Dr. Amy Hull, Branch Chief 

Projects Branch 2 

Division of License Renewal 

Office ofNuclear Reactor Program 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

NORTHEAST REGION 

55 Great Republic Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 

RE: Biological Opinion for Continued Operations oflndian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 

2 and 3 

Dear Dr. Hull: 

Please find enclosed a copy ofNOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Biological 

Opinion (Opinion) on the effects of the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear 

Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point, IP2 and IP3) pursuant to existing operating 

licenses and proposed renewed operating licenses to be issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc. (Entergy) by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In this Opinion, we 

conclude that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 are likely to adversely affect but is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered shortnose sturgeon or the Gulf of 

Maine, New York Bight or Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

As we have discussed previously, we have concerns regarding the significant uncertainty 

regarding the proposed action. Hearings related to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (SPDES) permit for IP2 and IP3 as well as New York's denial of a Clean Water Act 

Section 401 Water Quality Certificate began in the Fall of2011 and have not been completed. 

Additionally, hearings regarding the proposed issuance of renewed operating licenses began in 

October 2012. We previously asked you to consider withdrawing your request for consultation 

until issues related to the uncertainties of future operations of the operation of IP2 and IP3 could 

be resolved. However, you have determined that conducting consultation now is appropriate and 

as you requested, we have completed consultation, considering effects of the continued operation 

of IP2 and IP3 under the terms of the existing licenses up until such time the NRC makes 

licensing decisions as well as under the terms of the proposed renewed operating licenses, as 

defined by NRC staff in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Biological 

Assessments. It is our understanding that you retain discretionary control over the operation of 

the facilities for the benefit of listed species, or such involvement or control is authorized by law, 

so that reinitiation of consultation with NMFS is required should any of the criteria for 
reinitiation be met (see below), including a change in the operations of IP2 and/or IP3 resulting 

from the hearings regarding the SPDES permit and 401 certificate or the hearings with the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding relicensing. 

Our Opinion includes an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) that applies to both IP2 and IP3. 

Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of 

an otherwise lawful activity. "Otherwise lawful activities" are those actions that meet all State 

and Federal legal requirements, including any state endangered species laws or regulations, 

except for the prohibition against taking in ESA Section 9. Under the terms of section 7(b )( 4) 

and section 7( o )(2), taking that is incidental to the agency action is not considered to be 

prohibited under the ESA, provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and 

conditions ofthis Incidental Take Statement. 

This ITS exempts the following take: 

• A total of2 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 2 

dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) 

impinged at the Unit 11 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP2 proposed 

renewed operating license would expire on September 28, 2033. 

• A total of 395 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 

269 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) impinged 

at Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP2 proposed renewed 

operating license would expire on September 28, 2033. 

• A total of 167 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 

145 dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or 

collect) impinged at the Unit 3 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP3 

proposed renewed operating license would expire on December 12, 2035. 

• All shortnose sturgeon with body widths greater than 3" impinged at the IP1, IP2 and 

IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). 

• All Atlantic sturgeon with body widths greater than 3" impinged at the IP1, IP2 and 

IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). These Atlantic sturgeon will originate from the 

New York Bight (92%), Gulf of Maine (6%) and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (2%). 

This ITS applies to the currently authorized operating periods and the proposed extended 

operating periods. The ITS specifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize 

and monitor take of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the 

activity covered by this ITS. IfNRC (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions 

or (2) fails to require the applicant, Entergy, to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS 

through enforceable terms, the protective coverage of section 7( o )(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, NRC or the applicant must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species to us as specified in the ITS [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)] (See 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service's Joint Endangered 

Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook (1998) at 4-49). 

1 As explained in the Opinion, water withdrawn through the Unit 1 intakes is used for service water for the operation 

ofiP2. 

2 
This Opinion concludes formal consultation for the proposed actions as currently defined. 

Reinitiation of this consultation is required if: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the 

ITS is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of these actions that may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) project 

activities are subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that 

was not considered in this Biological Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the identified action. As explained above, we expect NRC to 

request reinitiation of consultation should any changes be proposed for the operation of IP2 

and/or IP3 that would cause effects to shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon not considered in this 

Opinion. For example, we expect that if a decision is made to install cooling towers, cylindrical 

wedge-wire screens, or any other technology associated with the intakes, consultation will be 

reinitiated, given that effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from the construction or 

installation of these technologies as well as the effects of operation with these technologies in 

place, could be very different than the effects considered in this Opinion. 

