## Evaluation of Impingement Survival on the Hydrolox TM 

## Traveling Water Screen at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station October 2007 – June 2008

Final Report

National Grid Environmental Engine ering Department 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801

and

Intralox 301 Plantation Road Harahan, LA 70123

Prepared by:

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc. 5 Fairlawn Drive, Suite 205 Washingtonville, New York 10992

November 2008BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

i 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the summer of 2007, a new type of intake screen was installed in one intake forebay at Unit 2 of the E.F. Barrett Generating Station to test full- scale performance. This screen consists of a continuous strand of Hydrolox TM 

### engineered polymer screen material that was brick laid in modules connected together at the hinges by polymer rods. Fish handling scoops similar to modified Ristroph buckets are attached to the base of each screen frame and are designed with a low pressure wash to gently return impinged aquatic organisms to the source waterbody with minimal injuries. After that, a high pressure spray header directed from behind the screen cleans the remaining debris into a separate debris trough. Potential advantages of this screen include:

• Reduced operating and maintenance costs;

• Improved debris handling characteristics yi elding increased plant operating efficiency; and,

• Possible reduced mortality of impinged organisms returned to the source waterbody.
The other intake forebay at Barrett Unit 2 retained the existing conventional traveling water screen for comparison.
From October 2007 through June 2008, a special study was conducted at Unit 2 to monitoring the survival of impinged fish from both the Hy drolox and the conventional traveling screen. Monitoring was scheduled weekly whenever either screen was operating. Collections were scheduled at night when impingement rates were typically highest. During each sampling event, fish were carefully collected from the screenwash discharge screen and classified into one of three categories: live, stunned and dead. All live and stunned fish were retained in a special holding facility to determine subsequent mortality over 48 hours.
The results of this study demonstrate that surv ival of fish impinged on the Hydrolox screen at Barrett was generally near the upper bound of estimates reported in other studies and consistently equal to or greater than that found on the conventional traveling screen. Relatively low survival was only observed for Atlantic menhaden, a species known to be highly susceptible to stress-related mortality. However, even for th is delicate species, survival from the Hydrolox screen was higher than that observed on the conventional screen. With the exception of bay anchovy, another known delicate species, no other individuals died after 48-hours of being impinged on the Hydrolox screen. These results suggest that impingement survival for these other species should also be high and possibly comparable to that observed for the more abundance species. This study included a suite of fish species commonly impinged at cooling water intakes located in coastal areas of the Northeast.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

ii 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introducti on .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Facility De scription................................................................................................... 2 3. Sampling Me thods ................................................................................................... 3 4. Results and Discussion............................................................................................ 4 5. Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A Data Summary 13BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

iii 

### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Characteristics of the HydroloxTM screen installed at the Barrett Generating Station, 2007. .......................................................................................................................... ...........9 Figure 2 Seasonal distribution of the most abundant species collected in impingement survival sampling at Barrett, Oct 2007 - Jun 2008. ..........................................................................10 Figure 3 Length frequency distributions of the most abundant species collected in impingement survival sampling at Barrett, Oct 2007 – Jun 2008. ............................................................11BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

iv 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Dates of impingement survival collections and coincident water quality measurements at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007. ..............................................6 Table 2 Numbers and length ranges of fish collec ted in impingement survival monitoring at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007. ........................................................7 Table 3 Estimates of extended (48-hour) impingement survival for the ten most abundant species collected in impingement survival monitoring at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007............................................................................................................ .8BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Introduction 1 

