~ "

14' 9 

# fP- ?6" . .



# ICHTHYOPLANKTON M ONIT ORING STUDY 

# DEPLOYMENT OF A GUNDERBOOM SYSTEM AT

LOVETT GENERATING STATION 

## UNIT 3

1998

Final 

### Report Prepared for: Orange and Rockland Utilities 

### One Blue Hill Plaza 

### Pearl River , New York 

### Jointly funded by: Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation 

### Consolidated Ellison Company of New York, Inc.



### New York Power Authority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 

### Orange and Rockland Utilities , Inc.

Prepared by: 

### Applied Science Associates 291 County Rpute 62 

### New Hampton , New York 10958

January 1999Applied Science Associates


### INTRODUCTION Orange and Rockland Utilities (ORU) has been investigating the practicality and efficacy 

### of using a physical banier technology (Gunderboom) as a means of reducing the loss fish eggs and larvae resulting ITom cooling water withdrawals at the Lovett Generating 

### Station. These investigations are part of an understanding between ORU 

### , the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , and the Hudson Riverkeeper Fund 

### Inc. This Gunderboom System consists of a porous fabric material made with a nominal mesh opening of212 microns. The 

### fabric is designed to serve as a banier 

### system to prevent entrainable organisms from entering the cooling water system along with the 

### cooling water flows. 

### Previous deployments oftms system in 1996 and 1997 were principally designed to 

### evaluate the engineering practicality of system deployment 

### in the tidal Hudson River estuary. In 1998 , a one-month entrainment sampling program was conducted coincident 

### with system deployment. The results of this sampling demonstrated a greater than 80 

### percent reduction in the density of entrainable organisms entering the cooling water system attributable to the Gunderboom System (EA 1998). 

### The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the effectiveness of the Gunderboom 

### System in reducing the number offish eggs and larvae entrained across an entire entrainment season. This evaluation was 

### conducted by comparing the density entrainable organisms behind the Gunderboom System to the density in adjacent areas unprotected by the System. Differences in the densities in pair samples is a measure the potential effectiveness of the System ill reducing 

### the entrainment offish eggs and larvae in the cooling water system at the Lovett Generating Station. 

### METHODS AND MATERIALS " The Lovett Generating.station is located on the west bank of the Hudson River estuary at 

### River Mile (RM) 42 , just north of Stony Point 

### , New York This station consists of three fossil- 

### fueled 

### , steam electric units , having net generating capacities ranging from 63 to 

### 202 MWe for a total of463 MWe for aU units combined. 

### Owned and operated by ORU Unit 3 began commercial operation in March 1955 , Unit 4 in May 1966 

### , and Unit 5 in 

### April 1969. Two other units , 1 and 2 , were retired in January 1996. 

### For this study, the Gunderboom System was installed to provide protection to the Unit 3 

### intake. This system consists of approximately 500 feet offabric material 

### deployed in a semi-circle symmetrically around the intake. . This barrier is anchored to the 

### bottom with concrete blocks and attached to large floats providing 

### filtration to all cooling water 

### entering the Unit 3 intake. TIns System was deployed on 11 June 1998 and remained in 

### place throughout the duration of this study. During most of this study, the fabric was
Gunderboom System Biological Eva/uaiion Final Report 01108/99. .
Applied Science Associates 

### routinely cleaned with an air-wash system to prevent build-up of silt. Towards the end of the study, no maintenance was performed to determine 

### untended behavior of the system. 

### For the Gunderboom evaluation assessment , simultaneous entrainment sampling was 

### conducted at the Unit 3 intake that was protected by the Gunderboom System and at the Unit 4 intake that was unprotected. Sampling 

### was conducted on two nights per week 

### from 11 June through 31 August with the exception of the 

### period of 11 - 19 August. Paired samples of approximately 20 minutes duration were collected at each intake 

### sequentially at three depths (surface , mid- 

### depth 

### , and bottom) during each of 5 sampling events conducted between 7 p. 

### m and 7 a. m the following morning for a total 

### of30 samples each sampling date. Owing to system deployment and sampling logistics 

### sampling on the first night (11 June) was limited to 2 events and sampling was alternated between Unit 3 and Unit 4. In addition to the routine nighttime sampling, sampling also 