This Opinion only analyzes the operations of IP2 and IP3 under the same conditions that appear 

in the existing licenses and SPDES permit, and the analysis and conclusions cannot be 

interpreted to apply to a different time period or different set of operating conditions. It would 

not be appropriate to use the Opinion as an indication of a "worst-case scenario," given the 

Opinion's analysis and determinations may need to be modified as the definition of the proposed 

actions and effects, the environmental baseline, and the status of species protected under the ESA 

all may change. Additionally, this Opinion is not a substitute for any outstanding coordination 

that may remain with the State of New York regarding any State endangered species laws or 

regulations. 

Should you have any questions regarding this Biological Opinion please contact Julie Crocker of 

my staff ((978)282-8480 or Julie.Crocker@noaa.gov). I appreciate your assistance with the 

protection of threatened and endangered species and look forward to continued cooperation with 

NRC during future Section 7 consultations. 

Enclosure 

CC: Balsam, Logan, Turk- NRC 

EC: Crocker- F/NER3 

Williams, GCNE 

File Code: Sec 7 NRC- Indian Point 2012 

PCTS: NER-2012-02252 

Sincerely, 

~/~ \__(_____; J ~ 

("'"'.,..--? John K. Bullard ..---r Regional Administrator 

3 
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

Agency: 

Activity: 

Conducted by: 

Date Issued: 

Table of Contents 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Continued Operations of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3, pursuant to existing and proposed renewed 

operating licenses 

NER-2012-2252 

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORY ...................................................... 4 

2.1 Endangered Species Act Consultation ............................................................................. 5 

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ............................................................ ~+ 

3.1 NPDES/SPDES Permits ................................................................................................... 9 

3.2 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) ........................................................................... 12 

3.3 Description of Water Withdrawals ................................................................................. 13 

3.4 Action Area ................................................................................................................ lf?.-t-S4.0 STATUS OF THE SPECIES .............................................................................................. 16 

4.1 Shortnose Sturgeon ........................................................................................................ 16 

4.2 Atlantic Sturgeon ............................................................................................................ 24 

4.2 Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon ........................................................................ 31 

4.3 New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon .................................................................... 34 

4.4 Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon ................................................................ 373-6 

4.5 Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River and the action area .................................... 39~ 

4.6 Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River and the action area ............................................ 42 

4.7 Factors Affecting the Survival and Recovery ofShortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the 

Hudson River ............................................................................................................................ 43 

1 
2 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE..................................................................................... 48 

6.0 CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................................ 50 

6.1 Background Information on predicted climate change .................................................. 50 

6.2 Species Specific Information Related to Predicted Impacts of Climate Change ........... 52 

6.3 Potential Effects of Climate Change in the Action Area ............................................... 54 

6.4 Effects of Climate Change in the Action Area to Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon ....... 55 

7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................ 57 

7.1 Effects of Water Withdrawal .......................................................................................... 57 

7.1.1 Entrainment ............................................................................................................. 58 

7.1.2 Impingement ........................................................................................................... 61 

7.1.3 Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon prey

..................................................................................................94 

7.1.4 Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal ............................................................. 94 

7.2 Effects of Discharges to the Hudson River .................................................................... 95 

7.2.1 Heated Effluent ....................................................................................................... 95 

7.2.2 Potential Discharge of Radionuclides to the Hudson River.................................. 105 

7.3 Non-Routine and Accidental Events ................................................................................. 111 

7.4 Effects of Operation in light of Anticipated Future Climate Change .......................... 111 

8.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................................................................................. 112 

9.0 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ....................................................... 113 

9.1 Shortnose Sturgeon ...................................................................................................... 114 

9.2 Atlantic sturgeon .......................................................................................................... 119 

9.2.1 New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon........................................................... 120 

10.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 126 

11.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ............................................................................. 127 

11.1 Amount or Extent of Take ........................................................................................ 128 

11.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................... 132 

11.3 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................... 133 

12.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 138 

13.0 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION ......................................................................... 139 

14.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 141 

APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................................... 157 

APPENDIX II ............................................................................................................................. 160 

APPENDIX III ............................................................................................................................ 162 

APPENDIX IV ............................................................................................................................ 164
3 

APPENDIX V ............................................................................................................................. 165
4 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This constitutes NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological opinion 

(Opinion) issued in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Station (Indian Point) pursuant to an existing operating license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (68 Stat. 

919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242) as well as proposed 

extended operating licenses. 

