the first test group was transferred to 8 ppt salinity. Testing continued at this salinity until the end of the program.Test specimens marked and initially held in freshwater experienced significantly greater mortality than those from estuarine waters (33% vs 14%) in the 1980-1981 study. Thus test and control specimens obtained in the 1981-1982 study were collected in groups of 20 on a weekly basis from sites based on the zone in which the fish-marking crews were taking the most fish. In addition, only the mark applicable to the zone in which the fish were caught was used. All controls in the 3 61 Appendix F. Attachment I 1981-1982 study were collected by beach seine. Temperature and salinity in the V test facilities was adjusted to reflect the ambient conditions experienced by the majority of the age-0 white perch in the estuary.In the 1982-1983 study, controls were collected from freshwater areas by trawl (n = 122) on three separate occasions. Test specimens were collected following the same procedure of the 1981-1982 study. Temperature and salinity in the test facilities were adjusted to reflect the ambient conditions experienced by the majority of the age-0 white perch in the estuary.During the marking phases of the 1996-1998 programs, approximately 25 tagged and 25 untagged specimens were retained from the fish-marking crews.Laboratory specimens were collected every week during 1996 for a total of eightweeks, and about every other week for a total of seven weeks in 1997-1998. Temperature and salinity in the test facilities were adjusted to reflect the ambient conditions experienced by the majority of the age-0 white perch in the estuary.1 Control and marked fish were held in separate tanks of the same flow-through water system during each program. Salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia were recorded weekly. The test and control fish were fed ad libitum with live estuarine invertebrates (primarily Neomysis americana). Observations including the number of fish and their condition (e.g., live, dead, loss of equilibrium) were made at hourly intervals during the first 6 hours of testing and daily thereafter. Ateither the conclusion of the holding period or upon death, all marked specimens were checked for mark retention. In the 1980-1983 programs, specimens were examined for fin-regeneration with a dissection microscope; in the 1996-1998 programs, specimens were checked for tag retention with the handheld wand detector.An age-0 striped bass population estimate was also made using data from PSE&G's (1998) 1997-1998 white perch mark-recapture program. The bycatch of age-O striped bass collected with the age-0 white perch was enumerated throughout the program to provide an estimate of the proportion of age-0 striped bass to age-0 white perch in the Delaware River from RM 35 to RM 119 (RKM 56 to RKM 190). This proportion was applied to the Fisher-Ford (Begon 1975) white perch population estimate to assess the size of the striped bass population. III.A.3.g.iv. Sampling Frequency The marking phase occurred during the fall when age-0 white perch were migrating from the freshwater riverine portion of the Delaware toward deeper, more saline waters. During the 1997-1998 program, the marking phase was expanded through the winter to accommodate the Fisher-Ford open population model.62 Appendix F. Attachment I WThe recapture phase of each program was conducted in the early spring, after the marking phase (except for the 1997-1998 program, where the first recapture phase overlapped the second marking phase during the winter, and a second recapture phase occurred during the spring). Throughout the programs, sampling occurred five days per week (weather permitting) to maximize catch. The sampling schedule for each study was as follows: Mark/Recapture Program Mark Phase Phase Recapture Phase 1980-1981 17 Nov -18 Dec 05 Jan -18 May 1981-1982 29 Oct -30 Dec 03 Jan -28 Apr 1982-1983 03 Nov -30 Dec (Winter/Spring) 1996-1997 04 Nov -31 Dec 06 Jan -22 May 1997-1998 11 Nov-02 Jan 05 Jan- 03 Mar 04 Mar-29 Apr III.A.4. Special Studies III.A.4.a. Gear Comparison Since 1971, PSE&G has had consultants conduct the Ichthyoplankton and macroinvertebrate sampling programs in the Delaware River Estuary. For these sampling programs a 0.5-m plankton net was employed. Although a 1.0-m net is generally regarded as a more efficient sampling device, the 0.5-m net was used for studies during 1978-1 982 to ensure comparability with historical data. Sinceintensive sampling was resumed in 1996 as part of the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), a side-by-side comparison study of the two nets was conducted by LMS and ECSI in 1995 to assess the potential consequences of switching sampling gears (LMS and ECSI 1996a).III.A.4.a.i. Sampling Equipment Two nets-one 0.5-m and one 1.0-m net, each with 0.5-mm mesh-were simultaneously deployed from a single boat. The volume of water filtered was measured with a General Oceanic Model 2030 MKII digital flowmeter suspended slightly off-center in the mouth of the net.0*63 Appendix F. Attachment I III.A.4.a.ii. Sampling Location Sampling was conducted in the Delaware River estuary from approximately Egg Island Point to Arnold Point RM 22.5 to RM 37.5 (RKM 36-60). The time and location of sampling was selected based on historical abundance and distribution data to maximize the number of weakfish larvae, bay anchovy larvae, andopossum shrimp collected. III.A.4.a.iii. Sampling Procedure The two nets (one 0.5-m and one 1.0-m net) were simultaneously deployed from a single boat. Each net was lowered in a stepwise manner from the surface to the bottom in 3-m (10-ft) intervals. Tows were made at 1.3-1.9 knots in the direction of tidal flow for a duration of four to six minutes, not including retrieval time (approximately one minute). The volume of water filtered, water temperature, salinity, Secchi disk transparency, and turbidity by turbidimeter were recorded at each sample location. Ichthyoplankton and macroinvertebrate samples were preserved in the field with a 5% formalin and rose bengal solution.In the laboratory, samples were poured through a 500A sieve and rinsed with water to remove the formalin. Sample contents were then washed back into the original container and subsequentlysorted in a tray. Bay anchovy larvae, weakfish larvae, and opossum shrimp adults were removed from the sample and preserved individually in 5% formalin. These specimens were later examined under a binocular microscope. Total length (mm) for bay anchovy and weakfish was measured for up to 200 individuals of each species per sample.A continuous sampling plan was used to ensure that the defective rate (AOQL) in sorting was _10% and to ensure that no more than 10% of the organisms were misidentified. A defect in sorting was defined as the occurrence of a sorter missing >10% of the total organisms in the sample; a sample was considered defective if an error of >10% was made in identifying or counting any species.Identification errors were considered cumulative by life stage. When<20 organisms were involved in a percent error calculation, a maximum of two errors was allowed instead of the usual 10%.III.A.4.a.iv. Sampling Frequency From I June through 1 August 1995, 72 samples were taken: 36 with the 0.5-in net and 36 with the 1.0-m net. Each sampling event consisted of four, paired tows yielding eight samples per event.64 Appendix F.'Attachment I fII.A.4.b. Pelagic Trawl Comparison Nearly all fishery assessment methods require that the sampling procedure used operates with equal efficiency throughout the study. During the course of studies on the effects of Salem on the Fisheries resources of Delaware Bay, it was hypothesized that differences in water clarity throughout the estuary could result in differences in capture efficiency of several fish species in different regions of the estuary. During August 1990, a limited comparative trawl sampling program was conducted. The primary objective was to determine whether ornot water clarity had an effect on net avoidance. A more detailed comparative study was conducted by LMS and ECSI for PSE&G in 1995 and the results were combined with those from 1990 to develop a method for standardizing catch efficiencies for water clarity. The effect of water depth on catch efficiency was also investigated(LMS and ECSI 1996b).III.A.4.b.i. Sampling Equipment A fixed-frame pelagic trawl, 4 ft high, 6 ft wide, and 15 ft long with a 5/16-in.stretch mesh body and Y4-in. cod end inner liner was used simultaneously with a Cobb trawl. The Cobb trawl spread 10 ft vertically and horizontally at the mouth opening while under tow; with a body and funnel made of /2-in. stretch mesh, thecod end of 1-1/8-in. stretch mesh, and the cod end inner liner of IA-in. stretch mesh. A Model Head HP 302 current meter was used to determine the tow speed and a General Oceanics Model 2020R flowmeter was used to determine the volume of water filtered by the nets. A Secchi disk was used to measure depth, turbidity was measured by a turbidimeter, and light penetration was measured with a photometer.III.A.4.b.ii. Sampling Location During the 1990 study, two sampling locations were selected within the Delaware estuary. The first location was situated in the lower bay in the vicinity of Broadkill Beach. This location was selected because of its sufficient depth for net deployment (>20 ft), relatively clear water conditions, and proximity to port. The second location was upriver near Artificial Island, which was selected based on sufficient depth, high turbidity, and proximity to port.In order to expand the range of clarity conditions test, locations were selected for the 1995 study based on five strata defined by Secchi disk readings: 8 65 Appendix F. Attachment I Station Target Secchi Range Location 1 10-20" Delaware City, west side of Pea Patch Island 2 20-30" Artificial Island, -I nautical mi. west of Salem I and II 3 30-40" 5 nautical mi. SE of Bower's Beach 4 40-50" Broadkill Slough -4 nautical mi. off Slaughter Beach 5 >50" Outside outer breakwater off Cape Henlopen The depth effects study during 1995 was conducted in the same general location of the lower bay. The sampling area had an overall depth of greater than 40 ft and a water clarity of generally >40 in.III.A.4.b.iii. Sampling Procedure At each study location during both the 1990 and 1995 studies, simultaneous trawls were conducted by towing the fixed-frame and Cobb trawls side by side.The Cobb trawl was fished just below the water surface while the fixed-frame trawl was fished at a randomly chosen depth within the top 10 ft of the water column. Tows were I 0-min in duration, set with the tide and at a speed of about 4.4 fps as measured by the current meter. A flowmeter was affixed within the forward position of the body of each net to measure the volume of water filtered.With each collection, fish were identified, counted, and length-frequency data were recorded on a randomly selected subsample of up to 200-500 specimens. Additionally, a water sample was retained (on ice) with each paired. sample for subsequent turbidity measurements by turbidimeter. Secchi disk depth readingswere also recorded during the 1995 study.For the depth effects study, paired tows were fished using the same general methods described above, but at the following depths: <15 ft, 15-30 ft, and>30 ft. Light penetration was also measured with a photometer at 1-ft intervals from the surface to the bottom.III.A.4.b.iv. Sampling Freguency During 1990, sampling was conducted over the period 28-31 August, duringwhich time 36 paired samples were collected in the lower bay and 67 paired 66 Appendix F. Attachment I samples were collected from the river region. During 1995, water clarity sampling was conducted over the period 17 July through 3 August during which time 32 paired samples were collected from Station I and 30 paired samples each from Stations 2 through 5. Depth-effect sampling was conducted in 1995 over the period 31 August through 5 September, during which time a total of 27 paired samples were collected, yielding 9 replicates per sampling depth.III.B. NJDEP Studies NJDEP has conducted a beach seine survey in the Delaware River and Bay annually since 1980. The recruitment survey was established to provide an index of the relative abundance of young-of-year striped bass in the Delaware River.Sampling is conducted in three river regions: Region I, tidal brackish water below the Delaware Memorial Bridge; Region II, brackish to tidal freshwater extendingfrom the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Schuylkill River; and Region ill, tidal freshwater from Philadelphia to the fall line at Trenton. Regions I and II represent the historical striped bass spawning grounds.Prior to 1987, the number of beaches sampled varied from 12 to 20, withcollections beginning as early as July and ending as late as December. Between 1987 and 1990, the survey consisted of seining 16 fixed stations twice a month from mid-July through mid-November, with two seine hauls made at each station during each event. In 1990 the survey was modified to include fixed and random sampling stations, a reduced sampling season from August through October, elimination of the replicate seine hauls, and'a reallocation of sampling effort (50%) to Region II.The program currently collects biweekly seine samples from August through October (204 samples annually) from Artificial Island upstream to Trenton. Eachsampling round consists of a single seine haul using a 100-ft long by 6-ft deep beach seine with 1/44-in mesh. The net is deployed by holding one end on shore and towing the other end away from shore, to sweep a semicircular path back to shore.The area swept is approximately 450 M 2.All fish collected are identified to species, quantified, and minimum and maximum sizes recorded. The striped bass young-of-year recruitment index is reported as the number of young-of-year striped bass per haul seine. 67 Appendix F. Attachment I 0 III.C. DNREC StudiesIII.C.1. Large Trawl (1979-1984) This survey was originally conducted by the University of Delaware, beginning in August 1966 and continuing through November 1971. During this time, thesurvey was conducted at monthly intervals using 30-ft (9. 1-m) otter trawl (3-instretch mesh wings and a 2-in stretch mesh cod end) towed for 30-min periods. Sampling was conducted on the Delaware (western) side of the Bay from Cape Henlopen (RM 0) to Liston Point (RM 49). Due to the mesh size, young-of-year fish were not effectively sampled by this survey during most of the year. As a result, the catch consisted primarily of individuals one year old and older.From 1979 through 1984, DNREC has repeated this monthly survey using the same gear (9. 1-n otter trawl) towed for 20-min periods. A 1-in stretch mesh codliner was added in September of each year to sample young-of-year more effectively. This survey was discontinued in 1985 due to the lack of an adequate research vessel.Since 1990, a similar survey has been conducted following previous large trawl survey methodologies. The purpose of this survey is to monitor trenrds in abundance and distribution, to determine population age/size composition and to develop pre-recruitment indices for a selected group of finfish species.Using a thirty-foot (9. 1-m) otter trawl, twenty-minute tows are made at nine fixed stations monthly, March to December (Figure X-X). The otter trawl consists of 3-inch (7.6 cm) stretch mesh in the wings and body, and 2-inch (5.1"t cm) stretch mesh in the cod end. The trawl has a 30-foot 6-inch (9.3-m) x 1/22-inch (1.2 cm)headrope and a 39-foot 6 inch (12.0 m) x 1/22-inch (1.2 cm) footrope with 40-foot leglines. The lack of towable bottom requires a fixed sampling scheme. There is some randomization in the selection of tow starting sites within each quadrant due to weather, currents and inaccuracy inherent with electronic positioning equipment. Mean water dept is determined from fathometer readings taken at five minute intervals including the beginning and ending of each tow. Surface and bottomwater samples are collected at the end of each tow and analyzed fortemperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (ppm) and salinity (ppt).Following each tow, the trawl sample is sorted by species and aggregate weights taken for each species, except elasmobranchs and certain invertebrates that are sexed and counted. Species representing less than 50 individuals are measured for fork length to the nearest half centimeter. Species with more than fifty individuals are randomly subsampled for length with the remainder being 68 Appendix F. Attachment I enumerated. Horshoe crabs and blue crabs are sexed and measured for prosomal width or carapace width, respectively. Oyster toadfish, eels, and hogchokers are measured due to their difficulty in handling. Scales from selected species are also collected from a sample of the catch.lII.C.2. Juvenile Trawl Survey (1980-1996) The DNREC juvenile trawl survey has been conducted annually since 1980.Initiated in 1977 to assess the annual production ofjuvenile blue crab in Delaware Bay, the DNREC juvenile trawl survey was expanded in 1980 to include catch frequency data ofjuvenile fishes to determine relative abundance and distribution. From 1980 through 1986, sampling occurred in Delaware waters of Delaware Bay from Primehook Beach (RM 6) to the C&D Canal (RM 59). The survey was expanded in 1986 to include monthly sampling (April-October) in the Indian River and Rehoboth Bays. In September 1989, the survey was extended upriver to the Delaware-Pennsylvania state line near Wilmington, Delaware (RM 78).The juvenile trawl survey is conducted monthly from April through October using a 4.9-m otter trawl towed for a 10-min period. Tows are usually made against the prevailing tide. The trawl consists of a 5.2-m (17-foot) headrope and a 6.4-m (21-foot) footrope with a 3.8-cm (1.5-inch) stretch mesh number 9 thread body. The cod end includes a 1.3-cm (0.5-inch) knotless stretch mesh liner' Six evenly spaced 3.8-cm (1.5-inch) x 6.4-cm (2.5-inch) sponge floats are located on the bosom of the headrope and 0.3-cm (0.125-inch) galvanized chain is hung loopstyle on the footrope. The trawl doors measure 30.5-cm (12-inches) x 61-cm(24-inches) and are rigged with 0.5-cm (0.188-inch) galvanized chan bridles with 1.0-cm (0.375-inch) swivels. A line: depth ratio of 10:1 was continually adjusted according to water depth. Temperature (°C) and salinity (ppt) are recorded at the beginning of each tow. Tidal stage, weather conditions, water depth and engine speed are recorded for each station. All finfish are sorted by species and enumerated. A representative subsample of 30 specimens is measured for fork length to the nearest half centimeter. Elasmobranchs, eels, hogchokers, bayanchovy and cusk-eels are not enumerated. 9 69 Appendix F. Attachment III.D. Other Agency Studies 'II.D.I. Striped Bass A striped bass mark-recapture study was conducted by Versar, Inc., in the Delaware River during the fall of 1990 (Burton and Weisberg 1994). The age-0striped bass population size was estimated using the adjusted Petersen single census model (Ricker 1975), restricting the estimate to the area between the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal RM 53 (RKM 84) and the Schuylkill River RM 94 (RKM 151).I.D. 1.a. Sampling Equipment Sampling gear used in the recapture phase of the Versar, Inc., study consisted of.two beach seines 1.3 m deep with 9.5-mm mesh, one 30-m and the other 60-m long, and a 9-m otter trawl with a 6.4-mm mesh liner.I.D. J.b. Sampling Location Marked age-0 striped bass were collected at 10 different locations within the major nursery area of the Delaware River from RM 66 (RKM 105) at New Castle, Delaware, to RM 88 (RKM 141) at Tinicum Island. In situ enclosures to estimatehandling mortality and tag loss were moored in the river near Raccoon Creek RM 81 (RKM 130). Recapture efforts were conducted from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal RM 52.5 (RKM 84) to near Trenton, New Jersey RM 131 (RKM 210). Sampling locations were randomly selected within 11-km-long subregions according to gear accessibility. Due to the unsuitability of sites for sampling in the industrialized region of the river RM 94 to RM 105 (RKM 151-169), no samples were collected there. III.D. 1.c. Sampling Procedure Hatchery-reared age-0 striped bass were obtained from brood stock originating from the Delaware River. The eggs had been fertilized at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources' Manning Hatchery and transferred to rearing ponds at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery in Lamar, PA. The stripedbass were individually marked with coded wire tags and released within 48 hours after tagging in 15 separate batches at 10 different locations within the major nursery area. For each batch, initial mortality and tag retention were determinedusing subsamples of fish dipnetted from the holding tanks of the transport vehicle.Survival and tag retention during the recapture period were estimated by holding 70 Appendix F. Attachrnent I 15 fish from each batch for up to 30 days in 75-liter chambers moored in the river.Fish in the chambers were fed hatchery trout chow daily. At the end of the test period, live fish were enumerated and the presence of tags was verified.Recapture efforts began 4 days after the stocking of tagged fish was completed and continued for about 3 weeks. Additional recapture data were provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection striped bass beach seine monitoring program.IhI.D.l.d. Sampling Frequency The recapture effort was conducted over 13 days from 25 September to i6 October 1990. A total of 121, 32, and 112 collections were made with the 30-mseine, 60-m seine, and trawl, respectively. 1111..2. American Shad The states of New Jersey and Delaware have monitored American shad abundance in the Delaware River based on data from mark-recapture programs conducted since 1975. The Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative Fishery Project conducted mark-recapture programs during 1975-1978; the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife conducted mark-recapture programs during 1979-1983, 1986, 1989, and 1992 as part of an ongoing program to monitor trends in the annual spawning runs of American shad in the Delaware River. During 1995 and 1996, population estimates were made based on data from hydroacoustic studies (BWEC 1995, 1996) designed to monitor the American shad upstream spawning migration. Using echo integration, upstream passage in the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, was monitored from Interstate 202 toll bridge piers from 1 April to 9 May 1995 and from 1 April to 31 May 1996. These studies provided estimates of total shadpassage during their upstream migration. III.D.2.a. Sampling Equipment During 1986, adult shad were collected by a contracted commercial fisherman (Fred Lewis Fishery) using a haul seine whose length varied depending on river flow (Lupine and Kuc 1987). The haul seine was non-selective for adult shad and collected all age classes. During 1995 and 1996, hydroacoustic monitoring wasconducted with the following equipment: 3.0' half-power beam width 200 kHz transducers mounted on the sides of bridge piers, 200 kHz signal processors with appropriate interface for IBM-compatible computers (transmitters/receivers), IBM-compatible computers each with hard disk and magnetic tape data storage 3 71 Appendix F. Attachment I media (recorders/data reproducers), transducer switching devices, and site-specific FINDEX proprietary software.I.D.2.b. Sampling Location All shad were collected and released in the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey RM 149 (RKM 239). The majority of tag returns came from between Easton and the Delaware Water Gap where the highest angler effort occurred.IlL.D.2.c. Sampling Procedure The adult shad collected by haul seine were tagged with a Floy fluorescent orange anchor tag and released. Tag returns and data collected from the logbook creel survey provided by cooperating shad anglers were used in both Petersen andSchaefer models (Ricker 1975) to estimate the population size.III.D.2.d. Sampling Frequency A total of 99 seine hauls were conducted from 2 April to 28 April 1986. Logbook data indicated that shad anglers in the tri-state area contributed 14,989 hours of fishing in 4,200 daily trips, with an average daily fishing trip of 3.6 hours. Theanglers caught shad from 1 April to 5 July with the majority of the catch from 20 April to 17 May.IV. FISHERIES-DEPENDENT DATA IV.A. NMFS Commercial Harvest Data (1950-1997) Atlantic coast commercial fisheries data were obtained through the Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS and its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Fish Commission and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, began collecting fisheries landings data in 1880.Landings data were collected during surveys of a limited number of states and years between 1880 and 1951. Comprehensive surveys of all coastal states have been conducted since 1951.Commercial landings data are collected jointly by state and federal :agencies usingstate-mandated fishery trip-tickets, landing weighout reports provided by. seafood dealers, federal logbooks of fishery catch and effort, shipboard and portside 72 Appendix F. Attachment I interview, and biological sampling of catches. Survey methodology differs by state, but NMFS supplemental surveys ensure that data from different states and years are comparable. Landings statistics for each state represent a census of the volume of finfish landed and sold at the dock rather than an expanded estimate of landings based on sampling data. Most states obtain landings data from seafood dealers who submit monthly reports of the weight and value of landings by vessel. Increasingly, however, states have switched to mandatory trip-tickets to gather landings data.Online commercial landings data bases and data summary programs were used to summarize annual commercial landings (in pounds) by states and species for theyears 1950-1997. Landings statistics included catches made in state waters (usually 0-3 nautical miles from shore), in the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone: federal waters 3-200 miles from shore), and on the high seas (> 200 miles from shore). Because Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage, annual landings summaries include only nonconfidential landing statistics. Because most summarized landings are nonconfidential, NMFS landings reported by individual species may not include confidential data.IV.B. NMFS Recreational Harvest Data (1981-1998) Atlantic coast recreational fisheries data were obtained through the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) database. Conducted annually since 1979, the MRFSS gathers information on angler effort (e.g., number of trips) using a telephone survey, and information on recreational catch (e.g., number, length) using an angler intercept survey (i.e., an in-person interview) at fishing access sites. Because all fish caught are not available for the interviewer's inspection (some having been released alive or used as bait), catch data (i.e., fish brought ashore in whole form and those not brought ashore in whole form) are identified as: Catch Type A: An estimate of part of the total catch based on fish brought ashore in whole form, available for interviewer identification and enumeration, from which samples of lengths and weights are obtained.Catch Type BI: An estimate of part of the total catch based on fish reported by fishermen that are not available in whole form for identification and enumeration by interviewers. Included are those fish used as bait, filleted,given away, discarded dead, etc., excluding fish released alive.Catch Type B2: An estimate of part of the total catch based on fish reported by fishermen as released alive. 5 73 Appendix F. Attachment I Recreational harvest comprises catch type A and catch type B 1. Because fish weight is only directly available for catch type A fish, the mean weight of the catch type B I is assumed equal to the mean weight of the catch type A for purposes of estimating the weight of harvested fish (catch type A and catch type BI).Once catch-per-trip estimates have been produced for each subregion, state, species, and catch type, they are multiplied by the appropriate effort estimate to produce estimates of total catch. Total weight harvested is estimated by multiplying the average weight per measured fish in the appropriate area. Catch-estimates are added across strata to obtain estimates of catch of each species at the subregional and state levels.Online databases and data summary programs provided through the, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division of NMFS were used to summarize annual recreational catch by states and species for the years 1981-1998. I0 74 Appendix F. Attachment I V. REFERENCES Alexander, D. 1998. Personal Communication. PSE&G, Newark, N.J.Allen, D.M. 1978. Population dynamics, spatial and temporal distributions of mysid crustaceans in a temperate marsh estuary. Ph.D. Thesis, Lehigh.University, Bethlehem, PA. 157p.Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants, Inc. (BWEC). 1996. American shad spawning migration hydroacoustic monitoring study at the Interstate 202 toll bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, I April to 31 May 1996.Bamthouse, L.W., W. Van Winkle, J. Golumbek, G.F. Cada, C.P. Goodyear, S.W. Christensen, J.B. Cannon and D.W. Lee. 1982. The impact of entrainment populations in the Hudson River estuary. Vol. II. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. NUREG/CR-2220, ORNL/NUREG/TM-385/VS. Begon, M. 1979. Investigating animal abundance: capture-recapture for biologists. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD, Bowles, R.R., J.V. Merriner, and J. Boreman. 1978. Factors affecting accuracy of ichthyoplankton samples used in power plant entrainment studies.B oUSFWS Topical Brief FWS/OBS-76/20.7. Burton, W. H, and S. B. Weisberg. 1994. Estimating abundance of age-0 striped bass in the Delaware River using marked hatchery fish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14(2):347-354. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Impoundment estuarine interactions: Final report, Project F-44-R-5. January 1, 1994. Dover, DE Durlin, R.R., et al. 1998. Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania Water Year 1997. Vol. 1 Delaware River Basin. USGS, LeMoyne, PA. Water Resources Division.EA (Ecological Analysts, Inc.). 1976. Bowline Point Generating Station entrainment survival and abundance studies. Vol. I, 1975 annual interpretive report. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Melville, NY.EA (Ecological Analysts, Inc.). 1979. A review of entrainment study methodologies: abundance and survival. Prepared for Empire State Electrical Energy Research Corporation. Ecological Analysts, Inc.Middletown, NY.1 75[. W- ., Appendix F. Attachment I Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1989. 1988 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1988.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1990. 1989 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1989.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1991. 1990 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1990.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1992. 1991 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1991.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1993. 1992 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January I through December 31, 1992.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1994. 1993 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January I through December 31, 1993.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1995. 1994 Annual Report.Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1994.Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1996. 1995 Annual Report. PSE&G estuary enhancement program: biological monitoring program.January 1 through December 31, 1995. Prepared for PSE&G.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECSI). 1998. Impingement collection efficiency study. Salem on-site memo.Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. and Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP (ECSI and LMS). 1996. Final report for 1995 supplemental impingement studies with an assessment of intake-related losses at the Salem generating station. Prepared for PublicService Electric and Gas Company.Hartman, R. D. and W.H. Herke. 1987. Relative selectivity of five coastal marsh sampling gears. Contr. Mar. Sci. 30:17-26.IA (Ichthyological Associates, Inc.). 1976. Artificial Island ecological studies procedure manual. Vincent J. Schuler, M.S., Project leader.76 Appendix F. Attachment I IA (Ichthyological Associates, Inc.). 1982. Prcedures manual for 316(b)studies.Salem Generating Station. Prepared for PSG&E. Vincent J.Schuler, M.S., Project leader.Jivoff, P. and K.W. Able. 1998 in preparation. The response of blue crabs, Callinestes sapidus, to salt-marsh restoration in Delaware Bay. Draft document in preparation. Rutgers University Marine Field Station.Jossi, J.W., R.B. Marak, and H. Peterson, Jr. 1975. MARMAP survey I manual,at-sea data collection and laboratory procedures. NMFS NOAA.Washington, DC. 11 l p.Kneib, R. T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton.Pages 163-220 in A. D. Ansell, R. N. Gibson and M. Barnes, editors.Oceanography and marine biology: an annual review, volume 35. UCL Press Ltd, London.Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (LMS and ECSI). 1996a.IchthyoplanktonlMacrozooplankton Sampling Gear Comparison Study.Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company, March 1996.LMS and ECSI. 1996b. Influence of Water Clarity on Pelagic Trawl Catches in Delaware Bay. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company, January 1996.Lupine, A. J. and E. Kuc. 1987. The 1986 Delaware River American shad population estimate. Miscellaneous Report No. 49, Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife.Mahnken, C.V.W. and J.W. Jossi. 1967. Flume experiments on the hydrodynamics of plankton nets. J. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor.Mer. 31:38-45.Maiden, A.L. 1998. Personal communication. Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. Middletown, DE Marinovich, S.J. 1985. Personal communication. Marinovich Trawl Co.Biloxi, MS.McGroddy, P.M. and R.L. Wyman. .1997. Efficiency of nets and a new device for sampling living fish larvae. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34: 571-574.PSE&G (Public Service Electric & Gas Company). 1980. An ecological study ofthe Delaware River near Artificial Island. 1968-1976: A summary. Salem Nuclear Generating Station. 303p.8 77 Appendix F. Att.achment I PSE&G. 1980. An interpretive analysis of impingement and entrainment, April 1977 -December 1978. NRC Docket No., 50-272.PSE&G. 1984. White perch (Morone americana): A synthesis of information on natural history, with reference to occurrence in the Delaware River and estuary and involvement with the Salem Generating Station. Appendix X.Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstratioin. PSE&G. 1985. Study plan and methods. Salem Generating Station 316(b)Demonstration. Appendix 1. Materials, methods and rationale. Volumes I &2.PSE&G. 1996. Maplewood Testing Services, Division Procedure MECH-7, Calibration of Thermocouples. PSE&G. 1996. PSE&G estuary enhancement program: biological monitoring program, 1996 Annual Report.PSE&G. 1997. PSE&G estuary enhancement program: biological monitoring program, 1997 Annual Report.PSE&G. 1997. 1996-1997 white perch mark recapture study. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.PSE&G. 1998. 1997-1998 white perch mark recapture study. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.Raney, E.C., V.J. Schuler, and R.F. Denoncourt. 1969. An ecological study of theDelaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. 1968. Ichthylogical Associates, Inc., Middletown, DE.Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin No. 191, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.Tranter, D.J. and P.E. Smith. 1968. Filtration performance. Pages 57-76 in D.J. Tranter editor, Zooplankton sampling. UNESCO Press, Paris, France.Trent, W.L. 1967. Attachment of hydrofoils to otter boards for taking surface samples of juvenile fish and shrimp. Chesapeake Science 8(2):130-133. V.J. Schuler Associates, Inc. 1986. 1985 Annual Report. aquatic monitoringprogram (non-radiological). January 1 through December 31, 1985.Prepared for PSE&G.78 Appendix F. Atnmchrmn !V.J. Schuler Associates, Inc. 1987. 1984 Annual Report. aquatic monitoring program (non-radiological). January 1 through December 31, 1984.Prepared for PSE&G.V.J. Schuler Associates, Inc. 1988. 1986 Annual Report. Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1'986. Prepared for PSE&G.V.J. Schuler Associates, Inc. 1989. 1987 Annual Report. Artificial Island ecological studies. January 1 through December 31, 1987. Prepared for PSE&G.V.J. Schuler. 1974. An ecological study of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Progress Reports for 1971, 1972 and 1973.Ichthylogical Associates, Inc.Youngs, W. D. and D. S. Robson. 1975. Estimating survival rate from tag returns: model tests and sample size determination. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(1):2365-2371. 0)O,) 79 Appenrdi.\ Ix Allachnuici F-I F-I Table 1.Entrainment Abundance Sampling by Location and Year.INTAKE 1 -I 1 r 1 r -II 12 13 21 22 23 D)ISCHIARGE? I .....I ... ...E A ANNUAL TOTAL.S B A A B ABABA B 11 12 13 211 22 23 1977 12 12 24 1978 63 72 135 1979 36 68 104 1980 113 103 216 1981 56 87 143 1982 12 10 160 182 1983 0 1984 0 1985 144 144 1986 112 112 1987 134 134 1988 46 149 195 1989 1 72 72 1990 20 113 133 1991 92 55 147 1992 39 98 137 1993 68 48 116 1994 39 100 139 1995 126 119 245 1996 234 234 1997 181 181 1998 522 522 75 0 0 731 0 0 68 0 2081 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 160 3315 00 Appendix F Attachnieni I.1-1 F-i Table 2. Entrainment Abundance Sampling -Overall Program Year Location Daily Total Total Average NUMBER OF SAMPLING DAYS Sampling Volume Number Volume Schedule Sampled of per JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (mi) Samples Sample 1977 Intake 12/day, 1,774 24 73.9 I IA, 12B every other hr 1978 Intake 12/day, 7,203 135 53.4 1 2 1 I 2 2 I 1 2 I IA, 12B every other hr 1979 Intake 12B, 6/day, 5,707 104 54.9 1 1 1 4 1 2 21A every 4 hr 1980 Intake 12B, 4/day, 11,457 216 53.0 1 1 2 2 8 7 8 7 1 Discharge every 6 hr 12 1981 Intake 12B, 4/day, 7,815 143 50.6 5 2 8 8 8 7 22A every 6 hr Discharge 12 1982 Intake 12B 4/day, 9,203 182 50.6 8 7 8 7 8 8 Discharge every 6 hr 12,22 1983 NA 0 0 0 1984 NA 0 0 0 Appendix 1: Attachmeiii F- 14i F-I Table 2. Entrainment Abundance Sampling -Overall Program (continued) Year Location Daily Total Total Average NUMBER OF SAMPLING DAYS Sampling Volume Number Volume Schedule Sampled of per JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (mi) Samples Sample 1985 Intake 22A 3/day, @ 7,511 144 52.2 5 9 8 9 9 8 0800,1200, 1600 1986 Intake 22A 3/day, @ 6,319 112 56.4 1 8 8 7 7 7 0800,1200, 1600 1987 Intake 22A 3/day, @ 8,072 134 60.2 4 9 8 9 6 8 1 0800,1200, 1600 1988 Intake 12B, 3/day, @ 1,0738 195 55.1 7 8 9 8 9 9 I I 9 8 22A 0800,1200, 1600 1989 Intake 22A 3/day, @ 3,840 72 53.3 4 3 2 2 I 3 3 4 3 0800,1200, 1600 1990 Intake 12B, 3/day,@ 7,212 133 54.2 4 5 4 2 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 22A 0800,1200, 1600 1991 Intake 12B, 3/day, @ 7,724 147 52.5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 2 22A 0800,1200, 1600 sAo Appendix 1: Attachment F:- 1-1 F-I Table 2. Entrainment Abundance Sampling -Overall Program (continued) Year Location Daily Total Total Average NUMBER OF SAMPLING DAYS Sampling Volume Number Volume Schedule Sampled of per JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (m 3) Samples Sample 1992 Intake 12B, 3/day, @ 7,115 137 51.9 5 3 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 22A 0800,1200, 1600 1993 Intake 12B, 3/day, @ 3,898 82 47.5 4 3 3 4 4 2 5 4 4 2 4 22A 0800,1200, 1600 1994 Intake 12B, 3/day, @ 7,052 139 50.7 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 22A. 0800,1200, 1600 1995 Intake 12B, 6/day, 12,551 245 51.2 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 22A every 4 hr 1996 Intake 22A 6/day, 12,127 234 51.8. 5 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 every 4 hr!997 Intake 22A 6/day, 10,399 181 57.5 I 2 15 4 4 3 every 4 hr 1998 Intake 22A 6/day, 27,265 522 52.2 4 4 12 12 13 14 10 12 every 4 hr Note: Blank cells indicate no sampling during month Appendix F Attachment F- I -I F-I Table 3. Entrainment Abundance Sampling by Week and Year YEAR 77 78 79 80 81 82 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 TOTAL WEEK 3 6 6 3 6 6 6 36 2 3 1 3 3 3 6 6 6 31 3 11 .3 3 3 3 2 6 6 6 43 4 3 3 3 3 3 6 6. 6 33 5 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 33 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 33 7 3 3 3 3 3 6 6. 6 33 8 3 3 3 6. 6 21 9. 17 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 6. 6 56 10. 6. 3 3 3 1 3 6 6. 3 34 11 8 12 6. 3 3 3 3 3 6 6. 6 59 12. 3. 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 33 13. 1' 3 3 3 3 6 6. 6 30 14. 1 61 2 3 3 3 .3 2 6 6. 18 52 15. 12 6. 3 6 3. 3 3 3 3 6 6. 18 72 16. 9. 6. 6 6 3. 3 3 3 6 6 18 69 17. 12. 6 3 6 6 3 2 3 3 3 3. 6 6. 18 80 18. 12 4 3 6 6 6 6 3 3 3. 3 3 6 6. 18 88 19. 8 8 6 6 6 6. 3 3. 3 3 6. 18 76 20. 12 3 8 6 6 6 5, 3 3 3. 3 3 6 6. 18 91 21. 3 8 6 6 6 6 2 3 3 1 3 3 6 6. 18 80 22 16 8 6 5 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 18 92 23 8 12 7 6 6 6 6. 3 3 3 3 6 6 18 93 24. 5 5 6 3 3 6. 3 3. 3 -6 6. 18 67 25. 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 3. 2 3 3 3 6 6. 18 92 26. 9. 8 7 8 6 6 6 6. 3 3 3 3 3 6 6. 18 101 27. 12 7 4 7 6 6 6 6 2 3ý 3 3 3 3 6 6. 23 106 28. 12 12 5 8 5 6 2 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 8 13 112 29. 12 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 6. 19 100 30 12 12 8 7 8 6 6 6 6 3 311 _ 3 31. 1. 18 102 00 0 6@Appendix F Attachment F-I-I F-I Table 3. Entrainment Abundance Sampling by Week and Year (conlinued) YEAR 77 78 79 80 81 82 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 TOTAL, WEEK 31 7 4 4 6 3 6 6 .3 3 3 3 3 6 14 71 32 12 4 8 8 6 3 3 6. 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 14 91 33 8 7 8 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 18 86 34 12 7 7 8 6 6 6 61. 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 14 14 113 35 12 12. 7 8 7 6 6 6 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 18 24 135 36. 4 3 8 6 6 6. 3 3 3 3 3 .6 18 12 84 37. 12 6 8 5 6 6 6. 3 3 3 3 2 3. 6 17 18 107 38. .5 7 8 6 3 6. 3 3 3 3 3 2. 6 18 18 94 39. 2 6 7. 6. 3 3 3 3. 3. 6 18 8 68 40. P 5 8 .3 3 3 3 3 3. 6 6. 43 41 .6. 8 4. 3 3 3 3. 3. 6 6. 45 42. 12. 7 8 .3 3 3 3. 3 .6 6. 54 43. ." 5 7. 2. 3 3. 3 3. 6. 3244 .8 12 .I .5. 3 3 3 3 3
- 6. 4745 ..".6 3 3 3 3 2 5 6. 32 46. .6 3 1 3. 3. 6. 6. 28 47. 12 .5 3. 3 3 3 3 6. 38 48. .6 3 3 3 3 3 3 6. 6. 36 49 12. 6 3 3 3. 3 6 6 6. 48 50. 6 .3 1. 3. 3 6 6 6. 34 51 ._ 3 3 3 3 3. 3 6. 24 52 .. 2, 3 6. 6. 23 TOTAL 24 135 92 198 143 182 144 112 134 195 72 133 147 137 116 139 245 234 177 522 3,281 Note: Samples with bad volumes and unprocessed samples were not included.
AImLc'n in! :-I -J F-I Table 4. 1980 Fishing Distance in Meters/10 min Tow From Flow Meter Counts (Surface Hauls) by Vessel M Mean SD SE CV N 1133.3 119.1 18.2 10.5 43 J 965.7 229.2 45.8 23.7 25 N 1088.3 190.0 38.8 17.4 24 Boat T 1115.9 131.8 31.1 11.8 18 K D 946.5 254.9 70.7 26.9 13 1328.0 240.0 138.6 18.1 3 967. 1 353.2 88.3 36.5 16 Total 1062.3 219.6 18.4 20.7 142 Analysis of Variance SS DF MS Among Boats Within Boats 1.049439E+06 5.748779E+06 6.798218E+06 6 135 141 F 6 ,135 4. 107"*1.749066E+05 4.258355E+04 Total Student-Newman-Keuls Test W M T N D J K*omitted due to small sample size**p < 0.01 0 10 km SCALE IN KILOMETERSF-I Figure 1. The Delaware River (RKM 75 to 92) with reference to Artificial Island and the USGS Monitoring Station at Reedy Island.U 0 NET SUPPORT RING 1-m PLANKTON NET (0.5 mm MESH)TANK F-I Figure 2. Abundance Sampling Chamber. I~12B CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE 0$ FEET 0 90 F-1 Figure 3. Diagrammatic Plan View of Salem Station with Cooling Water Piping Arrangement. I IHAVEtING WATER r / SCREEN 100I.MMHW 92.2 It 4-MLW 86.411 -1 5011 1 F-I Figure 4. Cross-Sectional View of Intake Forebay 12B Showing Entrainment Sampling Location. ELBOW SUCTION HOSE SAMPLING TUBE 15.2cm' STANDPIPE 15.2 cm--' 30.5 cm 152m !o end i DISCHARGE 3 m -FLOW F-1 Figure 5..Salem Station Discharge Pipe With Access Standpipe and Entrainment Sampling Tube.S LARVAL -TABLE= B.Ix 1.2x 0.9-m F-I Figure 6. Larval Table. FLUME NETL0 FLUME =8.1 x 1.2'x 0.9-m WATER INTAKE zFLUME./VALVES Moll fkýý t-OWMETER PUMP DRAINS I t;g-I F-I Figure 7. Low Velocity Flume. S ABUNDANCE CHAMBERG _SVALVEVE*.VALVE-01 FLOW METER F-I Figure 8. Entrainment Sampling Apparatus. 0 LARVAL-TABLE= 8.IxI.2x 0.9-mnUCTION HOSE FISH-PUMP RISTROPH MODIFIED TRAVELING SCREEN/4/. ~*.->~FISH BUCKET I SCREEN TRAVEL-FLOW"" HIGHPRESSURE WASH> LOW.PRESSURE WASH F-I Figure 9. Screen Collection System. 3 OMP F-i Figure 10. Schematic view of Salem circulating water structure with fish and debris troughs. S IRAVELNG SCREEN F!SH TROUGHTROUGH SWING GATE F:3fRGLASS "ISH SLDE POOL DRAIN SCREENS F-I Figure 11. Fish Trough and Counting Pool.I Salem A--Generating Station New Jersey Delaware Cape May Cape Henlopen F-I Figure 12. Map of Delaware River and Bay Sampling Grids. Dennis Township Dpennis Township (Post-Restoration) Sfilmpsons Island road ,--. Approximate Sample I Collection Areas West Creek East Creek Delaware Bay F-I Figure 13. Dennis Township Creek Sampling Locations. I Approxfmate Sample Collection Areas RIggins Ditch Delaware Bay F-I Figure 14. Moores Beach Creek Sampling Locations. 0 Delaware Shore SaLem CWS 5 4 3 2 1 101 3 6-.9-.I 41j'**, .:.. .*12 -Scale Kilometers F-I Figure 15. IP W-factor Sampling Transect, Comprised of Five Offshore and One Intake Zone(s) Between Salem CWS and the Delaware Shore.(Note river depth vs width distortion) /Ramm tn LU I--LU4 F-I Figure 16. Collection Strata in Finfish W-factor transect -rkm 80. F-1 Figure 17. White Perch Mark-Recapture Study Zones in the Delaware River. Zones 1-8 were used in 1980-1983, zones 0-8 were used in 1996-1998.