### was conducted during 2 daylight periods (7 July and 6 August) following the same 5- event/3- 

### depth design used at night. A total of702 individual 20- 

### minute samples were collected during the course of this study. Each sample was collected using a standard netlbarrel, 

### pumped entrainment sampling 

### system. Water and entrainable organisms were pumped to the sampling device using 2 Honda 4- 

### inch trash pumps with a rated capacity of 500 

### gpm. One pump was used to sample each intake location. Volume sampled was monitored using a Signet digital 

### flowmeter and recorded for each sample on the field sampling data sheet. Volume 

### sampled across the entire study ranged from approximately 22 to 29 m 

### 3 per sample with 

### an overall mean of23. 2 m 

### 3 at both units. 

### From the pump, water flowed to one of two entrainment samplers 

### , each ofwhich consisted of a 275 gallon plastic tank into which a plankton net was placed (Figure 1). Each plankton net was 42 inches long consisting of 505 11m 

### nylon netting which was attached to a Stainless steel hoop 

### of30 inches in diameter. After each sample 

### , the nets were carefully washed down and all retained material w.as remoyed fTom each 

### collection cup, transferred to glass sample jars , and fixed with 10 percent Formalin stained with 

### rose bengal for subsequent laboratory processing. In the laboratory, all collected materials were removed from the sample jars. All fish eggs and larvae were then carefully removed fTom other 

### materials and preserved in 50 

### percent ethanol for subsequent identification. All egg and larval identifications were 

### made by an experienced ichthyoplankton taxonomist based 

### on morphometric and meristic characteristics as described in available scientific literature. All counts for each species 

### and life stage uom each sample were recorded on an appropriate laboratory data sheet 

### and entered , along with the field sampling information 

### , into a computer database.

Glll1derboo!l1 s.vstem Biological Evaluafiol1 Final Rep0l1 01/08/99Applied Science Associates


### RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

### A total of 6 343 individual fish eggs , larvae 

### , and early juveniles were collected during the course of this study, 3 

### 698 at Unit 4 and 2 645 at Unit 3 (Table 1). The majority of those collected (68 percent) were bay anchovy; the most abundant 

### ichthyoplankter in the lower Hudson River estuary during summer months. 

### Other abundant taxa were striped bass 

### river herring and naked goby. The 

### remaining taxonomic groups together comprised less than 3 percent of the total catch. 

### Most of those collected (89 percent) were post yolk-sac larvae with the remainder evenly split between eggs and early juveniles. Only 14 

### individuals identified as yolk sac larvae were collected in this study. 

### All but 11 eggs were identified as bay anchovy. Overall daily mean densities'i 

### rlmged from less than 5 to almost 2 000 organisms per 1 

### 000 3 (Figure 2). 

### There were four periods of peak entrainment , early to mid- 

### June (post yolk-sac larvae), early July (egg and post yolk-sac larvae), early August 

### (egg and post yolk-sac larvae), and late August (early juveniles). On the two dates with full 24- 

### hour sampling (7 July and 6 August) densities were generally higher 

### at night (especially near mid-night) and much lower during the day (Figure 3). 

### Across the entire sampling period densities were higher at the bottom and lowest at 

### the swface with densities at mid- depth being intermediate (Figure 4). 

### A similar seasonal pattern was evident at all depths and at both units. Seasonal 

### abundance patterns for each of the four most abundant taxa are discussed below:

Bay anchovy 

### Bay anchovy were principally collected from early July through late August (Figure 5). 

### Owing to their numerical abundance 

### , the pattern in abundance for this species was similar to that for all species combined over their period of occurrence. 