This Opinion is based on information provided in a Biological Assessment (BA) dated December 

2010, the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3 dated December 2010, 

a draft Supplement to that EIS dated June 2012, information submitted to us by the NRC via 

letter dated May 16, 2012, permits issued by the State of New York, information submitted to 

NMFS by Entergy and other sources of information. We will keep a complete administrative 

record of this consultation at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORY 

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) are located on approximately 239 

acres (97 hectares (ha)) of land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New 

York (project location is illustrated in Appendix I, Figures 1 and 2). The facility is on the eastern 

bank of the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles 

(mi) (4.0 kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the closest city, and about 43 mi (69 km) 

north of the southern tip of Manhattan. Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water 

reactors and nuclear steam supply systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is 

provided by a once-through cooling water intake system that supplies cooling water from the 

Hudson River. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (IP1, now permanently shut 

down1

) shares the site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 is located between IP2 and IP3. In 1963, IP1 began 

operations. IP1 was shut down on October 31, 1974, and is in a safe storage condition 

(SAFSTOR) awaiting final decommissioning. Construction began on IP2 in 1966 and on IP3 in 

1969. 

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the predecessor to the NRC, initially licensed IP2 on 

September 28, 1973. The AEC issued a 40-year license for IP2 that was set to expire on 

September 28, 2013. IP2 was originally licensed to the Consolidated Edison Company, which 

sold that facility to Entergy in September 2001. IP3 was initially licensed on December 12, 

1975, for a 40-year period that was set to expire on December 12, 2015. While the Consolidated 

Edison Company of New York originally owned and operated IP3, it was later conveyed to the 

Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY – the predecessor to the New York Power 

Authority [NYPA]). PASNY/NYPA operated IP3 until November 2000 when it was sold to 

Entergy. NRC indicated that Entergy submitted timely license renewal applications; therefore, 

the licenses for IP2 and IP3 will remain in effect until the renewed licenses are issued or other 

action taken. 

 

1 The intake for IP1 is used for service water for IP2; however, IP1 no longer is used for generating electricity and 

no cooling water is withdrawn from the IP1 intake. This use is discussed fully below.
5 

2.1 Endangered Species Act Consultation 

The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973. However, there was no requirement in the 

1973 Act for the Secretary to produce a written statement setting forth his biological opinion on 

the effects of the action and whether the action will jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It was not until Congress amended 

the Act in 1978 that the Secretary was required to produce a Biological Opinion. The 1973 Act, 

including as amended in 1978, prohibited the “take” of endangered species. NMFS could issue a 

Section 10 incidental take permit to those who applied for incidental take authorization. In 1982, 

Congress amended the Act to provide for an “Incidental Take Statement” (ITS) in a Biological 

Opinion that specifies the level of incidental “take,” identifies measures to minimize the level of 

incidental “take,” and exempts any incidental “take” that occurs in compliance with those 

measures. Until we issued a Biological Opinion with ITS for shortnose sturgeon in 2011, we had 

not exempted any incidental take at IP1, IP2 and IP3 from the Section 9 prohibitions against 

take, either through a Section 10 permit or an ITS. The ITS issued with the 2011 Opinion was 

only prospective, that is, it covered the period from September 28, 2013-September 28, 2033 

(IP1 & 2) and December 12, 2015-December 12, 2035 (IP3).. 

As explained below, beginning in 1977, EPA held a series of hearings (Adjudicatory Hearing 

Docket No. C/II-WP-77-01) regarding the once through cooling systems at Indian Point, 

Roseton, Danskammer and Bowline Point, all of which are power facilities located along the 

Hudson River. During the course of these hearings, Dr. Mike Dadswell testified on the effects of 

the Indian Point facility on shortnose sturgeon. In a filing dated May 14, 1979, NOAA 

submitted this testimony to the U.S. EPA as constituting NMFS “Biological Opinion on the 

impacts of the utilities’ once through cooling system on the shortnose sturgeon.” The filing 

notes that this opinion is required by section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. 

In this testimony, Dr. Dadswell provides information on the life history of shortnose sturgeon 

and summarizes what was known at the time about the population in the Hudson River. Dr. 