I &PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1990 Appendix F, Attachment 2 APPENDIX F, ATTACHMENT 2 MODEL METHODOLOGIES AND COMMON INPUT PARAMETERS SPONSORED BY: L. W. Barnthouse, Ph.D.PSE&G RENEWAL APPLICATION SALEM GENERATING STATION PERMIT NO. NJ00005622 4 MARCH 1999 f PSE&G Permit Application 4 March (909 Appendix F. Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures .................................................................................................. iii L ist o f T ab les ........................................................................................................ IVLPHYSICAL PARAM ETERS ................................................................... ... I I.A.STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND BAY VOLUME ESTIMATES ............................... ....................... 1[.B.ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURES ................................................... 2 I. B .I D a ta G ap s ...............................................................................................
- ......................
3 IIPLANT OPERATION PARAM ETERS ......................................................... 4 II.A .W ITHDRA W AL V O LUM ES ...................................................................................................... 4 IIA .I. C W S P um p O peration .............................................................................................. 4 ILB.2.SWS Pump Operation .............................................................................................. 6 II.B.ExPOsURE TEMPERATURE AND DELTA-T .......................................................................... 7 II.C .T RA N SIT T IM E ....................................................................................................................... 8 III.M ODELING AND ANALYTIC ESTIM ATES ............................................. 8 III.A. INTRODUCTION ............................................... .......... IIL.B. SELECTION OF MODELING APPROACHES FOR TARGET SPECIES ......................................... 10 III.C.ENTRAINMENT LOSS MODEL .......................................................................................... 12 I11. C /. Description of Model ............................................................................................ 12 IIl. C2.Concenrration of Organisms ..................................................................................... 12 III. C .3 .R ecircu la tio n ............................................................................................................. 18 III.C .4.E ntrainm ent Survival ............................................................................................ 19 Ihh.C5. Total Entrainment Losses ..................................................................................... 21 III.D.IMPINGEMENT Loss MODEL ........................................................................................... 21 I .D ./ .D escrip tion of M odel ............................................................................................ 21 Ilh.D.2.Number of Fish Impinged per Minute Sampled ........................... ..................... 22 III.D.3.Adjustmentfor Collection Efficiency ................................................................. 22 III. D. 4. Conversion from Length to Age ............................................................................ 23 IlLD.5.Impingement Survival .......................................................................................... 23 II.D. 6. Total Impingement Loss ........................................................................................ 25 III.E.EQUIVALENT RECRUIT LOSSES ...................................................................................... 26 III.F.EXTENDED EMPIRICAL IMPINGEMENT MODEL (EEIM) ................................................ 28 IIIF. I.Description of Model ............................................................................................. 28 III.F.2. Entrainment and Impingement Losses ................................................................ 30 III.F .3. Survival R ates ....................................................................................................... 30 lII.F.4.Source Population Size ........................................................................................ 30 Il.F. 4.d. Blueback Herring and Alewife ........................................................................ 31 II.F. 4.e. Spot and Weakfish ............................................................................................ 32 lII.F .4.f B ay Anchovy ...................................................................................................... 32 III. F. 5. Conditional Mortality Rates ............... ...................... 33 III.G.EMPIRICAL TRANSPORT MODEL (ETM) ....................................................................... 33 IlI. G.2. Physical and Plant Operations Parameters ....................................................... 35 III. G. 3. Life Stage Duration and Period of Vulnerability ................................................ 35 III.G .4. R -factors ............................................................................................ .............. ..36 III.G .5. D -factors ................................................................................................ ....... 36 II.G .6. W -fa ctors .................................................................................................................. 3 6 III.H. LOCAL DEPLETION MODEL ......................................................................................... 36 III.I.ESTIMATION OF COMPENSATORY RESERVE USING META-ANALYSIS ............................. 39 111.1. LData Usedfor Meta-analysis ........................................... 39 0 hI.L 2. Estimation of the Maximum Reproductive Rate and Steepness ............................. 40 PSE&G Permgt-\pphciation 4 1991)Appendix F. Attachment 2 11. I. 3. Meta-analvtic Approaches ....................................... 4 111.1.4. Choice of Species to be Used in the Estimation of the Priors ....................... 43 Ill 1. 5. Final Estimation of the Priors ..................................... ....: -. .44 11I.1.6.Robustness. Simulation Tests. and the Precautionary Approach .......................... 44 111. 17. Resu Its .................................. .. ................................ 45 III.J.EQUILIBRIUM SPAWNER-RECRUIT ANALYSIS .......................................... ........................... 50 I11.1. /.Introductio n ....................................................................................................... ...50 IIL..2. The concept of equilibrium ................................................................................... 50 I1.J. 3.Spawner recruit relationships and compensation .................................................. S.... 51 111.1.4. M axim um Sustainable Yield ............................................................................... ...... 52 L1..5. Materials and methods ......................................................................................... 53 II1 .1 6. E quilibrium equations ............................................................................................ .. 53IIIL .7,Monte Carlo Analysis ......................................................................................... 56 111. 8.D ata sources ...................................................................................................... ...5 7 III.K.SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS PER RECRUIT .................................................................... 57 III.L.BALANCED INDINGENOUS COMMUNITY ANALYSIS ...................................... 58 JI1L .ISp ecies D ensity ......................................................... ............................................ ..59 JIlL .2b. D ata Sets ........................................................................................................ ...60 References ........................................................................................................ 62*ii PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 List of Figures 0 Figure 1. The Delaware River and Bay Strata Regions. Figure 2. Diagram of Vertical Stratification. Figure 3. Unit I Intake Temperature (C) at Full Operation Conditions. Figure 4 Unit 1 Intake Temperature (C) at Full Operation Conditions. Figure 5. Unit I Delta T Temperatures (C) at 80% Plant Capacity.Figure 6. Unit 2 Delta T Temperatures (C) at 80% Plant Capacity.Figure 7. Steepness Distributions for Four Classes of Species, Derived From theMeta Analysis of Myers et al (1995). Figure 8. Generalized Relationship Between YPR and F.Figure 9. Relationship Between Spawning Stock and Fishing Mortality for a Specific Spawner Recruit Curve. Figure 10. Relationship Between YPR and Total Catch. 0 iii PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2List of Tables Table 1. Area and Volume Estimates for Regions of Stratified Analysis.Table 2. Average Number of Circulation Water Pumps in Service and Flow Volume at Salem Under Full Operating Conditions. Table 3. Average Number of Service Water Systems and Flow Volume at SGS Under Full Operating Conditions. Table 4 Salem Generating Station Circulating Water Piping System Table 5. Transit Time Statistics for Units I and 2 at Full Operation. Table 6. Summary of Model Applications to RIS and Blue Crab.Table 7. Lengths of RIS at Various Life Stages Table 8. Output from GLM Analysis of Volume of Entrainment by Time of Day.Table 9. Output from Genmod Analysis of Entrainment by Time of Day.Table 10. Entrainment -Paired Intake and Discharge Collection Site Comparison. Table 11. Comparison of Intake and Discharge Sample Concentration Paired byVarying Period. Table 12. Mechanical Mortality Rates for Species in Life Stages Entrained at Salem.Table 13. Thermal Mortality. 'Table 14. Collection Efficiency Table 15 Initial Impingement Mortality, Old and New Screens.Table 16 Year Classes of Species with Adequate Baywide Trawl and lcthyoplankton Sampling for Estimation of CMR.Table 17 Year Classes of Species Llacking Entrainment Sampling for One or More Stages.Table 18 PSE&G White Perch Mark Recapture Results, 1980-83, and 1996-98.Table 19. Adult American Shad Population Estimates in the Delaware River.Table 20. Historical CMR Estimates Table 21. Parameters Used in the Equilibrium Model for each Species of Concern.S iv PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F.'Attachment 2 I. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS I.A. Study Area Definition and Bay Volume Estimates In April 1979, to facilitate sampling and volume calculations, the entire study area was divided into 1,002 grids. Most are quadrangles formed by Loran C 9930-Y and 9930-Z over printed lines of position on U.S. Department of Commerce, Chart 12304, 25 th ed. December 2, 1978. The Loran C coordinates allowed sampling locations to be relocated accurately, which simplified sampling reproducibility. Although there is no Loran C overprint on USDC Chart 12311 26 h ed. July 30, 1977 (replaced with 28th ed. July 28, 1979), lines of position werescaled and extrapolated from the overprint on Chart 12304 25 h ed. December 2, 1978. Peripheral grids are bounded in part by the shoreline or lines extending from headlands across the mouths of rivers and creeks. See Appendix L for further information on study area and bay volume estimates. The surface area of each grid was determined by either of two methods. Because it was impractical to process the Loran C information necessary, to measure all 1,002 grids, areas were set up comprising 51 evenly spaced grids bounded entirely by Loran C lines of position. The Nautical Chart Branch of the National Ocean Survey (NOS) converted comer Loran Coordinates to coordinates in latitude andlongitude. The accuracy of this conversion method is +/-5 meters. Because the grids are not rectangular, the areas of the 51 measured grids were calculated by summing the areas of the two triangles formed by the quadrangle's diagonal.Loran C lines of position vary in distance from one another in a uniform manner, and it was assumed that the areas of grids formed by these lines would vary accordingly. Using this assumption, the areas of the remaining Loran C grids were determined from the 51 measured grids using a two-point moving average.Areas of all peripheral grids, and grids from USDC Chart 12311 (which do not have Loran C coordinates) were calculated using a Lietz No. 3651-30 Polar Planimeter. Five measurements of the grid's area were averaged to obtain the final estimate.The average depths of sampling grids were determined using USDC Charts 1230425 th ed. December 2, 1978, and 12311 28 th ed. July 28, 1979. The proportion of a grid at each charted depth profile at mean low water (MLW) was determined using one of several overlays. These overlays divided each grid into 100 sectors.This method was not useful for incomplete peripheral grids and river grids where there are major obstructions such as islands and breakwaters. In these cases, proportions are based on the total number of sectors countable at charted depth profiles.Tidal amplitude (in meters) from Mean Low Water (MLW) to Mean High Water (MHW) was determined using 31 values obtained from the USDC NOAA NOS Tide Table, 1978. Tidal amplitude from unmeasured grids was obtained using a PSF:&G Permit Application 4 March q199 Appendix F. Attachment 2 three-point moving average (The average of each trio of values in closest proximity to a grid).Surface area, depth, and tidal amplitude were used to determine volume using the following equation: V=(D+T).A where V volume (m 3), D = mean depth (m) of grid at mean low water (MLW), T = total height (tidal amplitude midpoint) (m), and A area (m 2) of grid.Of the 1,002 potential grids, 104 were excluded from sampling. Most of the excluded grids were too shallow or too small to be sampled. The remaining 28 grids were not sampled because they were in inlets or channels, or contained cables, obstructions or unexploded ordnance. The total volume of the excluded grids (5.672 -10' m 3) represents
4.5 percent
of the total bay volume (1.256" 10"0 m 3).During the development of the 1981 and 1982 sampling programs, two stratification designs were developed. The first divided the river and bay into 16.1-km (10 mile) intervals. The second design again divided the river and bay into 16.1-kmn intervals, but the lower bay (first two regions) was divided along the 9.1-im (30-ft) depth contour, forming east-, west- and offshore strata (Figure 1).Three additional strata were added for additional sampling upriver for spot.These strata, numbered 9, 10, and 11, were located at RM 73-825, 82.5-92, and 92-101, respectively (RKMS 117-132, 132-147, and 147-162, respectively). The resulting bay volumes were used to determine the volumes of the eleven strata. Bay volume was broken down into four separate volume measurements per stratum. The beach-seine measurement ran from the shoreline to a depth of 6 ft. From this point to the point where an 8-ft depth was reached, no sampling was conducted because the sampling boat could not go into waters shallower than 8 ft.The two other regions that were measured were measured by bottom trawl (6 ft from the bottom of the river) and pelagic trawl (from the water surface to 6 ft off the bottom) (Figure 2). Volumes ranged from approximately 3.22 -109 to 4.74'10m'3 (Table 1).I.B. Acclimation Temperatures Organisms respond differently to exposure to changes in temperature, and the temperature to which they are acclimated may be crucial to those responses. Therefore, several assessment procedures require knowledge of that acclimation temperature although it is difficult to ascertain. Generally, the process of a fish's 2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March I999 Appendix.F, Attachment 2 acclimating from one temperature to another occurs at a rate of up to 1IC/day (Hoar and Randall, 1971). This rate is such that knowledge of where an organism lives provides information on its acclimation temperature, and allows investigators to surmise it from the organism's location immediately prior to its exposure to elevated temperatures. Two sources of long-term, local water-temperature data for estimating acclimation temperature are (1) the Salem intake bays, and (2) the USGS monitoring station at Reedy Island, approximately 6 kmn upriver of Salem.Assuming that entrained organisms are those living in the vicinity of the plant intake, intake temperature appears to be the more appropriate information to use for estimating entrainment effects. In any case, the difference in water temperature between the two locations is small. Daily intake temperatures are summarized in Figures 3 and 4. Daily temperatures at Reedy Island are presented in Appendix L.LB. 1 Data Gaps During plant outages the intake and discharge temperature is not automatically recorded, resulting in gaps in the data record. Approximately 8 percent of the intake water temperature data were not available for .Unit 1 and 10 percent for Unit 2. For those values missing from the database, a multiple-pass procedure was applied to estimate intake water temperature from alternative sources (namely, the USGS Reedy Island monitoring station). Under this procedure, water temperature data for both Salem units was examined first. If, for a given date, intake temperature was available for only one of the two units, the available temperature was assigned to the other unit as well.If intake temperature data were missing from both units, a regression analysis using ambient water temperature data recorded at the USGS Reedy Island stationwas used to predict missing values. To down-weigh the influence of outlying values, a robust regression (Tukey's Biweight) was used to develop predictive regressions. The following equations were applied: Tuit 1 1.0011 TJ- 0.1362 (r2 = 0.9995, n = 5336)TuWng 2 1.0011 TRn- 0.1327 (r 2 = 0.9994, n = 5229)Intake temperatures were also used to develop a regression analysis for ambientReedy Island temperatures as follows: Mean TN 0.9976 Tunit 2+0.2134 (r 2 = 0.9994, n = 5229)Max Tpu = 1.0128 Tuni2 + 0.4368 (r 2 = 0.998776, n = 5263)Min T = 0.9877 Tunni 2+ 0.0105 (r 2= 0.998923, n = 5263)3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 Although these two procedures accounted for most of the missing records, a few cases remained where all temperature parameters (Units 1 and 2 intake temperatures and Reedy Island mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures) were undefined for a given day. In these instances, a linear interpolation was used to estimate missing values over time from the nearest surrounding data points.II. PLANT OPERATION PARAiMETERS II.A. Withdrawal Volumes Since plant startup, Salem has regularly measured and recorded several plant parameters associated with operation and maintenance of the Circulating Water System (CWS) and the Service Water System (SWS). One of these parameters, withdrawal volume (the total volume of river water withdrawn by both systems), is needed to compute the number of organisms entrained, the number of organisms impinged, and the time entrained organisms are exposed to elevated temperatures during passage through the plant, i.e., transit time (see this attachment, Section II-C).Withdrawal volume is calculated using the following equation: Vol = K. NP-t where K = pump constant NP = number of pumps in service T = duration (in units consistent with K)Additional information on withdrawal volumes maybe found in Appendix L.II.A.1. CWS Pump Operation Circulating Water System (CWS) pumps have a rated capacity of 185, 000 gpm.Based on accumulated data on the temperature of discharge water over time (AT), on circulating dye studies, and on plant operating data, it became apparent that the CWS pumps did not deliver 100 percent of rated capacity as was previously assumed. Pump capacity is affected by many variables, including tidal height, pump impeller wear, silt accumulation in the intake bay, flow head loss past the trash racks, and debris in the condenser. Over a long period individual pump flow can vary significantly. Water withdrawals and discharge rates were therefore estimated, based on plant intake and discharge temperatures, and on heat rejection and energy generation. This method allows intake and discharge flows to be calculated independently of pump operation. 4 PSE&G Permit Apphication 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2Heat rejected was used to estimate the cooling water volumetric flow from the 0 following expression: Q Heat Rejected.AT.C.Ki K2.p where Q = flow (gpm),AT = temperature differential ('F), C = specific heat of water (1 cal/(g'°C) for non-saline water at 17.5 °C)K 1 = English-to-metric conversion factor (Btu to cal, 'F to 'C, gal to cm 3) = 8.3466 K 2 = time conversion factor (hours to minutes) = 60 p = density of water (1 gm/cm 3 for non-saline water at 4°C)For a further discussion of.AT, see part B of this section.The heat rejected was calculated using the differential-energy method, which is based on conservation of energy. The method assumes that all energy is either converted to electricity or lost as heat, and all heat produced is removed in the cooling water effluent. Since data exist for each unit, heat rejected may be calculated for each unit separately as follows: Heat Rejected = Reactor Energy -Energy Converted to Electricity. Consequently, the following two equations are applied: Unit I Heat Rejected (Btu/hr) = ( A* ( RTP1 /100) -NEP, -H )* CONV (1)Unit 2 Heat Rejected (Btu/hr) = ( B*( RTP, /100) -NEP,_ -H )*CONV (2)where: A generated heatload for maximum rated operating conditions: 3,350 MWt (megawatts, thermal, for 1976 through June 1986) or 3,423 MWt (July 1986 to present)B = generated heatload for maximum rated operating conditions: 3,423 MWt (for 1981 to present)RTP 1 = Reactor Thermal Power generated by Unit 1(%)RTP 2 = Reactor Thermal Power generated by Unit 2(%), NEPI = Net Electric Power for Unit I = power to distribution system (MW,, or megawatts, electric), NEP 2 = Net Electric Power for Unit 2 = power to distribution system (MW,), 5 PSE&G Penrmt Appihcation 4 M'arch 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 H = Housekeeping Electric Power requirements required to operate plant (MWe) assumed constant at 45 MW, per unit, and CONV= Conversion from MW to Btu/hr = 3.4144* 106 Btu"hr per MW For the times when the Units were not operational, it was assumed that the flowwas zero, although a small flow is maintained in the circulating water system.Water withdrawal data were checked to ensure that calculated flow did not exceedthe rated pump capacity of 185,000 gpm per pump (1, 110,000 gpm for all six pumps taken together). Out of 7,670 days of record it was found that for 416 days (5 percent of total record) the calculated flow exceeded total rated pump capacity.The Station routinely records which pumps are operating when the Units are operational. Approximately 21 percent of the CWS pump operating data were missing for Unit I and 24 percent for Unit 2. Daily impingement and entrainment survey data were first used to supplement data gaps from the pump operating database. If daily impingement and entrainment survey observations were unavailable, the number of pumped hours totaled by month was used, as reported on a quarterly basis to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). The average number of pumps operating per month was computed as the total number of pumped hours divided by the number of hours in the month. For months when the relevant quarterly report was not available, the average for that month* calculated over the period of record was used.As a final measure, to correct inconsistencies between AT and number of pumps operating (such as, for example, when AT is greater than zero but the number of CWS pumps is zero), the number of CWS pumps was recalculated as follows: Number of CWS pumps = Total Unit flow (gpm)/166,000 where 166,000 is the typical observed flow (gpm) for a CWS pump.Flows are typically highest during the summer months. CWS flows ranged from a low of 4.68x10 6 m 3/day in December to a high of 5.26x10 6 m 3/day in July for Unit 1, and a low of 4.80x106m3 /day in February to a high of 5.25x106m3 /day in July for Unit 2. Mean daily flow values for CWS pumps may be found in Table 2.Additional data on CWS pumps as well as CWS daily flow rates may be found in Appendix L.II.B.2. SWS Pump Operation Service Water System (SWS) pumps have a rated capacity of 10,875 gpm. The number of service water pumps operating was estimated using the number of 6 PSE&G Permit Applicaton 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2SWS pumped hours totaled by month, as reported on a quarterly basis to DRBC.The monthly average number of pumps was computed as the total number of SWS pumped hours divided by the number of hours in the month. For months when the relevant quarterly report was not available, the average for that monthcalculated over the period of record was used. The mean number of operating pumps per month tends to increase from late spring through early fall, with thelowest values reported for the winter months. Mean number of SWS pumps per month for both units is reported in Table 3.The total SWS flow by unit was calculated as SWS Flow (gpm) = 10,875
- Number of SWS Pumps in operation, where: 10,875 GPM represents the SWS pump rated capacity.
SWS flow values are then used in the impingement and entrainment models (discussed later in this text.).SWS flows showed a similar trend to CWS flows, with a high of 2.25x105m 3/day in July and a low of 1.1 Ix105m 3/day in February for Unit 1, and a high of 1.98x10 5 m 3/day in July and a low of 1. 1 1x10 5 m 3/day in March for Unit 2. Mean daily flow values SWS pumps may be found in Table 3.II.B. Exposure Temperature and Delta-T The change in water temperature during plant passage is dependent upon a number of factors, including the amount of power being generated and the amount of cooling water being used (which ultimately depends upon the number of CWS pumps in service). The differential temperature (AT) was computed as the difference between the discharge temperature (measured directly) and the intake temperature. In addition to determining the plant's effect on water temperature, AT is also used in calculations of flow. Intake temperatures are discussed in this Attachment Section I.-B.Attachment F-I discusses the methods used to determine intake temperature when measured values were not available. A summary of AT information from 1977 through 1998 may be found in Figures 5 and 6. Graphical information on AT by unit and year may be found in Appendix L. Linear regression analysis performed for data gaps took into account reactor thermal power (RTP), month of year, and intake temperature for possible correlation with AT. The best correlation was achieved using RTP as theindependent variable. To eliminate anomalous data from consideration, filters included only 3%< RTP <96%. For RTP less than 75%, the linear regression result with intercept removed was used. For RTP greater than or equal to 75%, the mean value of AT for the range RTP >75 % was used.7 PSE&G Permit Application -1 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 For Unit 1, RTP <75%, AT, = 0.223785
- RTPI RTP _>75%, AT, = 17.557 For Unit 2, RTP < 75%, AT 2 = 0.2454 *RTP 1 RTP > 75%, AT, = 18.047 All AT values are in OF.II.C. Transit Time Transit time is the total time required for withdrawn water to be pumped throughthe CWS. It was used to estimate the mortality of organisms passing through the Station.Transit time is calculated as the volume of the CWS system divided by the flow rate. The volume of a cylindrical pipe is 7tD L/4, where D is the pipe diameter and L is the pipe length. Using this formula, the transit time for each section of pipe is calculated, and the total transit time through the system is the sum of the transit times through all pipe sections.
Pipe lengths and diameters for the entire CWS system are in Table 4. Since the pre-condenser portions of the CWS expose organisms only to ambient temperatures, post-condenser transit time--namely the time of passage through pipe sections E through G (including the enlargement between sections F and G)-is the only time of interest.Each of the six flow paths (one for each CWS pump) in a unit has a different length. Since the path length changes in a uniform manner from path to path, the average of the maximum and minimum lengths is used at each pipe section. The flow for a particular path is calculated as the total flow per unit divided by the number of pipes.Given that the diameters of the two systems at equivalent segments are equal throughout, the longer transit time associated with Unit 2 is due to the greater length of the Unit 2 system. Post-condenser transit-time statistics for each unit are listed in Table 5. Transit times typically vary from 2 to 4 minutes.III. MODELING AND ANALYTIC ESTIMATES III.A. IntroductionThis section documents the methods used to assess impacts. of entrainment and impingement on aquatic populations and communities in the Delaware estuary. It includes (1) Identification of the, modeling approaches applied to each RIS species (Section III.B), (2) Explanation of the methods used to implement each PSE&G Permit Application 1 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 component of these models (Sections III.B through III.K), and (3) Documentation of the methods used to assess community-level effects (Section III.L).Ideally, it would be desirable to apply a consistent set of modeling approaches to every species, in practice this is not possible. The life history and spatiotemporal distribution of each species within the Estuary is different, and no monitoring program can collect an ideal data set for every species.The simplest, and arguably the most fundamental piece of information used in the assessment process is the estimate of entrainment and impingement losses. In general, these losses are estimated by scaling sampled volume or time to the station's operation and adjusting for collection efficiency and plant induced mortality. A complete description of the methods for estimating entrainment and impingement and described in Section III C and III D, respectively. Entrainment losses were computed for all 316(b) RIS while impingement losses were computed for all finfish RIS and blue crab (Table 6). Entrainment lsses for blue crab were not computed because of insufficient data. Due to a change in the NRC required ETS monitoring program, entrainment samples were not processed for blue crab after 1978.One of the principle reasons for estimating losses is that these values can be used to calculate the conditional mortality rate, i.e., the fraction of the source population that would be cropped by the station in the absence of all other sources of mortality: The conditional mortality rate is then used as the measure of power plant mortality. The Conditional Mortality Rate (CMR) due to entrainment and impingement provides a conservative estimate of the percentage reduction in the Delaware portion of the young-of-the-year population due to Salem operations without taking into account compensation or the portion of the population that resides outside the Delaware. The CMR is used in this assessment as an input to other assessment methods Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit analysis,' EqulibriumSpawner-Recruit analysis and Production Foregon analysis (see sections below).The CMR has the following formulation: CMR = 1 -e where CMR = fraction of the population of the affected species lost to entrainment or impingement, and F = the instantaneous mortality rate due to entrainment or impingement, in effect over all of the entrainable or impingeable larval stages and fish ages.The CMR as represented by the equation above is cumulative over all stages and ages, as indicated. CMR can also be represented on a stage by stage basis: 9 PSE&G Permit Appiication 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 CMRI I-= F where I = the stage or age of the organisms. The overall CMR can be related to the stage/age-wise values through the use of the cumulative survival rate for each stage/age (CSR/ ), which is simply the fraction surviving, and is the complement of the CMR: CSR/ = I -CMR/The overall CMR is the complement of the product CRS, values.CMR = I-l-H CSRI Central to estimation of the overall CMR due to Salem is the estimation of the mortality rates for each stage or age (i.e., the CMR 1 values and the related F, values). Two methods were employed: the Empirical Transport Model (ETM), and the Extended Empirical Impingement Model (EEIM). These two models are discussed in Sections III.G and III.F, respectively. Population level effects were estimated using the Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis (ESRA) Model (Section III J) and the Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBRP) Model (Section III K). In addition to the CMR, these modelrequire information on natural mortality rates, fecundity, maturity, sex ratios, and compensatory reserve. Most of this information was readily available from life history studies; species-specific values are documented in Appendix L. Estimating compensatory reserve, however, is more difficult. A meta-analysis of exploited fisheries data gathered from around the world was used to estimate reasonable bounds for the compensation parameter (Section III L).The effects of Salem operation on the macroinvertebrates, scud and opossum shrimp, were assessed using the Local Depletion Model (LDM) (Section III H).This analysis was designed. to determine whether or not Salem has the potential to lower concentrations of these forage species in the immediate vicinity of the station.Ill.B. Selection of Modeling Approaches for Target Species Table 6 summarizes the models applied to each of the target species. Impingement and entrainment losses were calculated, by year for every RISspecies. Impingement, but not entrainment losses were calculated for blue crab.Translation of loss estimates into equivalent recruits requires, in addition to the loss estimates, only an estimate of the natural mortality rate of each species from the age at which it was entrained or impinged to age 1. These estimates could be* 10 PSE&G Pernt, Application -*.larch 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 developed for every finfish species, consequently the equivalent adult model was applied to all of the RIS finfish species.To fully address the definition of the stock jeopardy standard as defined in Appendix F, losses should be translated into reductions in spawning stockbiomass per recruit (SSBPR) or spawning stock biomass (SSB). These estimates require, as an input, an estimate of the CMR. Estimating CMRs, however, requires information about either the spatiotemporal distribution of early life stages throughout the entire range of a species within the Estuary (ETM model, section III G) or an estimate of absolute population size (EEIM model, section IIIF). These estimates could not be developed for all life stages of all species.The PSE&G baywide ichthyoplankton program was designed primarily to obtaininformation concerning the distribution of early life stages of bay anchovy and weakfish. These species are abundant throughout the lower Estuary up to Salem, from April through October. All life stages are present and vulnerable to Salem.The ETM was used to estimate entrainment CMRs for these two species.Absolute population estimates could be obtained for Alewife, blueback herring, American shad, white perch, spot, and striped bass (Appendix L). For all species except striped bass, these estimates were used to calculate CMRs for both entrainment and impingement using the EEIM. For striped bass, an absolute population estimate could be obtained for only one year, 1997. During that year, both generating units were off line during the period (May throughout July) when entrainable striped bass life stages are present in the Estuary and no'samples were collected. Consequently, an entrainment CMR could not be calculated for striped bass. Operations and sampling resumed in the fall of 1997, so an impingementCMR was calculated for striped bass. For Atlantic croaker, no population estimate could be calculated. The seasonal occurrence of Atlantic croaker within the estuary is different from all other RIS. This species enters the Estuary duringwinter, when no sampling is performed. Even during spring and summer when sampling is ongoing, Atlantic croaker are preferentially concentrated in marshes and tributaries where no sampling is conducted. No CMRs were calculated for Atlantic croaker.The principal models used in Appendix F, the Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR) and Equilbrium Spawner-Recruit (ESRA) models, were applied to most of the species for which CMRs were available. The only exception is striped bass. SSBPR was calculated for striped bass, using the availableimpingement CMR. The ESRA model was not applied to striped bass and no estimates of reductions in spawning stock biomass were made for this species. A different modeling approach was applied to opossum shrimp and scud. For these species, the potential for near-field depletion due to entrainment at Salem was addressed using a Local Depletion Model (LDM).11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March )999 A\ppendix F, Attachment 2 8 III.C. Entrainment Loss Model Entrainment losses at Salem were estimated using historical on-site entrainment sampling data, station operating information (e.g., cooling and service water withdrawal, power production), and ambient water temperature data. As in previous submittals, entrainment loss estimates were scaled up from in-plant sampling data, as modified by gear efficiency, recirculation (re-entrainment), characteristics of newly installed screens, and entrainment survival rates.Data reduction and analytical methods were generally similar to those followed in previous submittals. However, some changes were made when interpolating entrainment density calculations for those periods when no sampling occurred. A detailed description of the methods and rationale used to estimate entrainment losses is provided below.III. C. 1. Description of Model The number of organisms entrained (E) at Salem for each species and life stage/length category, is defined as the sum of the individual occurrences in boththe CWS and SWS at Units I and 2, it is represented by the following equation: K 365 f Rfi,, E =>I Z D*jc-1 0 l-R+R i= =1I- R + Rfy "Q where i = ith water system, i.e., Unit I CWS, Unit 1 SWS, Unit 2 CWS, and Unit 2 SWS j = jth day of the year Dij = average concentration (number per m 3 of intake water)C = collection efficiency fj = daily through-plant mortality R = recirculation factor Qy = average daily plant flow forjth water system (in 3)IlL C.2. Concentration of Organisms The abundance data used in the entrainment loss calculations were taken from the entrainment monitoring program at Salem. Concentrations were computed separately for each of the life stage/length categories defined in Table 7. Average entrainment concentrations of organisms by week are listed in Appendix L.III C.2.a. Missing Data For the times when no measurement data was available (e.g., because no pumps were in service) during the period when a species was present at Salem, daily 12 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 density estimates were assigned as the average weekly density for that week over all years in which that week was sampled, as follows: Dij-n where Dijk = average density fork sample in week i of yearj n = number of samples.For weeks in which no sampling occurred, but at least one sample was taken in that year during the period of occurrence for a species, daily density estimates were obtained by interpolation using entrainment density data from 1990-1994. An annual "relative density profile" was created for each of the five "index years" by calculating the entrainment density for each species and life stage during each week, and dividing each weekly density estimate by the annual density (i.e., the sum of average densities over all weeks). The relative density for each week of each year was calculated as: Pij = D~j Di where Dij= average density for week i of year j Pij= relativedensity for week i of year j A weekly relative density over all index years was then calculated by dividing the sum of relative densities for a week over all index years by the sum of relative densities over all weeks and index years using the following relationship: E Pj P i= I Y.- EPij i j Missing weekly densities were calculated by comparing the relative density of sampled weeks to the relative density of the index years over the same period. Following this, density values for each missing week (Dik) were calculated by multiplying the resulting ratio by the weekly relative density for that week as follows: 13 PSE&G Permit Application 41 March 1~999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 vDik Dik =Pi Pi.where x and y = weeks in which sampling was conducted Data for 1977 were judged insufficient to allow for application of theinterpolation method for that year.III C.2.b. Day vs. Night/Day Sampling Since 1977, the daily sampling schedule for entrainment at Salem has varied as follows: Year Daily Sampling Schedule1977-78 12/day, every other hour 1979 6/day, every 4 hours 1980-82 4/day, every 6 hours 1985-94 3/day, @ 0800, 1200, 1600 1995-98 6/day, every 4 hours It is apparent from this schedule that nighttime sampling was performed .during 1977-82 and 1995-98. During the intervening years, no nighttime samples were collected. If strong diel differences in abundance occur, then inclusion of data sets without nighttime samples can lead to a biased estimate of overall entrainment losses. In order to investigate the role of time-of-day in entrainmentlosses, the following two analyses were conducted. First, sample initialization time was categorized into one of four periods. Times from 0300 to 0900 were categorized as dawn, from 0900 to 1500 as day, from 1500 to 2100 as dusk, and from 2100 to 0300 as night. A general linear model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences among diel periods. Data were log-transformed (with a constant of 0.0001) prior toanalysis. Sample days with no catch were deleted from the analysis. Results by species and life stage are summarized in Table 8.In the second analysis the same data set used in the previous analysis was categorized into two categories: 0600 to 1800 was categorized as day while all other samples were categorized as night. In this analysis a generalized linearmodel (GENMOD) was used, but with two additional components: (1) a "log" link function, and (2) an extra-Poisson error structure (McCullagh and Nelder 14 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 1989). The link function is used to relate the linear portion of the model to its logarithmic component. The log link is reasonable in this case, because it produces a mean that is always positive, which is required for count data. The loglink also serves to convert the model (which specifies the relationship between the variables as multiplicative) into an additive, linear model. The extra-Poissonerror model is a recognition of the highly aggregated nature of schooling fish.The extra-Poisson component is modeled using a scale factor for the variances, thereby affecting only the variance and not the parameter (McCullagh and Nelder 1989). The analysis was carried out in a manner very similar to Casey and Myers (Casey and Myers 1998).GENMOD results are presented in Table 9. The results from the GENMOD procedure may also be expressed as an "Effect" (E), or increase in catch relative to another catch (in this case night catch relative to day catch), using the relationship: E = eEsrimate+O°sE 2 where SE is the standard error of the Estimate.In years when no nighttime sampling was conducted, the effect size (E) was used to adjust those species and life stages for which a statistically significant day/night effect was found. These species were juvenile bay anchovy, Morone spp. larvae, striped bass juveniles, weakfish eggs, and weakfish juveniles. The adjustment factors are shown in Table 9.III.C.2.c. Gear Efficiency Entrainment losses can be underestimated due to two major factors: (1) smallorganisms may be extruded through the mesh of the collection net, and (2) larger organisms may avoid the collection device through active avoidance or through habitat selection. Adjustments for these two potential biases were made in the manner described below.III.C.2.c.i. Net Extrusion Gear efficiency-related to net extrusion was quantified by determining a Relative Probability of Capture (RPC), through a comparison of gear efficiency in the river (GER) with gear efficiency in the plant (GEp). The procedure assumes that densities of larvae in the river and in the plant are equal. The RPC may thus be represented: RPC = DP' GE, DR *GE '15 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 weeAppendix F, Attachment 2 where Dp = density of larvae in the plant, GEp = gear efficiency for larvae of the sampler in the plant, DR = density of larvae in the river, and GER = gear efficiency for larvae of the sampler in the river.Under the assumption that the densities of larvae in the plant and in the river are equal, namely, that DP = D,, the RPC reduces to the quotient of gear efficiencies: RPC = GEp GER Net extrusion is proportional to the size of the organism, i.e., the largest organisms are the most likely to be retained by the sampling net mesh, and the smallest organisms the most likely to pass through it. The RPC for larvae atSalem (average size about 4 mm), based on empirical data, equals 0.184. The gear efficiency for the river (0.616) was estimated as the average (arctangent-transformed) gear efficiency for East Coast larvae from the literature. Substituting these values into the above equation results in a GEp of 0.11. The inverse of the GEp is the Extrusion Factor for larvae, which is 9.09. The measured larval density is multiplied by this factor to obtain the density used in the calculation of larval entrainment losses.Entrainment densities were corrected for net extrusion for larvae up to 7 mm TL at both the intake and discharge. For larvae less than 4 mm TL, sample concentrations were multiplied by an extrusion factor of 9.09. Net retention was assumed to be 100% for larvae of 7 mm TL or longer. Using these two points and assuming an inverse relationship between length and extrusion, the following relationship was solved to calculate length-specific extrusion factors for[larvae __ 4 mm and < 7 mm]: EF = 1 / (-1.0767 + 0.2967 x TL)where EF = extrusion factor and TL = total length (mm).mI.C.2.c.ii. Net Avoidance and Vertical Stratification For fish larger than 7 mm TL, which presumably are not extruded through the nets, avoidance and vertical stratification are the primary factors that reduce the probability of capture. As fish and other organisms increase in size, theirswimming ability increases. This, in turn, increases the chance of escape once the 16* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1909 Appendix F. Attachment 2 sampler is detected. At the intake, the sampling pipe may be detected visually(primarily during daylight hours) or through sensations arising from back-pressure. Avoidance at the discharge is less likely. Here, light is absent and turbulence is substantially higher. The conflicting pressure and shear forces would make it difficult to sense the sampling pipe.Although the bias arising from vertical stratification could potentially cause underestimation or overestimation of losses, at Salem it is more likely to cause underestimation. This is because much of the entrainment sampling at Salem is from mid-depth waters of the intake. If organisms are concentrated near the bottom, they are less likely to be captured than are those higher up in the watercolumn. Discharge samples are unlikely to be subject to this bias because the increased turbulence results in a more complete mixing throughout the water column.To investigate the potential for collection bias associated with vertical stratification and gear avoidance, 14 paired samples collected at the Salem intake and discharge during June 1980 were examined. During this two-week study, eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults of bay anchovy, weakfish, spot, and river herring (Alosa spp.), as well as the macroinvertebrates opossum shrimp and scud, were collected. During this study, normal sampling methods were applied at both the intake and discharge. Particular attention was applied to the timing of samplepairs. Intake samples were taken first, and then, depending on the number and configuration of pumps in service, the discharge sample was taken 2-4 minutes later. The delay was to ensure that the same "parcel" of water was sampled at both locations. Data collected during this study are summarized in Table 10.A statistical analysis of the data was first conducted to determine whether or notsignificant differences occurred in the catch rate between the intake and discharge locations. This analysis used the GENMOD procedure with a log link function and extra-Poisson error structure (described in discussion of Day/Night differences). Results of this analysis indicate that for egg or larval stages of ichthyoplankton, none of comparisons were close to being statistically significant (p<0.01). For juvenile and adult fishes, estimates for the discharge location were consistently greater than for the intake if sufficient samples existed for comparison. Catches of opossum shrimp and scud averaged 57% and 20%higher, respectively, at the discharges. Neither difference, however, was statistically significant. Assuming 100% capture in the discharge (a reasonable assumption based on high discharge velocity and turbulence there), adjustment factors (AF) for intake samples may be computed from the following: AF=ZND ZN, 17 PSE&G Pernit Application 4 March 199'Appendix F, Attachment 2 where ND and N, are the number collected at the discharge and intake, respectively. Adjustment factors were based on the 14 paired samples, pooled by life stage. Based on empirical data, the AF for adult fish (average 60 mm TL) at Salem is 5.21, for juvenile fish (average 32 mm TL) 3.68, and for larvae (average 5 mm) 1.03. Using these three AF values and assuming an inverse relationship between length and extrusion, the following relationships were solved to calculate length-specific avoidance factors: 5mm -32mm TL AF = I / (1.13486 -0.02697 TL) and 33mm -60mm TL AF = I / (0.36294 -0.00285 TL).where.TL = total length (mm).Entrainment densities were corrected for net avoidance for larvae of 5 mm TL or longer for intake samples only. For larvae less than 5 mm TL, net avoidance was assumed to be 0%. Sample concentrations were multiplied by the avoidancefactor as detailed in the above equations for larvae from 5 to 60 mm TL. For larvae longer than 60 mm TL, sample concentrations were multiplied by an avoidance factor of 5.21 (adult fish).Because of the small sample size on which these adjustmeni factors were calculated, further analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the estimates. This was done by relaxing the strict pairing of samples. By comparing the mean intake and discharge catch based on pooled daily, weekly, biweekly, and monthly samples, larger numbers of samples become available. The results, by life stage and species, are shown in Table 11.III.C.3. Recirculation The estimated density of organisms entrained must also take into account the recirculation of previously entrained organisms, i.e., re-entrainment. By making several simplifying assumptions, the effect of recirculation may be approximated (TI, 1975). If a constant proportion (R) of the organisms in the CWS have been retained in the system, then I-R of the observed total are in the plant for the first time, (I-R)R for the second, (1-R)R 2 for the third, etc. By also assuming that the plant-induced mortality is constant (i.e., that the probability of mortality (f) for an organismencountering the plant for the first time is the same as the probability for the second, third, etc., passage), the density adjustment is obtained as the sum of an infinite geometric series: RF = (f-Rf)/(1-R+Rf)18 PSE&G Permit Apphcanon 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 whereRF = recirculation factor R = proportion of organisms recirculated f = probability of mortality The recirculation factor used in this study was 10 percent. This value was obtained from a dye survey at Salem conducted 27-29 May 1998. The details of this survey are described in Appendix E, Exhibit E-l-3.Following modification by gear efficiency, mortality factors, and recirculation factors, the average daily density of all samples collected during a week was applied to each day of that week and multiplied by the average daily intake flow to estimate daily entrainment losses.III C.4. Entrainment Survival Some entrained organisms survive passage through the plant, therefore the number entrained must be corrected using mortality factors to indicate the loss of a portion of the entrainment and the survival of the rest. These mortality factors derive from chemical effects, mechanical effects, and thermal effects. The entrainment survival rates for each target species were estimated from the results of on-site studies, simulation studies, and literature reports. This section summarizes estimated entrainment survival rates for each target species and provides a brief discussion of how they were derived.Through-plant mortality (f) was calculated as the probability of death from independent causes on the ith day (after Jinks et al., 1978; Lawler et al., 1981;Polgar et al., 1981; and Vaughan, 1982) as:I -( (-Mi) x (I-Ci) x (1-Ti)where Mi probability of death resulting from mechanical and physical stresses in the i' day Ci probability of death resulting from chemical (i.e., anti-fouling chemicals) exposure on the ith day T = probability of death resulting from exposure to elevated temperatures on the it" day Mechanical and chemical components were considered constant during the entire entrainment period. Exposure temperature varied daily as a function of plant operation and ambient intake water temperature. Although synergistic interaction among the chemical, mechanical, and thermal components has been suggested, its occurrence has not been adequately demonstrated (Cada et al., 1982). 19 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 III. C. 4.a. Mechanical Mortality Mortality due to mechanical effects (namely those associated with abrasion and pressure changes) was estimated based on studies conducted by EA (1988) for alewife, American shad, blueback herring, bay anchovy, striped bass, and white perch. White perch and striped bass were considered representative of weakfish for the present study. A 24-hr mechanical mortality value of 0.6 for both white perch and striped bass was applied to the previous mechanical mortality value(0.4) for weakfish. Thus the new mechanical mortality for weakfish larvae was calculated as [1-( 0.6 x 0.6)] = 0.64. Mortality data for weakfish eggs and juveniles, and for all life stages of Atlantic croaker, spot, opossum shrimp and scud, were obtained from the PSE&G (1984) study. Mechanical mortality values are shown by species and life stage in Table 12.III.C.4.b. Chemical Mortality Biocides are applied to plant water systems for anti-fouling purposes. Such biocides are applied to the cooling water at Salem occasionally, and those appliedto service water become diluted to low levels immediately after the service water stream joins the cooling water stream. Mortality due to chemical effects is therefore not of concern at this plant.III.C.4.c. Thermal MortalityThe probability of thermal-related mortality (Ti) was derived through use of the following model (EA, 1977; Vaughan, 1982): Probit T, = B 0 + BITA + B2TE + B 3 10g 1 oD where Bo, BI, B 2 , and B 3 are coefficients derived using regression analysis: TE = exposure temperature (QC)TA = acclimation temperature (QC)D = exposure duration (min) The exposure temperature (TE) is the ambient temperature plus the temperature change experienced through the condensers, represented as: TE = TA+AT* where 20* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 TA = ambient temperature, and AT = temperature change through the condensers. Acclimation temperature (TA) was based on intake water temperature measurements. On dates for which intake water temperature was unavailable, water temperature recorded at the USGS Reedy Island monitoring station (located approximately 6 km upriver of Salem) was used to estimate the intake temperature (see Section F-i-I.