### There were n\'o periods 

### of higher egg and larval abundance and one period 

### of higher juvenile abundance. These periods ofhighe.r abundance most 

### likely reflect times oOnflux of more saline waters from areas downstream ofthe station. A similar seasonal pattern in abundance was evident for all life stages at both units. Striped bass 

### No striped bass eggs and only 5 yolk-sac larval striped bass were collected during the 

### course of this study. TIle primary striped bass spawning period typically occurs prior to the start of this study. Daily mean densities for post yolk-sac larv&l striped 

### bass were highest (~l 600 per 1 

### 000 m 

### ) in mid- 

### June with much lower densities before and after 

### that date (Figure 6). A similar pattern was evident at both Unit 3 and Unit 4. Juvenile striped bass were collected at much lower densities from mid- 

### June through the end of July. As with the 

### earlier life stages 

### , patterns in mean density were generally similar between the two units. Glmderooom System Biological Evaluaiion Final Rep0l1 01108/99Applied Science Associates

River herring 

### Almost all river herring collected were post yolk-sac larvae. 

### Eggs were only collected during the first sampling interval and only at Unit 3. Peak density for the 

### post yolk-sac stage was just after mid- 

### June and few were collected after the thUd week in June (Figure 

### 7). The seasonal pattern was generally similar between Unit 3 and 4. The few juveniles collected in mid- to late June. River herring generally spawn in the upper reaches of the 

### tidal Hudson and in tributary streams. Thus , they typically enter areas of the estuary near Lovett only as late larvae or older stages. Naked goby 

### Naked goby were only collected as post yoLk-sac larvae and early juveniles. 

### This summer- spawning species produces adhesive eggs in guarded nests. 

### Consequently, it is only during the later larval stages that this species becomes planktonic and , thus 

### entrainable. Both post yolk-sac larvae and early juveniles were collected in July and 

### August with peak densities in early August (Figure 8). Seasonal patterns 

### for both life stages was similar at Unit 3 and 4. 

### Comparison between Unit 3 and Unit 4 

### Seasonal patterns in overall density of all life stages combined were similar between 

### Units 3 and 4 (Figure 9 - top). Daily mean densities at Unit 3 which was protected by the Gunderboom system were lower than that at Unit 4 (unprotected) ITom the second sampling date through mid- July. Thereafter 

### , mean densities at the two units were generally similar 

### , with the exception of a period in early August when collections were dominated by post yolk-sac larval bay anchovy and naked goby and mean densities were considerably higher at Unit 3. 

### The ratio of daily mean densities at Unit 3 to densities at Unit 4 can be used as a measure 

### of the effectiveness of the Gunderboom system as deployed at Unit 3. This ratio 

### exhibited a rapid decline during the first 2 sampling intervals reaching 0.26 on 18 June 

### (Figure 9 - bottom). Thereafter , the ratio remained relatively low though 13 July with the variability evident over this interval most likely a result of the low collections over this interval. Overall 

### average reduction in ichthyoplankton densities at Unit 3 compared 

### to Unit 4 over the LTJ.terval18 June through 13 July was 76 percent. 

### Beginning in mid. July this ratio began to increase reaching approximately 1 (i. 

### , no difference in densities) on 20 July. Thereafter 

### , this ratio exhibited considerable variability ranging from a high 

### of2. 65 on 3 August to a low of 0. 08 on 27 August. Across the period 16 July through 31 

### August , densities actually averaged 4 percent higher at Unit 3 than at Unit 4.

Gunderboom System Biological Evaluation Fil1al Report 01108/99Applied Science Associates



### OveraIl 

### , the results ofthis study revealed seasonal patterns in abundance and species 

### composition consistent with that expected based on previous studies and general 

### knowledge regarding spawning habits of many of the common species. Collections at the beginning of the study were dominated by two common spring- spawning groups , striped

### bass and river herring whereas later collections were dominated by the two summerspawning species , bay anchovy and naked goby. Most of the entrainment occurs during 

### relatively short period at night. Seasonal abundance patterns at both units and across 

### depths were similar. During the early part of this study, the Gunderboom system 

### appeared to result in significant reductions in entrainment densities at Unit 3. The 

### magnitude of this reduction was similar to that reported in previous system tests. This reduction was evident soon after deployment of the system following a short time during 

### which ichthyoplankton trapped behind the barrier were gradually depleted through entrainment. However , it appears that sometime in middle to late July, something 