### 1. INTRODUCTION

The operation of cooling water intake structures is regulated under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. This section requires “that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact” (AEI). Operation of these cooling water intake structures is permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminati on System (NPDES) admin istered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In New York, the responsibility for the day-to-day operation of NPDES has been delegated to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the requirement for BTA is administered pursuant to regulations set forth at 6 NYCRR 704.5.
These cooling water intake structures have been tr aditionally protected by vertical traveling water screens composed of a continuous band of steel mesh screening. The purpose of these screens is to prevent the passage of debris and aquatic organisms into the cooling water system along with the cooling water flow. This debris and entrapped aquatic organisms are then washed off of these screens by high-pressure water jets and collected in wash water sluices. The entrapment of aquatic organisms agai nst these intake screens is a process called impingement. While this debris and impinged organi sms at many steam-electric facilities are returned to the source waterbody, the process of impingement can result in the mortality of some aquatic organisms. This mortality from impingement is one of the issues addressed under §316(b).
HydroloxTM is a product line of engineered polym er water screens developed by Intralox LLC, the inventor and the world’s largest manufacturer of modular plastic belting. Intralox developed a new Hydrolox intake screen design which offe red several potential advantages to operators of cooling water intake structures at steam-electric generating facilities. These potential advantages include:

• Reduced operating and maintenance costs;

• Improved debris handling characteristics yieldi ng increased plant operating efficiency; and,

• Possible reduced mortality of impinged organisms returned to the source waterbody.
While there is considerable practical experience with Hydrolox TM 

### screens at water diversions for irrigation, there is relatively little practical experience to address these potential advantages at cooling water intake structures. While laboratory studies have demonstrated that impingement mortality can be high, these controlled studies do not address the range of species and environmental conditions typically found at cooling water intake structures.
In the summer of 2007, National Grid and Intralox installed a Hydrolox TM 

### intake screen at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station to test full-scale performance. This report presents the results of an impingement survival study that was co nducted at this screen from October 2007 through June 2008. Data from this study was used to estimate the survival rate of those fish species impinged on the Hydrolox screen during the study peri od. In addition, survival of fish impinged on a conventional traveling water screen located at the same unit was studied for comparison purposes. This study was jointly funded by National Grid and Intralox.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Facility Description 2 

### 2. FACILITY DESCRIPTION

E. F. Barrett Power Station is a steam-electric generating facility that is owned and operated by National Grid. The Station is located at Island Park, Long Island, New York in Hempstead Bay, approximately 2.5 miles inland of the southern Long Island coast and about 20 miles east ofNew York City (Figure 1). The Station consists of two steam-electric units which utilize a noncontact, once-through cooling water system. Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1956 and 1963, respectively. Each unit has a design capacity of 181 MW and a design flow of 228 cfs (102,000 gpm).
This study was conducted at Barrett Unit 2. This unit is protected by trash racks, a curtain wall, and coarse screens and has two intake bays about 14.0 ft wide with an invert of El. -12.5 ft (all elevations in this report are based on the plant datum in which 0.0 ft is equal to the mean low water level). A curtain wall, located at the face of each screenbay extends down to El. -1.0 ft providing an 11.5 ft opening for water to enter the intake. The trash racks, which are used to prevent large debris from entering the intake and damaging the circulating water pumps, are located about 2 ft downstream of the intake. In addition to the trash racks and coarse water screens, each intake bay has a traveling water screen located about 24 ft downstream from the bar rack.
For this study, a single Hydrolox Screen with fish protection features was installed in one of the two intake forebays at Barrett Unit 2. This screen consists of a continuous strand of Hydrolox engineered polymer screen material (Figure 2a). The screen material is comprised of brick laid engineered polymer modules connected together at the hinges by polymer rods. This screen material is designed to operate over multiple head sprockets and a stationary shoe located in the foot section of a steel frame. A steel frame supports the head shaft, motor, and the screen components. Fish handling scoops similar to modified Ristroph buckets are attached to the base of each screen frame (Figure 2b). These scoops are designed to hold water and provide a relatively turbulence free zone that minimizes injuries to the impinged aquatic life. When the screen is operated, the scoops are lifted out of the water flow with the captured aquatic organisms. As the screen travels over the head sprockets, a low pressure spray header gently washes the organisms from the scoops and deposits them into a fish trough for return to the source waterbody (Figure 2c). Above the deck of the intake structure, the screen housing is angled backward to facilitate gentle removal of the aquatic life from the fish scoops into the fish trough. After that, a high pressure spray header directed from behind the screen cleans the remaining debris as the screen descends downwards along the return path. This debris is washed into a separate debris trough.
The other intake forebay retained the existing conventional traveling water screen, which incorporates screen panels of 1/4 x 1 inch vertical opening, smooth-tex mesh. Fish and debris are removed from this conventional screen by a high-pressure front spraywash and returned to the source water body via a combined fish and debris sluice. Both screens were operated continuously during the impi ngement survival sampling.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Sampling Methods 3 