-B). The exposure duration (D) was calculated as post-condenser transit time, which is discussed in Section II.C.Thermal mortality for each of the species may be calculated using the above regression model and the coefficients listed in Table 13.IlL C.5. Total Entrainment Losses Total entrainment losses were calculated by species, life stage, and year. The results are provided in Appendix L.III.D. Impingement Loss Model III.D.1. Description of Model A sampling program for numbers of fish impinged has been conducted every year since 1977. Samples were collected May through December 1977, June through December 1978, and during all months of plant operation from 1979 onward.Impingement loss estimates were made for the years 1977 through 1998.As the traveling screens of the intake rotate, organisms impinged on the screen are washed by a low-pressure spray into a fish trough or by a high-pressure spray into a trash trough. Depending on the direction of the tide, organisms in the troughs are washed into either a north or a south pool. Sampling of the impinged organisms is conducted by diverting the flow for a specified duration into the appropriate collecting pool. Fish and blue crabs in the pool are then counted, measured, and their condition (e.g., live, dead, damaged, or undetermined) observed and recorded. For a more detailed description of studies of impinged organisms, see Appendix F, Attachment F-1. The following discussion first describes methods for estimating losses due to CWS impingement and thenmethods for estimating losses due to SWS impingement. Methods for estimating blue crab losses are the same as those used for fish.21 PSE&G Permit Application .4 March 1099 Appendix F. Attachment 2 III.D.2. Number of Fish Impingedper Minute Sampled Since the overall duration of sampling may vary from collection to collection, sample counts are standardized to fish counted per minute sampled. The total number of fish in any sample is the total counted in both the north and south pools. For each day of impingement sampling, the daily average number of fish sampled per minute is calculated as follows: mi i=1 where= the average CWS impingement rate for day i (number/minute) mi = the number of samples on day i Y0 = the number impinged per minute on day i and in samplej The above calculation is P-erformed separately for each species, for each lengthinterval, and condition (i.e., live, dead, etc.).Monthly impingement rate is then calculated from the average rate impinged per day as follows: where k = the monthly CWS impingement rate (numbers per month)n = the number of days sampled in the month N = the number of days that the plant operated in the month Mi = minutes in one day (1,440)A separate value of k was calculated for each month, year, species, length class, and condition (i.e., live, dead, etc.). Tables showing the number of fish impinged per day for each month, year, species, length class, and condition can be found in Appendix L.III.D.3. Adjustment for Collection Efficiency Y above represents only the number of organisms actually counted, not all the impinged fish. To estimate the number of impinged organisms the monthly impingement rate is divided by the collection efficiency. 22 PSE&G Permit Apphicaliun 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 y= YX E-'or (Actual number of organism counted) -(collection efficiency) = Y'where Y' is the adjusted value for organisms impinged (e.g., 100/0.95 =105) and E is the collection efficiency. Impingement collection efficiency data for each RIS are available from past Salem studies. The average rate of impingement was adjusted for collection efficiency by dividing the appropriate Y above by the reported collection efficiency for that species and month. For species not designated as RIS, the lowest collection efficiency rate was used in order to produce conservative (high)estimates of impingement losses. The lowest'collection efficiency rate was that of bay anchovy. See Table 14 for the collection efficiency rates and species.III.D.4. Conversion from Length to Age Relative-abundance indices were developed for each species. These describe the abundance of a species at a particular age over a specific period and in a known region of the estuary. Age was determined from length using age-at-length tables.Age cutoff values were calculated as follows:* For age 0 fish, the approximate 95 th percentile of length was estimated as the mean length plus two standard deviations in the assumed birth month.* For age 1 fish, the approximate 95 th percentile of length was estimated as the mean length minus 2 standard deviations 12 months after the assumed birth month." The cutoff between age 0 and age 1 fish was estimated as the midpoint length between (1) and (2) above.If older fish were measured, the same procedure was applied to estimate a cutoff between ages.III.D.5. Impingement Survival 23 PSE&G Pe-rnit .-\pplication 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 III.D.5.a. Initial Mortality Initial mortality rate is the percentage of fish or blue crabs that were classified asdead from the collection pool. Initial mortality rate (MI) was calculated as follows: M= N / Nt,, where: ND = Number of fish initially classified as dead N,o, = Total number of fish initially classified from the collection pool (live + dead + damaged)The monthly initial mortality rate for each target species for 1977 through 1995(old screens) and for 1996 through 1998 (new screens) is presented in Table 15.III.D.5.b. Latent Mortality Fish that were initially classified as damaged (NA) or live (NL) were tested for latent mortality, which was evaluated over a period of 96 hours for 1977-95, and over a period of 48 hours for 1996-98. Latent mortality rate was calculated for live fish (ML) and damaged fish (MD) as follows: ML = (nLD) / (nLL + nLD)where: nLD = Number of initially live fish classified as dead at the end of the test nLL = Number of initially live fish classified as live at the end of the test MD= (nAD) / (nAL + nAD)where: nAD = Number of initially damaged fish classified as dead at the end of the test hAL = Number of initially damaged fish classified as live at the end of the test The monthly latent mortality rate for each target species is presented in Appendix L.5 24 PSE&G Permit Apphcation 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 The total mortality rate was calculated by multiplying the initial survival rate for each target species for each sample by the latent mortality from the historicaldatabase for that species. The total mortality rates were calculated separately for fish that were initially live and for those that were initially dead. The rates are presented in Table 16.II.D.6. Total Impingement Loss The total impingement loss by year, month, species, and age, is the sum of the fish initially classified dead due to impingement plus the estimated loss due to latent mortality. These losses, calculated for actual flow conditions, are presented in Appendix L.The impingement losses for the SWS by year, month, species, and age were estimated from the CWS losses and the relative flows as follows: y-gIs S CVc where S= the monthly SWS impingement rate (numbers killed per S month)Y = the monthly CWS impingement rate (numbers killed per C month)VS = the monthly SWS water withdrawal VC = the monthly CWS water withdrawal These losses are due to actual flow conditions. Impingement losses for the CWS and the SWS in each year and month and for each species and age were adjusted from actual to "normalized" flow conditions, which were defined as: 12 CWS pumps running at 175,000 gpm each SWS at full predicted flow by unit for each month Adjustment was performed on a volume basis as follows: f = f E'N CV 25 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1Q9)Q Appendix F. Attachment 2* where S= the normalized impingement rate (numbers killed per N month)V, =the normalized water withdrawal III.E. Equivalent Recruit Losses The calculation of estimated loss to the fishery begins with the application of the Equivalent-Recruit Model, which converts numbers of entrained and impinged organisms to the losses of an equivalent number of one-year-olds. The numbers of organisms entrained and impinged at Salem were converted to equivalent one-year-olds using available estimates of daily mortality rates of early life stages (eggs, prolarvae, postlarvae, and juveniles). This procedure was necessary by the overlap in temporal distribution of these life stages: the organisms entrained on any given day may include a mix of two or even three life stages, and differing survival rates must be applied to their numbers. Postlarvae alive on a given date, for example, have a greater probability of surviving to age 1 or older than do prolarvae alive on the same date; juveniles alive on the same date have a still greater probability of survival to age 1.The method employed for this assessment accounted for both the life stage ofeachenumb iner d organisms ofd lie datae]onwhichitwas entrained on d s if mnth gese o each entrained organism and the date on which it was entrained or impinged. Theo were entrained on their day of entry into life stagej, then a simple calculation could be used to estimate the number of entrained organisms that would have survived to reach a subsequent life stage, k: Eki =Eie where zj = daily instantaneous mortality rate of life stagej, and dj = duration of life stagej In reality, these organisms will have been in life stage] for varying numbers of days, and the assumption that all organisms of a given life stage are entrained ontheir day of entry into that life stage will therefore underestimate the number that would have survived to the next life stage. A more realistic number may be arrived at by estimating the time already spent in life stagej by the averageentrained organism. If approximately the same number of eggs are spawned on each day during the spawning season, then on any given day the age distribution (in days) of entrained organisms should approximate a stable age distribution in which the relative numbers of organisms in adjacent day-age classes are 3 26 PSE&G Permtt Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 proportional to the daily survival rates. Under these conditions, the average number of days in which each of the organisms comprising Eji has been in life stagej may be estimated by calculating the time required for one half of the organisms expected to die during life stagej to disappear from the population. Given E 0 organisms entering life stagej, then Eoe-zId, organisms would be expected to survive to enter life stage k, and E 0 (1 -e- 'I ) organisms would be expected to die. The time required for half these organisms to die may be calculated from: Eoe-ZId, = Eo _ 0.5E, (I -e-zd )where d. = average number of days an entrained organism has been in life stagej, dj= duration of life stagej, and zj= daily instantaneous mortality rate for life stagej Half the organisms comprising Eji should have been in life stagej for or fewerdays, and half should have been in life stagej for di or more days. From which it follows that In2-ln(l+e-:"j) ýzj The number of entrained organisms of life stagej entrained on day i that would have been expected to survive to reach life stage k is then given by: Eki = Ejie-(dj)zj If stagej represents postlarvae and stage k represents age 0 juveniles, then the number of equivalent one-year-olds is represented by Ei and is given by: EbdJ = Ekie-(dw.,)z1e where dbd.i = number of days between day i and the species birthdate, and zjV= daily instantaneous mortality rate for age 0 juveniles. 27 PSE&G Permit Application 4 Mlarch 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 If stagej represents postlarvae, then E,. is given by: Ebd, E e-( £ -e ( .)"ý,, -(dd. -d,,;where dPS 1 = life stage duration for postlarvae 7P,/= daily instantaneous mortality rate for postlarvae, and d ps= average number of days that entrained postlarvae have been in postlarval stage.The procedure was applied to all young-of-the-year stages, with the exception of the juvenile stage. Correction of the stage duration for juveniles was unnecessary because juvenile entrainment consisted predominantly of organisms that have just entered the stage, and the stage is of much longer duration than the others. For this stage, therefore, the equivalent recruit model is applied in the classical form presented at the beginning of this section without correction for differential stage durations of varying-age organisms. Impingement losses were converted to one-year-old equivalents in a manner identical to juvenile entrainment losses, i.e., appropriate survival parameters were applied to the early life stages to compute equivalent adults at their first birthday.For losses subsequent to the first birthday, the impingement loss estimates were scaled up to an equivalent number of one-year-olds based on adult survival rates.Entrainment and impingement losses that occur after the first birthday are expressed as equivalent numbers of one-year-olds by applying the Equivalent-Recruit Model in reverse. Thus, for losses subsequent to the first birthday, the number of one-year-olds is calculated as follows: Ej.Eki= -:di Input values for mortality rates, stage durations, and losses are given in Appendix L.III.F. Extended Empirical Impingement Model (EEIM)III.F. 1. Description of Model The Extended Empirical Impingement Model (EEIM) model is based upon the Empirical Impingement Model (EIM) which was used in the 1984 316(b)demonstration. It is used to calculate CMRI based on estimates of number of 28 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 organisms entrained and impinged and an estimate of absolute population size.The EEIM was employed for stages/ages of organisms having sufficient data both from sampling at Salem to reliably estimate losses due to entrainment or impingement, and from baywide sampling to estimates of CMR for all entrainable and impingeable stages and ages.The Extended Empirical Impingement Model (EEIM) requires estimates of losses due to entrainment or impingement, and an estimate of the baywide absolute population size. It is 'extended' in the sense that the approach used in previous work for estimates of impingement mortality rates is also being used to estimate entrainment mortality rates in the Demonstration. Estimates of impingement rates (using EIM) require a year class of a species to have adequate estimates ofbaywide abundance, and impingement sampling effort at Salem. All species have adequate impingement sampling, and the species-specific year classes with adequate baywide estimates are listed in Table 16. To obtain estimates for entrainment rates, sampling at Salem must be done for all stages and ages of a species' year class: Year classes of species lacking entrainment sampling for oneor more entrainable stages are listed in Table 17. The results for species with sampling for all entrainable life stages are presented in Appendix L.Stage/age-wise losses are related to the instantaneous mortality rate, F, (and hence to CMR,) as: LOSS, -F, (I -e- '-"' )No.1 F, +M, where LOSS, = loss due to entrainment or impingement of stage I from losses (solved for iteratively as described below), F, = instantaneous mortality rate due to Salem for stage 1.M, = instantaneous rate for stage I from all other sources, and No 0 t = population size at the beginning of stage 1 (for age-1 juveniles). The process begins with the October I` abundance of age-1 juveniles (based uponestimates derived from the sampling programs indicated below). The M/ values are based upon the literature. These values are substituted into the equation above, along with various values of F,. The value retained as the best estimate of F, for age-I juveniles is the one that results in the smallest discrepancy between the loss -observed at Salem and the loss predicted by the equation above. Once the value of N 0., is found for age-I juveniles on October I"t, this value is used to solve for F/ values of earlier and later stages and ages by stepping backwards or forwards through time.29 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 The stage-specific estimates of F, are then combined to obtain the total CMR: CM~Rtola= 1 -H- (e -)III. F.2. Entrainment and Impingement Losses Total entrainment and impingement losses were estimated using historical on-site entrainment and impingement sampling data. The general approach to estimating both types of losses involves making counts of fish in entrainment orimpingement samples, expanding these counts by the ratio of the sample size to the plant intake flow rate, then estimating the total number lost by multiplying the expanded count by the mortality rate for fish entrained or impinged. Typically, entrained fish are larvae or are young juveniles, while impinged fish are older.Details of these data handling and statistical methods are in. Section lII.C. for entrainment and in Section III.D. for impingement. The estimates used as input to the EEIM are losses of fish (numbers) per stage for larvae or per age for older fish, and may be found in Appendix L.III. F. 3. Survival Rates Natural survival rates used as model input parameters are given in Appendix L.IIl.F.4. Source Population Size II1.F.4.a. White PerchPopulation estimates for young-of-the-year (YOY) white perch in the DelawareRiver were calculated using PSE&G (1984, 1997, 1998) data from a series ofmark-recapture studies-conducting by PSE&G during. 1980-1983, and 1996-1998. The population estimates were calculated using a Petersen model (Ricker 1975)for the 1980-1983 programs, and for the 1996-1998 programs. In addition, a Fisher-Ford open population model (Begon 1979) was used for the 1997-1998 program. The results of these programs are listed in Table 18.The Fisher-Ford estimates correspond to the following time periods: 5 January 1998 to 3 March 1998 (M2), and 4 March 1998 to 29 April 1998 (RI). The age-0 white perch survival rate over the entire study was calculated at 0.8839, and assumed to be constant over all periods. 'this value corresponds to an instantaneous daily mortality rate (Zd) of 0.0022 and an annual survival rate (S) of 0.447. In addition, white perch age-1 survival rate (Youngs and Robson 1975)was calculated for the 1996 year class as 0.421 +/- 0.337 (95% C.I.).30 PSE&G Permit Apphcation 4 March 19N)Q Appendix F. Attachment 2 XII.F.4.b. Striped Bass During PSE&G's 1997-1998 white perch program, the number of striped bass collected was recorded. Over the entire 1997-1998 white perch program, a total of 47,473 age-0 white perch and 2,755 age-0 striped bass were captured (5.8%).The 1998 age-0 striped bass population estimates based on the white perch Fisher-Ford estimates are 3,707,102 and 2,942,759 for the periods M2 and RI,respectively. Using the Petersen estimate for white perch of 65,468,403, this suggests a population size of 3,797,327 age-0 striped bass, which is similar to that derived from the Fisher-Ford estimate. III.F.4.c. American Shad The Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative Fishery Project conducted American shad mark-recapture programs during 1975-1978.The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife conducted mark-recapture programs during 1979-1983, 1986, 1989, and 1992 as part of an ongoing program to monitor trends in the annual spawning runs of American shad in the Delaware River. During 1995 and 1996, adult American shad population estimates were made based on data from hydro-acoustic studies (BWEC 1995, 1996) designed to monitor the American shad upstream spawning migration. The results of these studies are shown in Table 19. The Petersen population estimates range from 106,202 in 1977 to 882,648 in 1992; the Schaefer population estimates range from 88,415 in 1977 to 542,865 in 1992; the hydroacoustics population estimates range from 180,000 in 1989 to 792,000 in 1996.The Schaefer population estimates were used for American shad abundance in theEEIM, and were also used to aid in the derivation of estimates for alewife and blueback herring. The Schaefer population estimates of annual adult American shad abundance were used as the starting point for the estimation ofjuvenile abundance for each year. Average age frequency data and sex composition data (i.e., % females) from PSE&G (1984) 316 Demonstration, Appendix III were used to estimate the annual totals of adult shad females of various ages. The resulting estimates of female adults by age for each year were multiplied by age-specific fecundity rates (number of eggs/female) from Appendix L to arrive at annual estimates for total number of eggs. The final estimate of the total number of juvenile American shad for each year was the product of the estimated total number of eggs and the cumulative survivorship from egg to first birthday.Ill.F.4.d. Blueback Herring and Alewife None of the sampling programs reviewed (see Appendix F, Section VI.B. and Attachment F-1) for this assessment provided good direct estimates of baywide 31 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 abundance for alewife or blueback herring. However, two programs provided good relative indices for these two species (see Appendix J for a discussion of the utility of indices): the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Beach Seine Survey and the Delaware Department of Natural Resource's Juvenile Trawl Survey. For each of these sampling programs, the alewife juvenile annual index value (average catch per haul or CPH) was divided by the annual index value for juvenile America shad, resulting in an average ratio of alewives to shad for each program. These two ratios were then averaged, and their product with the estimated total abundance ofjuvenile American shad (discussed in the previous section) was used as the estimate of total abundance for alewife juveniles. The same process was followed for blueback herring.III.F.4.e. Spot and Weakfish Estimates of total abundance for juvenile spot and weakfish were based upon samples taken in PSE&G Baywide Surveys of 1981, 1982, 1996, and 1998 (including the pelagic trawl samples, the bottom trawl samples, and the 1998 special extension of bottom trawl sampling to the up-river portions of the Delaware River). The PSE&G Surveys are described in Appendix F, Section VI.B., and in Attachment F-1. For all three portions of the PSE&G sampling program, densities were multiplied by the relevant habitat areas to arrive at estimates of abundance within these portions of the estuary.In 1996 and 1998, bottom trawl sampling was done during daylight hours while pelagic trawl sampling was done at night (Appendix F, Section VI.B.), leading to the possibility of double counting. Because of this, direct estimation of mid-water abundance values from the pelagic samples was not done for 1986 or 1998.Instead, an indirect estimation of mid-water abundance was done using the ratio of mid-water/bottom abundances derived using the 1981 and 1982 pelagic and bottom samples. In 1981 and 1982, both the pelagic and bottom sampling were done during daylight hours, so double counting is not an issue for these years.Up-river abundance in 1998 was calculated by multiplying estimated densities by the areas of up-river regions. The ratio of the up-river abundance for 1998.divided by the 1998, using down-river abundance estimate was used to estimate up-river abundance in years prior to 1998, using down-river abundance estimates from these earlier years.III.F.4.f Bay Anchovy Estimates of abundance ofjuvenile bay anchovy were derived using the methods similar to those described above for spot and weakfish. Since bay anchovy are primarily a pelagic fish, the bottom trawl samples from the down-river regions were not used to directly estimate abundance in the down-river regions. These S 32 PSE&G Prrmit AppICat3un -; March Iq9 Appendix F. Attachment 2 samples were used only to indirectly estimate abundance in the up-river regions for years other than 1998. For 1998, the up-river bottom trawls were used directly, and in earlier years the down-river bottom trawls were used with the up-river/down-river ratio to estimate up-river abundance. Because the down-river bottom trawls were never used to estimate down-river abundance, there is not a problem of double-counting between daytime, bottom samples and nighttime mid-water samples. For this reason, the mid-water estimates of abundance for 1996 and 1998 could be calculated directly from the nighttime pelagic samples taken in these years. The 1981 and 1982 mid-water estimates were done directly from the daytime pelagic sampling results, as always.III.F.5. Conditional Mortality Rates Historical conditional mortality rates are listed in Table 20.33 Corrected Version of III.G. (April 4, 2001)lP. III.G. Empirical Transport Model (ETM)The ETM was used in this assessment to estimate the proportional reduction in the population on entrainable stages of bay anchovy and weakfish (i.e., estimate the instantaneous conditional mortality rate or CMR). However, in general it may be used to estimate ihe;CMR for any stage or age of any species due to entrainment, impingement, or both. The ETM offers the dual advantage of not requiring estimates of either total population size or of number of organisms lost due to entrainment or impingement. The ETM, however,does require an estimate of the percentage of the total source population that resides near the station (i.e., within a specific region of the estuary) over a given period. To obtain this estimate, the Delaware estuary was divided into eight regions of approximately equal length, whose volumes were determined from bathymetric charts. Through plankton net and trawl density studies, the percentage of organisms within each region was estimated for each week that a species was vulnerable to entrainment/impingement at the station. In a very simplified form, the ETM multiplies the proportional density of organisms in Salem's region each week by (1) the proportional flow (i.e., the proportion between the volume of the station cooling water and the volume of the region) that week; (2) the nearfield spatial distribution factor;and (3) the through-plant or on-screen mortality rate of entrained and impinged organisms that week.The ETM requires specific information on life-stage duration and periods of vulnerability. S The model tends to overestimate station impacts because of its static "fishbowl"I nature: it does not recognize the exchange (i.e., movement) of fish and water between the study area and other water bodies (such as the Atlantic Ocean and the upstream areas of the Delaware River). Since the ETM expresses population lossrates in proportion to an artificially definedarea and population, losses at the station could represent a much smaller percentage of thetrue population than those computed using ETM. The model does take into account the movement of organisms through regions within the defined study area as determined fromfield measurements. Inputs for the ETM include the following:
- The volume of each region of the estuary study area* Plant pumping rate* Fraction of the seasonal spawn occurring each week" Proportion of standing crop of a population in a size class occurring in a region in a given week" Through-plant and/or on-screen mortality rate* Nearfield spatial distribution (W-factor)
- Life-stage duration and periods of vulnerability to entrainment or impingement.
S 33* In the ETM, total conditional entrainment mortality was calculated as S III T E R S=1[TI![Hi [ > ,DSj.kI e_(Eýj~ki C 1.1 j.i 1=0 /=/ k-1 I 1]where mr = total conditional mortality rate;s =week 1,2,3, ..., S of the spawning period (subscript s will also denote cohorts born in those weeks);J k R,= age 0, 1, 2, ..., J of entrainable individuals in weeks;= life stage 1, 2, 3, ..., L;= river region 1, 2, 3, ..., K;= proportion of spawning that occurred in week s, so that S Y-R, 3 =1;$=1average proportion of river-wide abundance of life stage I individuals during week s +j that are in region k, with K>--D,+j.kl = 1 for each week, cohort and life-stage; k=1 E,+j.Jk instantaneous entrainment mortality rate constant for life stage 1 individuals during week s +j in region k (units of per day);CS+j41I= proportion of week s +j that individuals of cohort s spend in life stage 1; and t = duration in days of week s +j (i.e., t = 7).The instantaneous entrainment mortality rate constant (Es+j.kI) is calculated as follows: E s+1 ,ki=Ps+j., f,+j,kl Ws+j.kl/Vk where 34* P,-j.4 = rate of water withdrawal from region k in week s +j (units of m 3 d-1);f,+j.kI = fraction of life-stage I individuals in region k during week s +j entering the intake that eventually are killed by plant passage;ratio of the average intake density to average regional density of life-stage I individuals during week s +j in region k; and Vk = volume of region k (units of in 3).IlL G.2. Physical and Plant Operations Parameters Descriptions of the methods used to prepare the physical and plant operations data (Vk, and f,+J.k in the ETM equation) are in Appendix F, Attachments 1 and 2. Physical and plant operations parameters are used in the ETM model, along with the W-factor (W,+j.kIdescribed below), to estimate the instantaneous entrainment mortality rate (E+,jkI in theETM equation). III. G.3. Life Stage Duration and Period of Vulnerability The length of the time step (t in the ETM equation) used in-this application of the ETM is 7 days (i.e., one week). The term Csj.,, in the ETM equation represents the period of vulnerability of the individuals of agej (in weeks), and is in terms of the proportion of days during that week when the organism is in life stage 1. The result of multiplying the instantaneous entrainment mortality rate (E,+j.kI in the ETM equation) by this term is the mortality rate for the week for this life stage.The term C,+j,, is calculated using the duration of the life stage. Each weekly cohort is tracked through time, and the proportion of each week spent as that life stage is noted. For example: members of cohort s spend one day as eggs, so 1/7 is noted as C,+.j,, for the egg stage of cohort s during week s; then the weekly cohort spends the next three days as yolk-sac larvae, so 3/7 is noted for the YSL stage of cohort s during week s; then it spends 7 days as a post-yolk-sac larvae, so 3/7 is noted for cohort s in week s and 4/7 is noted for cohort s in week s+l; and so on.U 35* III. G.4. R-factors The R-factor (R, in the ETM equation) is a measure of the size of the weekly cohort s. It is calculated by dividing the total of the number of eggs collected during each week (s) of the PSE&G ichthyoplankton sampling program (Appendix F, Section VI.B), by the annual total of eggs. R-factors are listed in Appendix L.III. 5.5. D-factors D-factors (Dj.4, in the ETM equation) are estimates of the proportion of the total population that resides near the SGS during each week. For either bay anchovy or weakfish, the average proportion of the total population of a life stage in region k during week s+j is derived from two quantities. These quantities are the baywide abundance of that life stage during week s+j, and the abundance of that life stage within region k during that week. The first step in the process is to calculate the density of the organism in a tow (sample) from the PSE&G ichthyoplankton sampling program (Appendix F, Section VI.B). Then, the average density of all tows within a region is calculated and multiplied by the volume of the region (Appendix F, Attachment 2.I.A) to obtain the estimated number of organisms of that species and stage/age in region k during week s+j. Weeks with missing values for abundance are filled-in by a simple linear interpolation between the last non-missing value before week s+j and the first non-missing value after that week. The total of these regional abundances are standardized to proportions of the baywide total by dividing each regional estimate by the estimate of the baywide population. Values of D-factors are listed in Appendix L.II1. G. 6. W-factors The ratio of the average plant intake density of a given life stage to the average density within the region adjacent to SGS is the w-factor (Wj.,kl in the ETM equation). Values for the w-factors for both bay anchovy and weakfish were assumed to be 1 in the nearfield region and 0 elsewhere for all calculations (i.e., for all entrainable life stages and ages, throughout all weeks). *IIl.H. Local Depletion Model The Local Depletion Model (LDM) represents the Delaware Estuary as a series of compartments linked by exchanges of water. The Station is assumed to withdraw water from a "local compartment" I 0-miles in length, approximately the length of a tidal excursion. Exchange of water between adjacent compartments occurs because of tidal mixing. The concentrations of opossum shrimp or scud outside the "local compartment" are assumed to be constant. Concentrations both up-estuary and down-estuary from the local compartment are assumed to be equal.No reproduction is assumed to occur, either inside or outside the local Acompartment. 36 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March Appendix F. Attachment 2The rate of change of opossum shrimp or scud numbers within the nearfield compartment is given by: dNto dt where NIo, = local population of opossum shrimp or scud, i.e., the population present within the local compartment Cio = concentration (number/mi
- 3) of opossum or scud within the local compartment Cb,. = baywide concentration of opossum or scud (number/mi 3)V = volume of water withdrawn by Salem per tidal cycle Vex = volume of water exchanged per tidal cycle Fpl,,= fractional mortality of entrained opossum or scud The volume of water exchanged during each tidal cycle (Ve,) is a function of the size of the local compartment and the tidal exchange rate.Regardless of the initial numbers of opossum shrimp or scud within each compartment, given enough time the population sizes will reach an equilibrium value. At equilibrium, the net change. in numbers per tidal cycle becomes zero: 0 = V~x(Cbay -Co.) -FPClVp 1 ofCJ 0 c rearranging:
Cloc(Vex + FpIanVpIan,) =VeClThe ratio of the local concentration to the baywide concentration is a measure of the local depletion of opossum shrimp or scud due to entrainment at Salem: Cbay. + FV.+.,V, The ratio ClJ/Cbay provides the fractional depletion of opossum shrimp or scud at equilibrium. However, if conditions within the estuary are rapidly changing (e.g., due to weather-related changes in temperature or flows), equilibrium may never be reached. The minimum time required to reach a new equilibrium when exchange rates or entrainment loss rates change can be estimates using a simple extension of the model. An upper-bound estimate on the time required to reach the equilibrium depletion level can be obtained by assuming, as a worst case, that 3 37 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1909 Appendix F, Attachment 2 there is no replacement of entrained organisms due to tidal exchange. Then, Cioc-Cbay = 0, and the rate of change becomes: dN Io_._._. = -F plan V plaw Cloc dt To find the rate of change in concentration rather than the rate of change in numbers, both sides of the equation are divided by the volume of the local compartment, V1 0 c: dNoC Fpiant V pan, CIoc V,,dt VIoc but dN-_ = dC,, therefore
- dC- -- = F °a 0 t V P 1 0", CIOC dt Vloc This differential equation has the solution:-eFplantVplant/locI ClIot't = Cloc,Oe -"/,IP., V" Suppose that, the equilibrium depletion fraction under a given set of conditions is d.To find the time required to reduce Clt, to the fraction, d of the concentration, the above equation is used to estimate the time required for the concentration of organisms to fall from its initial level to a fraction d of that level:
-... a rearranging and taking the natural log yields td = V(7)Fpla. pant See Appendix F7, Table 18 for model input parameters. 38 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 111.1. Estimation of Compensatory Reserve Using Meta-analysis This section summarizes methods of estimating variability in the reproductive parameters, in particular the "compensatory reserve.", that is used to analyze the effect of power plant mortalities. The compensatory reserve, or maximum reproductive rate, is defined as the average rate at which spawning fish can produce replacement spawners at low population sizes if no anthropogenic mortality occurred. This quantity is then used in the quantitative models in the form of the parameter termed steepness, which is the proportion of actual recruitment relative to recruitment expected for a virgin population when thespawner abundance or biomass is reduced to 20% of the virgin level.Ideally, reliable estimates of the maximum reproductive rate could be obtained for each population of interest from the analysis of very long time series of absoluteabundance estimates observed at different population abundances. Unfortunately such data sets are' very rare--most data series are relatively short with wide variations-and thus there is a need to synthesize research from many populations. For this reason, meta-analysis is used. Meta-analysis is "the statistical analysis of a collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings" (Cooper and Hedges 1994). Meta-analysis has been well developed in several fields, including medicine: it is now regularly used to help make crucial decisions on the treatment of diseases and the implementation of social policies (Hunt 1997). Meta-analysis does not, however, refer to the combination of summary statistics ("analysis results") from individual studies; instead, it allows for a combined analysis of the complete data sets from all studies.To ensure that the statistical methods are as robust as possible, model development has been pursued in parallel fashion, using different biological and statistical models and independent computational approaches. The goal has been to provide accurate estimates of the degree of compensation that are robust toreasonable variation in biological and statistical assumptions. III.L 1. Data Used for Meta-analysis For this analysis, an attempt was made to compile all spawner-recruitment data in the World (see Myers et al., 1995, and updates). More than 600 fish populations were used although only 246 had sufficiently detailed data from which reliable estimates of the compensatory reserve could be obtained see (Appendix L). The data set included 57 species from 21 families and 8 orders. Of these, 109 populations were anadromous, 11 were freshwater, and 126 were marine or estuarine. Population dynamics data were obtained from assessments compiled by Myers et al. (1995).839 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 I11..2. Estimation of the Maximum Reproductive Rate and Steepness Maximum reproductive rate for a fish population may be calculated from the maximum slope of the stock-recruitment curve, which is realized as the origin (zero stock size) is approached. A sufficiently general relationship between recruitment (R) and spawner abundance (S, which may be numbers or biomass, both of which are proxies for egg production), would take the form: R = aSf(S),where a is the slope at the origin, andf(S), assumed to be monotonically decreasing such thatflO) = I, represents density-dependent mortality. Myers et al.(1995) found virtually no evidence that the behavior off(S) is depensatory decreasing (rather than monotonically) for commercially exploited stocks. The parameter a in the above equation defines the scope a population has to"compensate" for any form of increased mortality. For this parameter to be calculated for use in the above equation, it is necessary for the units of spawners and recruitment to be the same. For species that die after reproduction, e.g., Pacific salmon, this is easy: one can simply count the number of female recruits for each female spawner. For species that do not die after reproduction, it is more complex. The process is explained below. The estimation of the parameter a requires an extrapolation because, at extremely low population sizes, abundance may be difficult to estimate. For this estimation, a functional form of the density-dependent mortality,f(S), is required. To helpdescribe different forms of density-dependent mortality, two functional forms are used: Ricker E(R) = aSe-"s aS Beverton-Holt E(R) =1+(S!K)where 83 and K are the density-dependent terms. In the Ricker model, 8lS can be interpreted as the density-dependent mortality. The parameter K, which has the same dimensions as the spawners, S, may be interpreted as the "threshold biomass" for the model. For values of biomass S greater than the threshold biomass K, density-dependent effects dominate. The Ricker model shows overcompensation, i.e., at high spawner abundances recruitment declines. However, for the Beverton-Holt model, recruitment does not decline at higherspawner abundances. For the forthcoming calculations, the slope at the origin, a, must be standardized as follows: 40 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March [9g)= .SPRFo Appendix F. Atachment 2 where SPRF=O is the spawning biomass resulting from each recruit (perhaps in units of kg-spawners per recruit) in the limit of no fishing mortality (F=0).This quantity, et, represents the number of spawners that would be produced by each spawner over its lifetime at very low spawner abundance. In what follows, all discussion of a will refer to the standardized quantity, d.The steepness parameter, z, for the Beverton-Holt model is defined as the proportion of recruitment relative to the recruitment at the equilibrium with no fishing when the spawner abundance or biomass is reduced to 20% of the virgin level. This is related to the maximum reproductive rate a by 4+a where 0.2<z< 1.At the limit of small population size the Ricker and Beverton-Holt models coincide, i.e., the slope at the origin, a, is the same for both models. In this context, z can be estimated from either model. It can, however, be directly applied only to the dynamics of the Beverton-Holt model.In the detailed technical report of this meta-analysis, sources of bias were in estimation are reviewed (Myers, Barrowman, and Hilborn 1999). Briefly, there is a large bias and high variance associated with estimating the slope at the origin for a spawner recruit model if only catch per unit effort (CPUE) data were used (Christensen and Goodyear 1988). This bias and variance was largely mitigated by the use of more reliable data, e.g., virtual population analysis or research surveys, as in the simulations described in Myers and Barrowman (1995).IlL.1.3. Meta-analytic Approaches The purpose of meta-analysis with respect to Salem is to provide a quantitative summary of everything known about the maximum reproductive rate that is relevant to the RIS species. This is the knowledge we have prior to observing direct data on the populations of the Delaware River. An attempt was therefore made to estimate the "prior" distribution of the maximum reproductive rate. This I 41 PSE&G Permit Aipplication 4 %larch 199?Appendix F. Attachment 2prior distribution is used in the equilibrium models of the effect of power plant mortality on populations in the Delaware River and Bay.The model and methods used are described in detail in Myers, Bowen, Barrowman, and Mertz (1998); and Myers, Bowen, and Barrowman (1998, in press); for the Delaware RIS they are described in Myers, Barrowman, and Hilbom (1999). Methods from a well established branch of statistics, variance components models (Searle et al. 1992), were used to carry out these estimates of the maximum reproductive rate. The variance components models used assume that the log of the standardized slope at the origin, cx, of the spawner-recruitment curve is a normal random variable. That is, we assume that the biological parameter of interest, log cx, is variable among the group of populations that are similar to the RIS.An estimate of the parameter for any particular population therefore provides information about the true value of the parameter for all other populations included in the analysis. This method permitted an estimate to be made of the true underlying variability among populations of the parameter to be separated from the estimation error variance by explicitly considering the estimation errors.The resulting estimated priors were then transformed into units of steepness to be used in the Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis.Several alternative implementations of the variance components models were examined, e.g., models that assumed that the spawner recruitment relationship was described by a Ricker or a Beverton-Holt function. The results from theRicker estimates were used, because they consistently gave more precautionary, i.e. lower, estimates of the maximum reproductive rate.The following is a brief description of the formulation used to estimate the priors in the Ricker model; notation has been changed slightly to allow results to be put into the standard notation of variance components. For each ofp populations, subscripted by i, an estimate is made of the parameters of a Ricker model of the form: log Ri' = logai + 8i Si." + si, Si., where R,., is recruitment to year-class t in population i, Si., is spawner abundance in year t in population i, a, and ,3l are the Ricker model parameters for population i, and E,, is estimation error, assumed to be normal.It is assumed that log ai is a normal random variable defined as 42 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2/U + ai -=logai where u is the mean of the log-transformed maximum reproductive rates, and a, is the random effect for population i.The above formulation is in the format of a standard linear variance component model (Myers et al. 1998; Myers et al., in press), and the distribution of log a can be estimated using well tested software.II.L4., Choice of Species to be Used in the Estimation of the Priors For each RIS it was necessary to infer an appropriate prior distribution for the calculations in the equilibrium models. Three approaches were employed in the choice of species to be used in the calculation of the priors. The first approach was to use populations or species closely related to the RIS.This approach was possible only for striped bass, where investigators had one very good assessment, and for the three Alosa species (alewife, shad, and blueback herring).The second approach was to rely on independent expert judgment as to which populations should be included in the analysis. The independent expert did not have access to the results of the analysis, and had not seen preliminary results.The independent expert was provided with the following traits: natural mortality, longevity, type of reproduction (i.e., oviparous versus ovoviviparous), habitat (i.e., anadromous, freshwater, or marine), fecundity, age at maturity, latitude, and ambient temperature where the organism was normally found. According to this set of environmental and life-history data, the expert selected the fish populations most likely to be of use in calculating variability in the compensatory reserve for each of the RIS.The third approach was to employ an analysis based upon an empirical regression using the same life-history and environmental data used above. In this analysis, life-history and taxonomic data were used to select a subset of characteristics that explained the slope at the origin. A three-step strategy for model building (suggested by Davidian and Gallant, 1993) was used. The first two steps recommended by Davidian and Gallant, in the context of a nonlinear mixed model, are laid out as follows: At the first step, one fits the hierarchical nonlinear model with no covariates. The second step, is to computes individual empirical Bayes estimates of the* coefficients based on this fit. The individual components of these estimates are 43 PSE&G Permrt Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 then plotted against potential covariates, one at a time, and the plots are examined for possible systematic relationships. The last step is the use of a functional model incorporating the covariates. Following the strategy of Davidian and Gallant (1993), a functional model was constructed, incorporating these covariates. Let Ci be the value of a particular covariate for population i: Ri.log--:: = log ai + fOiSi, + 6Ci + 6i, Sir where the modification consists of the additional term 9C;. The parameter t represents the (assumed linear) relationship between the deviation of the log of the maximum reproductive rate and the covariate under investigation. The above formulation was used because it appeared to give a reasonable fit to the data, and was easily incorporated into well studied models.1ILL5. Final Estimation of the Priors Each of the above methods produces maximum-likelihood estimates of the mean and variance of the maximum reproductive rate, log a. In the model used to make the estimation, log a was assumed to be a normal random variable. It was transformed to a probability density for steepness, z, and it was this distribution that was used for a prior in the quantitative models. For details see Myers, Barrowman, and Hilborn (1999).1II.1 6. Robustness, Simulation Tests, and the Precautionary Approach An attempt was made in this analysis to obtain the best possible estimates using reliable methods and data. Where biases could not be eliminated, choices were made based upon the precautionary principle--in other words, methods were used that gave the lowest estimation of compensatory reserve. The most important instance of this was in the critical choice of the spawner recruitment. function. It was clear that the Ricker model gave more precautionary estimates than the Beverton-Holt model, even though at the limit of no density-dependent compensation they should have identical slope. For this reason, the Ricker model was used to estimate the compensation potential. Note that even though the degree of compensation was estimated from the Ricker model, the Beverton-Holt model was used in the actual population dynamic models. This is also 44 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 precautionary because all Ricker models show over-compensation, i.e., recruitment is reduced at high spawner abundances. A second instance in which the precautionary principle was used was in choosing between the three methods for the estimation of the priors: the method that gave the most conservative estimation of the maximum reproductive rate was the one used.Another concern is robustness: it should not be possible for the results to be greatly influenced by one, possibly erroneous, data set. In each of the three methods above, data that caused very high estimates of the maximum reproductive rate were examined. Any data set found to be overly influential was eliminated. To test the reliability of results, simulation experiments on the above problem have been carried out. The simulations, described in detail in Myers, Bowen, and Barrowman (in press), demonstrated that, the methods that were used provide close-to-unbiased estimates of the model parameters if the assumptions of the model were met. In particular, it was clear that estimates of the mean and variance of the log a parameter were not biased. The robustness of the Ricker model when the assumptions are not met was investigated. It was found that if a Ricker mixed model was fitted for simulated data actually from a Beverton-Holt model, that the mean a, i.e., the slope at the origin of the spawner recruitment function, was underestimated by around 40%.The estimation of the variability among populations, shows very little bias. This implied that the degree of compensation would be underestimated if a Rickermixed model were used with data actually from a Beverton-Holt model.III.1.7. Results The estimates for the log of the maximum reproductive rate and steepness were the best linear unbiased predictors based upon a species-level analysis, because these were the values used in the exploratory part of the covariate analysis. They were shrunk to the mean for the species, and in some cases only the species mean was estimated. In this section we describe the results used to estimate priors for "steepness" for the RIS. The results for the three alternative approaches (using taxonomic criteria, an expert opinion, and an empirical covariate analysis), are compared. In the quantitative analysis of compensation we use the approach that gave the most precautionary results.8 45 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 IlIL .7.a. Taxonomic Criteria The only taxonomic groups with closely related species as the RIS, i.e. members of the same genus, were striped bass and the three species of the genus Alosa.It is possible to constructed a prior from the single stock assessment for striped bass; however, this produces a very narrow prior. The mode for the prior so constructed for striped bass has a mode at z=0.82, with 20 and 80 percentiles were estimated to be 0.8 and 0.84 respectively. We will compare the results for thissingle assessment with the alternatives presented below; however, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the results from a single assessment could describe the variability in steepness for the species.This taxonomic group for Alosa corresponded exactly to the "Domain 2, anadromous" group discussed in the next section, so we will not discuss it indetail here. II.I. 7.b. Expert Opinion for the Choice of Populations We first give the results of the estimates of the priors from the populations selected independently by James H. Cowan, Ph.D. Dr. Cowan was chosen to independently specify the populations to be used in the analysis because he hadconducted high quality research on all the RIS (Cowan and Houde 1990, Cowan et al. 1996).Dr. Cowan initially selected populations only if they spawned between 30 to 45 degrees north or south latitude, but after examining environmental temperatures, this criteria was changed to winter temperatures between 5 and 22 degrees centigrade. These temperatures corresponded to those within the species range ofthe RIS. These temperatures were measured at 50 meters depth for marinespecies, except for those in shallow seas, where 20 meters was used. In some cases, temperature was not available but we could infer it using data fromsurrounding regions. His rationale for this criterion is that the temperatures atwhich these stocks operate is important to some life history characteristics. He also eliminated species whose life histories he judged to be significantly different from the RIS species (e.g. Salmonidae). The independent expert, Dr. Cowan decided on three "domains" based on the lifehistory classification documented in Appendix I:* Domain 1This category includes fish with young age at maturity (< 2 years), high natural mortality (> 0.3 on a yearly basis), and relatively low fecundity (< 100,000 eggs per year).46 PSE&G Permit Application
- 4. March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 The bay anchovy was the only RIS to fall within the domain.Nine other populations from the data-base fell within this domain. The individual estimate of the maximum reproductive rate for these populations fell into twoclear clusters, i.e. those with an cc around 4 and the population of ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis, Plecoglossidae) from Lake Biwa, Japan which appeared to have a very high reproductive rate. Theanalysis for the ayu appears to be very good, and was backed up by fishery independent survey data (Suzuki and Kitahara 1996). In the estimation of the prior 2, we treated it as an outlier because it had a maximum reproductive rate so much high than other species in this Domain. This significantly lowered our estimation of the compensation reserve, but was consistent with the precautionary principle.