Dadswell indicates that at the time it was estimated that there were approximately 6,000 adult 

and sub-adult shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River population (Dadswell 1979) and that the 

population had been stable at this number between the 1930s and 1970s. Dr. Dadswell 

determined that there is no known entrainment of shortnose sturgeon at these facilities and little, 

if any, could be anticipated. Based on available information regarding impingement at IP2 and 

IP3, Dadswell estimated a worst case scenario of 35 shortnose sturgeon impingements per year, 

including 21 mortalities (assuming 60% impingement mortality). Dadswell estimated that this 

resulted in a loss of 0.3-0.4% of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson each year and 

that this additional source of mortality will not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival 

and recovery of the shortnose sturgeon.” In conclusion Dadswell stated that the once through 

cooling systems being considered in the case were “not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the shortnose sturgeon because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, its 

contribution to the natural annual mortality is negligible.” Dr. Dadswell did note that as there is 

no positive benefit to impingement, any reductions in the level of impingement would aid in the 

conservation of the species. Incidental take of shortnose sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 was not 

exempted from the prohibitions on take by this testimony or “biological opinion.” No additional 

ESA consultation occurred between NRC and NMFS on the operation of IP2 and IP3 until NRC 

began discussions with us in August 2007regarding effects to shortnose sturgeon of operations 
6 

during the proposed extended operating period. This consultation was completed with the 

issuance of a Biological Opinion by us in October 2011. 

In advance of relicensing proceedings, NRC began coordination with us in 2007. In a letter 

dated August 16, 2007, NRC requested information from us on federally listed endangered or 

threatened species, as well as on proposed or candidate species, and on any designated critical 

habitats that may occur in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3. In our response, dated October 4, 2007, 

we expressed concern that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 could have an impact on the 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). In a letter dated December 22, 2008, NRC 

requested formal consultation with us to consider effects of the proposed relicensing on 

shortnose sturgeon. With this letter, NRC transmitted a BA. In a letter dated February 24, 2009, 

we requested additional information on effects of the proposed relicensing on shortnose 

sturgeon. In a letter dated December 10, 2010, NRC provided the information that was available 

and transmitted a revised BA. In the original BA, NRC staff relied on data originally supplied 

by the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). NRC sought and Entergy later 

submitted revised impingement data, which was incorporated into the final BA. Mathematical 

errors in the original data submitted to the NRC resulted in overestimates of the impingement of 

shortnose sturgeon that the NRC staff presented in the 2008 BA. The December 10 submittal 

contained all of the information necessary for us to write our Opinion; therefore, consultation on 

the effects of the proposed relicensing on shortnose sturgeon was initiated on December 10, 

2010. 

On June 16, 2011, we received information regarding Entergy’s triaxial thermal plume study and 

NMFS staff obtained a copy of the study and supporting documentation from NYDEC’s 

webpage on that date. Additional information regarding the intakes was provided by Entergy via 

conference call on June 20, June 22, and June 29, 2011. Supplemental information responding to 

specific questions raised by us regarding the thermal plume was submitted by Entergy via e-mail 

on July 8, July 25, and August 5, 2011. NRC provided us with a supplement to the December 

2010 BA considering the new thermal plume information, on July 27, 2011. We transmitted a 

draft Opinion to NRC on August 26, 2011. The draft Opinion was subsequently transmitted by 

NRC to Entergy. Comments on the draft Opinion were received by us from NRC on September 

6, 2011 and September 20, 2011. Comments were received by us from Entergy on September 6, 

2011. Additionally, we received letters regarding the draft Opinion from New York State (dated 

September 6, 2011) and Hudson Riverkeeper (dated September 15, 2011). Additional clarifying 

information on the proposed action was received from NRC and Entergy throughout September 

2011. We issued a Biological Opinion on October 14, 2011. In this Opinion we concluded that 

operation of IP2 and IP3 during the extended operating period was likely to adversely affect but 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. 

As explained in the “Effects of the Action” section of the 2011 Opinion, we determined an 

average of 5 shortnose sturgeon per year are likely to be impinged at Unit 2 during the extended 

operating period, with a total of no more than 104 shortnose sturgeon over the 20 year period 

(dead or alive). Additionally, over the 20 year operating period, we estimated that an additional 

6 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) were likely to be impinged at the Unit 1 intakes which will 

provide service water for the operation of Unit 2. We estimated that at Unit 3, an average of 3 

shortnose sturgeon are likely to be impinged per year during the extended operating period, with 

a total of no more than 58 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) taken as a result of the operation of 
7 

Unit 3 over the 20 year period. This level of take was exempted through an Incidental Take 

Statement that applies only to the period when the facility operates under a new operating license 

(September 28, 2013 through September 28, 2033 for Units 1 and 2; December 12, 2015 through 

December 12, 2035 for Unit 3). The 2011 Opinion was to become effective once new operating 

licenses were issued by NRC. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not yet made a 

decision on whether to issue the extended operating licenses. 