### 3. SAMPLING METHODS

For this study, the impingement collection systems at Barrett Unit 2 were modified to insure all the fish impinged were retained in adequate water to minimize collection stress. This collection system consisted of three devices. First, an al uminum collection basket with 5/16-inch mesh drains was inserted into the fish sluice of the Hydrolox screen. Second, a custom-fitted soft net with 1⁄4-inch mesh was inserted into the Hydrolox debris sluice. This net had a frame that locked into the sluice as it transitioned from the stainle ss sluice to the concrete below deck sluice. Third, the standard fish collection basket at the conventional screen was modified with an aluminum insert to hold 4 inches of water.
Sampling was generally conducted weekly unless plant operations or lack of fish precluded collections. On each sampling date, both intake traveling screens were operated continuously. Sampling focused on an eight hour period from about 8:00 pm to 4:00 am as this was demonstrated to be the period of highest impingem ent rates based on earlier monitoring studies. Prior to each collection, all the sluices were checked for debris buildup and cleaned as necessary. The Hydrolox fish sluice collection basket was then installed first and the Hydrolox debris sluice net was installed next. At least 2 minutes later, the basket for the conventional screen was installed. This order was important as it started at the most upstream point and continued downstream in the screen washwater system.
Each collection device was checked on an hourly or shorter interval and all fish collected were carefully removed and classified into one of three initial mortality categories: live, stunned, or dead. All live and stunned fish were then placed in the 5-gallon holding containers that were then placed in the 350-gal water trough of the latent effects monitoring facility. This holding facility was supplied with a continuous flow of water from the wash water header at the unit 2 intake.
All specimens retained in this holding facility we re maintained in separate holding containers by collection interval and multiple containers were used to minimize the potential for predation. All retained fish were checked at the completion of 24 and 48 hours after collection to determine condition (live, stunned 1 

### , and dead) and all dead fish were removed at each check. All dead fish and all fish remaining at the end of the test period were identified to species, counted, and measured. In addition, water quality parameters (water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia) were monitored at each check to ensure adequate holding conditions.

1 For the purposes of calculating impingement survival at each time interval, any fish classified as stunned at that time were included with those dead. However, is some cases, these stunned fish re covered resulting in higher estimates of survival in subsequent time periods.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 4 