The estimate based upon the remaining 8 populations produced a relatively narrow prior for steepness.
- Domain 2 This life-history domain has older age at maturity (>2 to 5 years), lower natural mortality rates (from 0.2 to 0.5 /yr), moderate fecundity (generally between 100,000 and 750,000 eggs per year) and moderate longevity (5-15 years). The criteria used here are those populations that do not fit exactly into the category I and 3 populations.
Most of the RIS fell within this category (weakfish, croaker, spot, shad, alewife, blueback herring, and white perch). This domain corresponds to the periodic life history of (Winemiller and Rose 1992).Dr. Cowan noted that several of the RIS in this domain are anadromous while others are not. At this request, we made a distinction between anadromous and marine populations in the analysis.72 populations from the database fell within this domain..On these 8 were anadromous. The anadromous category consists entirely of Alosa species. The remaining 66 populations were used to construct the priors for the Domain 2 non-anadromous priors.The priors estimated for the Domain 2 anadromous and non-anadromous populations were similar, except that the non-anadromous prior was slightly wider. In particular, the Domain 2 non-anadromous prior has some probability mass lies below 0.2 (a steepness of 0.2 is the minimum for a population to survive; however, it is possible for the model to make estimates below
0.2 unless
it is constrained). This small probability mass was eliminated from the estimates, and the prior density rescaled, because this represents a biologically impossible situation.
- Domain 3 3 47 PSE&G Permit Applicaion 4 Miarlh 1909 Appendix F. Attachment 2 This life-history domain is characterized by an older age at maturity (>4 years),low natural mortality rate (< 0.2), and high fecundities (>500,000 eggs/yr).
Striped bass was the only RIS species corresponding to Domain 3.Nine populations from the database fell into Domain 3 and met the other conditions that Dr. Cowan specified. The MLE prior for Domain 3 produces a very reasonable prior with high compensation typical of long lived species such as striped bass. The mode is very similar to that produced based only upon the striped bass data; however, the Domain 3 prior is much wider. [1I.. 7.c. Summary of Empirical Analysis of Environmental and Life-History Data There is a strong positive relationship between reproductive longevity and the compensatory reserve. The other factor that appeared to potentially influence the degree of compensation was the type of reproduction, i.e., oviparous versus ovoviviparous reproduction. The only species in the data set with ovoviviparous reproduction is the genus Sebastes. These are clearly very different from the Oviparous species.We also investigated habitat (i.e., an anadromous, a freshwater, or a marine life-history), fecundity, age at maturity, latitude, and environmental temperature. None of these factors appeared to have a strong and consistent relationship with the compensation reserve, so we did not include them in the final covariate estimation of the priors. There was some evidence that the Pacific salmon species were different than comparable species, so we did consider the effect of eliminating this group in our robustness tests.III.. 7.d. Estimation of Priors Based upon Covariate Analysis The analyses of the previous subsections suggest that certain covariates may be important. Following the strategy of Davidian and Gallant we built a functional model incorporating these covariates. Based upon the analysis described in the last section we construct priors from using an analysis of reproductive longevity as a covariate. Our analysis used a mixed model of the form log-R'- = log a, 47 +iSi., + (5Ci + 6i, Si.O where-48 PSE&G Permit Application
- 4. March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 Ci is the reproductive longevity of population i, and is the effect of this parameter.
In the above model we had to decide on the selection of data to be used for the regression analysis. We considered three possibilities: (1) all oviparous species, (2) all oviparous species except the Pacific salmon species, and (3) all oviparous species except the Pacific salmon species and the most influential data sets. The robustness tests were carried out by eliminating from 1 to 4 populations that had the greatest effect on the estimation of ca.The results from all three analyses were similar; however, the width of the priors were wider when we used the second option above, i.e., all oviparous species except the Pacific salmon species. We thus considered it most precautionary to use the second analysis in our model for estimation of the covariate priors.III.I. e. Comparison and Choice among the Alternative Methods of Selecting Priors The results of the three approaches to constructing MLE priors yielded similar results in most cases. In the case of the Alosa populations the taxonomic priors and the expert opinion choice of populations happened to be identical. The results for the covariate analysis was relatively similar as well.There were two cases where the differences were relatively large. For bay anchovy, the mode of the MLE prior for the expert opinion (with the "outlier" eliminated) is significantly less than the mode for the covariate analysis. The variance of the covariate prior is greater than that of the expert opinion prior. The mode of both striped bass MLE priors are very similar, however the variance for the covariate prior is larger. The prior based upon the single assessment of striped bass appeared to be too narrow to be reflect the true uncertainty, and will not be used in the equilibrium model.To be consistent with the precautionaryprinciple, the priors derived from the expert opinion were used because they usually gave more conservative estimates where there is a significant difference in the mode. For bay anchovy, we used the prior for Domain 1, for alewife, American shad, and blueback herring, we used the Domain 2 anadromous prior, for weakfish, spot, croaker, and white perch, weused the Domain 2 non-anadromous prior, and for striped bass we used the Domain 3 prior. These priors are shown on Fig. 7. The mode of steepness for the Domain 1 prior is 0.483, for the Domain 2 anadromous prior is 0.74, for the Domain.2 nonandaromous prior is 0.747, and the mode for the Domain 3 prior is 0.836.*49 PSE&G Permit Appiication 4 March 191Q Appendix F. Attachment 2 1II.J. Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis fII.J. 1. Introduction The operation of Salem in the Delaware Estuary causes entrainment and impingement of aquatic organism as water is cycled through the plant for cooling.Many parties are interested in understanding the impact of these mortalities on thepopulation dynamics of the fish species involved. One approach to understanding the impacts is to calculate the population consequences of different mortality rates at different life history stages when the population is at equilibrium. This method is widely used in fisheries management to establish the impacts of fishing mortality rates, and since the population consequences of mortality are the same whether it is caused by directed fishing, by-catch from fisheries, or by power plants, the analytic methods developed for fisheries are easily imported into examination of power plant impacts. This section documents the methods and data used for the Equilibrium spawner-recruit Analysis. The results are provided in Appendix F, Section XII and Table 21.II1J.2. The concept of equilibrium The basic concept of equilibrium is simple, if fishing mortality and plant mortality were held constant for a long period of time and the environment remained unchanged, the population would reach a steady state at an equilibrium level.This equilibrium level would depend upon the fishing and plant mortality. Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis is unrealistic in the sense that the environment will not stay constant, nor is it likely that fishing and plant mortality will be the same from year to year. However, even if the future is unknown Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis is valuable.An important feature of Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis is that the results do not depend upon the current state of the population, as the population will come to the same result eventually whether we start with a large or a small population.The approach, therefore, was to determine what will happen to the population given different fishing and plant mortalities. Normally the outcome is measured in two ways, the population size, usually measured as total spawning biomass or egg production, and the catch. 50 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 lLI.J.3. Spawner recruit relationships and compensation One of the longest established measures in fisheries management is the yield-per-recruit (YPR). A recruit is normally defined as an individual either 1 year old or of the first age where they are vulnerable to capture in a fishery. YPR is the total weight of the catch that can be expected from a single recruit and is simply the sum over all ages of the probability an individual will live to that age, times the probability of being captured at that age times the weight at age. Thus if all recruits survive from age 1 to 2 and then 100% are captured at age 2, then the YPR is simply the weight of 2 year old fish. Every recruit would survive and be caught.The tradition in fisheries is to determine the relationship between YPR and fishing mortality rate (denoted F). If F=O then there is zero YPR, nothing is captured. As F increases the YPR increases. In many cases, as F continues to increase the YPR begins to decline as few individuals survive the fishery enough years to grow to be very large. The value ofF that maximizes the YPR is denoted Fm.,, and is commonly acknowledged to be the guideline for overfishing, any F over F,,,, is too high. Figure 8 shows the relationship between YPR and F for two cases, one in which YPR does not decline at high F's and one in which it does. For a specific fishery to exhibit a declining YPR at high F the fish must be vulnerable to fishing early in their life history while still growing rapidly.Another measure used in fisheries management is spawning biomass (or egg production) per recruit (SBPR or EPR). The SBPR is the measure of the total weight of mature spawning stock that would be generated over the lifetime of an individual recruit, and the EPR is the total number of eggs expected to be produced per recruit. As F increases, SBPR and EPR always decrease -individuals don't live as long and therefore produce less spawning biomass or eggs per recruit.Both YPR and SSBPR are calculated on a per-recruit basis and do not include any explicit calculation of how reduced egg production will reduce subsequent recruitment. Such calculation requires incorporation of a spawner-recruit model.While there has been an enormous literature published on the "relevance" of spawner recruit models, three fundamentals are almost universally accepted.First, above some spawning stock sizes, the recruitment will not be increased by additional egg production and compensatory processes in the life history are responsible for this. Second, if the spawning stock is pushed low enough (in the extreme to zero), recruitment will eventually decline, and third, natural variation in environmental factors causes variation in year class strength. The environmentally induced variation may be as large or larger than variation due to egg production. Given that these principles are accepted, then the argument is about how high egg production has to be before recruitment on average doesn't increase, how low egg production has to be driven before recruitment starts to decline, and how much variation is environmentally driven. These specifics can be captured by the standard spawner recruit models -- the two most commonly 1 51 PSE&G Pernit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 used being the Beverton-Holt and the Ricker. If we have a way to estimate the parameters of these spawner recruit curves, then we can actually calculate the impact of reduce spawning stock on subsequent recruitment. First a word of caution -we are ignoring any year to year variation in environmental (density independent) factors (the third factor listed above) for Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis, allowing us to look at average curves rather the wide range in data that are commonly obtained.As spawning stock rises, the recruitment on average increases -remember we are ignoring year to year variation. At higher spawning stocks there is little, if any increase in recruitment. This figure is drawn with the spawning stock scaled to a value of I at the SSB in the unfished state. In the long term unfished state.spawning stock would be called B 0 , and the recruitment Ro.As we reduce the spawning stock below the unfished level, the recruitment declines. This lower recruitment means that per-recruit calculation of SBPR andYPR overestimate the actual yield. Figure 9 illustrates the relationship between spawning stock and F for a specific spawner recruit curve. The top line is the SBPR, which does not consider the drop in recruitment as spawning stock declines, and the lower line shows the total egg production, which is the SBPR times recruitment. Both are scaled to egg production in the unfished state. Note that at an F of about 0.45 this population goes to extinction, which corresponds to an SBPR of a little less than 10%.Figure 10 shows the relationship between YPR, which does not include the reduction in recruitment, and total catch. Here the difference is much more dramatic, the total yield going to zero at F=0.45, while the YPR remains reasonably high.III.J.4. Maximum Sustainable Yield Once we include the spawner recruit relationship we can consider the concept ofMaximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). MSY is the maximum long term sustainable catch. At its simplest it is an equilibrium concept, if all environmental factors and fishing mortality stayed constant (as in Figure 10), then MSY would be obtained by holding fishing mortality rate constant at the value that maximizes the total catch. This fishing mortality rate is called FMsy. To calculate FMsy we need to know the age specific schedules needed for SBPR, plus we need to know the shape of the spawner recruit curve. We can then calculate FMsy and the spawning stock biomass that produces MSY (BMsy) relative to the unfished state. That can easily be found by finding FMsy on the lower graph, and then going up to the total egg production line on the upper graph. To obtain the actual catch (MSY) we need to scale the population into absolute population size.52 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 II.J.5. Materials and methodsThe basic elements of the population dynamics model are recruitment, survival from natural mortality, growth, maturity, fishing mortality and power plant mortality. As part of the recruitment process a spawner-recruit model that allows for density dependence was considered. Given parameters describing these processes, equilibrium stock size can be calculated as a function of plant mortality. Where parameters such as mortality rates are uncertain, a Monte Carlo analysis using a probability distribution of values from the literature or best professional judgement is performed. The equilibrium equations and the Monte Carlo approach are described below.III.J.6. Equilibrium equations When external influences on a fish stock are assumed to be held constant for anindefinite period of time, the stock will reach a theoretical equilibrium where recruitment is constant. While the notion of equilibrium is theoretical, its properties are useful for describing stock behavior in response to a single variable.In particular, the equilibrium yield values for the stock can be expressed as a function of power plant mortality thereby providing an evaluation of the powerplant impacts in an otherwise (theoretically) stable environment. The equilibrium yield equations for an age-structured population were derived in Lawson and Hilborn (1985), which are modified here to include entrainment and impingement. The life history is assumed to follow an annual cycle described below: (1) Spawning -eggs are released (2) A period of density independent natural mortality and power plant mortality (3) The compensatory phase, a period of density dependent mortality (4) Density independent natural mortality, power plant mortality and possibly fishing mortality (5) First birthday (6) Egg production, natural, fishing and power plant mortality each year between birthdays. The first step is to calculate the equilibrium eggs per recruit and catch per recruit, and then solve for the equilibrium egg production, spawning stock and recruitment from the spawner recruit relationship. 53 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999Appendix F.-Attachment 2 The most important equation is the calculation of the equilibrium eggs per recruit, (E ), which is the number entering the density dependent recruitment process Eý = mafN, exp(- p~re) (1)where N, = is the number of individuals per recruit of age a, ma = is the fraction of the population of age a which are mature females,= is the number of eggs per mature female of age a, pPre = is the plant mortality that occurs prior to compensation. The number of individuals per recruit, N., is defined as[ +(F Pv +bco)] if a = I N; = exp[-Fvt 0 + 0-i + Pvbc if a>1 where M = is the instantaneous natural mortality rate, F = is the instantaneous fishing mortality rate,= is the vulnerability of fish aged a to the fishery, P = is the vulnerability of fish aged a to the plant impacts (expressed relative to age 0 fish), P = is the instantaneous power plant mortality, PS"' = is the plant mortality that occurs after compensation. bca = is the instantaneous bycatch mortality rate for fish aged a.The number of age 1 individuals per recruit is 1 (the single recruit) times the survival from fishing and power plants prior to the I st birthday.Note that PskI..are = ppre + pPno, where sdelaware is the fraction of the coast-wide stock that originates from the Delaware Bay and is subject to the Salem powerplant impacts. The biomass per recruit that is vulnerable to the fishery is: a where 54 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 w, is the weight of a fish at age a, and the total equilibrium biomass is B =BRý, The equilibrium catch per recruit (expressed in biomass) is defined as C' NFv+ +b -exp[-(Ma + FvF + Pvp +bca)]VFa + (VP I- expr-(M.a M. + Fvr a va + bica so long as it is assumed that the fishery takes place immediately after the birthday and prior to any natural or power plant mortality during that year.The total equilibrium catch is= C'RýAssuming that recruitment follows the Beverton-Holt spawner recruit curve, at equilibrium the following is true R. Eý
- where= is the equilibrium recruitment,= is the equilibrium egg production, x = is a parameter of the Beverton-Holt spawner recruit curve, 1 = is a parameter of the Beverton-Holt spawner recruit curve.The parameters a and fl are defined by E, z- 0.2 O.8zRo 0 where Eo is the egg production and Ro is the recruitment in the absence of plantand fishing mortality, and z is the steepness. The steepness parameter, z,describes the sensitivity of recruitment to spawning stock biomass. The steepness parameter is defined as the ratio of recruitment when spawning stock size equals 20% of Eo to recruitment at Eo, or PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 RoE,E RE, Thus, if: 0.99, recruitment is almost constant for all spawning stock sizes; if z = 0.2, recruitment is almost proportional to spawning stock; and if: = 0.7, then at a spawning stock size equal to 20% of eo recruitment is 70% of its potential at Eo.Egg production and recruitment in the absence of fishing and plant mortalities are related as follows: E= Ro m fexp[- M]where m, andf/ are the maturity and fecundity schedules, and S is survival from natural mortality which is the total mortality in the absence of fishing and plant impacts.The total equilibrium egg production (E,) is defined as so substituting into the equation for equilibrium results in F" -a The equilibrium equations for biomass vulnerable to the fishery catch, egg production, and recruitment are used to evaluate the performance of the stock as a function of the plant mortality rate. The results are provided in Appendix L.III.J7. Monte Carlo Analysis For the spawner recruit steepness the probability distribution of values, for some species the proportion of the total stock that was in the Delaware, and the percent of plant impact that occurs prior to compensation are specified as a uniform range.To represent the uncertainty in these parameters values from their distributions were used to calculate FMSy, BMsY. Then the consequences of the CMR (conditional mortality rate) and fishing mortality rate were estimated.
56 PSE&G PermNit Appicaiuon 4 March (999 Appendix F. Attachme~nt 2 III.J.8. Data sources The age specific data for each species are provided in Appendix L.Steepness distributions are derived from the meta-analysis (this attachment, Section 111.1.). In this classification bay anchovy is "Domain 1", weakfish, spot and white perch are Domain 2 not anadromous,- blue-back herring, alewife, and shad are Domain 2 anadromous and striped bass is Domain 3.The parameters for each species were defined as follows and are presented in Table 21. The steepness parameters for each species were derived from theMyers et al.(1995 and updated, this Attachment) meta analysis. The % of the population in the Delaware (sde aw"re) was determined from literature values andbest professional judgement. The % before and % after refer to the fraction of the total CMR that occurs before andafter compensation in the first year of life and were determined by best professional judgment. The future F was determined based on either FMSY or published target F values for the species, whichever was appropriate given the management status of the stock.III.K.Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit The Spawing Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR) Model considers the reproductive capacities of organisms entrained and impinged by estimating the fractional change in reproductive capacity (measured either as spawning stock biomass per recruit) of a given species as a result of plant operation. For fish that spawn prior to their interaction with the Station (and thus have already contributed to maintenance of the population), it allows consideration of this fact and thus provides a more realistic perspective on entrainment and impingement losses as they relate to future generations. The SSBPR compares biomass per recruit with and without plant operation, essentially converting life-stage specific conditional mortality rates into an equivalent reduction in spawning stock biomass.SSBPR is estimated as: SSBPR = limiw where 1i = probability of survival from age I to age i= fraction of the population of age i which are mature females, and wi = average weight of a female fish at age i The probability of survival to age i is estimated by combining age-specific rates of natural mortality, fishing mortality, and entrainment/impingement mortality: 3 57 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F. Attachment 2 a=1 where i is the subscript for age at I M, = age-specific instantaneous natural mortality rate at age a F = instantaneous fishing mortality rate P = instantaneous power-plant mortality rate VaF = age-specific vulnerability to fishing at age a VaP = age-specific vulnerability to power plants at age a The instantaneous power-plant mortality rate, P, is calculated from the combined conditional mortality rate (CMR) from entrainment and impingement as P = -ln(1 -CMR)The combined impacts of fishing and power plants on fish stocks are expressed asthe ratio of SSBPR including both sources of mortality to SSBPR for an unfished stock.III.L.BALANCED INDINGENOUS COMMUNITY ANALYSIS The number of species present in a collection of organisms generally increases with the number of organisms collected. Hence, to provide for valid comparisons of different communities, the collections must be standardized to a common size.Sanders (1968) proposed an approach called "rarefaction" and applied it to studies of marine benthic invertebrate communities. He constructed "rarefaction curves" that describe the way in which the number of species present in a sample increases with increasing sample size. If only a few organisms are included in a collection, only a few species are likely to be present. As more and more individuals are collected, the number of species present in the sample rises rapidly at first, then levels off. Sanders compared communities from which large numbers of organisms had been collected to communities for which only small collections were available by "rarefying" the large collections, i.e., calculating the number of species that would have been found in smaller collections. A hypothetical example was presented in Section VIII. Community (a) contains 50 species; community (b) contains only 25. However, if 500 organisms were collected at random from community (b) and only 50 from community (a), more species would very likely be found in community (b). To validly compare thetwo communities, the data for community (b) would be rarefied to a sample size of 50. In a collection of 50 organisms, it is likely that many fewer species would 58 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2be found in community (b) than in community (a), showing that community (a)0 actuallyhas the higher species richness.Simberloff (1971) and Hurlburt (1971) independently demonstrated that thecomputational technique proposed by Sanders is biased. Hurlburt (1971)proposed an alternative approach, based on a definition of richness as E(S,),"...the expected number of species in a sample of n individuals selected at random (without replacement) from a collection of N individuals and S species": E(S,) I where N total number of individuals in the collection S = total number of species in the collection mi = number of individuals of species in the collection n = number of individuals in the subsampleThe term inside the summation sign is the probability that a sample of n organisms will contain species i. Summing over all the species i the collectiongives the expected species richness.Heck et al. (1975) developed an estimate of the variance of S,; the mean and variance permit statistical testing of numerical richness values derived from samples taken from different communities. III.L. ISpecies Density Species density is defined simply as the number of species present in a given area or volume of the environment. For fisheries surveys such as the PSE&G bottom trawl survey, in which a standard gear (bottom trawl) is deployed using a standardsampling protocol, the number of fish per trawl can be used as an estimate of the number of fish per unit area. The average species density for a given location and time interval is simply the mean number of species collected per trawl sample for that location and interval. Standard statistical tests (e.g., the t-test) can be used to test for significant differences in species density for different locations and time intervals. Species density estimates permit comparison of numbers of species in samples that are standardized to a constant unit of area or volume rather than to a constant number of individuals. Species richness and species density estimates are affected in different ways by variability in the total abundance, relative abundance and spatial distribution of species. For these reasons, species density and species richness measures do not always provide similar results (Gotelli and Graves,* 59 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 1996). The two measures used together provide a more complete picture of the community than does either alone.III.L.2b. Data Sets To provide meaningful analyses of species richness, the communities beingcompared must be ecologically and taxonomically comparable. A marsh cannot be compared to a desert, and a fish community cannot be compared to a zooplankton community. Moreover, because the vulnerability of most species tocapture varies widely with gear type, the samples need to be collected with the same or closely similar gears.Attachment FI lists the types of data sets available for the Delaware Estuary. The 16-ft. bottom trawl used by PSE&G is the only gear used consistently during both pre-operational and operational years. Data are available from 1970 through 1997, excluding 1983 and 1995. For most of these years, sampling was confined to the "near-field" area, a region centered on the Salem plant and extending for six miles above and below the plant. The NJDEP beach seine survey did not begin until 1980, so no pre-operational years are available. The DNREC juvenile trawl survey began in 1977. The single pre-operational year available from this survey is unlikely to be representative of the pre-operational period as a whole.The DNREC large trawl survey has been conducted periodically since the 1960s;however, there have been frequent program changes.To detect possible effects of Salem, the areas sampled in the pre-operational years must be ecologically comparable to the areas sampled in the operational years.PSE&G conducted baywide data only in 1979-82, 1995, 1997, and 1998. The baywide study area contains a much greater diversity of habitats than does the nearfield area, so that the fish community of the bay as a whole should contain many more species than the nearfield study area. The baywide data are unsuitable for assessing influences of the plant, because sampling during the pre-operational period was confined mainly to the nearfield region.Nearfield sampling using the 16-ft. bottom trawl has been conducted in almost all years since 1970, although sampling intensity and specific sites have varied. The nearfield bottom trawl survey and the W factor trawl survey, therefore, provides a suitable data for comparing pre-operational conditions in the Delaware Estuary to conditions during the Salem's operational period. However, certain sampling protocol changes during this period limit the types of analyses that can be performed. Until 1978, tows were made using a fixed-length towline. Tows conducted at some stations did not reach the bottom in the nearfield trawl survey.Beginning in mid-1978, a variable-length towline was used, ensuring that the trawl reached the bottom at all stations. This change would have altered the relative densities of demersal vs. pelagic fish species represented in the trawl samples. Beginning in 1995, the direction of trawling was changed from against the current to with the current. This change would have altered the efficiency of the trawl at collecting fish. These changes limit the use of much of the nearfield 60 PSE&G Permit Application -,March 1)9 Appendix F. Attachment 2.trawl data for quantitative analysis of trends in species abundance. Appendix J, for example, uses only data collected between 1979 and 1982, and 1988 to 1994, when a consistent sampling protocol was used. The analyses described in this section utilize only data on the presence or absence of species. As long as all species are vulnerable to collection, the measures of fish community composition used here are relatively insensitive to changes in gear efficiency. Unit I of Salembegan commercial operation in 1978. Although pre-operational testing was conducted prior to 1978, all of the years 1970 through 1977 are considered to be pre-operational years. If the operation of Salem were adversely affecting the fish community of the Delaware Estuary, it is unlikely that all of these effects would occur immediately. Salem Unit No. 2 did not begin commercial operation until 1982. Moreover, for long-lived, slow-maturingspecies, several years would be required before mortality imposed on early life stages could result in reduced abundance of older fish. The years 1978 through 1985 were identified as a "transitional period." Eight years is greater than the average longevity of the great majority of fish species sampled by the trawl survey. By 1986, the trawl collections would have consisted almost entirely of fish spawned after the startup of Salem. The years 1986 through 1998 were identified as the operational period.The impact of Salem on the fish community of the Delaware Estuary was evaluated by comparing species richness, as determined from the 16-ft bottom trawl, in the 1970-1977 pre-operational period to species richness in the 1986-1997 operational period.Fish collections during the months of December through March were sparse and often no sampling was conducted. Therefore, only data from the months of April through November were used in the analysis. For this analysis, the data were evaluated on a seasonal basis. Fish samples collected during April and May were considered spring. Those collected in June, July, and August were considered summer, and those collected in September, October, and November were considered fall.61 PSE&G Permit AppIicanon 4 March 199Q Appendix F. Attachment 2 References Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants, Inc. BWEC. American Shad Spawning Migration Hydroacoustic Monitoring Study at the Interstate 202 Toll Bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, NJ. 1 April to 9 May 1995. 1995.22 p.Amenrican Shad Spawning Migration Hydroacoustic Monitoring Study at the Interstate 202 Toll Bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, 1 April to 31 May 1996. 1996.Begon, M. Investigating animal abundance: capture-recapture for biologists. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1979.Cada, G.G., J.A. Salomon, and K.D. Kumar. 1982 Investigation of entrainment stresses using a power plant simulator. ORNL/TM-7869. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TW.Casey, Jill M. and Ransom A. Myers, Diel variation in trawl catchability: is it as clear as day and night? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1998; 55:2329-2340 Christensen, S. W., and C.P. Goodyear. 1988.Testing the Validity of Stock-Recruitment; Curve Fits An':re- Fisheres Society Monotmph 4:219-231, 198.Cooper, H., and L.V. Hedges. 1994. The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Cowan, J.R., and E.D. Houde. 1990. Growth and survival of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli larvae in mesocosm enclosure. MEPS 68:47-57.Cowan, J.R., E.D. Houde, and K.A. Rose. 1996. Size-dependent vulnerability of marine fish larvae to predation: an individual-based numerical experiment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53:23-38.Davidian, M., and A.R. Gallant. 1993. The nonlinear mixed effects model with a smooth random-effects density. Biometrika 80(3):475-488. EA Engineering, Science and Technology EA. Indian Point Generating Station, 1988 Entrainment Survival Study. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and New York Power Authority. August, 1989. 1989.Gotelli, N.J. and G.R. Graves. 1996. Null Models in Ecology. Chapter 2, Species Diversity, Smithmian Institution Press.62 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 Heck, Jr. K.L. Van Belle, G., Simberloff, D. 1975. Explain calculation of the refraction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology, 56: 1459-146 1.Hunt, M. 1997. How scientists take stock: the story of meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Jinks, S.M., J. Cannon, D. Latimer, J. Clafin, and G. Lawer, 1978. An analytical approach to predicting survival of striped begntrained at Hudson River power plants. Pp. 343-350 In Jensen. L. D. (ed.) Proceedings of theFourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Sparks, MD.Lawler, J.P., W.T. Hogarth, B.J. Copeland, M.P. Weinstein, R.G. Hockson, and A.Y. Chen. 1981. Techniques for assessing the impact of entrainment and impingement as applied to the Brunswich Stem Electric Plant. pp. 159-182. In Jensen, L.D. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Sparks, MD.McCullagh, P. and J.A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Second Ed.Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability
- 37. Chapman and Hall, New York Myers R.A., and N.J. Barrowman.
1995. Time series bias in the estimation of density-dependent mortality in stock-recruitment models. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 52:223-232. Myers, R.A., Bridson, J. and Barrowman, N.J. 1995. Summary of worldwide spawner and recruitment data. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2024, iv +327 pp.Myers, R.A., K.G. Bowen, N.J. Barrowman, and G. Mertz. 1998. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. NAFO Sci. Counc. Rep.98/5:1-21. Myers, R.A., N.J. Barrowman, and R. Hilborn. 1999. The meta-analysis of compensation. Unpublished ms.Myers, R.A., N.J. Barrowman, J.A. Hutchings, and A.A. Rosenberg. 1995.Population dynamics of exploited fish stocks at low population levels.Science 269:1106-1108. Polgar, T.T., J.K. Summers, and M.S. Haire. 1981. A procedure for assessing potential power plant entrainment impact. Pp. 207-224. In Jensen. L.D.(ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Sparks, MD.63 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F, Attachment 2 PSE&G, 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration. PSEG&G, 0 Newark, NJ.Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). 1996-1997 white perch mark recapture study. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1997.1997-1998 white perch mark recapture study. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers. LLP and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.1998a Ricker, W.E. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 1975. p. 1-382 (Fish. Res.-Board Can. Bull. No.; 191).Sanders, H.L. 1968. Marine Benthie Diversity: A comparative study. The American Naturalist, Vol. 102, No. 925.Searle, S.R., G. Casella, and C.E. McCulloch. 1992. Variance components. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Simberloff, D. 1971. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. The American Naturalist, pp. 414-418.Suzuki, N. and T. Kitahara. 1996. Relation of recruitment to the number of caught juveniles in the ayu population of Lake Biwa. Fisheries Science 62:15-20.TI (Texas Instruments, Inc.) 1975. First Annual report for the multiplant impact study of the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared under contract toConsolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc. jointly financed by Consolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp., July 1975, Vol. I and Vol. II.Vaughan, D.S. 1982. Entrainment mortality factors for Hudson River inthyoplankton at Bowline point, Lovett, Indian Point, Roseton, andDanskammer Point power plants. In: The Impact of entrainment and impingement in fish populations inthe Hudson River Estuary, Vol. 1 OakRidge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, In. ORNL/NUREG/TM-385-VI. Winemiller, K.O. and K.A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification inNorth American fishes: Implications for population regulation. Can J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2196-2218. Youngs, W.D. and D.S. Robson. 1975. Estimating survival rate from tag returns: model tests and sample size determination. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 32: 2365-2371. 64 F-2 Table 1. Area and Volume Estimates for Regions of Stratified Analysis.VOLUME (M 3) AND AREA (M 2) WITH EXCLUDED GRIDS stratum total area total volume beach seine (volume) unsampled ivolume) bottom 1volumel pela ic (volume)1 359,B64.417 4,740,799,083 0.00% 0.00% 657,571,406 13.87% 4,083,227,677 86.13% 2 253,210.617 1,205.948,321 75,153.671 6.23% 42,613.447 3.53% 361.844,528 30.00% 726,336,675 60.23% 3 421,528,218 2,091,388,540 72,289,615 3.46% 86,959,839 4.16% 653,492,167. 31.25% 1,278,646,919 61.14%4 434,492,864 2,198.067.818 116,723,760 5.31% 121,882,101 5.54% 610,918.423 27.79% 1,348,543,534 61.35%5 187,791,065 1,018,913.585 64,874,622 6.37% 47,058.327 4.62% 260.030,077 25.52% 646.950,559 63.49%6 101.926,622 567,589,492 28,613,698 5.04% 46,778,163 8.24% 134,674,820 23.73% 357,522,811 62.99%7 69.504.963 415,411,700 19,707,603 4.74% 14,906,074 3.59% 98,392,564 23.69% 282,405,459 67.98% 8 54,842,031 322,395,733 4.564.672 1.42% 2,749,748 0.85% 94,637,613 29.35% 220,443,700 68.38%9 25200000 237.000,000 10 15000000 147,000.000 11 9200000 104,000,000 VOLUME (M 3) AND AREA (Mz) WITHOUT EXCLUDED GRIDS stratum total area total volume beach seine (volume) unsampled (volume) bottom (volume) pelagic (volume)1 359,564,417 4,672,879,015 0.00% 0.00% 646.107,264 13.83% 4,026,771,751 86.17% 2 253,210,617 1,091,583,955 4.366,045 0.40% 36,481,474 3.34% 343,734,681 31.49% 707,001,755 64.77%3 421.528,218 1,953,279,221 59,366,358 3.04% 84,602,801 4.33% 618.936,623 31.69% 1,190,373.439 60.94%4 434,492,864 2,002.135,905 61,437.780 3.07% 91,003,747 4.55% 558,407,145 27.89% 1,291,287.233 64.50% 5 187,791,065 1,003,405,364 49.366.401 4.92% 47,058,327 4.69% 260,030,077 25.91% 646,950,559 64.48%6 101.926.622 562,592,401 23,616,607 4.20% 46.778,163 8.31% 134,674.820 23.94% 357,522,811 63.55%/7 69,504,963 399,401.411 6,414,319 1.61% 14,906,074 3.73% 97,386,722 24.38% 280,694,296 70.28%8 54,842.031 308,085,901 0.00% 0.00% 91,947,503 29.84% 216,138,398 70.16%9 25200000 0 10 15000000 01 11 9200000 0 11 F-2 Table 2. Average Number of Circulation Water System Pumps in Service and Flow Volume at Salem under Full Operating Conditions. UNIT 1: CWS# pumps mean std daily flow (mA3)# pumps UNIT 2: CWS daily flow (mA3)sid mean std mean std mean JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 5.46 5.45 5.34 5.30 5.55 5.52 5.55 5.60 5.50 5.34 5.40 5.34 0.52 0.51 0.71 0.47 0.51 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.69 0.59 0.52 4,837,437.50 4,956,967.45 5,008,022.47 5,064,126.95 5,203,074.81 5,143,541.55
5,261,793.51 5,231,115.58 5,041,357.77 4,917,211.96 4,785,988.45 4,684,465.22 466,595.03 491,103.69 465,105.30 415,475.30 476,414.04 424,148.31 402,427.50 423,577.24 408,072.67 406,274.65 382,199.48 311,582.34 5.50 5.46 5.56 5.50 5.45 5.55 5.72 5.68 5.79 5.56 5.62 5.69 0.65 0.44 0.45 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.33 0.44 0.32 0.60 0.40 0.42 4,934,409.60 4,797,515.47 4,923,862.48 5,201,808.18 5,227,245.02 5,090,693.47 5,252,443.10 5,148,263.21
5,203,123.35
5,030,357.43 5,029,408.28
5,072,492.02 484,783.84 432,083.00 423,842.32 465,913.84 471,040.65 460,657.41 437,925.06 438,723.60 491,123.10 456,550.85 537,376.76 556,585.06 6@F-2 Table 3. Average Number of Service Water System and Flow Volume at Salem Under Full Operating Conditions.