As described in 50 CFR§ 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be 

requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or 

control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (a) the amount or extent of 

taking specified in the ITS is exceeded; (b) new information reveals effects of these actions that 

may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 

(c) any of the identified actions are subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to 

the listed species that was not considered in the Opinion; or (d) a new species is listed or critical 

habitat designated that may be affected by the identified actions. Based on prior 

communications with NRC, it is our understanding that for Indian Point facilities, NRC retains 

discretionary involvement or control to benefit listed species, or such involvement or control is 

authorized by law, and that NRC will reinitiate consultation if any of the criteria above are 

satisfied. 

On February 6, 2012, we listed five distinct population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon as 

threatened (Gulf of Maine DPS) or endangered (New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs) (see 77 FR 5880 and 77 FR 5914). Atlantic sturgeon occur in the Hudson 

River and are known to be affected by operations of IP2 and IP3. 

In a letter dated May 16, 2012, NRC requested reinitiation of the 2011 consultation to consider 

effects of continued operations of IP2 and IP3 on Atlantic sturgeon. The scope of NRC’s request 

for consultation was clarified in a July 3, 2012, telephone call between NMFS and NRC staff. 

NRC requests that the consultation consider effects to shortnose sturgeon and five DPSs of 

Atlantic sturgeon of operations of IP2 and IP3 pursuant to the existing operating licenses and the 

operation of IP2 and IP3 during the proposed extended operating period. Therefore, the federal 

actions under consideration are authorization of operations of IP2 and IP3 by the NRC pursuant 

to licenses issued in 1973 and 1975, respectively, and operations pursuant to proposed new 

licenses, which NRC may issue at any time and would extend operations for 20 years beyond the 

expiration of the original licenses. Consultation was initiated on May 17, 2012 (the date the 

May 16 letter was received). On July 23, 2012, Entergy submitted additional information to us 

and NRC regarding impingement of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon (Entergy 2012). 

Subsequently, by mutual agreement of NRC and NMFS, we extended the consultation period by 

60 days to allow time for review and incorporation of this new information, as appropriate. We 

transmitted a draft Opinion to NRC on October 26, 2012. The Opinion was subsequently 

transmitted by NRC to Entergy. We received comments from NRC and Entergy on November 9. 

On a November 26, 2012, conference call, NRC requested the consultation period be extended 

by seven days to allow them to suggest revised language in the Incidental Take Statement. On 

December 5, 2012, NRC requested the consultation period be extended to January 9, 2013. 

Entergy agreed to that extension. NRC and Entergy raised additional comments related to the 

ITS on a January 8, 2013 conference call. Entergy submitted suggested changes to the Terms 
8 

and Conditions on January 9, 2013. To allow NMFS time to consider the additional comments, 

NRC and Entergy requested an extension until January 30, 2013, the new due date. This 

Opinion supercedes the Opinion issued by us on October 14, 2011. 

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS 

As noted above, the proposed Federal action is the continued operation of Indian Point Units 2 

and 3 pursuant to two separate licenses issued by NRC in 1973 and 1975, respectively, as well as 

continued operation of IP2 and IP3 pursuant to NRC’s two proposed renewed operating licenses. 

The current 40-year licenses expire in 2013 (IP2) and 2015 (IP3). According to NRC, NRC’s 

“timely renewal” provision (in 10 CFR 2.109(b)) provides that if a license renewal application is 

timely filed, which NRC asserts the Entergy application was, the current license is not deemed to 

have expired until the application has been finally determined (i.e., until a licensing decision is 

made). Thus, pursuant to this provision, the current operating licenses will not expire until the 

license renewal proceeding has concluded. NRC’s proposed relicensing would authorize the 

extended operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years (i.e., through September 28, 2033 

and December 12, 2035, respectively). In this Opinion, we consider the potential impacts of the 

continued operation of the facilities from now through the proposed extended operation periods 

on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 

Details on the operation of the facilities under the terms of the existing licenses and over the 

extended operating periods, as proposed by Entergy in the license application and as described 

by NRC in the FEIS, DSEIS and BA, and are summarized below. Both units withdraw water 

from and discharge water to, the Hudson River. As described by NRC in the Final SEIS (NRC 

2010), in 1972, Congress assigned authority to administer the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA further allowed EPA to delegate portions 

of its CWA authority to states. On October 28, 1975, EPA authorized the State of New York to 

issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. New York’s NPDES, 

or State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), program is administered by the NY 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). NYDEC issues and enforces SPDES 

permits for IP2 and IP3. 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires that the location, design, construction, 

and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for 

minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulates impingement and 

entrainment under Section 316(b) of the CWA through the NPDES permit process. 