### happened to the Gunderboom system that substantially reduced it' s effectiveness (LMS 

### 1998), such that entrainment densities at the two units after this time were generally 

### similar. 

### REFEREN CES 

### EA Engineering, Science and Technology. 1998. 1997 Ichthyoplankton Entrainment 

### Monitoring Study at Lovett Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities , Inc. 

### Lawler , Matusky, and Skelly Engineers 

### , LLP (LMS). 1998. Lovett Generating 

### Station 

### Gunderboom System Evaluation Program 1998. Prepared 

### for Orange and Rockland Utilities , Inc.

Gunderboom System Biological EvaluaiiOl1 Filial Report 01/08/99Applied Science Associates

Gunderboolil System Biological Evaluation Final Report 

# TABLES

01/08/99Applied Science AssociatesTABLE 1.OVERALL SPECIES COMPOSITION IN ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING AT THE LOVETT GENERATINGSTATION, 1998.UNIT4UNIT 3SPECIESEGGYSLPYSLJUVUNtOUnit TotalEGGYSLPYSLJUVUnit TotalBay anchovy232176153565618733Striped bass743803492527River herrina131133Naked qobv234246White perchWeakfishAmerican shadMoroneSOD.Cyprinid unid.Tessellated darterMenidia sOP.Centrarchid unid.American eel. 1---V\lhite suckerClupeid unid.----, Windowpane flounderUnidentified qobvHoqchokerAtlantic tomcodUnidentifiedNorthern pipefishTotals233207240698432159645Gullderboom System Biological EvaluationFilia! Report01108/99c:J:::" t::;;: ::::t:::.~;a ~c:r-::'2 g-\. :=. C/:);:i;:;-(;:)....f')is"i.::

### Entire Sampling Set-up

Close-up of Barrel Samplers 

### and Net . .

Close 

### up of Pump and Flowmeter



### Close-up ofNct in Barrel

Figure 1. Photographs of entrainment sampling equipment used
at the 

### Lovett Generating Station , 1998.. .



## Eggs 3 oo 

### 250 Unit 4 - - - -



### Unit3 

### ... 2oo
4.1 ~ 150 ~ 1oo .'"

"'
...



### 0 . 6/11 6121 7/1 7/11 7121 7131 8110 8120 8130 

### Date 

## Post Yolk Sac Larvae 000 

# -Unit 1,800 - - - -

Unit 3 

### 600 ... . ~



### 400 "'

~ 1,200 C!I 

### A 1, 000 1:1 

### 800 CII 

### 600 400 

### 200 6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7f21 7131 8/10 8/20 8130 

### Date 

## Juveniles Unit 4 

### 250 - - - -

Unit 3 ~ 200 ...