- pumps mean std JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 1.95 1.89 1.91 2.15 2.83 3.54 3.79 3.65 3.38 3.00 2.30 1.99 UNIT 1: SWS daily flow (mA3)mean std 0.11 114,803 6,756 0.25 111,839 14,150 0.27 113,655 15,051 0.32 125,790 18,822 0.37 168,089 23,034 0.32 210,113 18,962 0.33 224,712 20,394 0.37 217,281 22,998 0.42 200,358 24,758 0.21 178,354 13,1780.33 136,234 18,373 0.10 118,821 6,336# pumps mean std mean UNIT 2: SWS daily flow (mA3)std 1.90 1.93 1.88 2.15 2.64 3.18 3.36 3.19 3.11 2.58 2.16 1.88 0.17 113,921 0.17 115,457 0.19 111,488 0.18 127,696 0.34 156,737 0.31 188,525 0.34 198,753 0.45 189,575 0.44 184,822 0.42 153,149 0.48 128,880 0.23 112,233 9,870 10,317.10,332 11,054 20,797 18,379 20,529 26,550 25,839 24,757 28,555 14,373 F-2 Table 4. Salem Generating Station Circulating Water Piping System.LOOP (distance in feet)Unit 2 Unit 1 SECTION 23 B 21 A 11 A 13 B PIPES PER (maximum) (minimum) (minimum) (maximum)
UNIT A 640 635 641 673 6 B 743 581 322 163 6 C 30 30 30 30 6 TOTAL IN 1,413 1,246 993 866 D (CONDENSER) 45 45 45 45 6 E 30 30 30 30 6 F 84 38 42 0 6 ENLARGEMENT I 1 0 8 8 3 G 524 444 216 100 3 H 1,077 1,106 1,118 1,159 3 TOTAL OUT 1,726 1,618 1,414 1,297 CIRCUIT TOTAL 3,184 2,909 2,452 2,208 A, B, & C = From pump to condenser 84 inch I.D.D = Condenser E & F = After condenser Englargement = from 84 to 120 inch I.D. pipe ('Y' pipe)G & H = Discharge lines (3/unit @ 120 inch I.D.) F-2 Table 5. Transit Time Statistics for Units 1 and 2 at Full Operation. Time (min) Unit I Unit 2 Mean 2.354835 2.961513 Standard Deviation 0.25208 0.320187 Maximum 3.154502 3.853118 75th Percentile 2.488919 3.209942 Median 2.327524 2.95027 25th Percentile 2.22023 2.756904 Minimum 0.133955 2.95027 I F-2 Table 6. Summary of Model Applications to RIS and Blue Crab.0Condition Mortality Population Effects Near-Field Loss Models Rate Models Models Relative Loss Model Entrainment Impingement Equivalent EEIM ETM ESRA SSBPR LDM Loss Loss Recruit Loss Opossum shrimp /Scud " 1 __Blue crab -_Bay anchovy V " / /* " " Alewife " , Blueback herring " " *American shad " " V " Striped bass V" , / *_*White perch " ,/ V/Spot %" V/ V/ V" V, Atlantic croaker V, I/Weakfish Ve V,* = Impingement Only EEIM ý Extended Empirical Impingement Model ETM = Empirical Transport Model LDM = Local Depletion Model ESRA -Equilibrium Spawner-Recruit Analysis SSBPR = Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit F-2 Table 7. Lengths of RIS at Various Life Stages.RJS Length Inter,'al 1mm Life Stage Weakfish 0, TL s 3 Yolk-sac larvae 3< TL g 10.5 Post-yolk-sac larvae 10.5 < TL 20 Juvenile (LG-1)20 < TL 30 Juvenile (LG-2)30 < TL 5 50 Juvenile (LG-3)50< TL 75 Age 04- (LG-I)75<TL 100 Age 04-(LG-2)100< TL 125 Age 0+ (LG.3)125 < TL 148 Age 0+ (LG-4)Bay anchovy 0 < TL 5 5 Yolk-sac larvae 5 < TL 10 Post-yolk-sac larvae (LG-1)10 < TL 20 Post-yolk-sac-larvae (LG-2)20 < TL 30 Juvenile (LG-1)30 < TL 40 Juvenile (LG-2)40 < TL 50 Juvenile (LG-3)50 < TL <60 Juvenile (LG-4)60 < TL s 90 Adult Spot 0 < TL 2.5 Yolk-sac larvae 2.5 < TL 9.9 Post-yolk-sac larvae 9.9< TL 140 Juvenile Atlantic croaker , 0< TL s 3 Yolk-sac larvae 3 <TLs It Post-yolk-sac larvae tI <TL_80 Juvenile Striped bass 0 < TL < 7.5
- Yolk-sac larvae 7.5 < TL 5 18 Post-yolk-sac larvae 18 < T11 50 JuvenileWhite perch 0<TL 5 Yolk-sac larvae 5 < TL 5 20 Post-yolk-sac larvae 20 < TL t_ 110 Juvenile Morone spp. 0<1 Tl 5 Yolk-sac larvae 5 < TL s 20 Post-yolk-sac larvae 20<TL_! 110 Juvenile RIS Length Interval (mm) Life Stage Alewife 0 < TL!; 5.9 Yolk-sac larvae 5.9 < TL s 20 Post-yolk-sac larvae 20<TL !; 95 Juvenile Blueback herring 0 < TL 5 5.1 Yolk-sac larvae 5.1 <TL s 20 Post-yolk-sac larvae 20 < TL 95 Juvenile Alosa spp. 0< TL s 5.1 Yolk-sac larvae 5.1 < T11 20 Post-yolk-sac larvae 20 < TL< 40 Juvenile American shad 0 < TL 12.5 Yolk-sac larvae 12.5 < TL 23.9 Post-yolk-sac larvae 23.9 < 1 90 Juvenile I F-2 Table 8. Output from GLM Analysis of Volume of Entrainment by Time of Day.0Probability >
F Value LS Mean (log transformed) (Type III SS)Species Life Stage Dawn Day Dusk I Night N Week I Period I Period x Week Alewife juvenile -7.1238 -8.5575 -5.5436 -7.0223 30 0.5630 0.4402 0.2119 Alosa sp. larvae -6.1866 -5.5604 -4.6085 -5.8612 168 0.0001"* 0.4594 0.2527 juvenile -5.9273 -6.6606 -6.7157 -5.7702 49 0.0064** 0.8483 0.0634 Atlantic croaker larvae -3.9333 -4.5263 -3.3887 -4.0137 265 0.0001"* 0.5796 0.0264" juvenile -2.9256 -2.1319 -1.7783 -1.6620 666 0.0001"* 0.0755 0.1156 Bay anchovy eggs 0.2391 0.7800 -0.1001 0.5616 516 0.0001"* 0.4990 0.1803 larvae 1.2484 0.8480 0.6669 1.0962 841 0.0001 ** 0.4294 0.1678 juvenile -2.6145 -4.0781 -3.7763 -2.2318 1010 0.0001"* 0.0001"" 0.0821 adult -4.8692 -6.2095 -6.3126 -5.6368 545 0.0001"* 0.0242* 0.0034"*Blueback herring juvenile -6.5516 -7.1007 -8.2053 -7.7031 113 0.8170 0.3277 0.2466 Morone sp. larvae -2.6000 -3.2666 -3.0044 -3.2784 216 0.0001"* 0.8898 0.0191" juvenile -8.5579 -6.2463 -8.5172 -7.8147 24 0.5694 0.5764 0.3119 Spot juvenile -4.4691 -3.8583 -4.3999 -4.1497 76 0.0001"* 0.9669 0.3723 Striped bass eggs -7.1015 -7.2173 -6.1542 -7.5427 81 0.2132 0.7561 0.2445 larvae -2.1341 -3.7687 -2.4026 -3.9493 198 0.0001"* 0.2869 0.0145" juvenile -6.5167 -5.7866 -5.0376 -4.0209 175 0.0001"* 0.0829 0.4586 Weakfish eggs -5.5718 -6.5143 -7.2956 -7.1548 125 0.0337* 0.3788 0.0554 larvae -2.0254 -3.1322 -3.5150 -2.9686 456 0.0001"* 0.1851 0.2572 juvenile -4.0773 -4.1023 -4.0224 -3.8999 548 0.0001"* 0.9803 0.0227*White perch eggs -7.9166 -7.8369 -7.3659 -7.6085 66 0.8093 0.9658 0.3443 larvae -2.9718 -3.7478 -4.4178 -6.0212 240 0.0001 ** 0.0196* 0.0535 juvenile -4.5029 -5.0781 -7.1827 -5.4880 144 0.0002* 0.1238 0.1007:p ) 0.05 , *p !<50.01 F-2 Table 9. Output from GENMOD Analysis of Entrainment by Time of Day.Species Life Stage Alewife juvenile Alosa sp. larvae juvenile tic croaker larvae Estimate' SE" ChiA^2 0.5878 1.0354 0.3222-0.1647 0.2766 0.35450.3674 0.6866 0.2864-0.0053 0.1665 0.0010 0.1640 0.0879 3.4834-0.0184 0.1153 0.0256-0.0973 0.0697 1.9489 Prob'0.5703 0.5515 0.5926 0.9746 0.0620 0.8729 0.1627 Effect5 Correction'3.0766 2.0383
0.8812 0.9406 1.8278 1.4139 1.0086 1.0043 1.1828 1.0914 0.9883 0.99420.9095 0.9547 Atlant Bay anchovy juvenile eggs larvae adult Blueback herring juvenile-0.1315 0.1353 0.9442-0.1890 0.5000 0.14290.3312 0.8848 0.7054 0.9380 0.9424 0.9690 Morone sp.juvenile Spot juvenile Striped bass eggs 0.8438 1.5036 0.31490.3025 0.2844 1.1313 1.0819 0.6106 3.1394 0.5747 0.2875 0.0764 7.2009 1.4091 3.5549 n %zr 4.1005 1.2045 2.2774 n 01 w'Weakfish White perch eggs larvae-0.8170 0.8217 0.9886 0.3201-0.2835 0.2436 1.3541 0.2446-0.1674 0.3144 0.2835 0.5944 0.6192 0.7758 0.8887 0.8096 0.8879 0.9444 juvenile Gammarus all Neomysis all0.4866 0.0767 40.22100.0633 0.0796 0.6328 0.0001 1.6316 0.4263 1.0687 1.3158 1.0344' Estimate = Mean effect (untransformed) 2SE = Standard error of estimate 3 Chi"2 = Chi square statistic 4 Prob = Probability associated with chi square statistic 5 Effect = Mean effect (back transformed) 6 Correction = (1 + Effect)/2 I F-2 Table 10. Entrainment.- Paired Intake and Discharge Collection Site Comparison. Values represent number per 50 cubic meter sample.(Discharge sample taken 4 min later to account for transit time.)DATE HOUR EGGS LARVAE JUVENILE Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy Weakfish Weakfish Spot Blueback herring Alosa spp.Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake -Discharge Intake 06/02/1980 11 24 16 62 49 15 9 0 0 10 16 15 26 26 42 2 5. 0 0 2 22 -ý1 16 1 0 0 .0 31 06103/1980 4 " 1 ."4 0 "... .12 06/06/1980 11 289 312 1 1 5 8 0 0 14 16 145 110 15 11 2 7 0 0 6 22 ' 1 ' 24 7, 4 2 0 1 06107/1980 4 .6 .3 .0 0 3 06/10/1980 10 568 503 8 12- 0 1 5 0 9 15 5 7 31 21 0 0 0 0 11 06/14/1980 10 244 278 161 120 8 9 1 0 7 16 337 274 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 22 4 i0 0 0 , 0 4 06/15/11980 4 .. 1 ..3 1 1 .6 1 12 o 3 0 2 1 2 1 3.1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 4006 4178 541 515 62 73 9 117 34 3 0 ADULT MACROZOOPLANKTON DATE HOUR Bay Anchovy Neomysis Gammarus Discharge Intake Discharge Intake Discharge Intake 06/02)1980 11 1 0 2474 2612 360 122 16 0 0 1178 399 386 109 06/03/1980 4 4 557 ,., 5.06/0611980 11 28 36 66340 79510 250 282 16 5 3 7412 4476 236 208 06/07/11980 22 !! :-' 14, 72 06110/1980 10 47 0 15 206 3 28560 3056 161 79 06114/1980 10 21 1 16 8 2 22 1 ,,. .06/15/1980 4 , wL:, ~.L -TOTAL Discharge Intake D/I Ratio Macro 175344 140077 1.25Eggs 4006 4178 0.96 Larvae 603 588 1.03 Juvenile 136 37 3.68 Adult 344 66 5.21 Note: Shaded rows indicate night samples.TOTAL 344 66 172372 137517 2972 2560 0 @0 F-2 Table i1. Comparison of Intake and Discharge Sample Concentration Paired by Varying Period (ordered by life stage).Paired by Sample Paired by Collechco Date Paired by Week Paired by 81-week Paired by Month Total Total Total Total Total Collected Collected at Collected Collected Collected at at at at Ratio Discharge Total Ratio Discharge Total Ratio Discharge Total Ratio Discharge Total Ratio Discharge total Collected Collected Collected Collected C olle,.ttd at at at at at (DII Intake CD/I) Intake (oil) Intake (DI/) Intake (D/I) Intake Adult Bay anchovy 5.21 344 66 4.15 353 85 3.85 486 121 4.07 521 123 4ý66 594 123 Egg Bay anchovy 0.96 4.006 4,178 0.72 9,53D 12.596 1.66 45,007 26,721 2.49 66,948 " 2,724 2.65 71,185 __2(1 724 Weakfsh 1 0 1.01. 2 2 5.73 35 6 5.48 39 7 5.48 39 7 Juvenile Alosa sp. 3.50 7 2 3.50 7 2 9.90 75 8 9.90 7S 8 11.40 87 8 Bluback herrm 3 0 3 0 3.00 3 1 0.75 3 4 0.75 3 4 Bay anchovy 2.84 128 45 1.80 385 223 3.33 719 225 6.03 1, 00 225 Weakfish 9.00 9 1 2.04 17 8 3.85 61 16 5.95 94 16 5.95 94 16 spa 3.44 117 34 3.09 121 39 2.75 164 60 2.40 167 70 2.40 167 70 Atlantic croaker ,. 3 0 4 0 .62 0 Larvae Bay anchovy 1.0 41 515 1.39 1.327 911 1.63 6, 148 3,819 2.54 9,488 3,819 4.11 19 weak ~0.85 62 73 0.86 69 80 1.06 114 105 1.54 165 105 3.41 361 105 Atlantic croaker -I .. I 1.00 1 1 12.00 12 1 12.00 12 Paired by Collection Paired by Samplre I Date Paired by Week Paired bty 81-week Paired by Month Tot COl Tot COl TotCol .TotCOl TotCot Ratio Didwc TotCot Ra Discha ToColt Ratio Discha T Rato Discha Tot Cot Ratio Discha Tot-CIA tio (D/I) rge Intake (D rge Intake (D/I) rge Intake (W/I) rge Intake (D/I) rge Intake Neomysis americana 1.75 251,894 144,253 1. 226,994 165,815 1.36 258,786 190,954 2.20 420,030 190,954 <3.85 737,436 190,954 37 Gamrmiarus Sp. 1.74 -4,766 2,735 0. 3,313 3,709 1.05 -5,829 5.829 1.60 8,934 5,575 2.92 16,376 5,575 89 ___ I -I I I I I __j F-2 Table 12. Mechanical Mortality Rates for Species and Life Stages Entrained at Salem.Mechanical Mortality Egg Species Source Larvae Source Juvenile Source. Adult Source Bay anchovy Alewife Blueback herring Alosa spp.American shad Striped bass White perch Morone spp.Weakfish Spot Atlantic croaker Opossum shrimp ScudBlue crab 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 1.000 0.883 0.883 0.883 0.883 0.484 0.829 0.829 0.640 0.185 0.360 1.000 1.000 1.000 B B B B C B B C D D C A B A 1.000 0.833 0.833 0.833 0.833 0.484 0.829 0.829 0.500 0.185 0.360 0.115 0.014 1.000 B C C C C C C C D D C D D D 1.000 1.000 1.0001.1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.115 0.014 1.000 B A A A A A A A A A A D D D Sources: A = AssumedD = EA, 1988 (Table 4-6)C = Assumed from similar species (See text fbr discussion) D = PSF&G, 1984 0 as 0 6S F-2 Table 13. Thermal Mortality. Species Alewife American shad Blueback herring Bay anchovy Striped bass White perch YSL White perch PYSL Spot Atlantic croaker Weakfish B 0 Intercept-14.194-14.194-14.194-7.751-7.771-15.814-7.594-37.164-35.451-9.016 Bi Acclimation Effect-0.0 15-0.015-0.015-0.174-0.096-0.112-0.063-0.669-0.751 -0.092 B 2 Exposure Effect 0.473 0.473 0.473 0.427 0.346 2.796 0.308 1.784 1.663 0.427 B 3 Duration Effect 2.158 2.158 2.158 0.995 2.300 0.545 4.057 0.000 0.000 1.286 Source PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 PSE&G 1984 Opossum shrimp Scud.-9.444-11.942-0.133-0.269 0.486 0.585 1.330 PSE&G 1984 1.205 PSE&G 1984 Scud -11.942 -0.269 F-2 Table 14. Collection Efficiency Species Efficiency Source Alewife 0.7737 PSE&G 1984 American shad 0.7737 PSE&G 1984Blueback herring 0.7737 PSE&G 1984 Bay anchovy 0.7496 PSE&G 1984 Striped bass 0.9269 PSE&G 1984 White perch 0.9269 PSE&G 1984 Atlantic croaker 0.8448 PSE&G 1984 Spot 0.7965 PSE&G 1984 Weakfish 0.7915 PSE&G 1984 Blue crab 0.7496 Assumed @0 F-2 Table 15. Initial Impingement Mortality, Old and New Screens.SGS INITIAL IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY (OLD SCREENS, 1977-1995)
- SPECIES',Blue crab'Blueback herring'Alewife-:American shad Bay anchovy ,White perch Striped bass!Weakfish
-'Spot crioakeri J -AN... FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 40.0%! 60.0% 22.2% -1.0% 1.2% 2.7% 2.2% 1.6% 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% 2.8%14.5%!a 25.3%' 17.0/: 18.0%. 22.9% 25.0% 19.0% 43.5% 7.7% 13.9% 12.3% 14.9%12.5% 12.6%4 8.6% 19.7% 14.1% 26.4% 25.0%. 20.0% 15.4% 55.8% 8.0% 7.6%5.7 6/6 5.1%. 10.3%1 16.7% 10.5% .50.0% 66.7% 7.9% 9.3% 10.1%5{ 5 .9%/'41.7/. 42.9%/o 34.3% 35.5%. 41.6% 49.0%/ 39.9% 27.5% 20.3% 21.7% 21.8%..1 .9 5.3% 8.0%: 7.1% 18.4% 17.6% 17.3% 16.1% 10.3% 9.5% 7.2% 7.4%5. 7%i 3.8% 8.0%; 8.2% 7.7% 2.6% 5.6% 8.8% 18.2% 3.8% 3.5% 5.0%814 16.7% 43.8% 22.8% 18.2% 12.3% 9.3% 13.7% 10.0%8.4%21.1% 18.7% 24.5% 20.2%; 19.8% 10.6% 9.7% 9.8%23.4%. 12.1%1/ 11.5% 14.3%'0 i6.7%'/ 16.7%. 3.0% 3.5% 5.3% 19.2%!SGS INITIAL IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY (NEW SCREENS, 1996-1998) sPECIES JA I FEB MAR' APR: MAY JUN' JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bue crab n2.06 8.3%i 2.2% 0.5%i 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 1.7% 1.0% 2.4%Blueback herring .2.1% .6% 3.4%.. 9.1% 2.6% 2.7%Alewife 8.3%' 50.0% 25.0% 3.7%American shad ! 33.3%1 33.3%jBay anchovy 18.0% 40.0% .9.1%: 36.9% 14.3%a. 11.1%. 16.3% 15.7% 19.4% 21.7% 14.4% 40.0%wihite perch 2.6%_ 0.9%!/ 1.8% 0.7%. 2.1% 11.6%. 3.9% 2.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7%Striped bass 2.1%/ 1.1% 1.8% 6.7% 5.8% 7.8% 2.4%,Weakfish 10.5% 13.1%. 6.5% 3.7% 2.5%!Spot 2.4%! .5.0%! 12.5%, 2.4% 3.0% 2.3%. 4.4%Atlantic croaker __19.1% 106% 11 9%§% 31% 4.6% .2.9% 6.5% 7.4% 2.7% 1.9% 3.0% 5.4% F-2 Table 16. Year Classes of Species with Adequate Baywide Trawl and Icthyoplankton Sampling for Estimation of CMR.Species Year Classes Atlantic Croaker None Alewife 1996 (using American Shad estimate American Shad 1977,1979,1980,1981,1982,1992,1995,1996 Bay Anchovy 1980,1981,1996,1998 Blueback Herring 1996 (using American Shad estimate)Spot 1981,1982.1996,1998 Striped Bass 1997 (using White Perch estimate)Weakfish 1980,1981,1996,1998 White Perch 1980.1981,1982,1996,1997 F-2 Table 17. Year Classes of Species Lacking Entrainment Sampling for One or More Stages. Species Year Classes Atlantic Croaker NA (no baywide estimates) Alewife 1977,1997 American Shad 1977,1978,1980,1985.1986.1987,1995,1997,1998 Bay Anchovy NA (ETM method used for entrainable stages)Blueback Herring 1977,1997 Spot 1977,1978.1997 Striped Bass 1977,1979,1997 Weakfish NA (ETM method used for entrainable stages)White Perch 1977.1979,1981,1982,1997 U! F-2 Table 18. White Perch Mark Recapture Results, 1980-83, and 1996-98. Population I isize (millions). Estimator 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1996-1997 1997-1998 Petersen N 18.26 13.64 19.85 82.81 65.47 Lower 95% C.L. 10.56 9.49 15.90 43.10 14.07 Upper 95% C.L. 31.58 19.6.1 24.78 122.52 116.86 Fisher-Ford N (M2) 56.43 N (RI) 64.36 Population Losses 6.44 (M2)Population Losses 7.47 (RI)Population Gains 14.47 (M2)AN, F2 Table 19. American Shad Population Estimates. Population Estimates Year Peterson Method Schaefer Method Hydroacoustics Reference (95%CI) (95% CI)1975 118,700 +/- 93,773 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1976 178,760+96,150 150,187 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1977 106202+/-65,058 88,415 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1978 23,3060+171,126 NJ Division ofFish and Wildlife 1979 111,839 +/-32,191 101,249 Lupine, 1987 1980 181,880+ 55,058 137,641 Lupine, 1987 1981 546,215 133,590 551,599 Lupine, 1987 1982 506,102 + 176,680 Lupine, 1987 509,201+/-176,680 450,200. NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1983 249,578 +/- 87,342 212,248 Lupine, 1987 1986 595,407+231,060 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1989 831,595+/-235,608 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 180,000 to 450,000 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1992 882,648+/-197,250 542,865 535,000 14,000 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife 1995 510,000+17,000 Barnes-Wiliiams Environmental Consultants, 1995 1996 792,000+4000 NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife Lupine, A.J., and E. Kuc. 1987. The 1986 Delaware River American shad population estimate. Misc. Rept. No. 49. NJ Div. Fish, Game & Wildif. 8 pp.Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants, LLC. 1996. American shad Spawning Migration 1lydroacoustic Monitoring Study at the interstate 202 Toll Bridge on the Delaware River at Lambertville, New Jersey, 1 April to 31 May 1996. 22p.NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, Mark Boriek an Russ Allen, In: Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report, 1988 F-2 Table 20. Historical CMR Estimates. species Year Total CMR Impingement CMR Entrainment CNIR_ _ _cies Class Alewife 1996 0.00000 0.000000 0.00000 American Shad 1979 0.00010 0.000100 0.00000 American Shad 1981 0,00010 0.000100 0.00000 American Shad 1982 0.00010 0.000100 0.00000 American Shad 1992 J 0.00100 0.001000 0.00000 American Shad 1996 0.00000 0.000000 0.00000 Bay Anchovy 1981 .0.10021 0,000204 0.10002 Bay Anchovy 1982 0.14476 0.000000 0.14476 Bay Anchovy 1996 0.02271 0.000004 0.02271 Bay Anchovy 1998 0,21780 0.000021 0.21778 Blueback Herring 1996 0.00070 0.0004 16 0.00028.Spot 1981 0.05644 0.015632 0.04146 Spot 1982 0.09805 0.005628 0.09295 Spot 1996 0.01400 0.014001 0.00000 Spot 1998 0.00000 0.000000 0.00000 Weakfish 1981 0.10619 0.037287 0.07157 Weakfish 1982 0.10084 0.009653 0.09208 Weakfish 1996 0.01783 0.003992 0.01389 Weakfish 1998 0. 11279 0.025080 0.08997 White Perch 1980 0.07105 0.011900 0.05986 White Perch 1996 0.02362 0.002559 0,02111 F-2 Table 21. Parameters used in the equilibriumrn model for each species of concern.Steepness parameters Species log alpha sd log % in % CMR % CMR Future future alpha Delaware before after CMR F'Herring 2.428 0.786 100 10o 90 0.30% 0.1 Alewife 2.428 0.786 100 50, 50 0 0.1 Shad 2.428 0.786 100 l 0 b 90 0.055 0 1, 0.186 Weakfish 2.471 0.924 20' 50 b 50 16.6% 0.15 White perch 2.471 0.924 100 10b 90 18.6% 0.2 b Striped bass 3.017 0.486 100 3 0 b 70 0.34% 0.14 Spot 2.471 0.924 10b 100b 0 4.8% 0.4 bBay anchovy 1.32 0.361 80b 80 18.5% 0 Instantaneous fishing mortality rates.b Upperbound of range used in the Monte-Carlo runs. 9 F-2 Figure 1. The Delaware River & Bay Strata Regions. Pelagic Trawl:/i /Beach Seine;/ I F-2 Figure 2. Diagram of Vertical Stratification. U 35------ UNIT 1 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) 75TH PERCENTILE 3- UNIT 1 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) MEDIAN 30 1.... UNIT 1 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) 25TH PERCENTILE 25-,i:~ i F -i7 .5'/ 0 ..I: .'.o 20 .1.." ,.,,( It.%, p.15 V -., k. 10. . t-5 ..... ....2 Fig.r 3. i I tk ,-. ,S ." ,; V.." .' ," '.'5 ' .* v,;-Ii ' " ' : '-~, .4-.0 ...;it. ....--I [..... .................. ...050 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Julian Day.F-2 Figure 3. Unit I Intake Temperature (C) at Full Operation Conditions.
- a 00 35 30 7------ UNIT 2 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) 75TH PERCENTILE UNIT 2 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) MEDIAN...-. UNIT 2 INTAKE TEMPERATURE (C) 25TH PERCENTILE 25 6 20 0 0.15 E 0 I--400 ,]!1'°l f!& a 5 0-5 I, 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 Julian Day F-2 Figure 4. Unit 2 Intake Temperatures (C) at Full Operation Conditions.
16 -...... UNIT.1 DELTA t (C) 75TH PERCENTILE 14 ,UlNIT ] U1ELLI A I U) MEDUIAN' .UNIT 1 DELTA T (C) 25TH PERCENTILE 12!:.. L ;... .__ ,,__ ..-". .. ..:.I .1 I .6 4-2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Julian Day F-2 Figure 5. Unit I Delta T Temperatures (C) at 80% Plant Ca acity.op 40 18 16 i4------ UNIT 2 DELTA t (C) 75TH PERCENTILE-UUNIT 2 DELTA T (C) MEDIAN.... UNIT 2 DELTA T (C) 25TH PERCENTILE
- , 40 400 12&10 08 6 4 2'I'14 I...ii i, 0 .... .. .. ... ...... ... .... ..... .. ... .
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Julian Day F-2 Figure 6. Unit 2 Delta T (C) at 80% Plant Capacity. S...domain 1 domain 2 not anad!domain 2 anad /----domain 3 .-- .......I *'I I ..-...- .,;. --0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1Fishery Rate (F) 'F-2 Figure 7. Steepness Distributions for Four Classes of Species Derived from the Meta Analysis of Myers et al (1995). The vertical axis indicates probability, and'anad' stands for anadromous. 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8>~0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 F F-2 Figure 8. Generalized Relationship between YPR and F. E 2.1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0-SBPR-Total eggs 0 0.1 0:2 0.3 0.4 0.5 F F-2 Figure 9. Relationship between Spawning Stock and Fishing Mortality for a Specific Spawner Recruit Curve. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 7'0.6 *0.4 031 -..0.2 ---------_0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 F F-2 Figure 10. Relationship between YPR and total catch. (0 <9F-fF APPENDIX F ATTACHMENT F-3 REVIEW OF INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR FISH PROTECTION Sponsor: Edward P. Taft PSE&G Renewal Application Salem Generating Station Permit No. NJ0005622 4 March 1999 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F ATTACHMENT F-3: REVIEW OF INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR FISH PROTECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3 II. BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS .............................................................................. 4 II.A. Strobe Light ................................................................................................. 4 II.B. Air Bubble Curtains ..................................................................................... 8 II.C. Ultrasound ........................................................................................................ 9 II.D. Infrasound ................................................................................................... 12 II.E. M ercury Light ............................................................................................ 14 II.F. Electric Screens .......................................................................................... 15 II.G. W ater Jet Curtain ..................................................................................... 15 II.H. Hanging Chain Barriers ............................................................................ 15 11.1. Chem icals ...................................................................................................... 15 II.J. Visual Keys ................................................................................................. 15II.K. Hybrid Behavioral Barriers ........................................................................ 16 III.PHYSICAL BARRIERS ................................................................................... 16 III.A. Infiltration Intakes ................................................................................... 16III.B. Porous Dike ............................................................................................... 16 III.C. Gunderboom ............................................................................................ 16 III.D. Wedge-wire Screens ............................................... 17 III.E. Barrier Nets ............................................................................................... 18 III.F. Bar Racks ................................................................................................... 19 III.F.Traveling (Through-flow, Center-flow, Drum, etc.) and Fixed Screens ...... 20 IV. COLLECTION SYSTEM S .............................................................................. 20 IV.A. M odified Traveling W ater Screens ......................................................... 20 IV.B. Fine-m esh Traveling Screens ................................................................... 22IV.C. Fish Pum ps ................................................................................................ 25* PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F V. DIVERSION SYSTEM S .................................................................................... 25 V.A. Angled Screens .......................................................................................... 25 V.B. Angled Rotary Drum Screens ................................................................... 25 V.C. Inclined Plane Screen .................................. ............................................. 26 V.D. Eicher Screen ............................................................................................. 26 V.E. M odular Inclined Screens ........................................................................ 26 V.F. Subm erged Traveling Screens .................................................................... 27 V.G. Louvers ...................................................................................................... 28 V.H .Angled Bar Racks ................... v ................................................................. 28 VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................. .. 29 2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F ATTACHMENT F-3 REVIEW OF INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR FISH PROTECTION I. INTRODUCTIONThis Attachment summarizes the available literature and other sources of information(e.g. personal communications) describing the range of fish protection options used, or considered for use, to protect organisms at water intake structures. The purpose of this screening is to identify those options appropriate for further consideration of their availability and applicability at Salem. As such, the screening is based on an assessment of each concept relative to its ability to satisfy generic criteria for applicability. These criteria relate primarily to biological effectiveness and degree of engineering development. Available fish protection systems and devices fall into one of four categories depending on their mode of action: behavioral barriers which alter or take advantage of natural behavior patterns to attract or repel fish; physical barriers which physically block fish passage (usually in combination with low velocities); collection systems which actively collect fish for their return to a safe release location; and diversion systems which divert fish to bypasses for return to a safe release location. Twenty-eight such options are considered below, applying the biological effectiveness and engineering development criteria.Available fish protection systems fall into one of four categories depending on their mode of action: Category Mode of Action System/Device Behavioral Barriers Alter or take advantage of Strobe lights natural behavior patterns to Air bubble curtains attract or repel fish Acoustic sound Infrasound Mercury lights Electric screens Water jet curtainsHanging chains Chemicals Visual keys Hybrid barriersPhysical Barriers Physically block fish Infiltration intakes passage (usually in Porous dike combination with low Gunderboom velocity) Wedge-wire screens Barrier nets Bar racks Traveling screens 3 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Category Mode of Action System/Device Stationary screens Rotary drum screens Collection Systems Actively collect fish for Modified traveling screens their return to a safe Fish pumps release location Diversion Systems Divert fish to bypasses for Angled screens return to a safe release Angled rotary drum location screens Inclined plane screens Eicher screens Modular Inclined Screens Submerged traveling screens Louvers A detailed review of the biological effectiveness, engineering practicability, and costs of these systems and devices forms the basis for the screening of alternatives for potential use at the Salem Generating Station, as presented in Appendix F, Section VIII. As support for the screening process and preliminary selection of alternatives for further evaluation, the following is a summary of the status of available fish protection technologies by category. For the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation, additional information, where available, is presented on the potential biological effectiveness of these alternatives for the Representative Important Species (RIS) discussed in Appendix F, Section VIII.II. BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS II.A. Strobe Light Strobe lights have effectively repelled several different fish species in laboratory and field experiments. Recent studies have demonstrated that various lacustrine, riverine, and anadromous species will avoid strobe light. Conversely, some studies have indicated that certain species from similar environments or with similar life history strategies or phylogeny will not respond to strobe lights in a laboratory setting or under field conditions. Recent studies conducted at the Four Mile Hydroelectric Project in Michigan examinedthe ability of strobe lights to reduce entrainment of riverine fish (GLEC 1994; McCauley et al. 1996). An initial evaluation conducted at the Four Mile Project with "off the shelf'strobe lights demonstrated no significant reduction in entrainment for any of the fish species that occurred at the site (GLEC 1994). A study conducted with Flash Technologystrobe lights during the following year produced significant reductions in entrainment for bullhead and shiner species. When the Flash Technology strobe lights were operated at 54 PSE&G Permit Applicaton 4- March 1999 Appendix F the intake, bullhead and shiner entrainment was reduced by 77% from the control condition (McCauley et al. 1996).In another study that was conducted with riverine species, an evaluation of several behavioral devices as means for protecting fish and/or enhancing passage of fish at waterintakes was recently cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),Northern States Power Company (NSP), and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). As part of this study, the ability of strobe lights to elicit avoidance reactions during cage tests and to reduce entrainment at a turbine intake were evaluated at two Wisconsin Electric Power Company projects located on the Menominee River (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998). The cage tests were conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project and the field evaluation at the White Rapids Project. Several other behavioral technologies also were evaluated during this study and the effectiveness of these devices is discussed in following sections.The cage tests conducted at Kingsford were designed to determine whether stimuli produced by selected test devices could elicit avoidance or attraction responses that may be useful for designing or enhancing the effectiveness of fish passage and/or fish protection systems. The behavioral devices that were tested included an acoustic sound system (100 Hz to 145 kHz), particle motion generators (10-60 Hz), overhead high-pressure sodium lights, underwater mercury lights, and the underwater strobe lights. Thespecies used in cage tests included walleye, yellow perch, black crappie, smallmouth and largemouth bass, bluegill and/or other sunfish species, rainbow trout, black bullhead andgolden shiners or other minnow species. The target size range for test specimens was 2-10 inches in length. Test fish were obtained using fyke-nets in the Menominee River and from private hatchery sources located in the state of Wisconsin. During the cage tests conducted at Kingsford, strobe lights elicited consistent avoidance reactions from walleye, and weak reactions from largemouth bass and yellow perch. No responses to strobe light were observed for smallmouth bass, sunfish species, andrainbow trout (black crappie, black bullhead, and shiner species were not tested withstrobe lights). Based on results of the cage tests, strobe lights and several distinct acoustic signals were selected for, evaluation during intake tests conducted at the White Rapids Project. Strobe lights were operated at a flash rate of 400 flashes/minute and the acoustic system alternated between four signals with center frequencies of 673, 2,000 and 4,000 Hz. Three intake tests were conducted in July, September and October of 1997.Effectiveness of the test devices was evaluated by comparing the number of fish collected in Unit 1 tailrace nets with the devices operating at the intake to the numbers collected during control periods (i.e., no devices operating). The following four test conditions were evaluated during the field evaluation: (1) strobe lights on; (2) acoustic system on; (3) both lights and sound on; and (4) control (no devices operating). At least 33 species were collected in the Unit I tailrace nets during the three sample periods. There were no significant differences in entrainment numbers between strobe light and control periodsfor any species, family, or size group analyzed, or for all fish combined.5 PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F In a series of separate laboratory and field studies conducted for EPRI, several behavioral technologies were evaluated for their ability to either repel or attract fish (EPRI 1990).Strobe lights were assessed as a fish deterrent during laboratory studies at the Universities of Washington and Iowa and during field studies at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project and the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. Results from the laboratory studies demonstrated that walleye, bluegill, channel catfish, white/striped bass hybrids, steelhead trout, and Atlantic, chinook and coho salmon all avoided strobe light. The field studies conducted at York Haven determined that strobe lights were effective in repelling juvenile American shad outmigrants, from the project intakes and towards a sluiceway.The studies conducted at Ludington indicated that strobe lights were capable of reducing the abundance of resident and introduced fish in the study area by about 50% compared to the control condition, but that effective repulsion was not consistent. After the promising results from the tests conducted at the York Haven Project, additionalstudies were planned and performed to develop a refined strobe light system that could be used to divert American shad outmigrants to the project's sluiceway (EPRI 1992). Data collected at York Haven over several years of testing demonstrated that juvenile shad consistently avoided strobe lights placed in front of the turbine intakes, and that they were successfully guided to the sluiceway for downstream passage.A strobe light system has been evaluated for its ability to repel fish at the offshore intake of the Milliken Station located on Cayuga Lake in New York. The effectiveness of the strobe light system has varied among species and life stages and between seasons and'study years. From December through mid-July, the strobe lights were significantly effective in repelling juvenile alewife, adult alewife, and yellow perch. During the late summer and fall, juvenile alewife and yellow perch were significantly attracted to the lights (Ichthyological Associates, NYSEG 1997).In 1997, the COE conducted an evaluation of strobe lights in cage tests at the Chittenden Locks near Seattle, Washington (Ploskey and Johnson 1997; Ploskey et al. 1998). The cage tests were designed to examine the ability of strobe lights and two infrasound devices to alter the vertical distribution of young salmon. Tests also were conducted to assess horizontal displacement of fish by each device. Strobe lights operating at 3001 flashes per minute elicited consistent directional avoidance vertically and horizontally. Yearling coho and sub-yearling chinook and coho smolts exhibited avoidance of thelights up to 23 ft on a sunny day.The reaction, of kokanee salmon to strobe lights has been evaluated as a means to reduce entrainment of this species at the Dworshak Dam powerhouse in Idaho. A report for this study is expected to be available in 1999 after all testing has been completed. The following information on the Dworshak strobe light tests was obtained through personal communication with Dr. Melo Maiolie, a biologist with the Idaho Fish and Game Department. Initial tests with strobe lights and kokanee salmon were conducted in the Spring of 1997 at Spirit Lake, where high densities of kokanee were known to occur. The response of kokanee was assessed using hydroacoustics to monitor fish distribution after 6* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F four strobe lights (pointed horizontally at 900 intervals) were lowered from a boat and activated at a depth of about 40 ft. Tests also were conducted in Lake Pend Oreille in much deeper water to assess the effect of bottom depths on reactions of kokanee to strobe lights. The preliminary conclusions from tests conducted to date are that (1) kokanee were repelled by strobe lights over a distance of about 100 ft, (2) there appeared to be no difference in effectiveness when using either 360 or 450 flashes per minute, (3) kokaneeremained away from the strobe lights for the duration of each test (about 45 minutes), and (4) reaction distance was reduced when the strobe lights were moved toward fish (i.e., the boat was moving toward fish aggregations). Strobe light tests with kokanee were continued in the late summer of 1997 and winter of 1998. During testing in August, the reaction of kokanee to strobe lights was monitoredduring continuous nighttime operation. No habituation was noted, with fish remaining approximately 120 ft from the strobe lights. Tests were conducted during February 1998 to assess the effects of very clear water on kokanee response. Avoidance distance increased to more than 300 ft. The greater distance over which kokanee avoided the strobe lights was attributed to the much clearer water that occurs during the winter months when primary production is low. The results from these tests are considered reliable and are being used as justification for further testing of strobe lights as a method to reduce entrainment of kokanee at Dworshak Dam.The ability of strobe lights to reduce entrainment of Atlantic salmon smoltswas evaluated at the Northfield Pumped Storage Project on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts. Strobe lights were mounted on a series of floats, which were attached to a boat boom located across the forebay of the project intake. To assess the effectiveness of the strobelight array, radio-tagged smolts were released at night (after pumpback operations wereinitiated) upstream of the Northfield intake. Tagged fish were tracked as they moved downstream from the release point. Based on a statistical analysis of the number of tagged fish that were entrained and the number that continued downstream past the intake, it was concluded that the strobe lights were not an effective deterrent for smolts approaching the Northfield intake during pumpback operations. At the Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project on the Penobscot River in Maine, strobe lightshave been evaluated as a means to divert Atlantic salmon smolts and kelts (post-spawned adults) away from turbine intakes and into bypasses (Bernier 1995; Brown 1997). The Mattaceunk Project (also referred to as Weldon Dam) has four turbine intakes; surface bypasses are located at the intakes to Units 3 and 4 (the two units closest to the shoreline).Studies conducted since 1987 have assessed several configurations of strobe light arrays with varying levels of success in diverting smolts and kelts to the surface bypasses. Currently, strobe lights are positioned to provide Units 1 and 2 with complete light field coverage and Units 3 and 4 with coverage over the lower half of their intakes. The upper halves of these intakes, where the bypasses are located, are not illuminated with strobe lights. Results of studies using radio-tagged smolts in 1995 demonstrated that 15% of released fish that were entrained passed through Units 1 and 2 (54% less than during the 1994 study), and 7* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F 85% went through Units 3 and 4 (an increase of 26% from the 1994 study) (Bernier 1995;Brown 1997). In 1997, 20% of entrained radio-tagged fish passed through Units I and 2and 80% through Units 3 and 4 (Brown and Bemier 1997). Despite the apparent ability of the strobe lights to divert smolts away from the intakes of Units I and 2 and into the intakes of Units 3 and 4, the percent of released fish that have used the surface bypasses has never exceeded 59%. The lowest bypass efficiency was observed during the mostrecent study in 1997, when 41% of released fish were recovered in the surface bypasses.Laboratory research performed by Mclninch and Hocutt (1987) examined behavioral responses of three estuarine species to strobe lights, an air bubble curtain, and a combination of the two devices. Tests were conducted at low (39 -45 NTU) and high (102 -138 NTU) turbidity levels. The three species included Atlantic menhaden, spot, and white perch. Atlantic menhaden were not evaluated at the high turbidity level due to a lack of test fish. The strobe light sources had a flash power of approximately one watt, a flash duration of about 80 microseconds, and were operated at a flash rate of 300 flashes per minute. The strobe light and/or air bubble curtain were activated for 30-minute test periods for white perch, and 60 minutes for spot and Atlantic menhaden. The distribution of fish in the tank was recorded at 2.5-minute intervals for white perch and 5-minute intervals for spot and menhaden. Fish were acclimated to the test chamber prior to behavioral device operation and fish distribution during this period was used as the control condition. Avoidance was measured as the percentage decrease in use of the area affected by a behavioral device.All three species demonstrated a statistically significant avoidance of strobe light. Avoidance varied among turbidity level and species and, unexpectedly, avoidance was greatest at the high turbidity level for white perch and spot. White perch avoidance was approximately 14% at low turbidity and 34% at highturbidity. Spot showed 64%avoidance in low turbidity and 81% avoidance in high turbidity. These results indicate that the effectiveness of strobe lights might be less sensitive to turbidity levels than had previously been assumed.Strobe light technology for repelling fish has advanced substantially in the last decade, and it is believed that strobes combined with an air bubble curtain offer a reasonable potential for reducing fish losses at the Station. This alternative was selected for detailed evaluation, as presented in Appendix F, Section VIII.II.B. Air Bubble Curtains These curtains generally have been ineffective in blocking or diverting fish in a variety of field applications. Air bubble curtains have been evaluated at number of sites on the Great Lakes with a variety of species. All air bubble curtains at these sites have been removed from service.During a recent study conducted at the Four Mile Hydroelectric Project in Michigan, an airbubble curtain was evaluated as a fish deterrent along with strobe lights (discussed previously). Entrainment of bullhead and shiner species was reduced from control levels 38 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F by 43% and 81% when the air bubble curtain was operated alone and in combination with strobe lights, respectively (McCauley et al. 1996). The results of this study indicate that air bubble curtains should be considered as a potentially effective fish protection technology when used in combination with strobe lights.As stated above, a strobe light/air bubble curtain is considered to be a viable alternative for potential application at Salem.II.C. Ultrasound Studies conducted by the American Electric Power (AEP) at its Racine Hydroelectric Plant on the Ohio River led the investigators to conclude that fish were repelled by the low frequency (<1000 Hz), relatively high amplitude (approximately 150 dB//mPa) sound produced by a submerged electric generator in the plant's horizontal bulb units (Loeffelman et al. 1991; Klinect et al. 1992). Coincident side-scan sonar observations of forebay fish distributions and sound measurements suggested to the authors that the sound was influencing fish distribution and limiting their entrainment into the turbine.Subsequent studies conducted along the forebay shoreline (Loeffelman et al. 1991;Klinect et al. 1992) led the investigators to suggest .that the intake sound spectrum from the Racine units repelled fish when it was played through underwater speakers.AEP reported that a patented sound "tuning" system was used to develop sounds effective in repelling fish. The method was developed based on the data in the literature showing that fish use sounds for communication. The AEP work assumed that a given species would be most sensitive to the types of sounds that it produces. The relevant species sounds were recorded and technically analyzed for such features as frequency content, duration, and amplitude. A signal was synthesized that contained the frequencies thought by the investigators to be from the most sensitive portion of the species hearing ranges.This was suggested since the investigators assumed that any sounds that a fish would produce (and which they recorded) would be within the best range of hearing of the species.AEP described testing of the tuned sound system at Racine using sounds reportedly produced by a variety of species including freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) and striped bass. Net samples collected in the project forebay were reported to show significantly fewer fish captured during periods with the sound system operating as compared to periods with the sound system off (Loeffelman et al. 1991; Klinect et al.1992). With the exception of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), sample sizes were small and did not permit species-specific statistical analyses of results (Loeffelman, pers.comm. with E. P. Taft, September 1993). Still, approximately 66% of all fish and 70% of all fish other than gizzard shad were reportedly repelled from the test area when the sound system was activated. After the Racine work, AEP investigated the use of sound at its Berrien Springs Hydroelectric Project, investigators reported that a broad band frequency, similar to that used at Racine, repelled steelhead trout, thereby deterring the fish from passing up a fish 9 PSE&G Permit Appikcation 4 March 1999 Appendix F ladder (Loeffelman et al., 1991; Klinect et al., 1992). At the Buchanan Hydroelectric Project, Loeffelman et al. (199 1) and Klinect et al. (1992) used sounds they had reportedly based on recordings of sounds from steelhead trout and chinook salmon smolts to test the ability to divert fish from a trap net. The sound system, according to the authors, reduced steelhead catch by 94% and chinook catch by 81%. At the Georgianna Slough on the Sacramento River, Loeffelman et al. (1991) and Klinect et al. (1992)reported a reduction of up to 60% in numbers of chinook salmon smolts entering the slough as a result of the use of sounds recorded in a manner similar to those used at Racine and Berrien Springs. At the Wilkins Slough, Demko (1993) reported an 83%guidance efficiency for chinook salmon using the same technique. Results suggestive of the usefulness of sound to reduce impingement effects were obtained by other investigators as well. Studies in a flooded rock quarry on the Hudson River evaluated the behavioral responses of several fish species to sonic and ultrasonic sounds (NYPA et al. 1991; Dunning et al. 1992). Sound tests were performed in a cage placed in the quarry using an experimental approach that was somewhat similar to that adopted by PSE&G for its 1994 and 1998 cage tests. Species tested included alewives, striped bass, white perch, Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), golden shiners (Notemigonus cryoleucas), and spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius). Video cameras were used to record fish movements and behavior for sound tests conducted during both daylight and night-time hours. The sound system transducers emitted sounds ranging from below 100 Hz to just over 500 kHz.The results from this study demonstrated that alewives consistently would move away from several high-frequency sound signals (ultrasound). A strong response was observed during daytime hours with pulsed tones of 110 and 125 kHz at SPLs (sound pressure levels) of 175 and 180 dB//mPa, respectively, and with pulsed broadband sounds of 11.7 to 133 kHz at an SPL of 157 dB.1 Alewife exclusion continued for up to 150 minutes using frequencies of 117 to 133 kHz at an SPL of 163 dB. The other species that were tested did not exhibit any response to ultrasound. However, white perch and striped bass demonstrated a strong response to sounds from 100 to 500 Hz at 156 dB during the day.This response was diminished during night-time tests. The other species tested with low-frequencies exhibited only weak responses to the sound.Working at the Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project, Nestler et al. (1992) and Pickens (1992) conducted a study of the response of blueback herring to ultrasound. Thefirst part of the study used a net pen to determine the basic behavioral response of fish to sounds and to identify the optimum frequency and intensity to cause fish to swim away from the sound source. The investigators reported that frequencies of 120 to 130 kHz at 187 dB caused a strong response by blueback herring. Hydroacoustic surveys during studies at the dam to determine if the sounds would prevent impingement in an actual application of the sound showed a maximum distance of effectiveness from about 80 ft to 165 ft from the dam at a source level of 187 dB in Phase 2 tests.310 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Dunning et al. (1992) conducted a multiphase study of a sound system, emitting ultrasound in the range of 122 to 128 kHz at the James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant on Lake Ontario (also see NYPA et al., 1991). In situ application of the selected sound system at Fitzpatrick demonstrated a reduction ranging from 85 to 88% in impingement of alewives. At the Vernon Hydroelectric station, RMC (1993) reported that juvenile American shad completely avoided a 100 to 150 kHz sound deterrent system. From 1993 to 1996, a sound system emitting frequencies in the range of 300 to 400 Hz was used at the mouth of the Georgianna Slough in the Sacramento River basin. This was done to evaluate its ability to prevent out migrating chinook salmon from entering the waterway, which diverts water from the Sacramento River for irrigation purposes (Hanson et al., 1997). The system was based on the technique developed by Loeffelman et al. at the Buchanan Hydroelectric Project (Loeffelman et al. 1991; Klinect et al., 1992).The sound system consisted of a linear array of acoustic transducers that were located about 1000 feet upstream of the slough entrance.At the time NJDEP imposed the feasibility study requirements, studies at the Georgianna Slough were ongoing and the researchers were reporting effectiveness indices of up to 60.The subsequent analysis of the four-year test period at the Georgianna Slough showed that the effectiveness of the system is highly variable (Hanson et al. 1997). There werepositive results in some years and negative results in others. According to Hanson et al.(1997), it is not clear if positive results in earlier years were due to the effects of sounds or other unknown factors. Alternatively, negative results could have been a result of factors overwhelming the effects of the sound on the fish (e.g., fish responded more to other factors than to the sounds). Such factors might include tidal influences, local water velocities, spacing of the transducers, fish traveling speed, and auditory capabilities ofchinook salmon of different sizes. Water velocity and transducer spacing are considered important to effective operation of the sound system because they directly influence the effective operating range of the system.The use of low frequencies to control fish behavior was also evaluated in Wisconsin by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The study involved cage tests in 1996, followed by evaluation in 1997 of potentially effective sounds at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project, as described below. Results of cage tests showed varying levels of response in largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, rainbow trout, and sunfishes to sounds in the 100 Hz to 145 kHz range. Of the large number of soundsignals evaluated, responses were noted most often to a signal with a center frequency of 673 Hz, two signals with a center frequency of 2000 Hz, and signals with center frequencies of 2,990 and 4,000 Hz (Winchell et al., 1997).In 1997 these frequencies were evaluated by EPRI in the full-scale study at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project in Wisconsin in 1997. Full-flow tailrace netting of one of the three units was used at this site to monitor entrainment rates with the strobe lights and sound system on and off. Statistical analyses of the data indicate that the signals testeddid not cause a significant reduction in the number of fish entrained (Anon. 1998).11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F There have been promising recent results using ultrasonic signals (120 -130 kHz) to repel several species of Alosa from power plant intakes and hydropower dams. Results of earlier studies conducted at the Richard B. Russell project to determine the capability for high frequency sound to protect blueback herring are presented above. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has now completed additional testing to determine potential impacts of the project operations on fish (Ploskey et al., 1995; Nestler et al., 1997).' While specific studies to quantify system efficiency were not conducted, nosignificant entrainment events were observed, despite these having been seen in earlier studies (Nestler et al., 1997). Based on the reduction in entrainment, the study reportrecommends continued operation of the sound system as the optimal method for protecting fish at this project. Nevertheless, the responses of the A losa species have been observed to vary based on time of day and prevailing environmental conditions. The multi-phase study used to evaluate the use of a sound projection system to deter fish from the offshore intake of the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant has beensuccessfully completed (Ross et al., 1993). Results from the in situ sound tests demonstrated that alewives consistently avoidedhigh-frequency sounds. During the Phase IV tests, alewife impingement was reduced by about 85% during periods of full power and full cooling water flow (i.e. three pumps operating) and by about 88% when the plant was in a non-operating mode with only two intake pumps operating. On the basis of these results, NYPA recently installed a permanent sound system at James A.Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant to minimize alewife losses.Between September 1993 and May 1994, a sound system was tested to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing impingement of bay anchovy, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and Atlantic herring at Consolidated Edison Company of New York's Arthur Kill Station (Con Ed 1994). Initially, cage .tests similar to those done by PSE&G in 1994 were conducted with young-of-the-year bay anchovy (less than 60 mm TL) and alewives. High frequency (18 to 198 kHz) and low frequency (75 to 500 Hz) signals wereevaluated. Alewives showed a consistent avoidance response to the high frequencies. Bay anchovy, however showed no detectable response to any signal. A, full-scale system was then tested to determine if such sounds could reduce impingement at intake bays to the power plant. The effectiveness of the system was very clear for blueback herring.There were sharp reductions in impingement as soon as the system was turned on andrapid increases when it was turned off. Alewives showed a similar but less pronounced pattern of low impingement when the system was turned on. American shad were excluded less effectively with the system on, but showed an overall impingement rate three times higher with the system off than with it on. The system was ineffective in reducing impingement of gizzard shat, Atlantic herring and bay anchovy.II.D. Infrasound In the early 1990's, studies in Norway demonstrated that several fish species detect and respond to infrasonic signals (e.g. Karlsen 1992a, b; Enger et al, 1993). Furthermore, the investigators suggested that it may be possible to repel fish from the regions of a sound 12 12
- PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F source emitting infrasonic signals (e.g., Knudsen et al 1992, 1994; Enger et al., 1993).