Administration of Section 316(b) has also been delegated to NYDEC, and that provision is 

implemented through the SPDES program. 

Neither IP2 nor IP3 can operate without cooling water, and NRC is responsible for authorizing 

the operation of nuclear facilities, as well as approving any extension of an initial operating 

license through the license renewal process. Intake and discharge of water through the cooling 

water system would not occur but for the operation of the facility pursuant to a renewed license; 

therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are a direct 

effect of the proposed action. The effects of the proposed Federal action-- the continued 

operation of IP2 and IP3 under the two existing licenses and the two proposed renewed licenses, 

which necessarily involves the removal and discharge of water from the Hudson River-- are 

shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating license but also by the NYDEC 401 
9 

Water Quality Certification and any conditions it may contain that would be incorporated into its 

SPDES permits. This Opinion will consider the effects of the ongoing operation of IP2 and IP3, 

and their operation pursuant to the extended Operating License to be issued by the NRC, and the 

SPDES permits issued by NYDEC that are already in effect. NRC requested consultation on the 

operation of the facilities under the existing NRC license terms and the existing SPDES permits, 

even though a new SPDES permit might be issued in the future. A complete history of NYDEC 

permits is included in NRC’s FSEIS at Section 2.2.5.3 (Regulatory Framework and Monitoring 

Programs) and is summarized below. 

3.1 NPDES/SPDES Permits 

Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of 

cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing 

adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the EPA published the Phase II 

Rule implementing Section 316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which 

applied to large power producers that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 

MGD or more) (189,000 m3/day or more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and 

included numeric performance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and 

entrainment that would demonstrate that the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for 

minimizing impingement and entrainment impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were 

required to demonstrate compliance with the rule’s performance standards during the renewal 

process for their NPDES permit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study 

(CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule on July 

9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking. EPA instructed permitting authorities to 

utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a case by-case basis for 

cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the issues raised by the 

court’s ruling.

The licenses issued by the AEC for IP2 and IP3 initially allowed for the operation of those 

facilities with once-through cooling systems. However, the licenses required the future 

installation of closed-cycle cooling systems at both facilities, by certain dates, because of the 

potential for long term environmental impact from the once-through cooling systems on aquatic 

life in the Hudson River, particularly striped bass. A closed cycle cooling system is expected to 

withdraw approximately 90-95% less water than a once through cooling system. The license for 

IP2 was amended by the NRC in 1975, and the license for IP3 was amended by the NRC in 

1976, to include requirements for the installation and operation of wet closed-cycle cooling 

systems at the facilities. 

NRC eventually concluded that the operating licenses for the facilities should be amended to 

authorize construction of natural draft cooling towers at each Unit. Prior to the respective 

deadlines for installation of closed-cycle cooling at the Indian Point facilities, however, the 

NRC’s authority to require the retrofit due to water quality impacts under federal nuclear licenses 

was superseded by comprehensive amendments to the federal Water Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act (the CWA) and creation of the NPDES program. 

In 1975, the EPA issued separate NPDES permits for Units 2 and 3, pursuant to provisions of the 

CWA, chiefly § 316 (33 U.S.C. § 1326), that required both facilities to discontinue discharging 
10 

heated effluent from the main condensers. The NPDES permits provided that “heat may be 

discharged in blowdown from a re-circulated cooling water system.” The intent of these 

conditions was to require the facilities to install closed-cycle cooling systems in order to reduce 

the thermal and other adverse environmental impacts from the operation of Indian Point’s 

CWISs upon aquatic organisms in the Hudson River. In 1977, the facilities’ owners, 

Consolidated Edison Company of New York and PASNY/NYPA, requested administrative 

hearings with the EPA to overturn these conditions. 

In October 1975, NYDEC received approval from the EPA to administer and conduct a State 

permit program pursuant to the provisions of the federal NPDES program under CWA § 402. 

Since then, NYDEC has administered that program under the SPDES permit program. As a 

result, NYDEC has the authority, under the CWA and state law, to issue SPDES permits for the 

withdrawal of cooling water for operations at the Indian Point facilities and for the resulting 

discharge of waste heat and other pollutants into the Hudson River. 