### 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Generally, impingement survival sampling was conducted at Barrett whenever the Unit 2 cooling water pump behind each screen type was operating. As a result, impingement survival sampling was conducted using the Hydrolox screen on 27 dates over the period 20 October 2007 through 16 June 2008 (Table 1). Survival sampling from the conventional screen was conducted on 16 dates over the period 19 November 2007 through 21 April 2008. Over this period, mean water temperatures ranged from a low of 3.0 °C in January to more than 22 °C in mid-June. At the same time, mean dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 4.9 mg/l in late October to more than 10 mg/l during January and February. On all dates, dissolved oxygen concentrations were sufficiently high so as to not adversely affect impingement survival. Conduc tivity exhibited little variation across the study period.
A total of 3,697 fish spanning 33 species were collected during the course of this study; 2,956 from the Hydrolox screen fish sluice and 741 from the conventional screen (Table 2). No fish were collected from the Hydrolox debris sluice demonstrating the success of the Hydrolox screen system in separating impinged fish from debris. Mo st of the fish collected were relatively small (<150 mm Total Length (TL)) and likely less than one year old. All but 31 of those collected (1 percent) were held for extended survival study. Su rvival results for all species and each screen type are presented in Table A-1. Nineteen of the 29 species collected from the Hydrolox screen and 16 of 19 species collected from the conventional screen consisted of a total of less than 20individuals. Data for these species is considered insufficient for reliable estimates of speciesspecific impingement survival.
More than 20 individuals for each of ten different species were collected from the Hydrolox screen (Table 3). Of these ten species, five (seaboar d goby, striped killifish, grubby, tautog and winter flounder) exhibited 100 percent survival when impinged on the Hydrolox screen. An additional two species (mummichog and northern pipefish) ex hibited close to complete survival (> 98 percent). Atlantic menhaden, a relatively delicate species, exhibited relatively low impingement survival (< 7 percent) whereas Atlantic si lversides and American sand lance exhibited intermediate survival, about 60 and 71 percent, respec tively. While numbers of the other species collected were insufficient to reliably estimate specie s-specific survival rates, the fact that 90 of the 91 individuals held for 48 hours survived suggest that survival of fish impinged on the Hydrolox screen should be high for most of these other species collected. The only mortality was a bay anchovy, a species known to be susceptible to impingement stresses.
Among those three species for which reliable es timates of impingement survival could be calculated for both the Hydrolox and conventional screens, survival was substantially and significantly higher for the Hydrolox screen for At lantic silverside (60.3 percent vs. 7.5 percent) while slightly higher although not statistically higher for mummichog and Atlantic menhaden (99.4 percent vs. 96.4 percent and 6.8 percent vs. 0 percent, respectively) (Table 3).
Most of the individuals of the ten species with sufficient catch to warrant estimation of impingement survival were collected from Dece mber through March (Figure 3), the period of primary impingement at Barrett (ASA 2005). The so le exception to this pattern was northern pipefish, which were collected principally in March and April. The seasonal patterns for those collected from the Hydrolox screen and fr om the conventional screen were similar.
For Atlantic menhaden, grubby, and tautog, most of those collected were juveniles, less than 10 cm long and likely less than a year old (Figure 4). For winter flounder, most were juveniles between 10 and 20 cm long and likely less than 15 months old. The remaining six species are all relatively small prey species and those impinged we re likely to include a mix of juveniles andBARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 5 

### adults. The length frequency distributions were similar for those collected from the Hydrolox screen and from the conventional screen.
The results of this study demonstrate that surv ival of fish impinged on the Hydrolox screen at Barrett was generally near the upper bound of estimates reported in other studies and consistently equal to or greater than that found on the conventional traveling screen, albeit that such comparisons could be made for only a few species. Relatively low survival was only observed for Atlantic menhaden, a species known to be highly susceptible to stress-related mortality. However, even for this delicate spec ies, survival from the Hydrolox screen was higher than that observed on the conventional screen. With the exception of bay anchovy, another known delicate species, no other individuals died after 48-hours of being impinged on the Hydrolox screen. These results suggest that impi ngement survival for these other species should also be high and possibly comparable to that observed for the more abundance species. This study included a suite of fish species commonly impinged at cooling water intakes located in coastal areas of the Northeast.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 6 Table 1 Dates of impingement survival collecti ons and coincident water quality measurements at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007.