CII 150 ~ 100

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7131 8/10 8/20 8130 

### Date 

### Figure 2. 

### Seasonal pattem in daily mean entrainment density for all taxa



### combined at the Lovett Generating Station , 1998.400 200 000 

### 800

1:1 600

500
000 

### ;;;1, 500 c:.J
c:.J 1 000 

## ~ -

400 

### 200



### soo

Figure 3. . - - 

# .. . -
.. - ..



### - - 

# .. -

7 .July Urn! 4 ... -Unit3 

# - , - . 

# - .. -

Hour 

### 6 Augus t Urn! 4 . - - -

Unit 3 

## - . . -
....



### Hour 

### Diel pattern in mean entrainment density for all taxa combined at the Lovett Generating Station 

### , 1998

## Surface 4,500 000 Unit 4 

### 500 - - - -

Unit 3 

### .... 3000 ~ 2 

### ~00 

### = 2, 000 41 1, 

### 500 ~ 1 

### 000 500 6/11 6121 7/1 7/11 7121 7/31 8110 8120 8130 

### Date 

## Mid- 

## Depth 

# -Unit 500 

### 000 

## - - . .

Unit 3 500 

### .... 3 000 u 2 500 

### = 2, 000 . \

c.s 

## u 1, 500 ~ 1 000 500 

### ... - - - 

### . -\ . - _

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7121 7/31 8110 8/20 8/30 

### Date 

## Bottom Unit 4 500 000 

### - - - -

Unit 3 500 

### .'" 3, 000 

## u 2, 500 

### = 2, 000 

## ' .

~ 1, 500 :E 1 

### 000 500
~ I 6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7121 7/31 8/10 8120 8/30 

### Date 

### Figure 4. 

### Seasonal pattern ill daily mean entrainment density by depth for



### all taxa combined at the Lovett Generating Station , 1998., .



### 300 250 

### .... 200 ~ 150 ~ 100

6/11

400 1,200 t- 1 000 800 600 C'"'. 400 200
6/11

250 200 

### ;g 150 ~ 100 =s 50

6/11 

### Figure 5. 6/21 

## 7nl Eggs ~::;

7/21 

### Date 7131 

### 8/10 8/20 8130 

## Post Yolk Sac Larvae . ...



# -Unit4 - - . -

Unit 3

6/21 7/1 7/11

6/21 7/11

7/1 7/21



### Date 7/31 8/10 8120 8130 

## Juveniles Unit 4 

### ~ ~ - - Unit 3

7/21 8/10 8130

7/31 8/20 

### Date 

### Seasonal pattern in daily mean entrainment density for bay anchovy at the Lovett Generating Station 

### , 1998.

## Eggs ...

4.1 

### A 0.

4.1 ::s 

### Unit4 - - - -

Unit 3

None Collected
7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 8110 

### 8/20 

### 8/30



### Date 

## Post Yolk Sac Larvae 

# -Unit4 1,800 600 . -- - - Unit 

### 400 

## ...

1,200 4) 1, 

### 000 800 . .

600 ::s 400 

### 200 - -

6/11 6(21 7/1 7/11 7/Z1 7/31 8/10 8/Z0 8130 

### Date 

## Juveniles Unit 4 

## - - - .

Unit 3 ~ 25 ~ 20 = 15 Q.) ::s 10 

## \. -. '--

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/1.1 7/31 8/10 8/1.0 

### 8/30 

### Date 

### Seasonal pattern in daily mean entrainment density for striped bass 

### at the Lovett Generating Station , 1998. 6/11 6/1.1



### Figure 6.

## Eggs Unit 4 ~ 50 - - - -



### Unit3 ...

~ 40 s= 30

6/11 6121 7/1 7/11 7121 7/31 8110 8120 8/30 

### Date 

## Post Yolk Sac Larvae Umt 4 

### 250 

### . - - - - Umt 200 ....



### !9 150 Go) c 100

6/11 6121 7/1 7/11 7121 7131 8/10 8f20 8/30 

### Date 

## Juveniles Unit 4 - - - - Unit 3 

## ~ 2. ....

41 2. 1.5 co: 

### 1.0

6/11 6111 7/1 7/11 7121 7131 8/10 8110 8130 

### Date 

### Figure 7. 

### Seasonal pattern in daily mean entrainment density for river herring

at the Lovett Generating Station 

### , 1998.

## Eggs

,1.~"~" Urn' 4 - - - - Unit 3 

## ~ 0.
to: 

### None Collected
6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 

### 8/10 8/20 8/30 

### Date 

## Post Yolk Sac Larvae 400 

# -Unit 350 - - - -



### Unit 3
t' 300 

### ' \

~ 250 A 200 ~ 150 ~ 100 

### - - - - - -.

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 

### 8/10 8/20 8/30 

### Date 

## Juveniles Unit 4 - - - -

Unit 3

f' 10 ' I 

# . ,

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 

### 8/10 8120 8/30 

### Date 

### Figure 8. 

### Seasonal pattern in daily mean entrainment density for naked 

### goby

at the Lovett Generating Station , 1998.AllUfe Stages 000 1~800 600 400 .G- 

### ~ 1, 200 

## = 1, 000 

## . '

800 ::s 600 

### 400 200
6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 8/10 8/20 8/30 

### Date ..,. ..

S 2 t") 13 2 .....

..g 1

6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 8/10 8/20 8/30 Date ... ... ...

Urn' 4 . . . -

Unit 3



### Figure 9. 

### Comparison of entrainment densities at Unit 3 and Unit 4 of the Lovett

Generating Station 

### , 1998.