As previously noted, in 1977 the then-owners of the Indian Point nuclear facilities sought an 

adjudicatory proceeding to overturn the EPA-issued NPDES permit determinations that limited 

the scope of the facilities’ cooling water intake operations. The EPA’s adjudicatory process 

lasted for several years before culminating in a multi-party settlement known as the Hudson 

River Settlement Agreement2

 (HRSA).

 

The HRSA was initially a ten-year agreement whereby 

the owners of certain once-through cooled electric generating plants on the Hudson River, 

including IP2 and IP3, would collect biological data and complete analytical assessments to 

determine the scope of adverse environmental impact caused by those facilities. According to the 

NYDEC, the intent of the HRSA was that, based upon the data and analyses provided by the 

facilities, the Department could determine, and parties could agree upon, the best technology 

available to minimize adverse environmental impact on aquatic organisms in the Hudson River 

from these facilities in accordance with 6 NYCRR § 704.5. The Settlement obligated the utilities 

to undertake a series of operational steps to reduce fish kills, including partial outages during the 

key spawning months. In addition, the utilities agreed to fund and operate a striped bass 

hatchery, conduct biological monitoring, and set up a $12 million endowment for a new 

foundation for independent research on mitigating fish impacts by power plants. The agreement 

became effective upon Public Service Commission approval on May 8, 1981. The terms of the 

1980 HRSA were extended through a series of four separate stipulations of settlement and 

judicial consent orders that were entered in Albany County Supreme Court [Index No. 0191-

ST3251]. The last of these stipulations of settlement and judicial consent orders, executed by the 

parties in 1997, expired on February 1, 1998. 

In 1982, NYDEC issued a SPDES permit for IP2 and IP3, and other Hudson River electric 

generating facilities, as well as a CWA § 401 WQC for the facilities. The 1982 SPDES permit 

for IP2 and IP3 contained special conditions for reducing some of the environmental impact from 

 

2 The signatory parties to the HRSA were USEPA, the Department, the New York State Attorney General, the 

Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, Scenic Hudson, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Central Hudson 

Gas & Electric Co., Consolidated Edison Co., Orange & Rockland Utilities, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., and 

PASNY. Entergy was not a party to the HRSA because it did not own the Indian Point facilities at any time during 

the period covered by the HRSA. NOAA was not a party to the HRSA.
11 

the facilities’ cooling water intakes but, based upon provisions of the HRSA, the permit did not 

require the installation of any technology for minimizing the number of organisms entrained by 

the facilities each year. Similarly, based upon provisions of the HRSA, the 1982 § 401 WQC did 

not make an independent determination that the facilities complied with certain applicable State 

water quality standards at that time, including 6 NYCRR Part 704 – Criteria Governing Thermal 

Discharges. 

In accordance with the provisions of the HRSA, NYDEC renewed the SPDES permit for IP2 and 

IP3 in 1987 for another 5-year period. As with the 1982 SPDES permit, the 1987 SPDES permit 

for IP2 and IP3 contained certain measures from the HRSA that were intended to mitigate, but 

not minimize, the adverse environmental impact caused by the operation of the facilities’ cooling 

water intakes. The 1987 SPDES permit expired on October 1, 1992. Prior to the expiration date, 

however, the owners of the facilities at that time, Consolidated Edison and NYPA, both 

submitted timely SPDES permit renewal applications to the Department and, by operation of the 

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the 1987 SPDES permit for Units 2 and 3 is still in 

effect today. Entergy purchased Units 2 and 3 in 2001 and 2000, respectively, and the 1987 

SAPA-extended SPDES permit for the facilities was subsequently transferred to Entergy. 

In November 2003, NYDEC issued a draft SPDES permit for IP2 and IP3 that required Entergy, 

among other things, to retrofit the Indian Point facilities with closed-cycle cooling or an 

equivalent technology in order to minimize the adverse environmental impact caused by the 