Screen Tested Mean Water Quality

Sample

Date Hydrolox Screen Conventional Screen Water Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/l) Mean Conductivity (μS/cm)
10/30/2007 √ 14.7 4.9 45640

11/6/2007 √ 12.5 6.0 44800 11/13/2007 √ 10.3 7.3 44370 11/19/2007 √ √ 9.0 8.0 46500 11/26/2007 √ √ 9.1 8.3 45600

12/3/2007 √ √ 5.4 9.7 44170 12/10/2007 √ 6.1 8.8 45320 12/17/2007 √ √ 3.7 9.8 43030 12/26/2007 √ √ 5.9 8.9 39140 1/2/2008 √ 4.7 10.4 43770 1/7/2008 √ √ 4.5 8.5 45880 1/14/2008 √ √ 6.2 10.3 43770 1/21/2008 √ √ 3.0 9.6 45450 1/28/2008 √ √ 3.4 8.8 31850

2/4/2008 √ √ 5.0 9.6 44540 2/18/2008 √ 5.3 10.2 40390 2/25/2008 √ 5.1 10.0 42650

3/3/2008 √ 5.9 9.8 43250 3/10/2008 √ 6.0 9.7 43420 3/17/2008 √ √ 6.5 9.4 44420 3/24/2008 √ √ 6.7 8.6 43800 3/31/2008 √ 8.5 8.2 39720

4/7/2008 √ √ 9.1 7.9 42220 4/14/2008 √ √ 11.8 7.5 41670 4/21/2008 √ √ 14.2 5.9 41200 4/28/2008 √ 14.7 6.7 41760

6/9/2008 √ 22.5 6.5 43220 6/16/2008 √ 22.7 6.8 43420BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 7 Table 2 Numbers and length ranges of fish collected in impingement survival monitoring at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007.



### Hydrolox Screen Conventional Screen

Common name Number Collected Length Range (TL mm) Number Collected Length Range (TL mm) Atlantic silverside 1,605 49-123 531 47-119 Mummichog 546 34-97 101 42-84
Atlantic menhaden 195 40-112 45 52-349 Northern pipefish 122 73-213 2 131-148 Seaboard goby 115 38-61 16 34-60 Striped killifish 90 41-100 14 46-92 Grubby 59 54-109 1 78
American sand lance 41 102-165 Tautog 39 46-205 5 56-171
Winter flounder 39 48-287 Spotted hake 18 63-87 5 63-103 Threespine stickleback 16 37-63 Windowpane 12 29-61 3 49-57
Lined seahorse 11 61-98 5 72-134 Sheepshead minnow 8 36-51 4 25-43
Northern searobin 7 45-421 Rock gunnel 6 66-153 Striped searobin 6 57-112
Cunner 4 52-81
Gulf Stream flounder 3 45-53 1 41
Red hake 3 61-251 Bay anchovy 2 66-80
Bluefish 2 28-30 Oyster toadfish 2 52-168
Butterfish 1 192 Northern stargazer 1 25 Striped cusk-eel 1 86
Weakfish 1 170 1 188 White perch 1 105 1 115
Alewife 1 125
Atlantic croaker 1 45
Black sea bass 3 42-61 Feather blenny 1 64 Total 2,956 741BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 8 Table 2 Estimates of extended (48-hour) impingement survival for the ten most abundant species collected in impingement survival monitoring at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2007 – Jun 2007.

Hydrolox Screen Conventional Screen

Species Estimated Impingement Survival 95 Percent Confidence

Bounds 2 Estimated Impingement Survival 95 Percent Confidence

Bounds 2

Atlantic silverside 60.3 57.9-62.7 7.5 5.5-10.0 Mummichog 99.4 98.6-99.9 96.4 89.0-99.4

Atlantic menhaden 6.8 3.9-11.0 0 0.0-8.4 Northern pipefish 98.3 94.8-99.7 -- 3
Seaboard goby 100 97.4-100.0 -- 3
Striped killifish 100 96.6-100.0 -- 3
Grubby 100 95.4-100.0 -- 3

American sand lance 70.7 56.0-82.9 -- 3
Tautog 100 92.6-100.0 -- 3

Winter flounder 100 92.2-100.0 -- 3

2 95 percent exact confidence interval using Bayesian methods (http://www.causascientia.org/math_stat/ProportionCI.html).
3 Less than 20 individuals collected hence no survival calculated.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Results and Discussion 9 Figure 1 Characteristics of the HydroloxTM scree n installed at the Barrett Generating Station, 2007.