Previous studies on fish hearing did not consider infrasound (reviewed in Fay, 1988), mostly due to the need for highly specialized and expensive sound projectors to produce the required frequencies. In the first practical application of infrasound for repelling fish, Knudsen et al. (1994)found a piston-type particle motion generator operating at 10 Hz to be effective in repelling Atlantic salmon smolts. Based on a review of the scientific literature and theearly success of Knudsen and his colleagues, PSE&G decided to develop an infrasound (5-50 Hz) source that might be effective and reliable for use to deter fish from water intakes. At the same time, other agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, started to pursue similar lines of research with. the goal of using infrasound to decrease entrapment of juvenile and adult fish at hydropower dams and other places where salmonids might be impinged. Several other studies have been conducted recently which evaluated infrasound as a potential fish protection measure. In 1996, as part of an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) study of behavioral barriers, lights and sound were tested at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project in cage tests using particle motion generator. Results of the EPRI tests showed little or no response in largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, and sunfishes. Rainbow trout displayed agitation, but the test fish showed no directional avoidance (Winchell et al., 1997). Due to the limited response observed in cage tests, the infrasound generator was not included in the next phase of testing at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project.In 1997, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an independent evaluation of twoinfrasound devices, an Argotech 215 low-frequency sound transducer and strobe lights in cage tests at the Chittenden Locks near Seattle, Washington (Ploskey et al., 1998). The infrasound devices included the particle motion generator and a reciprocating piston device similar to that used by Knudsen (1992, 1994) in Norway. The tests were designed to study the effects of these behavioral devices on young salmon.The particle motion generator operating between 10 and 50 Hz failed to elicited a startle response or directional avoidance by yearling coho salmon and sub-yearling coho and chinook salmon. The piston infrasound device operating at 8.3 Hz did produce responses when subyearling coho and chinook salmon were within 4 feet of the source. However, these responses were not as pronounced as those observed by Knudsen in similar testswith salmon. The Argotech 215 transducer generating 300/400 Hz crescendos was ineffective with sub-yearling coho and chinook salmon and sockeye salmon (Ploskey et al., 1998).Finally, the most recent work by the Norwegian group better delineates the types of responses associated with application of infrasound (Knudsen et al. 1994; Knudsen, 1997). In these experiments, Knudsen and his colleagues used infrasound to keep salmon smolts from moving down one arm of a river and to divert the fish to another arm of the 13 PSE&G Permit Application4 %March 1999 Appendix F stream. Significantly, they demonstrated that the fish would respond only if they were within two meters of the infrasound source.Based on these various studies, it now appears that while infrasound may be useful in altering fish behavior, it may only work when the fish is within a few meters of the sound source. Both the recent COE work and that by Knudsen (Knudsen et al., 1994; Knudsen, 1997) lead to the conclusion that infrasound is not worth pursuing at this time for any large site, such as the Salem CWIS. This conclusion is based upon several observations. First, the COE results, using infrasound devices that were mechanically different than the Knudsen device, did not elicit a response. This suggests that something very specific to the Norwegian device (perhaps the specific nature of the flow field associated with themoving piston) elicited the responses from the fish that could not be duplicated with other devices (also see Ploskey et al., 1998).Second, and far more important, the Knudsen group showed that infrasound elicitsresponses only when the fish are within two meters of the source, which is within theflow field of the projector. Furthermore, the distance may be even shorter for other salmonids, or salmonids of different ages (e.g., Ploskey et al., 1998). A very simple extrapolation is that, in order to have a possibly effective infrasound source, one would be required to have a large number of infrasound sources close enough to one another to setup an effective infrasonic barrier (Popper and Carlson, 1998). The feasibility of doing this at a larger scale is theoretically possible (Nestler and Davidson, 1995), but only if there is far more work in the design of the sources and a wide range of elaborate studies conducted to investigate the responses of various fish species to such sources.In conclusion, based upon studies of the past few years (since the study of infrasound was proposed in the 1995 Plan of Study), infrasound is not a viable method of fish control, particularly at large sites. Even if infrasound is ultimately proven useful at some sites, it will take a good deal more study to define the parameters of the responses, develop the best projectors, and ascertain the species that will actually show an avoidance response to this type of stimulus.II.E. Mercury Light Response to mercury light has been shown to be species specific; some fish species are attracted, others repelled, and others have demonstrated no obvious response. Studies conducted at the Ludington Pumped Storage Project in 1987 demonstrated a significant and substantial increase in the number of fish in the test zone with mercury lights operating relative to control conditions (EPRI 1990). A study conducted at ahydroelectric facility in France showed that mercury lights significantly increased Atlantic salmon smolt passage through a bypass (Larinier and Boyer-Bernard 199 1). Inlaboratory studies, mercury lights successfully attracted alewives and rainbow smelt to aHidrostal pump (Rodgers 1983). In contrast, American shad juveniles appeared to be repelled by mercury lights at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project at the same time that gizzard shad were attracted (EPRI 1992). Cage tests conducted at the Kingsford£ 14 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix FHydroelectric Project showed no response to mercury light by walleye, yellow perch, northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and rainbow trout in cage tests (Winchell et al.; EPRI 1998).Mercury lights, used alone or in conjunction with other devices, are considered to have potential for protecting some fish species at water intakes. However, because species-specific responses can be either repulsion or attraction, careful consideration must be given for any application of mercury lights. It is possible that some species at a site maybe repelled by mercury lights, whereas other species may be attracted leading to increased impingement or entrainment rates. Given the equivocal results of past studies, mercury lights are not considered to have the potential for reducing impingement at Salem andwould not reduce entrainment. II.F. Electric Screens Electric barriers have been shown to effectively prevent the upstream passage of fish (Seelye 1989; Rozich 1989; Hilgert and Hershberger 1992). However, a number of attempts to divert or deter the downstream movement of fish have met with limited success (Barwick and Miller 1990; Bengeyfield 1990; Kynard and O'Leary 1990). Consequently, past evaluations have not led to permanent applications. Electrical barriers also pose a safety threat to humans and other aquatic animals and wildlife. Given their past ineffectiveness and hazard potential, electric screens are not considered a viable technology for application as a fish protection, device.II.G. Water Jet Curtain This device has received only minor attention as potential fish protection technology. Although several small-scale studies indicate that some fish species may avoid a water jet barrier, but mechanical and reliability questions have led to limited field evaluations and applications. II.H. Hanging Chain Barriers Some success in preventing fish passage with chain barriers under laboratory conditions has led to field applications and subsequent evaluation. However, the positive laboratoryresults have not been replicated in the field, and research on chain barriers has not been conducted in recent years.11.1. Chemicals Chemicals have received little attention and have not shown any value as a potential methodology for effective fish protection. II.J. Visual Keys Underwater structures which might "key" fish that they are moving into a danger zone have been the subject of limited research. Water clarity and available light limit their effectiveness. There is no evidence that the use of visual keys should be considered as a potentially effective fish protection measure.15* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F II.K. Hybrid Behavioral Barriers A number of studies have been conducted to determine whether using behavioral devices in various combinations can increase overall biological effectiveness. Results have been equivocal; in some cases, efficiency is improved, in others, efficiency drops. Generally, the gains in effectiveness when two or more devices have been combined as a fish protection system have not been substantial (EPRI 1994a). The recent studies conducted in northern Michigan with strobe lights and an air bubble curtain (McCauley et al. 1996)are encouraging and indicate that the use of hybrid barriers deserves consideration as a viable approach to protecting fish. As previously discussed, the strobe light/air bubble curtain combination is considered to be a viable alternative for Salem.III. PHYSICAL BARRIERS III.A. Infiltration Intakes Radial wells and artificial filter beds are successfully used to supply small quantities of water. While such systems have little if any biological impact, they have not beendeveloped for screening large flow volumes or for water use systems such as power generating facilities and are not an available technology for Salem. III.B. Porous Dike Rock dikes that allow water to pass while preventing fish passage have been shown tobe effective on an experimental basis. Such dikes have not been used to filter large quantities of water and generally are not considered a viable option for use at Salem or cooling water intakes in general.III.C. Gunderboom The Gunderboom consists of polyester fiber strands which are pressed into a water-permeable fabric mat. Beginning in 1995, Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. has sponsored an evaluation of the Gunderboom to determine its ability to minimize ichthyoplankton entrainment at the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River (LMS 1996a). The Gunderboom system deployed around Unit 3 in 1995 was approximately 5.0 mm (0.2 inches) thick with a nominal filtration capacity of 0.02 mm (0.001 inches). The 120 -m long (394-ft), 5.0-m (19.7-ft) deep boom was designed to filter the entire Unit 3 flow (2.7m3/s [95 cfs]) at an average velocity of 0.015 m/s (o.o5 ft/s). Within hours ofinstallation, surface support straps failed causing water to pass over the top. As the study progress, siltation caused additional submersion. By the end of the study, it was estimated that all water was spilling over the top and was not being filtered. Comparing estimated entrainment rates between Unit 3 and Unit 4 (no Gunderboom), it was calculated that the overall Gunderboom effectiveness was on the order of 82 percent (LMS 1996a).In 1996, the Gunderboom was deployed around the Lovett Units 3, 4 and 5 cooling water intake structures. The 244-m (800 -ft) long boom consisted of two layers and additional flotation and anchoring capacity was incorporated into the system. An air purging system was installed between the two layers to permit clearing of accumulated silt from the 16* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F boom. As in 1995, the boom suffered from excessive strain (tears and attachment failures) and was removed 22 hours after deployment when the air backwashing system failed to improve flotation (LMS 1997). Additional modifications were made for testing of the boom at Lovett Unit 3 in 1997. The system effectively filtered the entire Unit 3 flow for a period of 4.5 days. The cleaning method employed appeared to be effective in removing silt. The concrete block anchoring system maintained the boom in its proper deployment position. Unfortunately, the boom developed a tear after about five days and it was decided to terminate the experiment. The Gunderboom system appears to have potential for preventing ichthyoplankton entrainment. Additional studies are ongoing to resolve design and operational problemsthat have limited effective deployment to date. At this time, the Gunderboom system is considered to be experimental in nature and requires additional development. It is not considered an available technology for possible application at Salem.III.D. Wedge-wire Screens Wedge-wire screens reduce entrainment and impingement at water intakes due to their small screen slot sizes and their low slot velocities. They are designed to function passively; that is, to be effective, ambient crosscurrents must be present in the water body to carrywaterborne organisms and debris past the screens. Wedge-wire screens utilize "V" or wedge-shaped, cross-section wire welded to a framing system to form a slotted screening element (Figure F-VIII-3-2). In order for cylindrical wedge-wire screens to reduce impingement and entrainment, the following conditions must exist: (1) sufficiently small screen slot size to physically block passage of the smallest lifestage to be protected (typically 0.5 to 1.0 mm); (2) low through-slot velocity (about 0.5 ft per second); (3)relatively high velocity ambient current cross-flow (to carry organisms around and away from the screen); and (4) ambient currents providing high velocity cross-flow (to providecontinuous flushing of debris). Where all of these conditions are present, wedge-wire screens can reduce entrainment and impingement. The J. H. Campbell Plant Unit 3 on Lake Michigan has employed a wedge-wire screen intake system since 1979. The plant's Unit 3 withdraws 340,000 gallons per minute from an offshore location (3,500ft from shore in 35ft of water) through 28 fixed screening units with 3/8-inch (9.5-mm) screen slots. The stainless steel screens have reduced impingement of gizzard shad, smelt, yellow perch, alewife, and shiner species, and have required minimal maintenance. The screens are cleaned manually by water jets to reduce biofouling (algae). The plant was forced to shut down once (spring 1984) due to anchor ice. Because the screen mesh is 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), this installation achieves no significant reduction in entrainment other than by virtue of its deep offshore location in an area of low abundance of entrainable-sized fish. Operating experience to date has been satisfactory, due to the large screen slot size and the relatively low debris loading in Lake Michigan.Philadelphia Electric Company installed a wedge-wire screen intake system in June 1990 at its Eddystone Station Unit 1 on the Delaware River (Veneziale 1991). The Delaware 17* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F River at the Eddystone Station is a relatively freshwater regime, although it is under some tidal influence and can be slightly brackish. The design flow for the combined Eddystone Units 1 and 2 is 440,000 gallons per minute. Sixteen wedge-wire screen modules are supported from a new bulkhead. The bulkhead is set in front of the existing screen bays and creates a plenum between the new screen structure and existing intake bays. Each screen module is 20 ft long and 6 ft in diameter. The structure is located on the shorelinein an area of relatively high crossflow. The screen slot width is 1/4 inch (6.4 mm), resulting in no significant entrainment benefits. To date, the wedge-wire screen intake system has operated acceptably. The screens are backflushed by compressed air, which has maintained the pressure drop across the screens at a constant value slightly greater than the manufacturer's design pressure drop.Based on past success with wedge-wire screens, it is concluded that this technology canbe considered for application at CWIS. However, there is only limited data on biological effectiveness. Further, there are major concerns with clogging potential and biogrowth. Since the only two large CWIS to employ wedge-wire screens to date use 10 mm slot openings, the potential for clogging and fouling that would exist with slot sizes as small as 0.5 mm, as would be required for protection of entrainable life stages, is unknown. In general, consideration of wedge-wire screens with small slot dimensions for CWIS application should include in situ prototype scale studies to determine potential biological effectiveness and identify the ability to control clogging and fouling in a way that doesnot impact station operation. III.E. Barrier NetsUnder the proper hydraulic conditions (primarily low velocity) and without heavy debris loading, barrier nets have been effective in blocking fish passage into water intakes. At the Pine Hydroelectric Project located on the Pine River in Wisconsin, release-recapturesampling indicated that a barrier net reduced passage of rock bass, bluegill, yellow perch, black bullhead, black crappie, and other riverine species by 85% to 100% (EPRI 1994c).Based on the success of the barrier net at the Pine Project, a net is being installed at the Brule Hydroelectric Project located on the Brule River in Wisconsin. An evaluation ofentrainment reduction by the Brule net will be performed in1999.At the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant on Lake Michigan, a 2.5-mile long barrier net, set in open water around the intake jetties, has been successful in reducing entrainment ofall fish species that occur in the vicinity of the intake (Reider et aL 1997). The Ludington net is deployed each year from mid-April to mid-October; storms and icing conditionsmake deployment of the net in winter impractical. The net was first deployed in 1989.Modifications to the design in subsequent years led to a net effectiveness for target species (five salmonid species, yellow perch, rainbow smelt, alewife and chub) of over 80% since 1991, with an effectiveness of 96% in 1995 and 1996.Northern States Power Company (NSP) will install a barrier net at the Hayward Hydro Project in the spring of 1999 and conduct a five-year effectiveness evaluation study (FERC 1997). The project is located on the Namekagon River in Wisconsin. The net 18 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F will be about 22.9 m (75 ft) long by 3 m (10 ft) deep and will be constructed of knotted, 9.5 mm (3/8-inch) square nylon mesh. The top of the net will be supported by 'floats and a steel cable strung between two anchor points. The bottom will be anchored by four 80: 100 lb. Weights spaced evenly along the lake bottom. A 1r-m (3-ft) deep bottom skirt will help maintain a tight closure. Velocities approaching the net will be considerably less than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s). The barrier net is intended primarily to protect young-of-the-year walleye and will be installed from May through approximately June 15 each year.In 1993 and 1994, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. sponsored a study of a 3.0-mm, fine mesh net at its Bowline Point Generating Station on the Hudson River. In 1993, clogging with fine suspended silt caused the net to clog and sink. While labor-intensive, high-pressure spraying by divers and additional flotation countered this problem and the net was maintained for nearly one month (LMS 1994). In 1994, spraying was not effective in cleaning the net when it became fouled by the algae Ectocarpus species.Excessive fouling caused two of the support piles to snap, ending the evaluation (LMS 1996b). Successful cleaning of the net was achieved by removing it and using the highpressure spraywash system in air. In both years, abundance of the target ichthyoplankton species, bay anchovy, was too low to determine the biological effectiveness of the net.On the basis of studies to date, the researchers conclude that a fine mesh net may be a potentially effective method for preventing entrainment at Bowline Point (LMS 1996b).However, pending further evaluation, this concept is considered to be experimental. In conclusion, barrier nets can be considered a viable option for protecting fish provided that relatively low velocities (generally less than 1 ft/sec) can be achieved and debris loading is light. A thorough evaluation of site-specific environmental and operational conditions is generally recommended. At Salem, heavy silt and detrital loads, combinedwith high-velocity tidal currents, would preclude use of a barrier net. Further, even if a net could be deployed and maintained, it would only prevent the passage of larger juvenile and adult fish and would not reduce entrainment. Therefore, this alternative is not considered a viable option for Salem.III.F. Bar RacksBar rack avoidance by fish has been well documented. Bar racks act as a physical barrier to larger fish and a behavioral barrier to smaller individuals. Like barrier nets, bar rackscan be effective, given proper hydraulic conditions. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prescribed close-spaced (typically 1 to 2 inches) bar racks in combination with spilling or with a downstream bypass for numerous hydro projects as the preferred method of fish protection. Although few field evaluations have been conducted, bar racks are considered to be a viable option for protecting fish at water intakes, particularly if flow velocities are low (less than 1 ft/sec) and small rack spacings (I to 2 inch) can be used without causing fish impingement or excessive debris handling problems.A monitoring evaluation of bar racks was conducted for a recent installation at the Chippewa Falls Hydroelectric Project located on the Chippewa River in Wisconsin (Everhart 1997). The evaluation of the Chippewa Falls bar racks determined that 19 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F impingement of fish occurred during periods of heavy debris loading and run-off. Debris loading resulted in operation and maintenance problems, including a need to stop generation and to expend considerable effort to remove accumulated debris. During the early spring of 1998, debris loads and run-off were lighter than previous years and no impingements were observed and operational restrictions and maintenance requirements were minimal.While closely spaced bar racks are being installed at a variety of hydroelectric projects to divert or block fish, results of biological evaluations to date have been equivocal. Standard bar racks at CWIS with small openings have not been shown to limit the passage of juvenile fish. Further, bar racks do not reduce entrainment. Therefore, this alternative is not a viable one for Salem.III.G. Traveling (Through-flow, Center-flow, Drum, etc.) and Fixed Screens Traveling and fixed screens have been used as barriers to block fish passage. From a biological viewpoint, there is little difference between traveling and fixed screens exceptwhere heavy debris clogging makes the traveling screen a better option for maintaining optimal hydraulic conditions. Provided that relatively low velocities (on the order of 0.5 ft/sec) can be achieved and debris clogging is not substantial, screens are effective barriers to fish passage. Fixed screens have had limited application to CWIS and require frequent cleaning, resulting high maintenance costs. However, they have been effective in several power plant applications. Traveling water screens are more standard at CWIS, but in such applications, they have typically not been designed with fish protection in mind. Therefore, where impingement of fish has been determined to be at a level that requires mitigation, such screens have been modified to be collection systems, as discussed in the next section. Traveling and fixed screens, as barrier devices, cannot be considered for protection of early life stages or aquatic organism with little or no motility.IV. COLLECTION SYSTEMS IV.A. Modified Traveling Water Screens Conventional traveling water screens have been modified to incorporate modifications that improve survival of impinged fish. Such state-of-the-art modifications act to enhance fish survival related to screen impingement and spraywash removal. Screens modified in this manner are commonly called "Ristroph Screens." Each screen basket is equipped with a water-filled lifting bucket which safely contains collected fish as they are carried upward with the rotation of the screen. The screens operate continuously tominimize impingement time. When each bucket passes over the top of the screen, fish are gently rinsed into a collection trough by a low-pressure spraywash system. Once collected, the fish are transported back to a safe release location. Such features have been incorporated into through-flow, dual-flow and center-flow screens. a 20 .* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Ristroph screens have been shown to improve fish survival and have been installed atpower plants to meet the'requirements of § 316(b). Improvements have been made to the Ristroph screen design that have resulted in increased fish survival. The most important advancement in state-of-the-art Ristroph screen design was developed through extensive laboratory and field experimentation (Envirex, Inc. 1996). Until recently, impingement of fish on the mesh of Ristroph screens had been considered to be the primary cause of most injury and mortality associated with such screens. A series of studies conducted by Fletcher (1990) indicate that substantial injury associated with these traveling screens is due to repeated buffeting of fish inside the fish lifting buckets as a result of undesirable hydraulic conditions. As shown on Figure F-VIII-4-3, observations of fish behavior in flume studies demonstrated that fish which entered the standard Ristroph bucket (or were driven down the screen mesh into the bucket) design were caught in a secondary flow, interior to the bucket, that swirled them around in a rapid circular motion. Fletcher (1990) noted that fish captured in this manner were injured more by the buffeting they received in the bucket than by movement along the screen mesh. In an effort to eliminate the observed undesirable hydraulic conditions, a number ofalternative bucket configurations were developed to create a sheltered area within the bucket in which fish could safely reside during screen rotation. After several attempts, a bucket configuration was developed which achieved the desired conditions (Envirex, Inc.1996). By re-curving the leading edge of the standard bucket, this new configuration (Figure F-VII-4-3) creates a trail of disordered flow over the bucket of sufficient strength to separate the shearing action of the main flow from the bucket interior. In addition to the re-shaped bucket, an auxiliary screen was added to the leading edge of the bucket in an attempt to eliminate the escape of fish from the bucket as it clears the water surface.In 1986, the redesigned fish buckets were installed on one Ristroph screen at Unit 2 of Consolidated Edison Company's Indian Point Station. Earlier studies with the standard Ristroph screens at this site had resulted in survival rates that were considered unacceptable. A specific confounding factor in the operation of the standard design atthis Hudson River site was the seasonal occurrence of large quantities of filamentousalgae that severely plugged the screens. When this algae was not present, the low-pressure fish removal spray functioned well (Fletcher 1990). However, in the presence of the algae, fish became entangled in it and were not rinsed into the fish trough, but were carried to the high-pressure debris removal system where they were subjected to added stress. To resolve this site-specific problem, additional debris and fish sprays and collection troughs were installed to allow better separation of fish from debris (Fletcher 1990). These additional modifications were evaluated along with the modified fish bucket during the tests conducted at Indian Point in 1986.The redesigned test screen was evaluated from August 26 to October 24, 1986.Experiments were conducted with fish that were released upstream of the screen specifically for evaluation purposes as well as with fish which entered the screened intake naturally. The data obtained indicated that fish mortality was reduced appreciably with the redesigned screen compared to mortality observed with the previously-tested standard 21 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Ristroph design. Based on these results, Consolidated Edison retrofitted all of the screens at Unit 2 in 1989. Quantitative data collected since full installation indicate a substantial improvement'in fish survival (Dr. K. Marcellus, pers. comm., 1993).In the summer of 1995, PSE&G performed a biological evaluation of a state-of-the-art screening system installed at the Salem Generating Station as a requirement of its 1994 NJPDES Permit (Ronafalvy et al. 1997). The evaluation was performed after six of the twelve existing traveling water screens had been replaced with the new, improved screens, allowing a side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of the old and new screens (the other six screens have since been replaced, as well). The new screens incorporated hydrodynamically improved fish buckets, smooth woven mesh screens (1/4 by 1/2 in. rectangular mesh), lighter composite screen baskets which allow for increased rotational speed, improved low and high pressure spray washes, and an improved screen-to-collection trough flap seal design. Tests were conducted on 19 separate dates between June 20 and August 24. Fish collected from the old and new screens were collected andheld separately for observation of 48-hr survival. The only species occurring in sufficient numbers to provide a statistically valid data analysis was juvenile weakfish (n.= 1082 for the old screens, n = 1559 for the new screens). Overall, statistical analyses demonstrated a 48-hr survival rate (uncorrected for control mortality) of 57.8% with the old screens and 79.3% with the new screens. Temperature had a significant influence on test results. At the lowest ambient temperature (23°C), survival with the old and new screens was 88.0 and 97.7%, respectively. At the highest temperature (27 0 C), survival was 35.1% for the old screens and 55.6% with the new screens. Fish length also influenced survival. For fish less than 50 mm (TL), survival with the old and new screens was 73.7 and 85.5%, respectively. For fish greater than 50 mm, survival with the old and new screens was 57.5 and 82.3%, respectively. In addition to the Salem screen comparison study described above, the new screens have been evaluated to determine the survival of other RIS at the site, as presented in Appendix F, Section VIII. These screens represent the base case on which other alternatives for Salem have been compared. IV.B. Fine-Mesh Traveling Screens Traveling water screens typically incorporate screen mesh with openings of approximately 3/8-in. (9.5 mm). Mesh sizes substantially smaller than the standard (e.g., 0.5 mm to 5.0 mam) are considered to be "fine mesh." Depending on species present anddebris loading, fine mesh screens may be effective as a barrier to the passage of fish eggs and larvae. For many species and early life stages, mesh sizes as small as 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm are required for effective screening. Various types of traveling screens, such as through-flow (currently in use at Salem), dual-flow, center-flow, and drum screens, can be fitted with fine mesh. The primary disadvantage of fine mesh screens is that they result in increased organism impingement which, in turn, can result in increased mortality. Unless it can be demonstrated that impingement survival of target species and life stages is substantially greater than survival through the circulating water system, there is little or no net benefit to the installation of fine mesh screens.S 22 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Fine mesh screens have been used at a number of power plants to reduce entrainment of small organisms. In 1981, Tampa Electric Company installed continuously traveling dual-flow screens with 0.5-mm screen mesh and specially designed organism troughs, buckets, and spray washes at its Big Bend Station. The design flow for screened Units 3 and 4 is about 242,000 gpm each. New England Power Company installed 1.0-mm screen mesh to screen 260,000 gpm at Unit 4 of the Brayton Point Power Station.Northern States Power Company installed 0.5-mm screen mesh at Units I and 2 of its Prairie Island Nuclear Station, and withdraws 630,000 gpm from the Mississippi River with no biofouling and minor debris problems. At the Barney Davis Station, Central Power and Light Company installed 1.0-mm screen mesh to screen 340,000 gpm (saltwater) with heavy sea grass loading. New York State Electric and Gas Company installed 1.0 mm screen mesh at the Somerset Station to screen 195,000 gpm withdrawn from Lake Ontario with limited debris. At the Brunswick Nuclear Station, Carolina Power Company installed 1.0-mm screen mesh to screen 990,000 gpm (salt water) with additional barrier screens on an intake canal. Survival of a variety of species and life stages following impingement on a fine-meshscreen was investigated in an extensive study sponsored by the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) (Taft et al 198 1). Striped bass, winter flounder, alewife, yellow perch, walleye, channel catfish and bluegill were impinged on a 0.5 mm synthetic mesh at velocities ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 ft/sec and for durations of 2, 4, 8 or 16 minutes. Striped bass prolarvae (5.4 -6.4 mm) showed relatively high* mortality under all test conditions. However, control survival was also high (mean =56.5%). Striped bass postlarvae (6.5 -17.1 mm) mortality averaged less than 10% at velocities up to 2.0 ft/sec and impingement durations up to 4 minutes (control = 8. 1%).Winter flounder prolarvae (4.1 mm) experienced mean mortality rates of 7.3, 10.7, 16.5 and 35.6% over all durations at velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ftlsec, respectively (control = 4.1%). Early postlarvae (4.4 mm) experienced very high mortality under all test conditions (control = 42.5%). Later postlarvae (6.1 mm) survived somewhat better,with mortality rates ranging from 16.4 to 36% in six of the nine velocity/duration combinations. Alewife prolarvae (5.2 -5.5 mm) showed a clear trend of increasing mortality with increasing velocity and impingement duration. At a duration of 8 minutes,mean mortality was 4.1, 18.9, 44.1 and 69.7% at velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ft/sec, respectively (control = 0%). Postlarvae (6.6 -. 14.7 mm) showed high mortality (76.3%)under all test conditions (control = 43.3%). Yellow perch prolarvae (5.8 -6.0 mm)showed the same trend as alewife prolarvae with a mean mortality of 6.8, 5.2, 32.3 and 31.5% at velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ft/sec, respectively (control = 4.1%).Postlarvae (6.3 -6.5 mm) also suffered high mortalities ( 88.7%) under all test conditions (control = 85.2%). Later postlarvae (7.3 -14.3 mm) showed improved survival with amean mortality of 40%,at the 0.5 ft/sec x 3 minute impingement duration combination (control = 32.8%). Walleye larvae (8.4 -12.0 mm) also showed the same trend as alewife prolarvae. At the 0.5 ft/sec velocity, mortality ranged from 31.4 to 39.5 as the duration increased to 16 minutes (control.= 26.8%). Channel catfish larvae (11.2 -25.7 mm)showed low mortality under most test conditions. At the 8 minutes impingement 23 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F duration, mortality ranged from 3.0 to 5.4 as the velocity increased from 0.5 to 2.0 fl/sec (control = 3.9%). Bluegill larvae (15.3 -21.0 mm) experienced low mortality under manytest conditions. At 1.0 ft/sec, mortality ranged from 1.5 to 4.0% as impingement duration increased up to 16 minutes (control = 2.7%).At the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant on the Mississippi River, Minnesota, 0.5 mm fine mesh traveling screens were retrofitted to the plants cooling water intake and organism survival studies were conducted from 1984 to 1987 (Kuhl and, Mueller 1988).Initial, latent and total survival were determined for prolarvae, postlarvae, juveniles and adults of various fish taxa. Results of these studies are summarized in Table F-VIII-4-1. Like the ESEERCO studies,.these results show that survival is highly variable by speciesand life stage. Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L 1985) conducted similar studies in 1984-85 at the Brunswick Steam Electric Station on the Cape Fear Estuary near Wilmington, NC.This station was retrofitted with 1.0-mm fine mesh screens in 1983. The studies were conducted with the screens rotating at two different speeds: 2.5 ft/min and fromr6 to 10ft/min. Results of this study are presented in Tables F-V1II-4-2 (test survival) and F-VIH-4-3 (control survival). The most thorough evaluation of fine mesh dual flow screens was conducted at Tampa Electric Company's (TECO) Big Bend Station on Tampa Bay, Florida. Prototype studies of fine mesh screens were conducted between 1979 and 1981 to reduce entrainment offish and invertebrates. In 1980 and 1981, TECO constructed a full-scale, dual flowprototype traveling screen system, which included all features of an in-service installation, to determine the biological effectiveness and engineering practicability at Big Bend.The Representative Important Species at Big Bend are bay anchovy, black drum, silver perch, spotted seatrout, scaled sardine, tidewater silverside, stone, pink shrimp, American oyster and blue crab. The results of the prototype fine mesh screen study indicated that invertebrates survived best, often more than 90%, while fragile fish larvae, such as the bay anchovy, had low survival rates (Taft et al. 1989). However, survival among fish larvae also was low. These experiments with control samples indicated that natural mortality, not associated with stresses resulting from the collection and holding procedures, contributed tothe mortalities observed among organisms collected by finemesh screens. Therefore, it was concluded that observed test mortalities should be considered as the cumulative effect of test and natural mortality. Based on the results of prototype screen tests, TECO installed a full-scale, fine mesh, dualflow screen system at Big Bend Station Units 3 and 4. This system began operation in February 1985 and was evaluated biologically in 1985 and 1986. Initial and latent mortality varied by species and life stage (Bruggemeyer et al. 1988). Invertebrates had latent survival rates ranging from 65 to 90%. Engraulidae (primarily bay anchovy) hadinitial survival rates ranging from 16 to 58% and latent survival rates of 65 to 68%,* 24 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F depending on sampling location (latent mortality does not include initial mortality). 4However, both initial and latent mortality rates of control organisms were similar to those of test fish and the data were not adjusted to account for control mortality. IV.C. Fish Pumps Several pumps have demonstrated an ability to transfer fish to induce bypass with little or no mortality. The pumps by themselves do not represent a technology for protecting fish.However, when coupled with fish bypass systems, such as angled screens and louvers, fish pumps are biologically acceptable. V. DIVERSION SYSTEMS V.A. Angled Screens Angled fish diversion screens leading to bypass and return pipelines have been extensively investigated and are commonly used for guiding salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. A wide variety of other species have been shown to guide effectively on screens given suitable hydraulic conditions. Angled screens require uniform flow conditions, a fairly constant approach velocity, and a low through-screen velocity to be biologically effective. Survival following diversion, piping, and pumping (required in some cases to return fish to a safe release location) varies by species. Overall survival rates of relatively fragile species following diversion may not exceed 70%. Hardier species should exhibit survival rates approaching 100%. Therefore, angled screens can be considered a viable option for protecting juvenile and adult life stages some fish species provided that proper hydraulic conditions (low, uniform velocities) can be 4 supplied and maintained and that debris can be effectively removed. Fish eggs, larvae and small invertebrates are not protected by angled screens. V.B. Angled Rotary Drum Screens Angled drum screens have provided effective downstream protection for juvenile salmonids at several diversion projects in the Pacific Northwest (Neitzel et al. 1991).The angled design of drum screens was developed to reduce fish impingement and to improve guidance to a bypass. Like angled screens, suitable hydraulic conditions at the screen face and a safe bypass system are required for the screens to effectively protect fish from entrainment and impingement an d to divert them to a bypass for return to the mainstem river channel. Suitable hydraulic conditions include uniform approach velocities, a velocity of about 0.5 ft/sec or less for the normal component of the approach velocity, a velocity component along the screen that is at least twice the magnitude of the normal component, and a relatively constant submergence (Haider and Nelson 1987;Johnson 1988; Pearce and Lee 1991). If the screens are not properly installed and maintained, unfavorable flow conditions can occur and effective fish protection and guidance by the screens can be reduced. Otherwise, the angled drum screen can be considered for use as a fish protection device. However, in the Pacific Northwest, the current trend in fish screening is the use of the flat-panel angled screens (described above)instead of drum screens.2 25* PSE&G Permit A\pplication 4 AMarch 1999 Appendix F V.C. Inclined Plane ScreenInclined screens of several designs have been evaluated as means of diverting fish upward in the water column to surface bypasses. In a number of small applications, the screenshave been reasonably successful. However, inclined screens have not been used in a large-scale application to date.V.D. Eicher Screen The Eicher screen is a passive pressure screen that has recently received attention as a potentially improved design of the inclined plane screen. However, the screen design hasbeen met with reluctance by some fisheries agencies due to the high velocities employed (>5 ft/sec). An Eicher Screen was constructed and installed in a 9-ft diameter penstock at a hydroelectric project in the Pacific Northwest. Field testing of the screen completed in 1990 and 1991 demonstrated that the Eicher screen effectively diverted over 98% of the steelhead, coho, and chinook smolts (EPRI 1991, 1992.). The first full-scale Eicher screen installation (two screens in two, 10-ft diameter penstocks; total flow of 1,000 cfs)at B. C. Hydro's Puntledge Project has shown similar results. Survival of chinook and coho salmon smolts exceeded 99%, and survival of steelhead, sockeye and chum salmon fry was 100, 96, and 96%, respectively, at penstock velocities up to 6 ft/sec (Smith 1997).While biologically effective, the Eicher Screen is not designed for use at steam electric station cooling water intakes and is not, therefore, an available technology. V.E. Modular Inclined Screens A new type of fish diversion screen known as the Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) (FigureF-VIII-4-4) has recently been developed and tested (EPRI 1994b, 1996). The MIS is intended to protect juvenile and adult life stages of fish at all types of water intakes. An MIS module consists of an entrance with trash racks, dewatering stop logs in slots, aninclined screen set at a shallow angle (10 to 20 degrees) to the flow, and a bypass for directing diverted fish to a transport pipe. The module is completely enclosed and is designed to operate at relatively high water velocities ranging from 2 to 10 ft/sec,depending on species and life stages to be protected. The MIS was evaluated in laboratory studies to determine: (1) the design configurationwhich yields the best hydraulic conditions for safe fish passage (1:6.6 scale hydraulic model), and (2) the biological effectiveness of the optimal design in diverting selected fish species to a bypass (1:3.3 scale biological test flume) (EPRI 1994b). Results from tests performed with the 1:6.6 model indicate that the MIS creates optimal hydraulic conditions for fish diversion. Biological tests were conducted in the 1:3.3 flume with juvenile walleye, bluegill, channel catfish, American shad, blueback herring, goldenshiner, rainbow trout (two size classes), brown trout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, and Atlantic salmon. Fish passage (diversion efficiency and latent mortality) was evaluated at water velocities ranging from 2 ft/sec to 10 ft/sec.Results of the laboratory study are presented in Table F-VIII-4-4. The mean length of allspecies that were tested was between 47 and 88 mm, with the exception of Atlantic 26 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F salmon, which averaged 169 mm in length. Diversion rates reached 98% or greater atwater velocities up to 8 ft/sec for walleye and 6 ft/sec for bluegill. Diversion efficiencies of channel catfish, golden shiner, and brown trout exceeded 98% at all water velocities that were tested, including 10 ft/sec. The diversion efficiency of rainbow trout fry and juveniles exceeded 99% at velocities up to 6 and 8 ft/sec, respectively. Diversion rates exceeded 99% at all velocities for tests with coho salmon, and at all velocities up to 8 ft/sec for tests with chinook salmon. Atlantic salmon smolts demonstrated 100%diversion at all velocities tested, including 10 ft/sec. Diversion efficiencies were lower and latent mortality was higher for American shad and blueback herring than observed for the other species. However, latent mortality was comparable between control and test fish of these species indicating stress from capture, handling, and testing probably contributed to the lower diversion rates. Generally, latent mortality of test fish that was adjusted for control mortality Was low (0 to 5%) for all other species evaluated. Based on the laboratory results, a pilot scale evaluation of the MIS was conducted atNiagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Green Island Hydroelectric Project on the HudsonRiver near Albany, NY (EPRI 1996). The results (Table F-VIII-4-4) obtained in this fieldevaluation were similar to those obtained in laboratory studies. Golden shiners andrainbow trout showed diversion and survival rates approaching 100% under most test conditions. For blueback herring, diversion efficiencies and latent survival values obtained were similar to laboratory results. In both cases, there was a relationship between diversion and survival and test velocity. Higher velocities resulted in lower diversion and survival rates. Additional studies at Green Island in 1996 (Table F-VIII-4-4) showed high diversion efficiencies and low latent mortality of largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and bluegill (Taft et al. 1997).The combined results of laboratory and field evaluations of the MIS to date have demonstrated that this screen is an effective fish diversion device which has the potential for protecting fish at the Station. Given the large number of species that have been evaluated that cover an wide range of swimming capabilities and body shapes, it is reasonable to assume that juvenile and adult life stages of species at the Station would be diverted and survive within the range of net passage survivals observed in the laboratoryand field studies. As stated previously, the MIS would be designed to operate at a maximum approach velocity of 5 ft/sec.The available laboratory and field study data indicate that the MIS could be an effective alternative for protecting fish at CWIS. Therefore, this alternative was subjected to detailed evaluation, as presented in Appendix F, Section VIII. As with other alternatives that have not been evaluated under large-scale conditions to date, any consideration of the MIS for CWIS application should include a large-scale, in situ prototype evaluation. V.F. Submerged Traveling ScreensThese screens have been installed at a number of large hydroelectric projects in the Pacific Northwest to divert salmon outmigrants away from turbines and into gatewellbypasses. Results have been highly variable both between sites and within sites for 27 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F different species. Additionally, these screens generally are applicable only to high-head hydroelectric projects with large gatewells. Therefore, they are not appropriate for consideration at CWIS.V.G. Louvers A louver system consists of an array of evenly spaced, vertical slats (similar to bar racks)aligned across a channel at a specified angle and leading to a bypass. Results of louver studies to date have been variable by species and site. Most of the louver installations in the U.S. are in the Pacific Northwest. Louvers generally are not considered acceptable by the fishery resource agencies in this region since they do not meet the current 100%salmon effectiveness criterion. However, numerous studies have demonstrated that louvers can be on the order of 80 to 95% effective in diverting a wide variety of species over a wide range of conditions (EPRI 1986).Recently, the Northeast Utilities Service Company conducted a major research effort evaluating the use of louvers for diverting juvenile and adult clupeids and Atlanticsalmon smolts in the Holyoke Canal (part of the Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project) on the Connecticut River (Harza 1992; Harza 1993; Stira and Robinson 1997). An evaluation of juvenile clupeids (American shad and blueback herring) was performed at various canal flows at a full-scale louver facility. The study found that 76% of marked and recaptured test fish were guided, and 86% of naturally migrating fish were guided to a bypass that returned fish to the mainstem river (Harza 1993). An evaluation performed with Atlantic salmon smolts indicates that the overall guidance effectiveness was between 85 and 90% (Harza 1992).Future consideration of louver systems for protecting fish at water intakes is certainly warranted. Most of the applications to date have been with migratory species in riverine environments. Relatively little effort has been expanded on evaluating louvers for CWIS.Therefore, the ability of this alternative to protect species commonly impinged at CWIS is largely unknown. Further, due to the large spacings between louver slats, louver systems do not protect early life stages of fish. For these reasons, louvers are not an available technology for consideration at Salem.V.H. Angled Bar Racks Angled bar racks have been installed at a number of small projects and have been suggested or proposed for others during the ongoing FERC relicensing process. While conclusive effectiveness studies have not yet been conducted, the angled bar rack should function as a louver system and successfully divert fish, if installed properly in a channeled flow. If proper physical and hydraulic conditions can be established, angled bar racks can be considered a viable option for protecting fish at hydroelectric projects.Such conditions are not present at Salem.28* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999Appendix F References -Attachment F-3 Anonymous. 1998. Behavioral fish protection: Not these devices, these fish. Hydro Plant News, Spring 1998. Newsletter of the Hydro Performance Optimzation and Asset Management Target, Energy Conservation Division, Electric Power Research Institute, Page 4.Barwick, D. H., and L. E. Miller. 1990. Effectiveness of an Electrical Barrier in Blocking Fish Movements. Duke Power Company, Research Report PES/90-07. Bengeyfield, W. 1990. Evaluation of an Electrical Field to Divert Coho Salmon Smolts from the Penstock Intake at Puntledge Generating Station. Prepared by Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd for B.C. Hydro, Vancouver, B.C.Bernier, K. 1995. Report on the Effectiveness of the Permanent Downstream Passage System for Atlantic Salmon at Weldon Dam. Mattaceunk Project, FERC No.2520.Brown, R. E. 1997. Utilization of Strobe Lighting as a Cost Effective Deterrent for Fish Turbine Mortality. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Brown, R. E. and K. Bernier. 1997. The Use of Aquatic Guidance Strobe Lighting System to Enhance the Safe Passage of Atlantic Salmon Smolts. Presented at the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Monterey, CA, August 25, 1997.Bruggemeyer B., D. Cowdrick, and K. Durrell. 1988. Full-Scale Operational Demonstration of Fine Mesh Screens at Power Plants. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco. CA, October 28-30, 1987. Electric Power Research Institute CS/EA/AP-5663-SR. Carolina Power & Light Company. 1985. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1984.Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1994. Evaluation of Underwater Sound to Reduce Impingement at the Arthur Kill Station. Demko, D. B. 1993. Memo summarizing preliminary test results of a sound deterrent system installed at Wilkins Slough on the Sacramento River. Transmitted By Doug B. Demko of S.P. Cramer & Associates to Fred Winchell of Stone &Webster on August 16, 1993.Dunning, D. J., Q. E. Ross, P. G. Geoghegan, J. J. Reichle, J. K. Menezes, and J. K.Watson. 1992. Alewives Avoid High-Frequency Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:407-416. Dunning, D. 1997. Ultrasound Deterrence: Alewife at a Nuclear Generating Station in New York. In T. J. Carlson and A. N. Popper (eds.): Using Sound to Modify Fish Behavior at Power-Production and Water-Control Facilities: A Workshop.Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-6261 1-11.Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. Assessment of Downstream Migrant Fish Protection Technologies for Hydroelectric Application. EPRI Report No. 2694-1.29 0 PS.&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Electric Power Research Institute. 1990. Fish Protection Systems for Hydro Plants Test Results. EPRI Report No. GS-6712 Electric Power Research Institute. 1991. Evaluation of the Eicher Screen at Elwha Dam: Spring 1990 Test Results. EPRI Report No. GS/EN-7036. Electric Power Research Institute. 1992. Evaluation of Strobe Lights for Fish Diversion at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. EPRI Report No. TR-101703. Electric Power Research Institute. 1994a. Research Update on Fish Protection Technologies for Water Intakes. EPRI Report No. TR-104122. Electric Power Research Institute. 1994b. Biological Evaluation of a Modular Inclined Screen for Protecting Fish at Water Intakes. EPRI Report No. TR104121. Electric Power Research Institute. 1994c. Fish Protection/Passage Technologies Evaluated by EPRI and Guidelines for Their Application. EPRI Report No. TR-104120.Electric Power Research Institute. 1996. Evaluation of the Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) at the Green Island Hydroelectric Project: 1995 Test Results. EPRI ReportNo. TR-106498. Electric Power Research Institute. 1998. Evaluation of Fish Behavioral Barriers. EPRI Report No. TR-109483. Enger, P. S., H. E. Karlsen, F. R. Knudsen, and 0. Sand. 1993. Detection and reaction of fish to infrasound. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Marine Science Symposium 196:108-112. Envirex, Inc. 1996. Fish Survival Enhancement with Envirex Non-Metallic Fish Baskets and Improved Fish Spray Wash Design. Envirex, Inc., Waukesha, WI.Fay, R. R. 1988. Hearing in Vertebrates, A Psychophysics Databook. Hill-Fay Assoc., Winnetka, Ill.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1997. Order Modifying and Approving Integrated Cooperative Fish Protection Plan. FERC issuanceDated April 10, 1997, 79 FERC 62008.Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water IntakeSystems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119:393-415. Great Lakes Environmental Center. 1994. Report on Fish Diversion at Four Mile Dam Using Strobe Lighting and Air Bubble Curtain Techniques. Prepared for Thunder Bay Power Company, Traverse City, Michigan.Haider, T. R. and P. H. Nelson. 1987. Protection of Juvenile Anadromous Fish. In: Waterpower '87, Proceedings of The International Conference on Hydropower. Hanson, B. N., W. H. Bason, B. E. Beitz and K. E. Charles. 1978. Practicality of Profile-Wire Screen in Reducing Entrainment and Impingement. Proceedings of the Workshop on Larval Exclusion Systems for Power Plant Cooling water Intakes.Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ES-66. August 1978.Hanson, C. H., D. Hayes, and K. A. F. Urquhart. 1997. Biological Evaluations of the Georgiana Slough Experimental Acoustic Fish Barrier, Phases I-IV during 1993-1996. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997.Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.30 30
- PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Harza Engineering Company and RMC Environmental Services.