### a) b)

c)

Screen Low-pressure wash High-pressure wash

Debris sluice Fish sluiceBARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MONITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008Results and Discussion10Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun05101501020304050010203040500102030405001020304050Winter flounderTautogAmerican sand lanceGrubbyHydrolox screenConventional screenStriped killifishNov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun0204060801000204060801000102030405001002000100200300Seaboard gobyNorthern pipefishAtlantic menhadenMummichogHydrolox screenConventional screenAtlantic silversideFigure 2 Seasonal distribution of the most abundant species collected in impingement survival sampling at Barrett, Oct 2007 -Jun2008.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MONITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008Results and Discussion112 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36020406080Length (cm)020406080020406080020406080020406080Winter flounderTautogAmerican sand lanceGrubbyHydrolox screenConventional screenStriped killifish2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36020406080Length (cm)020406080020406080020406080020406080Seaboard gobyNorthern pipefishAtlantic menhadenMummichogHydrolox screenConventional screenAtlantic silversideFigure 3 Length frequency distributions of the most abundant species collected in impingement survival sampling at Barrett, Oct 2007– Jun 2008.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Literature Cited 12 

### 5. LITERATURE CITED

ASA 2005. E.F. Barrett Power Station Entrainment and Impingement Monitoring February 2003 – February 2004. Prepared for KeySpan Energy.BARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Appendix A 13 

### APPENDIX ABARRETT IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL MO NITORING, OCTOBER 2007 - JUNE 2008

Appendix A 14 Table A-1 Results of impingement survival monito ring at the E.F. Barrett Generating Station, Oct 2006 – Jun 2008.

Hydrolox Screen Conventional Screen
Initial After 48-hours Initial After 48-hours

Common name Alive Dead Total Alive Dead Total Alive Dead Total Alive Dead Total
Atlantic silverside 1,538 67 1,605 968 637 1,605 373 158 531 39 481 520 Mummichog 544 2 546 542 3 545 100 1 101 53 2 55

Atlantic menhaden 177 18 195 13 178 191 4 41 45 0 33 33 Northern pipefish 122 0 122 118 2 120 2 0 2 2 0 2 Seaboard goby 115 0 115 113 0 113 15 1 16 5 7 12 Striped killifish 90 0 90 86 0 86 14 0 14 6 0 6 Grubby 59 0 59 59 0 59 1 0 1 1 0 1

American sand lance 41 0 41 29 12 41 0 0 Tautog 39 0 39 38 0 38 5 0 5 5 0 5

Winter flounder 39 0 39 36 0 36 0 0 Spotted hake 18 0 18 18 0 18 5 0 5 3 0 3 Threespine stickleback 16 0 16 16 0 16 0 0 Windowpane 12 0 12 12 0 12 3 0 3 3 0 3

Lined seahorse 11 0 11 10 0 10 5 0 5 4 0 4 Sheepshead minnow 8 0 8 8 0 8 4 0 4 3 0 3

Northern searobin 7 0 7 7 0 7 0 0 Rock gunnel 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 0 Striped searobin 6 0 6 0 0 0

Cunner 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 0

Gulf Stream flounder 3 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 1

Red hake 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 Bay anchovy 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0

Bluefish 2 0 2 0 0 0

Butterfish 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Northern stargazer 1 0 1 0 0 0 Oyster toadfish 1 0 1 0 0 0 Striped cusk-eel 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

Weakfish 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 White perch 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

Alewife 0 0 0 1 1 0

Atlantic croaker 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

Black sea bass 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 Feather blenny 0 0 1 0 1 0
Total 2,866 89 2,955 2,092 833 2,925 538 203 741 129 524 653