1992. Response ofAtlantic Salmon Smolts to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Spring 1992. Prepared for Northeast Utilities Service Company.Harza Engineering Company and RMC Environmental Services, Inc. 1993. Response of Juvenile Clupeids to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992. Prepared for Northeast Utilities Service Company.Hilgert, P. J. and W. K. Hershberger. 1992. Evaluation of a Graduated Electrical Field as a Fish Exclusion Device. Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company.Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1997. An Evaluation of Fish Entrainment and Effectiveness of the Strobe Light Deterrent System at Milliken Station on Cayuga Lake, Tomkins County, New York. Prepared for New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. Johnson, P. L. 1988. Hydraulic Design of Angled Drum Fish Screens. In: Proceedings of the Electric Power Research Institute Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco, CA., Oct. 28-30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.Karlsen, H. E. 1992a. Infrasound sensitivity in the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). Journal of Experimental Biology 171:173-187. Karlsen, H. E. 1992b. The inner ear is responsible for detection of infrasound in the perch (Percafluviatilis). Journal of Experimental Biology 171:163-172. Klinect, D. A., P. H. Loeffelman, and J. H. Van Hassel. 1992. A New SignalDevelopment Process and Sound System for Diverting Fish from Water Intakes.In: Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, 1992, 54:427-432. 4 Knudsen, F. R., P. S. Enger, and 0. Sand. 1992. Awareness Reactions and Avoidance Responses to Sound in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Biology 40:523-534. Knudsen, F. R., P. S. Enger, and 0. Sand. 1994. Avoidance Responses to Low Frequency Sound in Downstream Migrating Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L.Journal of Fish Biology 45:227-233. Knudsen, F.R., C.B. Schreck, S.M. Knapp, P.S. Enger, and 0. Sand. 1997. Infrasound Produces Flight and Avoidance Responses in Pacific Juvenile Salmonids. Journal of Fish Biology 51: 824-829.Kuhl, G. M., and K. N. Mueller. 1988. Prairie Island Nuclear Engineering Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1988 Annual Report: Fine Mesh Vertical Traveling Screens Impingement Survival Study. Prepared for Norther States Power Company.Lakeside Engineering, Inc. 1996. Summary Report for Rolfe Canal Project. Prepared for Essex Hydro.Larinier, M., and S. Boyer-Bernard. 1991. La Devalaison des Smolts de Saumon Atlantique au Barrage de Poutes sur L'Allier (43): Utilisation de Lampes a Vapeur de Mercure en vue D'Optimiser L'Effecacite de L'Exutoire de Devalaison. Bull.Fr. Peche Piscic. 323:129-148. 3 31* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1994. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.Lawler,. Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1996a. Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom System Evaluation Program' 1995. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1996b. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1997. Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom System Evaluation Program 1996. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.Loeffelman, P. H., D. A. Klinect, J. H. Van Hassel. 1991. Fish Protection at Water Intakes Using a New Signal Development Process and Sound System. In: Waterpower '91, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.Loeffelman, P. 1993. Telecommunication between Paul Loeffelman, AEP, and E. P.Taft, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., dated September 1993.Maiolie, M. 1998. Personal Communication between Dr. Melo Maiolie, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, and Stephen Amaral, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Dated March 1998.Marcellus, K. 1993. Telecommunication between Dr. Kenneth Marcellus, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. And E. P. Taft, Alden Research Laboroatory, Inc., Dated September 14, 1993.McCauley, D. J., L. Montuori, J. E. Navarro, and A. R. Blystra. 1996. Using Strobe Lights, Air bubble Curtains for Cost-Effebtive Fish Diversion* Hydro Review, April 1996, 15(2)42-51. Mclnninch, S. P. and C. H. Hocutt. 1987. Effects of Turbidity on Estuarine Fish Response to Strobe Lights. Sonderdruck aus Journal of Applied Ichthyology Bd., 3:97-105.Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. 1991. Evaluating of Rotating Drum Screen Facilities in the Yakima River Basin, South-Central Washington State. In: Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10.Nestler, J. M., G. R. Ploskey, J. Pickens, J. Menezes, and C. Schilt. 1992. Responses of Blueback Herring to High-Frequency Sound with Implications for Reducing Entrainment at Hydropower Dams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:667-683. New York Power Authority, Nomandeau Associates, Inc., and Sonalysts, Inc. 1991.Acoustic fish deterrents; responses of white perch, striped bass, alewives, spottail shiners, golden shiners, and Atlantic tomcod in a cage to high and low frequencyunderwater sounds generated by an electronic fish startle system. Prepared for Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, Project No. EP89-30.U 32* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Pearce, R. 0., and R. T. Lee. 1991. Some Design Considerations for Approach Velocities at Juvenile Salmonid Screening Facilities. In: Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. American Fisheries Society 10:237-248. Pickens, J. L. 1992. Instrumentation Services Division Effort to Develop a Fish Barrier at Richard B. Russell Dam, Georgia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Miscellaneous Paper 0-92-1.Ploskey, G. R., J. M. Nestler, G. N. Weeks, and C. Schilt. 1995. Evaluation of an Integrated Fish-Protection System. In: Waterpower '95, Proceedings of the International Conference on Waterpower. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.Ploskey, G. R., and P. N. Johnson. 1998. Effectiveness of Strobe Lights for Eliciting Vertical Avoidance by Juvenile salmon. U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Waterways Experiment Station, Fisheries Engineering Team, Columbia River Basin.Ploskey, G. R., P. N. Johnson, M. G. Burczynski, J. M. Nestler, and T. J. Carlson. 1998.Effectiveness of Strobe Lights, Infrasound Devices, and a Sound Transducer for Eliciting Avoidance by Juvenile Salmonids. Technical Report of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Popper, A. N. and T. J. Carlson. 1998. Application of the use of sound to control fish behavior. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 127 Reider, R. H., D. D. Johnson, P. Brad Latvaitis, J. A. Gulvas, E. R. Guilfoos. 1997.Operation and Maintenance of the Ludington Pumped Storage Project Barrier Net.In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.RMC Environmental Services, Inc. and Sonalysts, Inc. 1993. Effect of Ensonification on Juvenile American Shad Movement and Behavior at Vernon Hydroelectric Station, 1992. Prepared for the New England Power Company.Rodgers, D. W. 1983. Methods of Attracting Fish to a Hidrostal Pump. Ontario Hydro Research Division; 1983 Apr; 83-142-K.Ronafalvy, J. P., R. Roy Cheesman, W. M. Matejek. 1997. Circulating Water Traveling Screen Modifications to Improve Fish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem generating Station. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Ross, Q. E., D. J. Dunning, R. Thorne, J. K. Menezes, G., W. tiller, and J. K. Watson.1993. Response of Alewives to High Frequency sound at a Power Plant Intake onLake Ontario. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:291-303. Schilt, C., and G. Ploskey. 1997. Ultrasound Deterrence: Blueback Herring at a Pumped Storage Facility in Georgia. In T. J. Carlson and A. N. Popper (eds.):.Using Sound to Modify Fish Behavior at Power-Production and Water-Control Facilities: A Workshop. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-62611 -11.33*: PSE&QG Prmi. Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Seelye, J. G. 1989. Evaluation of the Ocqueoc River Electrical Weir for Blocking Sea Lampreys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Smith, H. 1997. Operating History of the Puntledge River Eicher Screen Facility. in: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Stira, R. J., and D. A. Robinson. 1997. Effectiveness of a Louver Bypass System for Downstream Passage of Atlantic Salmon smolts and Juvenile Clupeids in the Holyoke Canal, Connnecticut River, Holyoke, Massachusetts. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.Taft, E. P., T. J. Horst, and J. K. Downing. 1981. Biological Evaluation of a Fine-Mesh Traveling Screen for Protecting Organisms. Presented at the Workshop onAdvanced Intake Technology, San Diego, CA, April 22-24, 1981.Taft, E. P., J. Larsen, J. G. Holsapple, L. Eberley. 1981. Laboratory Evaluation of Larval Fish Impingement and Diversion Systems. Presented at the Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology, San Diego, CA, April 22-24, 1981.Taft, E. P., A. W. Plizga, E. M. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1997. Protecting Fish with the New Modular Inclined Screen. The Environmental Professional 19(1): 185-191.Veneziale, E. J. 1991. Fish Protection with Wedge-wire Screens at Eddystone Station.In: Proceedings of the American Power Conference. Winchell, F.C., E.P. Taft, S.V. Amaral, D. Michaud, L. Everhart and C.W. Sullivan.1997. Evaluation of behavioral devices for attracting/repelling fishes commonly entrained at mid-west hydro Projects. Proceedings of the Fish Passage Workshop Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Conte Anadromous Fish ResearchCenter, Electric Power Research Institute and Wisconsin Electric. May 6-8, 1997,Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All sound levels presented in this report, unless otherwise specified, are references to 1 tPa (micro Pascal) (equivalent to dB//IPa). This is a measure of sound pressure level (SPL) that is standardly used for designation of sound amplitude. 2 In addition to the sound system, the fish protection system includes high-pressure sodium lights along theshore to attract fish away from the intakes and a 2-inch spaced bar screen veneer placed directly over the trash racks. In the most recent tests, the sound system was reconfigured to provide better coverage, additional sodium attraction lights were added, and a rock berm was installed to eliminate a large eddythat had formed at the outermost unit. This eddy was observed to confuse fish and increase their potential for entrainment. 34* go Lake Surface i~Four6 x 4" Widctcamii "'filusdulets for 8 Backside Array Added Afiter 1991 T'ests Meters Fifth Backside Aamy T1znsducer is I I6 \ -A N Il~,uwi 900 hI~k~ED itailci F-3 Figure VnIi-1. Deployment of 1FSS Transducers and Monitofing Equipment at the Cooling Water Intake to the .Iames A.Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (Source: Dunning et al. 1992)( Welded at Every InmCIccdon of VcWical Rod and Surface Wire F-3 Figure VII-2. Wedge-Wire Screen Unit 0 OLD SCREEN NE~rW ~N.~SRBENSTALLED FLUID F-3 Figure VHI-3. Illustration of Flow Streams with Old Basket and Ne1w Basket (Source: Ronafalvy et al. 1997) i&6 Wtr4 A z5. TNCL1HIFD SCPM2 F-3 Figure VII-4. Schematic of Modular Inclined Screen (MIUS) (Source: EPRI 1994) APPENDIX F ATTACHMENT F-4 BIOLOGICAL MODELING OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES SPONSOR: THOMAS L. ENGLERT LAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS PSE&G RENEWAL APPLICATION SALEM GENERATING STATION PERMIT NO. NJ0005622 4 MARCH 1999 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F ATTACHMENT F-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 1I.A .O verview ............................................................................... 1 I.B. Establishm ent of Base Case .............................................................. 2 I.C. Calculation of Numbers of Organisms Lost ...... I ........ .................. 3 I.D. Calculation of Commercial and Recreation RIS ............. ............... 5 ID. 1.Application of Equivalent-Adult Model .......................................... 5 I.D.2.Application of Equivalent-Yield Model ...................................... 7 I.E. Calculations for Forage RIS ........................................................ 9I.E. 1. Production-Foregone Model ........................................ .. 9 I.E.2. Conversation to Species of Commercial/Recreational Importance ..... 11 I.F. Calculations for Non-RIS ........................................................... 13 I.F. 1. Commercial and Recreational Non-RIS .................................. 13 I.F.2. Forage Non-RIS ............................................................ 14 II. RESULTS FOR EACH FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE ....................... 14 II.A. Equipment-Related Alternatives ........................... 14 II.B. Operational Alternatives ............................................................. 15 8* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 ATTACHMENT F-4 Appendix F BIOLOGICAL MODELING OF FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES I. METHODOLOGY I.A. Overview The purpose of biological modeling with respect to fish protection alternatives at Salem Generating Station (SGS) was to obtain estimates of the relative benefits of each prospective alternative in terms of pounds (and, ultimately, dollars) of commercial and recreational fish saved by application of the alternative. The alternatives considered included both non-operational, or "equipment," options, andoperational options, as follows:Epuipment-related Alternatives" fish-deterrent mechanisms (strobe lights/air bubble curtain placed underwater near the cooling or service water system intake)Purpose: to keep fish and invertebrates away from the circulating water system intakes." modifications to the intake structure (cylindrical wedge wire screens; fine-mesh traveling screens; modular inclined screens)Purpose: to reduce losses, due to both entrainment and impingement, of aquatic organisms caught up in the intake current." closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers)Purpose: to substantially reduce flow, with resultant reductions in entrainment and impingement losses.Operational Alternatives" seasonal flow reductions Purpose: to reduce the volume of water circulated through the plant during seasons when fish and invertebrate populations near the plant are highest (e.g., summer)." Revised Refueling Outage Schedule Purpose: to reduce volume of cooling water withdrawn during seasons of high local fish density. This would mean rescheduling fueling and maintenance shutdowns(which occur every 18 months, and last for approximately 5 to 6 weeks) to occur 1* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F during times when losses of important commercial and recreational fish would normally be highest.This analysis considered 11 representative Important Species (RIS) and one species of commercial/recreational importance (blue crab) that is not designated an RIS, but that was evaluated in a manner analogous to the RIS because of commercial or recreational importance. Four categories of finfish and invertebrates were considered:
- Representative Important Species (RIS) of commercial or recreational importance, and blue crab." RIS that serve as forage for species of commercial or recreational importance." Non-RIS of commercial or recreational importance." Non-RIS that serve as forage for species of commercial or recreational importance.
The RIS and non-RIS for this study, as well as their categorization, are shown in F-4Table 1.The overall procedure used for converting numbers of organisms entrained and impinged to pounds and dollars lost was as follows: Step 1: Calculate the number of organisms lost to entrainment and impingement, by species and life stage.Step 2: Convert numbers of organisms lost to an equivalent number of recruits (namely, one-year-olds) lost (Equivalent-Adult Model).Step 3: Convert these equivalent numbers of recruits lost to pounds lost to the fishery (Equivalent-Yield Model).Step 4: Convert pounds lost to dollars lost.This procedure was followed for each RIS species with the exception of the forage species--bay anchovy, Gammarus, and Neomysis. Losses of bay anchovy were not considered by themselves, but were converted to pounds of commercially and recreationally important fish. To make this conversion, investigators applied the Production-Foregone Model and biomass conversion factors as described below in Section F. The analogous operation for invertebrates involved calculating the pounds of invertebrates lost and then applying conversion efficiency and allocation factors to determine the lost pounds of commercially and recreationally important species.The following sections of this attachment provide details of the procedure. I.B. Establishment of Base Case Since the early 1980s, RIS populations in the Delaware River have generally been on the rise, and Delaware River water quality has improved. The upgrading of wastewater treatment plants throughout the Delaware Basin has been largely responsible for this improvement, which is evident in increased baseline levels of dissolved oxygen. [See Appendix C.] These improved conditions have resulted in increased abundance of 2 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F several RIS. On the assumption that river conditions over the next decade will resemble those of the 1990s more than the 1980s or 1970s, baseline data for the modeling effort related to these species were generated using entrainment/impingement data from the period 1991-98, in preference to any other period. A different baseline period was used for two species: Atlantic croaker and spot. Since, based on conditions outside the Bay, abundance of these two species fluctuates considerably, the entire record of entrainment/impingement data (1978-98) was used to develop the base-case loss estimates for these species.To provide this baseline for comparison, losses were calculated under the following assumptions: 9 During periods of no refueling outage, all six pumps at each of SGS's two units (total of 12 pumps) are operating at 175,000 gpm each.* During periods of refueling outage, six pumps are operating at 175,000 gpm each at one unit, and one pump is operating at 175,000 gpm at the unit being serviced.* The Refueling Outage Schedule is the schedule currently planned for the period2001-08 (outages scheduled in spring and fall).The base case uses impingement survival data from the Ristroph screens as newly modified by 1996, and applies the new survival data for the entire eight-year period. This provides an estimate of losses that incorporates the annual variability in entrainment and impingement rates as well as the effectiveness of the newly installed screens in reducing impingement mortality rates.I.C. Calculation of Numbers of Organisms Lost In order to calculate the pounds of fish and dollars lost to the fishery under various fish protection alternatives, investigators needed to establish baseline rates of entrainment and impingement in terms of numbers of organisms per unit volume of the station's cooling and service water flows. Numbers of organisms actually entrained and impinged per unit flow during 1991-98 (1978-98 for Atlantic croaker and spot) were applied to the flow conditions planned for the years 2001-08, including a projected refueling outage schedule. The duration of these scheduled outages typically lasted 60 days; however,Salem has set a target of 39 days beginning in 2002. For purposes of calculating lossses associated with Station outages, 39 days is the more conservative estimate, (i.e., it projects higher losses) and is therefore used in this analysis. Baseline flows are shown inF-4 Table 2.The biological data for each single year during 1991-98 (1978-98 for Atlantic croaker and spot) were applied to all of the individual modeled years 2001-08. In other words, numbers of organisms lost were calculated by applying 1991 entrainment and impingement loss rates to flows projected for 2001, 2002, 2003, etc., through 2008, then applying 1992 rates to each of the eight modeled years, followed by 1993 rates, and so onthrough application of 1998 loss rates. This resulted in a total of 64 values of entrainment and of impingement annual-loss values for modeling. These 64 loss values 3*a PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F were then averaged to give the base-case set of numbers of organisms lost through entrainment and impingement. But to reflect even further the variability in the distribution and abundance of RIS populations over the selected period, numbers lost to entrainment were calculated not only for each year of the period of record, but for each day of the eight-year period, andfor each life stage of every RIS subject to a commercial or recreational fishery.Similarly, numbers lost to impingement were calculated for each month of the eight-year period for every life stage of every RIS subject to a commercial or recreational fishery.[For days on which no sampling occurred, entrainment figures were interpolated as described in Attachment F-2. Interpolation was not required for impingement data.]These 64 figures for entrainment for each day were averaged, which yielded a single baseline entrainment figure for each life stage for each day of the year. The comparable average of the 64 impingement figures yielded a single baseline impingement figure for each month of the year.The baseline number of organisms lost due to entrainment was calculated by multiplying the measured entrainment rate (expressed in numbers entrained per million gallons) by the plant flow and, the through-plant mortality. Because through-plant mortality varieswith acclimation temperature, computation of numbers of organisms lost had to take account of environmental conditions proper to each year, in addition to entrainment/impingement rates and total impingement survivals. Parameters used to calculate numbers of organisms lost due to entrainment and impingement for the base case are presented in F-4 Table 3. Total screen mortalities used and presented in F-4 Table 3 were calculated as described in Appendix G. In those cases where data were not available for a given month, the highest screen mortality observed during any month was applied. Moreover, the measured values were applied to all age groups of impinged fish.This process yields the number of organisms at each life stage that can be expected to beentrained or impinged per day or per month under the defined baseline conditions. If these organisms, which are of various species, lengths, and life stages, are to becompared, they must be turned into a "common currency." As discussed below, this is accomplished by first converting the losses into an equivalent number of recruits, and then to pounds lost to the fishery. Forage species are of interest to the fishery only because as prey they contribute to the survival and weight gain of other fish of importance, such as weakfish or striped bass. The numbers of lost forage organisms are therefore converted into biomass of the fish of importance to the commercial or recreational fishery using methods described below. When all numbers of all organisms lost under each of the alternatives have been converted to pounds of recreationally and commercially important species lost, it is then possible to directly compare alternatives with one another, or to compare selected alternatives with the baseline case.4 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F I.D. Calculation for Commercial and Recreational RIS I.D.1 Application of Equivalent-Adult Model The calculation of estimated loss to the fishery begins with the application of the Equivalent-Adult Model, which converts numbers of entrained and impinged organisms to the losses of an equivalent number of one-year-olds.The numbers of organisms entrained and impinged at SGS were converted to equivalent one-year-olds using available estimates of daily mortality rates of early life stages (eggs, prolarvae, postlarvae, and juveniles). This procedure was made necessary by the overlap in temporal distribution of these life stages: the organisms entrained on any given day may include a mix of two or even three life stages, and differing survival rates must be applied to their numbers. Postlarvae alive on a given date, for example, have a greater probability of surviving to age 1 or older than do prolarvae alive on the same date;juveniles alive on the same date have a still greater probability of survival to age 1.The method employed for this assessment accounted for both the life stage of each entrained organism and the date on which it was entrained or impinged. The number of organisms of life stagej entrained on day i is Ej,. If all these organisms were entrained on their day of entry into life stagej, then a simple Equivalent-Adult calculation could be used to estimate the number of entrained organisms that would have survived to reach a subsequent life stage, k: Eki = Eiie-lj'j where zj = daily instantaneous mortality rate of life stagej, and dj= duration of life stagej In reality, these organisms will have been in life stagej for varying numbers of days, and the assumption that all organisms of a given life stage are entrained on their day of entry into that life stage will therefore underestimate the number that would have survived to the next life stage. A more realistic number may be arrived at by estimating the timealready spent in life stagej by the average entrained organism. If approximately the same number of eggs are spawned on each day during the spawning season, then on any given day the age distribution (in days) of entrained organisms should approximate a stable age distribution in which the relative numbers of organisms in adjacent day-age classes are proportional to the daily survival rates. Under these conditions, the average number of days in which each of the organisms comprising Ej, has been in life stagej may be estimated by calculating the time required for one half of the organisms expected to die during life stagej to disappear from the population(dj ). Half the organisms comprising
- *5 PSE&G PermiI Application4 March 1999 Appendix F Eji should have been in life stagej for dj or fewer days, and half should have been in life stagej for di or more days.Given Eo organisms entering life stagej, then Eoe- zdj organisms would be expected to survive to enter life stage k, and E. (1 -eCzd ) organisms would be expected to die. The time required for half these organisms to die may be calculated from:
Eoe--ziJ = Eo -0.5Eo (I -e-zjd)where= average number of days an entrained organism has been in life stagej, dj= duration of life stagej, and zj= daily instantaneous mortality rate for life stagej From which it follows that In2-1n(l+e-ZJdj) di zj The number of entrained organisms of life stagej entrained on day i that would have been expected to survive to reach life stage k is then given by: Eki = Ejie-(di-di)zj If stagej represents postlarvae and stage k represents age 0+ juveniles, then the number of equivalent one-year-olds is represented by Ei and is given by: Ebdi = Ekie-(d., where dbd~i = number of days between day i and the species birthdate, and zj= daily instantaneous mortality rate for age 0+ juveniles. If stagej represents postlarvae, then Ebdi is given by: E bd I = e-(d ..,-a ,-(d d -d, ., .where d,, = life stage duration for postlarvae 6 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F p= daily instantaneous mortality rate for postlarvae, and dP,= average number of days that entrained postlarvae have been in postlarval stage.The procedure was applied to all young-of-the-year stages, with the exception of the juvenile stage. Correction of the stage duration for juveniles was unnecessary because juvenile entrainment consisted predominantly of organisms that have just entered thestage, and the stage is of much longer duration than the others. For this stage, therefore, the equivalent adult model is applied in the classical form presented at the beginning ofthis section without correction for differential stage durations of varying-age organisms. Impingement losses were converted to one-year-old equivalents in a manner identical to juvenile entrainment losses, i.e., appropriate survival parameters were applied to the early life stages to compute equivalent adults at their first birthday. For losses subsequent to the first birthday, the impingement loss estimates were scaled up to an equivalent number of one-year-olds based on adult survival rates. Entrainment and impingement losses that occur after the first birthday are expressed as equivalent numbers of one-year-olds by applying the Equivalent-Adult Model in reverse. Thus, for losses subsequent to the first birthday, the number of one-year-olds is calculated as follows: E.j E ki z- z e ii The parameter values used in the equivalent-adult calculation are shown in F-4 Table 4.LD.2 Application of Equivalent-Yield Model For the purposes of economic analysis, losses due to entrainment and impingement mustbe expressed in terms of pounds of fish lost to the fishery. This is done through application of the Equivalent-Yield Model.In the calculations, a one-year-old fish is referred to as a recruit. In conventional fisheriespractice, the yield-per-recruit at age n is defined as the exploitation rate on age n fishtimes the average weight of an age n fish. This can be modified by other factors, such asthe fraction of the age class vulnerable to the fishery, and the weighted survival rate for age n fish, as follows: Y" = SAV~UAW where Y = yield per recruit at age n Sn = weighted survival rate for age n fish from age 1 V = fraction of each age class vulnerable to the fishery U = exploitation rate on age n fish W = mean age-specific weight Estimates of these parameters were obtained from Attachment F-2. 7 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F The yield-per-recruit for age-I fish is therefore defined as: Y, = vIuIW (SI =I)= (1- e-vw'÷r')) VW, MI + F, where F 1 daily fishing mortality rate on age-I individuals, A, = annual mortality rate of age-1 fish from all causes, ZI = daily mortality rate for age-I fish from all causes, and M = daily rate of natural mortality on age-I individuals The yield-per-recruit for age-2 fish, however, must be modified by the weighted survivalrate for age 1 to age 2 fish as follows: Y2 = S2V2U2W22 where S 2= survival rate of age-2 fish from age 1 0 The weighted survival rate for age-n fish is defined as: Sn = S,,- [(V.i_,e-(M"-l+F"-) + (1 -V, )e-U"- ]For age-2 fish it may be expressed as: S2 = Ve-(M,+F,) + (1 -VI)e" (SI =1)The total yield per recruit over the expected lifetime of a- recruit year class is defined as: n Y, --Zi i=I where Y = total yield per recruit over expected lifetime of recruit year class, and Y, total yield per recruit over the ith year 3 8* PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F To express the losses in terms of lost yield to a fishery (Yf), the equivalent recruits lost (R,) is simply multiplied by the lifetime yield-per-recruit (Y'): f I I This provides an estimate of the total yield to the fishery in terms of pounds per recruit over the expected lifetime of a recruit year class. To obtain an estimate of the number of pounds lost to the fishery as a result of SGS operations with one of the alternatives in place, the yield per recruit (YI) is multiplied by the estimate of equivalent one-year-olds lost, calculated as described above. The parameter values used to calculate the yield-per-recruit values for each species are presented in F-4 Table 4 [See Appendix F, Attachment F-2.] It should be noted that, for the species subject to a coastal fishery, pounds lostinclude losses beyond those taken in the Delaware.I.E. Calculations for Forage RISThe calculation of losses to the fisheries resulting from losses of forage species is different from the calculation of losses concerning commercial and recreational species.Investigators estimated the amount of commercial and recreational biomass that would be produced by the forage biomass lost at SGS. The conversion is performed using the procedure described below.Among the RIS, the forage fish species considered was the bay anchovy; and theinvertebrate taxa were Neomysis americana and Gammarus spp.LE.1. Production-Foregone Model The Production-Foregone Model (PFM) estimates the reduction in biomass production caused by station operations by computing the production associated with entrainment and impingement losses. This estimate is most useful for forage species because their utility to the ecosystem is best expressed in terms of biomass produced. This is so because predators are not satiated by numbers consumed, but rather by the energy-producing amount of biomass of what they consume. The PFM, as applied here, converts the numbers of organisms lost into an equivalent reduction in biomass produced. The PFM requires the following inputs:* Weight-length-age relationships for the species.* Number and age of organisms lost due to station operations. The PFM computes the amount of production that would have resulted from entrainment and impingement losses, had they remained viable. It looks at the total elaboration of biomass over time (including that produced by individuals that did not survive to the end of the time period).Production is computed by taking each daily entrainment/impingement loss and tracking its survival on a daily basis as it moves through successive early and adult life stages.Each day through the life cycle the remaining survivors are multiplied by the weight gain 9 PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F over the day, and the sum of all the daily weight gains for all the daily entrainment/impingement losses yield the production foregone.Production foregone is computed as follows: duri l ur,1 Rif P _z+nad lt Lt 65 I[365 naduih 7-31!a 11=a 1 AW ,,d where: 1, 11, 111, a n young n adult id, dd Ea.i ZI, Znyoung, Za AWnyoung.d AWdd dur,, dur11 life stage number of early life stages number of adult life stages day of the year day within a life stage entrainment/impingement loss of life stage I on day i entrainment/impingement loss of life stage a on day i instantaneous daily mortality rate of life stage weight gain of life stage 11 on day d within the life stage weight gain of life stage nyoung on day d within the life stage weight gain of life stage a on day d within the life stage duration of life stage 8 10*¢ PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F n days numbers of days remaining from the entrainment/impingement loss on day i until the end of the last early life stage.The daily weight gain, AWll, A is computed as: AW11.d = Wl.d -1 where: W1,d = weight at end of day d, and WId-J = weight at start of day d For each life stage, 11, the weight at time t within the life stage is:= ((2. wii, wI,, )* (I -where: w1s = weight at the start of the life stage WIe = weight at the end of the life stage, and K,, = a daily instantaneous rate indicating the rate of weight gain within the stage K,, was estimated from the following equation: ioej- (2We K, 1 = ~1 dur,, LE.2. Conversion to Species of Commercial/Recreational Importance Fish Bay anchovy PF was converted to lost predator biomass under the assumption that all lost production would have been consumed by predators. The production was allocated among the various RIS predators based on the procedures described below.DNREC large trawl catches were used as the data source for this analysis. The large trawl typically selects for larger (i.e., older) individuals. The diet of these larger and older fish is primarily small fish. To ensure relevance to the waters around Salem's intake, the only samples used were those collected at Stations 11 and 21 during 1991-97.[1998 data were unavailable at the time of the analysis.] The top 10 species in this data set accounted for almost 96% of the total catch. Top ranking species, in order of abundance, are listed in F-4 Table 5.11 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F Of these, only weakfish, white perch, and striped bass are the RIS predators of bay anchovy. Scaling the percent catch of these three species to 100% yields: weakfish 63.1%, white perch 33.4%, and striped bass 3.5%: These were the percentages used to allocate bay anchovy production foregone to predator species.The allocated production was converted to predator biomass by multiplying it by the biomass conversion efficiency factors shown in F-4 Table 6, as derived from the bioenergetics modeling described in Appendix G, Attachment G-4.Invertebrates The biomass (wet weight) lost of N. americana and Gammarus spp. was calculated by multiplying the number of individuals in a given size category by the mean wet weight of the size category. The average weight for Gammarus was calculated from the length-weight relationship from Hartman (1993): W 0.0001467 L 2" 1 (r 2 0.93; n = 44) (Eq 1)where: W wet weight (g)L = total length (mm)The only available relationship for N. americana of the size entrained at SGS was from Lindsay and Morrison (1974). Their equation, however, yields dry weight rather than wet weight.W 0.002354 L'64, (r 2 = 0.996) (Eq 2)where: W = dry weight (mg) L = total length (mm)To obtain wet weight from dry weight, a conversion equation was developed by assuming that the relationship between wet and dry weight for Neomysis was the same as for Gammarus. Lindsay and Morrison (1974) provided' the following length-weight relationship for Gammarus dry weight: W 0.0301824 L18829 (r 2 0.96; n = 40) (Eq 3)where: W dry weight (mg)L = total length (mm) 12 PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F Equations 1 and 3 were used together to predict the difference between dry weight and wet weight. After correcting for differences in units, this regression analysis yielded the following relationship: 1.1206 W wet = 17.056 W dry (Eq 4)Equation 4 was then used to obtain wet weight from Equation 2.To allocate N. americana and Gammarus spp. among predator species, catch data from the PSE&G's 16-ft bottom trawl, 6- x 4-ft frame net, and Salem impingement were used. To ensure that species composition was representative of current conditions near the SGS intake, only data from 1991-98 and RM 40-60 were used. These collection methods were selected because, typically, they capture individuals of the size and age that would consume such macroinvertebrates as Neomysis and Gammarus.Species accounting for approximately 95% of the total catch are shown in F-4 Table 7.Of these species, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, weakfish, white perch, hogchoker, striped bass, and spot were considered to make Neomysis and Gammarus an important component of their diet. By scaling these species to 100% and averaging the results, the following percentages were obtained: bay anchovy 38.3%, Atlantic croaker 23.3%, weakfish 16.5%, white perch 10.7%, hogchoker 9.8%, striped bass 0.8%, and spot 0.6%.These percentages were then used to partition Neomysis and Gammarus losses to thehigher trophic levels.The allocated production was converted to predator biomass by multiplying it by thebiomass conversion efficiency factors shown in F-4 Table 8. [See Appendix G, Attachment G-4.]I.F. Calculations for non-RIS LF.I. Commercial and Recreational non-RIS The procedure used to account for losses resulting from entrainment and impingement of commercially and recreationally important non-RIS was as follows: " Assuming 100 percent through-plant mortality for entrainment, and the highest impingement screen mortality observed for commercial/recreational RIS on the modified Ristroph screens, loss estimates were calculated for all entrained and impinged non-RIS commercial/recreational species combined into one group, using the procedure described in Section C. [Since entrainment data for 1991-94 were not processed for non-RIS, this portion of the analysis used 1995-98 data only.]" Based on the daily survivals and life-stage durations presented in F-4 Table 4, survival rates for entrainable life stages were computed for each finfish RIS.13 PSE&G Permit Application 4 March 1999 Appendix F These rates were averaged to obtain representative rates that could be applied to the non-RIS. The average rates used are presented in F-4 Table 9." These average life-stage survival rates were applied to the non-RIS losses (calculated as described above) to determine the equivalent number of non-RIS one-year-olds lost." Total pounds of commercial and recreational non-RIS lost was estimated by multiplying the number of equivalent one-year-old losses calculated as described above by a yield-per-recruit value of 60 g. This value is based on estimates of yield per recruit provided by Vaughan and Merriner (1991) for Atlantic menhaden, which contributes 64 percent of the non-RIS losses at Salem. [They indicate, in fact, that the yield for the mid-Atlantic region may be substantially lower.] The other species contributing most substantially to the equivalent-adult losses of non-RIS are the American eel and the northern pipefish. Since the pipefish is subject to very low levels of fishing pressure, if any, and since American eel is not expected to have a large yield per recruit, use of the menhaden value is probably conservative. I.F.2. Forage Non-RIS The procedure followed to convert losses of non-RIS forage fish species into losses of commercial and recreational RIS was as follows:* For the purposes of economic analysis, it was assumed that all losses of forage fish are equivalent to bay anchovy. This means that bay anchovy parameters were applied to all stages of non-RIS forage species.* Using bay anchovy parameter values for growth and survival, PF was calculated from the estimates of numbers of non-RIS forage lost at each life stage.* Using the procedure described above for bay anchovy, PF was allocated to predator species of varying ages.* Conversion efficiencies of bay anchovy biomass to biomass of the predator species were used to translate the production foregone of the non-RIS to lost pounds of RIS of commercial or recreational interest.II. RESULTS FOR EACH FISH PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE II.A. Equipment-related Alternatives Equipment-related alternatives (with the exception of cooling towers) function independently of outage schedules or flow, and literature values or empirical data were therefore used to assess their capacity to reduce mortality. The parameter values used inthe loss calculations for these alternatives are presented in. F-4 Table 10.Losses under the air curtain/strobe light alternative were calculated based on the assumption that entrainment would remain as in the base case, but that impingement losses would be reduced by 58 percent for all species and life stages. The support for parameter values used for the various alternatives is provided in F-VIII.14 PSE&G Permit Application4 March 1999 Appendix F The number of entrained/impinged organisms cropped by the plant for each life stage is computed using these parameters in conjunction with the base-case flows presented in F-4 Table 2. The cropped organisms are then converted to age-I equivalent adults using the Equivalent-Adult Model, and finally, for purposes of comparison to operational alternatives, to pounds lost to the fishery using the Equivalent-Yield Model. Results are presented in F-4 Table 11.II.B. Operational Alternatives Operational alternatives considered included a revised refueling outage schedule and seasonal flow reductions. The revised refueling outage schedule and seasonal flow reductions are timed to coincide with biologically active periods in the Estuary. Thedates for these outages and flow reductions are based upon estimates of pounds lost of each RIS under full flow operating conditions at Salem. Dates are chosen to maximize the protection of RIS by selecting the period when losses are greatest.A revised refueling outage schedule was designed within the following constraints:
- Refueling for each unit must occur every 18 months.* There must be a 6-month (26-week) separation between outages at each unit.Thus, outages for Units 1 and 2 cannot be back-to-back.
- The length of each outage must be consistent with the original Refueling Outage Schedule.
Thus, all outages are 39 days in length, except for a 60-day. outage occurring once every eight years. The revised outage schedule selected for testing is presented in F-4 Table 12.The seasonal flow reduction scenarios, with 10, 20, and 45 percent flow reductions atboth constant and varying ATs are shown in F-4 Table 13.Losses under each of the operational alternatives were arrived at by application of a model that factored in not only reduced flows where applicable, but seasonal temperatures, acclimation temperatures and ATs. These losses were then converted to age-I equivalent adults and pounds lost to the fishery using the Equivalent-Adult and Equivalent-Yield Models. Results are presented in F-4 Table 11.15 PSE&G Permi Akpolication 4 March 1999 Appendix F Literature Cited Lindsay, J.A.. and N.J. Morrison II. !974. A study of zoopiankton in the Deiaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island in 1973, Pages 342-417 in An ecological study of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island, progress report for the period January -December 1973.Vauahan, D.S., and J.V. Merriner. 1991. Assessment and management of Atlantic and Gulf menhaden stocks. Marine Fisheries Rev. 53(4):49-57. 18 (a F-4 Table I RIS and Non-RIS Fishes and Invertebrates in the Delaware River RIS iCOMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL RIS FORAGE NON-RIS FORAGE Alewife American shad Atlantic croaker Blueback herring Spot Striped bass Weakfish White perch Bay anchovy Gammarus NeomysisAtlantic silverside Banded killifish Carps and minnows Eastern silvery minnow Feather blenny Fourspine stickleback Fundulus sp.Gobiosoma sp.Golden shinner Hogchoker Inland silverside Membras/Menidia spp.Mummichog Naked goby Pigfish Rough silverside Sheepshead minnow Striped anchovy Striped killifish Threespine stickleback White sucker S NON-RIS COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL American eel Atlantic cod Atlantic herring Atlantic menhaden Atlantic sturgeon Blackcheek Black crappie Black drum Black sea bass Blue crab Bluefish Bluegill Bluerunner Bluespotted sunfish Brown bullhead Butterfish Channel catfish Common carp Conger eel Crevalle jack Cusk-eel Florida pompano Fringed flounder Gizzard shad Goosefish Harvestfish Herring Jack King mackerel Largemouth bass Lepomis sp.Lined seahorse Mud sunfish Northern kingfish Northern pipefish Northern puffer Northern searobin Orange filefish Oyster toadfish Perches Perprilus sp.Permit Pipefishes Planehead Pollock Pumpkinseed Rainbow smelt Red hake Redfin pickerel Sandbar shark Scup Sea lamprey Searobins Silver perch Skilletfish Smallmouth bass Smooth dogfish Spanish mackerel Spotfin Spotted hake Spotted sea trout Striped cusk-eel Striped mullet Striped searobin Summer flounder Sunfishes Tautog Tessellated darter Urophycis Warmouth White catfish White crappie White mullet Windowpane Winter flounder Yellow bullhead Yellow perch I F-4 Table 2 PROJECTED BASELINE STATION OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS FOR BIOLOGICAL MODELING Unit I Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating QI in gpm OF min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27*5/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 10/11/02 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 4/0/04 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/19/04 10/7/05 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 4/6/07 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/7/07 5/15/07. Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/16/07 10/3/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/13/08 12/31/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm OF min.1/1/01 3(1/02. Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/10/02 9/5/03 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80*9/6/03 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 3/18/05 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 9/8/06 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 5/7/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 5/8/08 6/16/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 6/17/08 12/31/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80* 60-day outage. [Remaining outages are 39 days each.] 00 40 F-4 Table 3 Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Alewife Entrainment Mechanical 1 Thermal SwS Net extrusion 7 Net avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 g N 5-32mm, N -14.194 -0.015TA YSL f<4mm, =1/0.11; I =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.883 loglot + 0.473TE 0 0.1 1 4-7mm, <32-60mm.PYSL f=1i/(-1.0767+0.2967*length)I =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0.883 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.883 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement F Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency iMortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 1 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 2 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216*# F-4 Table 3 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for American Shad Entrainment 1 MechanicalI Thermal I sws Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Morality Motality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 r N 5-32mm, N -14.194 -0.015TA YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; J=1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.883 +2.158 lIoglot + 0.473TE 0 0.1 1"1-7mm, PYSL =1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0.883 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.883 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TErExposure temperature (degrees C), t=-Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUGI SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 1 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216* e F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Atlantic Croaker Entrainment Mechanical Thermal Net Extrusion I Net Avoidance It Motiitt)Tera Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1- 1 f [" 5-32mm, YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.36 -35.451 -0.751TA 0 0.1 1 S4-7mm, 32-60mm, +0 IOglot + 1.663TE PYSL 1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) = 1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0.36 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA I >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.36 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=EXposure temperature (degrees C), t-=Transit time (min) Impingement Collection SWS J Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN FEB MAR APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.8448 1 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.341 0.282 0.353 0.424 0.424 0.052 0.023 0.149 Age 1 0.8448 1 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.424 0.341 0.282 0.353 0.424 0.424 0.052 0.023 0.149* F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Blue Crab Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR MAYI JUN JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.182 0.218 0.104 0.047 0.030 0.028 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.033 0.046 0.031 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.182 0.218 0.104 0.047 0.030 0.028 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.033 0.046 0.031 Age 2 0.7496 1 0.182 0.218 0.104 0.047 0.030 0.028 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.033 0.046 0.031 Age 3 0.7496 1 0.182 0.218 0.104 0.047 0.030 0.028 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.033 0.046 0.031* e Uer Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Blueback Herring F-4 Table 3 (cont.)EntrainmentMechanical Thermal ISWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Morality Mortality(Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 F r5-32mm, -14.194 -0.015TA YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.883 +2.158 loglot + 0.473TE 0 0.1 1 PS 4-7mm, I 32-60mm,t 0 PYSL =1(-1.o767+0.2967mlength)m=1/(0.36294-,.00285*length); 0.883 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA .>60mm, =1/0.1919 0.883 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV DEC Age 0 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 1 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216- 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 2 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 3 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age 4 0.7737 1 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Age5 0.7737 i 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.184 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216-0.216 0.216* F4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Spot Entrainment Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 5-2m -37.16428 -0.66867TA YSL f._4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.185 +0 Iogiot + 1.78425TE 0 0.1 1 4-7mm, 32-60mm, PYSL =1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0.185 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA L >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.185 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=-Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency iMortalityI JAN I FEB I MAR I APR MAY JUN I JUL I AUG SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7965 1 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 Age 1 0.7965 1 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066* @0 I F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Striped Bass Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal SWS Net extrusion Net avoidance Adjustmen Mortali Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA NA 1 0 0.1 1['5-32mm, -7.771 -0.096TA YSL j <4mm, =1/0.11; -/=1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); NA 0.484 +2.300 loglot + 0.346TE 0 0.1 1 4-7mm, 32-60mm, PYSL [=1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length)l =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); NA 0.484 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 1.5124 0.484 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), Te=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=-Transit time (min) Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB MAR I APR MAY JUN JUL AUG I SEP I OCT INOV DEC Age 0 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 1 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 -0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 2 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02* F4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Weakfish Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Modality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 0 1 0 0.1 1 r (5-32mm, -9.01577 -0.09229TA YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; = 1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0 0.64 +1.28560 0.1 1 4-7mm, 32-60mm, 0.42717TE PYSL [-1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1 /(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0 0.64 1 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA I >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.8549 0.5 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclirnation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency IMortality JAN I FEB I MAR APR I MAY I JUN JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT j NOV j DEC Age 0 0.7915 1 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.601 0.635 0.332 0.115 0.635 0.635 0.635 ,Age 1 0.7915 1 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.601 0.635 0.332 0.115 0.635 0.635 0.635* F-4 Table 3 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Special Base-caseLosses for Weakfish Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 0 1 0 0.1 1 5-32mm, -9.01577 -0.09229TA YSL <ý4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0 0.64 +1.2856 logot + 0 0.1 1 4-7mm, , .32-60mm, '" 0.42717T, PYSL 11(-1.0767-0.2967 length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0 0.64 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA I >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.8549 1 0.5 0 0.1+ 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min) Impingement Old Screens Collection SWS i Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality IJAN FEB (MAR (APR MAY- I JUN I JUL I AUG ' SEP OCT (NOVI DEC Age0 0.7915 1 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.334 0.311 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 Age 1 0.7915 1 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.334 0.311 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 0.514 New Screens tion SWS ..Total Screen Mortality icyMortality JAN .FEB MAR APR (MAY JUN JUL AUG I SEP I OCT (NOV DEC 15 1 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.169 0.184 0.247 -0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 15 1 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.169 0.184 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 F4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for White Perch Entrainment Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality=-7.594 -0.063 TA Egg NA NA 1 +4.057 loglot + 0.308 TE 0 0.1 1 5-32mm, =-15.814 -0.112TA YSL -4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); 0.829 +2.796 loglot + 0.545TE 0 0.1 1-7mm, 32-60mm, =-7.594 -0.063TA PYSL =1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 0.829 +4.057 logl 0 t + 0.30 8 TE 0 0.1 1 1. =-7.594 -0.0 63TA Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.829 +4.057 loglot + 0.308TE 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement ' Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality* Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DECAge 0 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 1 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0,067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 2 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0,067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 3 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02Age 4 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 5 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0,067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02Age 6 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02 Age 7 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02Age 8 0.9269 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.02*0 @0 F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Bay Anchovy Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 r YSL 1<4mm, =1/0.11; -1/(1.13486-0.02697*length); NA 1 0 0.1 1 4-7mm, 32-60mm, -7.751 -0.17 4 TA PYSL =1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); NA 1 +0.995 loglot + 0.427 TE 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 1.6397 1 0 0.1 1 Adult NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 2 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 3 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796*: F4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Gammarus sp.Entrainment Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality All life -11.942 -.0.26 9TA stages NA 1.25 0.014 +1.205 log 1 0 t + 0.585TE 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature, TE=Exposure temperature, t=Transit time* e F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Neomysis americana Entrainment
- Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation IMortality
-9.444 -0.133TA All life +1.3301 Ioglot +stages NA 1.25 0.1151 0.486TE 0 0.1 TA=Acclimation temperature, TE=Exposure temperature, t=-Transit time* F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Forage Species A Entrainment Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality(Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 r 5-32mm, YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; 1/(1.1 3486-0.02697*length); 1 0 0.1 1-7mm, 32-60mm, -7.751 -0.17 4 TA PYSL =1/(0.36294-0.00285*length); 1 +0.995 logl 0 t + 0.4 2 7TE 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 1 0 0.1 1 Adult NA 1 0 0.1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=Transit time (min)Impingement Collection SWS I Total Screen Mortality Efficiency iMortalityI JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAYI JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 2 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 Age 3 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.541 0.552 0.783 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.347 0.282 0.796 A Parameters based on values for bay anchovy.
- 0 0 S 60 F-4 Table 3 (cont.)Parameters Used in Calculation of Base-case Losses for Commercial/Recreational Species A Entrainment Mechanical Thermal SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality (Probit) Biocide Recirculation Mortality Egg NA NA 1 0 0.1 1 5-32mm, -9.0 1 5 7 7-O.0 9 2 2 9 TA YSL <4mm, =1/0.11; =1/(1.13486-0.02697*length);
0.64 .9+1.2856 log-0 t + 0 0.1 1 4-7mm,
- 32-60mm, *+.4285Ig7t
+PYSL 1/(-1.0767+0.2967*length) =1/(0.36294-0.00285length); 0.64 0.42717Th 0 0.1 1 Juvenile NA >60mm, =1/0.1919 0.50 0 0.1 1 TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), TE=Exposure temperature (degrees C), t=-Transit time (min)Impingement I Collection SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MARI APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I DECAge 0 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 0.796 A Weakfish through-plant mortality values used. Impingement collection efficiency value from bay anchovy, the lowest value for all species. Impingement screen mortality value from bay anchovy, used highest mortality for all months.* F-4 TABLE 4 Species parameters Stage Stage Stage Name Number Duration (days)ALEWIFE Eggs YSL PYSL Juv-E Juv-I AGE 1+AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+birth date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 13 40 306 306 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 natural mortality(per day)0.09225 0.139605 0.04305 0.020295 0.020295 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.002466 0.00411 0.00411 0.00411 0.00411 fishing mortality (per day)0 0 0 0 0 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 fraction vulnerable Weight to fishery (grams)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 13.73524 56.85267 115.0299 172.0205 219.7723 256.462 283.2372 302.1642 April 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-I = Impingeable juveniles so of F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage Stage natural fishing fraction Name Number Duration mortality mortality vulnerable (days) (per day) (per day) to fishery Weight (grams)AMERICAN SHAD Eggs Yolksac Post-yolksac Juv-E Juv-I 1+2+3+4+ 5+6+7+8+birth date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 27 336 336 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.496491 0.496491 0.09324 0.022015 0.022015 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.001479 0.002795 0.00411 0.00411 0.00411 0 0 0 0 0 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0.000575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.9 1 0 0 0 0 0 140 530 1050 1590 2070 2480 2810 3070 June 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-I = Impingeable juveniles F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage Stage natural Name Number Duration mortality (days) (per day)ATLANTIC CROAKER EGGS YSL PYSL Juv-1-E Juv-2-E Juv-2-1 AGE 1+AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+AGE 9+AGE 10+AGE 11+AGE 12+AGE 13+AGE 14+AGE 15+birth date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 September 1 2 8 12 120 223 223 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.408436 0.408436"0.408436 0.009867 0.009867 0.009867 0.002995 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 fishing mortality (per day)0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 fraction vulnerable to fishery Weight (grams)0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.92634 304.5428 562.5789 853.1813 1100.072 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 1477.772 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-1 = Impingeable juveniles 0 IL
- 3 F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)BLUE CRAB Mean Age Length (mm)0 1 2 3 38.4 100.79 145.72 199.23 Weight Survival(grams) (per mm)3.25841 0.9656 51.4745 147.735 361.388 F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage Stage Name Number Duration (days)natural mortality (per day)fishing mortality (per day)fraction vulnerable to fishery Weight (grams)BLUEBACK HERRING Eggs YSL PYSL Juv-E Juv-I AGE 1+AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+birth date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 13 40 306 306 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.093 0.14074 0.0434 0.02046 0.02046 0.000822 0.000822 0.000822 0.002466 0.00411 0.00411 0.00411 0.00411 0 0 0 0 0 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0.000274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7.24 41.06 92.33 144.31 187.96 221.11 244.84 261.25 May 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-1 = Impingeable juveniles 00F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters is*Stage Stage Stage Name Number Duration (days)natural mortality (per day)fishing mortality (per day)fraction vulnerable to fishery Weight (grams)SPOT Eggs Yolksac Post-yolksac Juv-1-E Juv-2-E Juv-2-1 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 2 8 10 120 225 225 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.412358 0.412358 0.412358 0.013125 0.004402 0.004402 0.001269 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096-0 0 0 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0.001096 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 25.64091 25.64091 25.64091 35.87891 135.6263 230.0247 294.0677 331.9867 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 353.0627 birth date January 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-l = Impingeable juveniles F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage StageName Number Duration (days)STRIPED BASS natural mortality (per day)fishing mortality (per day)fraction vulnerable to fishery Weight (grams)Eggs ysl pysl Juv-1-E Juv-1 -I Juv-2-E Juv-2,1AGE 1+
AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+AGE 9+AGE 10+AGE 11+AGE 12+AGE 13+AGE 14+AGE 15+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 2 6 46 130 130 181 181 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.69375 0.37 0.111 0.017575 0.017575 0.00555 0.00555 0.003 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0.000849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.2 0.63 0.94 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 933 1503 2237 2947 3890 5570 6490 7290 8530 8870 10170 12233 15670 18820 birth date May 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-l = Impingeable juveniles lllhý 0 OS F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage Stage Name Number Duration (days)natural mortality (per day)fishing mortality (per day)fraction vulnerable Weight to fishery (grams)WEAKFISH Eggs YSL PYSL Juv-1-E Juv-1-l Juv-2-E Juv-2-1 AGE 1+AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+AGE 9+AGE 10+AGE 11+AGE 12+AGE 13+AGE 14+AGE 15+2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 17 131 131 212 212 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.5215 0.447 0.3725 0.018625 0.018625 0.006999 0.006999 0.000955 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0,000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0.000685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 58.97 58.97 117.93 308.44 508.02 811.93 1319.95 2816.81 3238.65 4154.91 4912.41 5669.91 5669.91 5669.91 5669.91 5669.91 5669.91 birth date May 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-I = Impingeable juveniles F-4 TABLE 4 (cont.)Species parameters Stage Stage Stage Name Number Duration (days)natural mortality (per day)fishing mortality (per day)fraction vulnerable to fishery Weight (grams)WHITE PERCH EGGS YSL PYSL Juv-1-E Juv-1-I Juv-2-E Juv-2-1 AGE 1+AGE 2+AGE 3+AGE 4+AGE 5+AGE 6+AGE 7+AGE 8+AGE 9+AGE 10+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 4 26 151 151 181 181 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 0.917875 0.5245 0.12588 0.006273 0.006273 0.004196 0.004196 0,001899 0.001899 0.001899 0.001888 0.004322 0.004212.0.004065 0.003998 0.003998 0.003998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0.000411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0008 0.0266 0.2119 0,4804 0.8376 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 25.7 46.5 68.1 97.2 120 161.4 175.5 234.1 280.7 birth date May 1 Juv-E = Entrainable juveniles Juv-I = Impingeable juveniles F-4 Table 5 -Top-ranking Species taken in Large-trawl Catches at SGS, 1991-97 (Source: DNREC)Species % in Catch Weakfish* 23.31 Hogchoker 22.02 Blue crab 20.06 White perch* 12.33 Spotted hake 6.09.Atlantic croaker 4.85 Spot 3.79 Striped bass* 1.31 Oyster toadfish 1.07 Horseshoe crab 1.04* =RIS predators on bay anchovy (See Appendix C, Attachments C- 1, -2, and -3) F-4 Table 6 -Estimated Biomass Conversion Factors, Bay Anchovy and Selected RIS Predator Species Predator's efficiency in converting bay anchovy: Striped bass 0.09575 Weakfish 0.09492 White perch 0.10528 F-4 Table 7 -Catch Composition and Relative Abundance at Salem, by Three Sampling Methods, 1991-98 Bottom Trawl Frame Net Impingement Species % Species % Species %Atlantic croaker* 37.06 Bay anchovy* 94.32 Blue crab 27.22 Weakfish* 17.13 Atlantic croaker* 1.75 Weakfish* 16.44 Blue crab 16.41 Blue crab 1.03 White perch* 15.84 Hogchoker* 11.76 Weakfish* 0.95 Atlantic croaker* 12.77 Bay anchovy* 6.44 Atlantic menhaden 0.82 Hogchoker* 8.88 White perch* 5.14 Atlantic silverside 0.49 Bay anchovy* 5.97 Spotted hake 2.39 Striped bass hybrid 0.28 Spotted hake 1.88, American eel 1.05 White perch* 0.09 Threespine stickleback 1.47Striped cusk-eel 0.56 Striped anchovy 0.06 Blueback herring 1.45 Oyster toadfish 0.51 Bluefish 0.04 Striped bass* 1.14 Striped bass* 0.51 Butterfish 0.04 Spot* 1.04* = predators on Neomnysis and Ganimnarus F-4 Table 8 -Estimated Biomass Conversion Factors, Gammarus/Neomysis and Selected RIS Predator Species Predator's efficiency in converting Gammarus and Neontysis:Atlantic croaker 0.1100 Bay anchovy 0.0917 Spot 0.1100 Striped bass 0.1110 Weakfish 0.1100 White perch 0.1220. F-4 Table 9 -Average Stage Survivals used for Non-RIS Species Stage Survival Stage (fraction) eggs 0.4315440 yolk sac 0,1421080 post yolk sac 0.0166320 juvenile 1 0.1223380 juvenile 2 0.0805901 adult 0.5504770 S F-4 Table 10 Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Finemesh Screens (1 of 3)Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal CWS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Alewife Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.50 1 American shad Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.75 1 Atlantic croaker Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.46 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.424 1 Bay anchovy Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL1 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 1.6397 NA NA NA NA 0.50 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 1.6397 NA NA NA NA 0796 Juvenile3 Same as basecase Same asbasecase 1.6397 NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Juvenile4 Same as basecase Same as basecase 1.6397 NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Adult1 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Adult2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Adult3 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Finemesh Screens (2 of 3)Entrainment (cont.)Day/Night Mechanical Thermal CWS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Blueback herring Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.50 1 Spot Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.82 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.46 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.066 1 Striped bass Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 1.5124 NA NA NA NA 0.52 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 1.5124 NA NA NA NA 0.067 1 Weakfish Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.82 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 0.8549 NA NA NA NA 0.46 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0.8549 NA NA NA NA 0.635 1 White perch Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.82 1 Juvenile1 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.33 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 0 NA NA NA NA 0.067 1 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Finemesh Screens (3 of 3)Impingement A ollection a SWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency IMortality IJAN I FEB IMAR I APR I MAY I JUN .1 JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOVI DEC Alewife Age 0 0.7737 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Age 1-2 0.7737 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 American shad Age 0 0.7737 .1 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55Age 1 0.7737 1 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Atlantic croaker Age 0 0.8448 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29Age 1 0.8448 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Bay anchovy Juv 1-4 0.7496 1 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Adult 1-3 0.7496 1 0.66 0:66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Blueback herring Age 0 0.7737 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Age 1-5 0.7737 1 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Blue crab Age 0 0.7496 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Age 1-3 0.7496 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Spot Age 0 0.7965 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Age 1 0.7965 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Striped bass AgeD0 0.9269 1 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Age 1-2 0.9269 1 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Weakfish AgeO 0.7915 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Age 1 0.7915 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 02 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 White perch Age 0 0.9269 1 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Age 1-8 0.9269 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Modular Inclined Screens Impingement .Collection sws Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN I JUL I AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Alewife Age 0 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Age 1-2 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 American shad Age 0 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51Age 1 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Atlantic croaker Age 0 0.8448 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13, 0.13 0.13Age 1 0.8448 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Bay anchovy Juv 1-4 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51Adult 1-3 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Blueback herring Age 0 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Age 1-5 0.7737 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Blue crab Age 0 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Age 1-3 0.7496 .1 0.51 -0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Spot Age 0 0.7965 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Age 1 0.7965 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Striped bass Age0 0.9269 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Age 1-2 0.9269 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Weakfish Age 0 0.7915 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13Age 1 0.7915 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 White perch Age 0 0.9269 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0:13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Age 1-8 0.9269 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Closed-Cycle Cooling Entrainment Day/Night Mechanical Thermal CWS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality All Species Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 @1 Parameters Used in Calculation of Losses with Wedge Wire Screens F-4 Table 10 (cont.)Entrainment CWS Day/Night Mechanical Thermal Mortality SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Adjustment Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Reduction Mortality All species Egg 4 Same as basecase 0 0 1 YSL 4 Same as basecase -* 0 1 PYSL *4 Same as basecase 1 0.40 1 Juvenile 4 Same as basecase 0.40 1 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Alternative Losses for Forage Species A Closed Cycle Cooling -Entrainment SMechanical Thermal ICWS ISwS Net Extrusion I Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Adult Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Wedge Wire Screens -Entrainment OWS Mechanical Thermal Mortality SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Reduction Mortality All species Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 0 0.1 0 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 -7.751 -0.174TA 0 0.1 0 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 +0.995 loglot + 0.42 7TE 0 0.1 0.40 1 Juvenile Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 0 0.1 0.40 1 Adult Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 0 0.1 0.40 1 Finemesh Screens -Entrainment Mechanical Thermal WS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 Juvendlt Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.79 1 Juv2/Adult Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Finemesh Screens -Impingement -[collection SWS 1Total Screen Mortality IEfficiency IMortalitYl hAm I FEB I MAR IAPR IMAY I JUN I JUL I AUG! SEP IOCT INOV IDEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 ,Age 1 0.7496 1 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66' 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Modular In-clined Screens -Impingement lCleto S I Total Screen Mortality* Efficiency Mortality Colcto SWS AN I FEB I_ MARI APR IMAY I JUN I JUL i AUGI SEP IOCT O DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51!TA=Acclimation temperature (degrees C), 'E=Exposure temperature (degrees C), tFTransit time (min)A Parameters based on values for bay anchovy.0 0 F-4 Table 10 (cont.) Parameters Used in Calculation of Alternative Losses for Commercial/Recreational Species Closed Cycle Cooling -Entrainment MeNaeca Exterma I e viac d CWS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 1 1 Wedge Wire Screens -Entrainment Cws Mechanical Thermal Mortality SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Reduction Mortality All species Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 1 0 0.1 0 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 1 0 01 0 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 1 0 0.1 0.40 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 1 0 0.1 0.40 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase Same as basecase 1 1 0 0.1 0-40 1 Finemesh Screens -Entrainment Mechanical Thermal CWS SWS Net Extrusion Net Avoidance Mortality Mortality Biocide Recirculation Mortality Mortality Egg Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.62 1 YSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.81 1 PYSL Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.82 1 Juvenilel Same as basecase Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.50 1 Juvenile2 Same as basecase. Same as basecase NA NA NA NA 0.796 1 Finemesh Screens -Impingement Collection ISWS Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality JAN I FEB I MAR I APR (MAY (JUN JUL I AUG SEP (OCT ( NOV ( DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 '0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Modular Inclined Screens -Impingement Collection SWS I Total Screen Mortality Efficiency Mortality IJAN FEB I MAR'I APR MAY JUN IJUL I AUG I-SEP OCT I NOV DEC Age 0 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Age 1 0.7496 1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51. 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 F-4 Table 11 ALEWIFE+21% ALOSA POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 29 35 64 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 2 0 2 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 27 35 62 20% Delta T Vary 26 35 61 45% Delta T Vary 22 35 57 10% Delta T Constant 27 35 62 20% Delta T Constant 26 35 61 45% Delta T Constant 22 35 57 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 30 38 68 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 18 0 18 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 24 35 59 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 29 81 110 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 29 15 44* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)ATLANTIC CROAKER POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 973,070 10,464 983,534 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 235,513 0 235,513 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 973,327 10,345 983,672 20% Delta T Vary 975,620 10,220 985,840 45% Delta T-Vary 974,936 9,907 984,843 10% Delta T Constant 972,658 10j345 -983,003 20% Delta T Constant 971,826 10,220 982,046 45% Delta T Constant 969,745 9,907 979,652 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 918,221 9,751 927,972 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 604,915 0 604,915 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 1,198,754
- 10,464 1,209,218 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 973,070 4,990 978,060 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 973,070 4,395 977,465* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)BLUE CRAB POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 0 23,381 23,381 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 0 0 0 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 0 22,984 22,984 20% Delta T Vary 0 21,549 21,549 45% Delta T Vary 0 19,322 19,322 10% Delta T Constant 0 22,439 22,439 20% Delta T Constant 0 21,549 21,549 45% Delta T Constant 0 19,322 19,322 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 0 22,969 22,969 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 0 0 0FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 0 23,381 23,381 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 0 200,782 200,782 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 0 9,820 9,820 F-4 Table 11 (cont.)BLUEBACK HERRING+79% ALOSA POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 849 197 1,046 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 61 0 61 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 848 197 1,045 20% Delta T Vary 848 196 1,044 45% Delta T Vary 846 196 1,042 10% Delta T Constant 848 197 1,045 20% Delta T Constant 848 196 1,044 45% Delta T Constant 846 196 1,042 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 955 209 1,164 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 520 0 520 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 547 197 744 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 849 458 1,307 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 849 83 932* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)SPOT POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 460,472 7,060 467,532 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 83,393 0 83,393 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 554,176 6,896 561,072 20% Delta T Vary 619,706 6,726 626,432 45% Delta T Vary 503,898 6,299 510,197 10% Delta T Constant 499,751 6,896 506,64720% Delta T Constant 461,130 6,726 467,85645% Delta T Constant 364,579 6,299 370,878 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 391,187 6,695 397,882 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 291,998 0 291,998 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 145,037 7,060 152,097 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 460,472 12,128 472,600 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 460,472 2,965 463,437* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)STRIPED BASS+58% MORONE POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 708,195 15,223 723,418 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 84,787 0 84,787 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 650,110 15,111 665,22120% Delta T Vary 596,672 14,994 611,666 45% Delta T Vary 474,950 14,701 489,651 10% Delta T Constant 648,211 15,111 663,322 20% Delta T Constant 584,285 14,994 599,279 45% Delta T Constant 425,978 14,701 440,679 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 539,139 15,569 554,708 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 443,378 0 443,378 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 802,165 15,223 817,388 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 708,195 11,235 719,430 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 708,195 6,394 714,589* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)WEAKFISH POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 1,594,247 62,634 1,656,881 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 176,037 0 176,037 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 1,553,858 58,053 1,611,911 20% Delta T Vary 1,545,927 53,277 1,599,204 45% Delta T Vary 1,298,029 41,338 1,339,367 10% Delta T Constant 1,512,330 58,053 1,570,383 20% Delta T Constant 1,379,086 53,277 1,432,363 45% Delta T Constant 1,042,478 41,338 1,083,816 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 1,322,261 57,147 1,379,408 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 991,012 0 991,012 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 1,459,465 62,634 1,522,099 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 1,594,247 18,347 1,612,594 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 1,594,247 26,306 1,620,553* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)WHITE PERCH+42% MORONE POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 1,106 119 1,225 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 100 0 100 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 1,068 119 1,187 20% Delta T Vary 1,030 119 1,14945% Delta T Vary 937 119 1,056 10% Delta T Constant 1,067 119 1,18620% Delta T Constant 1,026 119 1,14545% Delta T Constant 924 119 1,043 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 992 124 1,116 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 696 0 696FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 424 119 543 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 1,106 226 1,332 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 1,106 50 1,156* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens F-4 Table 11 (cont.)BAY ANCHOVY Weakfish White Perch Striped Bass lbs. Lost lbs. Lost lbs. Lost due to due to due to POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY- Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 54,646 80 54,727 34,532 18,279 1,915 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 3,911 0 3,911 2,468 1,306 137 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 51,471 76 51,547 32,526 17,217 1,804 20% Delta T Vary 48,162 72 48,234 30,436 16,110 1,68845% Delta T Vary 39,889 61 39,950 25,208 13,343 1,398 10% Delta T Constant 51,471 76 51,547 32,526 17,217 1,804 20% Delta T Constant 48,162 72 48,234 30,436 16,110 1,688 45% Delta T Constant 39,889 61 39,950 25,208 13,343 1,398REVISED.PLANNED OUTAGES 49,484 77 49,561 31,273 16,553 1,735 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 33,587 0 33,587 21,193 11,218 1,176 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 41,916
- 80 41,996 26,499 14,027 1,470 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 54,646 60 54,706 34,519 18,272 1,915 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 54,646 34 54,680 34,503 18,263 1,914* includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens***Production foregone
- 0.1predator Ibs/production foregone lbs = pounds lost to fishery F-4 Table 11 (cont.)GAMMARUS POUNDS LOST**ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 24,264 0 24,264 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 36,205 0 36,205 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 24,535 0 24,535 20% Delta T Vary 26,742 0 26,742 45% Delta T Vary 36,062 0 36,062 10% Delta T Constant 24,235 0 24,235 20% Delta T Constant 24,027 0 24,027 45% Delta T Constant 23,526 0 23,526 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 24,698 0 24,698 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 20,897 0 20,897 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 24,264 0 24,264 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 24,264 .0 24,264 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 24,264 0 24,264** individuals*0.00438 g/individual
- 1lb/453.5924g
= lbs lost UU F-4 Table 11 (cont.)NEOMYSIS POUNDS LOST**ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 210,755 0 210,755 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 73,519 0 73,519 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 242,491 0 242,491 20% Delta T Vary 276,397 0 276,397 45% Delta T Vary 259,593 0 259,593 10% Delta T Constant 224,299 0 224,299 20% Delta T Constant 214,612 0 214,612 45% Delta T Constant 188,014 0 188,014 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 205,061 0 205,061 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 137,265 0 137,265 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 210,755 0 210,755 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 210,755 0 210,755 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 210,755 0 210,755-individuals*0.000938 g/individual
- 1lb/453.5924g
= lbs lost S ee F-4 Table 11 (cont.)NON-RIS COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAL POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 2,211,920 18,499 2,230,419 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 204,887 0 .204,887 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 2,206,630 18,167 2,224,797 20% Delta T Vary 2,201,116 17,821 2,218,937 45% Delta T Vary 2,187,332 16,956 2,204,288 10% Delta T Constant 2,206,630 18,167 2,224,797 20% Delta T Constant 2,201,116 17,821 2,218,937 45% Delta T Constant 2,187,332 16,956 2,204,288 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 2,084,902 18,705 2,103,607 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 1,345,039 0 1,345,039 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 1,940,046-18,499 1,958,545MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 2,211,920 12,036 2,223,956 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 2,211,920 7,770 2,219,690* includes entrainable size organisms that are Impinged on fine mesh screens percent menhadden = 64% F-4 Table 11 (cont.)NON-RIS FORAGE POUNDS LOST TO FISHERY*** ALTERNATIVE Entrainment Impingement Total BASE CASE 3,919 258 4,177 CLOSED CYCLE COOLING 266 0 266 SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTIONS 10% Delta T Vary 3,613 244 3,857 20% Delta T Vary 3,294 229 3,523 45% Delta T Vary 2,497 191 2,688 10% Delta T Constant 3,613 244 3,857 20% Delta T Constant 3,294 229 3,523 45% Delta T Constant 2,497 191 2,688 REVISED PLANNED OUTAGES 3,364 240 3,605 CYLINDRICAL WEDGE WIRE 2,451 0 2,451 FINE MESH TRAVELING SCREENS 3,233
- 258 3,491 MODULAR INCLINED SCREENS 3,919 185 4,104 STROBELIGHT AIR BUBBLE CURTAIN 3,919 108 4,027 includes entrainable size organisms that are impinged on fine mesh screens-**Production foregone
- 0.1predator lbs/production foregone lbs = pounds lost to fishery F-4 Table 12 PROJECTION NO. 2- REVISED REFUELING OUTAGE SCHEDULEUnit 1 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time inFROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating QI in gpm °F min.1/1/01 6/10/01 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/01 8/0/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 8/10/01 12/8/02 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 12/0/02 1/18/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 1/19/03 6/10/04 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/04 7/19/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 .2.27 7/20/04 12/0/05 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2712/10/05 1/18/06 Outage 1 .175,000 0.0 2.27 1/19/06 6/10/07 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 7/19/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/20/07 12/0/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 12/10/08 12/31/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 in Transit Time in FROM TO .CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm °F min.1/1/01 6/0/02 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/02 7/18/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 7/19/02 12/0/03 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 12/10/03 2/8/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 2/0/04 6/10/05 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/05 7/19/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 7/20/05 12/8/06 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 12/0/06 1/18/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 1/19/07 6/10/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/08 7/19/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 7/20/08 12/31/08 Operational 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 I!
F-4 Table 13 PROJECTION NO. 3 10% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T VARIABLE Unit I Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q1 in gpm OF min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.275/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/04 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 2.60 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 PROJECTION NO. 3 (cont.)Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating-Q2 in gpm mn 'F min.1/1/01 6/10/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/10/01 3/1/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/10/02 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 61/2 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/0/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.806/11/03 9/5/03 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9//3 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/10/04 3/18/05 FulliFlow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/10/05 6/0/06 FullIFlow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/ 10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 61 t11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow .6 943,500 16.56 3.20 9/10 /07 5/7/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 5/8/08 16/16/08 Outage 1 1.75,000 0.0 2.80 6/17/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 116.56 3.20 9/10/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,0001 14.8 1 2.80 F-4 Table 13 (cont.) PROJECTION NO. 4 20% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T VARIABLE Unit I Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q1 in gpm OF rain.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 5/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/04 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.275/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 18.72 2.95 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.2711/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 F-4 Table 13 (cont.) PROJECTION NO. 5 45% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T VARIABLEUnit 1 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Travel Time inFROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q1 in gpm -F min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.275/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0)01 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/10/04 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 i75,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.274/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.459/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 4.45 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.2711/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 I PROJECTION NO. 5 (cont.)Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm in OF min.1/1/01 6/10/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/10/01 3/1/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.804/10/02 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/0/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/03 9/5/03 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/6/03 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/10/04 3/18/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/10/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/10/07 5/7/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.805/8/08 6/16/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 6/17/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 21.6 5.45 9/10/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 F-4 Table 13 (cont.) PROJECTION NO. 6 10% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T CONSTANT Un it 1 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T1 in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating QI in gpm OF min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 5/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.274/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.275/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/04 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.275/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 i4.8 2.276/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 2.60 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 I PROJECTION NO. 6 (cont.)Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm in OF min.1/1/01 6/10/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/10/01 3/1/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/10/02 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.806/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/0/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/03 9/5/03 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/6/03 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.209/10/04 3/18/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.806/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/10/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6. 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/10/07 5/7/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.805/8/08 6/16/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.806/17/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 943,500 15.75 3.20 9/10/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 F-4 Table 13 (cont.) PROJECTION NO. 7 20% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T CONSTANT Unit I Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q1 in gpm OF min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 5/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.275/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/04 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.274/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.275/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 2.95 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 PROJECTION NO. 7 (cont.)Unit 2 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm in OF rmin.1/1/01 6/10/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/10/01 3/1/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/10/02 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/0/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/03 9/5/03 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/6/03 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/10/04 3/18/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/10/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/10/07 5/7/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 5/8/08 6/16/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 6/17/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 832,500 15.75 3.60 9/10/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 0 S I F-4 Table 13 (cont.) PROJECTION NO. 8 45% SEASONAL FLOW REDUCTION -DELTA T CONSTANT Unit 1 Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta TI in Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q1 in gpm OF min.1/1/01 5/2/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 5/3/01 7/1/01 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 7/2/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/10/01 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/0/02 10/11/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/12/02 11/19/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/20/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/11/03 9/0/03 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/10/03 4/0/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.274/10/04 5/18/04 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/19/04 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.459/10/04' 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/10/05 10/7/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 10/8/05 11/15/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 11/16/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.276/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/0/06 4/6/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 4/7/07 5/15/07 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.27 5/16/07 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.459/10/07 6/10/08 Full Flow 6 .1,050,000 14.8 2.27 6/11/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 4.45 9/10/08 10/3/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.2710/4/08 11/12/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.2711/13/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8
- 2.27 I PROJECTION NO. 8 (cont.)Unit 2 Ashm..Post-condenser No. of CWS Delta T2 Transit Time in FROM TO CONDITION Pumps Operating Q2 in gpm in OF rmin.1/1/01 6/10/01 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/01 9/0/01 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/10/01 3/1/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/2/02 4/0/02 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/10/02 6/0/02 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/02 9/8/02 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/0/02 6/10/03 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/03 9/5/03 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/6/03 11/4/03 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 11/5/03 6/10/04 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/04 9/0/04 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/10/04 3/18/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 3/19/05 4/26/05 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 4/27/05 6/10/05 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/05 9/0/05 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/10/05 6/0/06 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/10/06 9/8/06 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/0/06 10/17/06 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 10/18/06 6/10/07 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 6/11/07 9/0/07 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/10/07 5/7/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80 5/8/08 6/16/08 Outage 1 175,000 0.0 2.80 6/17/08 9/0/08 Reduced Flow 6 555,000 15.75 5.45 9/10/08 12/31/08 Full Flow 6 1,050,000 14.8 2.80}}