CWISs in accordance with 6 NYCRR § 704.5 and CWA § 316(b). The draft permit contains 

conditions which address three aspects of operations at Indian Point: conventional industrialwastewater pollutant discharges, thermal discharge, and cooling water intake. Limits on the 

conventional industrial discharges are not proposed to be changed significantly from the previous 

permit. The draft permit does, however, contain new conditions addressing the thermal 

discharge and additional new conditions to implement the measures NYDEC has determined to 

be the best technology available for minimizing impacts to aquatic resources from the cooling 

water intake, including the installation of a closed cycle cooling system at IP2 and IP3. With 

respect to thermal discharges, the draft SPDES permit would require Entergy to conduct a triaxial (three-dimensional) thermal study to document whether the thermal discharges from IP2 

and IP3 comply with state water quality criteria. The draft permit states that if IP2 and IP3 do not 

meet state standards, Entergy may apply for a modification of those criteria in an effort to 

demonstrate to NYDEC that such criteria are unnecessarily restrictive and that the requested 

modification would not inhibit the existence and propagation of a balanced indigenous 

population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the Hudson River, which is an applicable CWA water 

quality-related standard. The draft permit also states that Entergy may propose, within a year of 

the permit's becoming effective, an alternative technology or technologies that can minimize 

adverse environmental impacts to a level equivalent to that achieved by a closed-cycle cooling 

system at IP2 and IP3. In order to implement closed-cycle cooling, the draft permit would 

require Entergy to submit a pre-design engineering report within one year of the permit's 

effective date. Within one year after the submission of the report, Entergy must submit complete 

design plans that address all construction issues for conversion to closed-cycle cooling. In 

addition, the draft permit requires Entergy to obtain approvals for the system's construction from 

other government agencies, including modification of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 from 

the NRC. While steps are being taken to implement BTA, Entergy would be required to 
12 

schedule and take annual generation outages of no fewer than 42 unit-days during the peak 

entrainment season among other measures. In 2004, Entergy requested an adjudicatory hearing 

with NYDEC on the draft SPDES permit. That SPDES permit adjudicatory process is presently 

ongoing, and its outcome is uncertain at this time. 

There is significant uncertainty associated with the conditions of any new SPDES permit. In the 

2003 draft, NYDEC determined that cooling towers were the BTA to minimize adverse 

environmental effects. In a 2010 filing with NYDEC, Entergy proposed to use a system of 

cylindrical wedgewire screens, which Entergy states would reduce impingement and entrainment 

mortality to an extent comparable to the reductions in impingement and entrainment loss 

expected to result from operation with cooling towers. As no determination has been made 

regarding a revised draft SPDES permit or a final permit, it is unknown what new technology, if 

any, will be required to modify the operation of the facility’s cooling water intakes. The 1987 

SPDES permit is still in effect and will remain in effect until a new permit is issued and becomes 

effective. No schedule is available for the issuance of a revised draft or new final SPDES permit 

and the content of any SPDES permit will be decided as a result of the adjudication process. 

Therefore, in this consultation, we have considered effects of the continued operation of the 

Indian Point facility through the end of extended operating period with the 1987 SPDES permit 

in effect. This scenario is the one defined by NRC as its proposed action in the BA provided to 

NMFS in which NRC considered effects of the operation of the facility during the extended 

operating period on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, it is the subject of this 

consultation. However, if a new SPDES permit is issued, NRC and NMFS would have to 

determine if reinitiation of this consultation is necessary to consider any effects of the operation 

of the facility on sturgeon that were not considered in this Opinion, including operation of the 

facility with cylindrical wedge wire screens. It is possible the effects of the construction, layout, 

and use of an intake system using cylindrical wedge wire screens will affect shortnose and/or 

Atlantic sturgeon in a manner and to a degree that is very different from the effects considered in 

this Opinion, and as a result, necessitate reinitiation of this consultation. 

3.2 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) 

On December 7, 1970, NYSDEC issued a certification for IP1 and IP2, pursuant to §21(b) of the 

Water Quality Improvement Act 1 -the precursor to §401. On April 24, 1973, NYSDEC issued a 

WQC for the operational testing period for IPI and IP2. On September 24, 1973, NYSDEC 

issued a WQC for full operation of IP1 and IP2. On May 2, 1975, NYSDEC issued a WQC for 

operation of Indian Point 3 ("IP3"). On April 24, 1981, NYSDEC issued a subsequent WQC for 

operation of IP1, IP2 and IP3. IP2 and IP3 currently operate pursuant to the 1981 WQC. 

On April 6, 2009, NYDEC received a Joint Application for a federal CWA § 401 WQC on 

behalf of Entergy Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, Entergy Indian Point Unit 3, LLC, and Entergy 

Nuclear Northeast (collectively Entergy). The Joint Application for § 401 WQC was submitted 

to NYDEC as part of Entergy’s NRC license renewal. Pursuant to the CWA, a state must issue a 

certification verifying that an activity which results in a discharge into navigable waters, such as 

operation of the Indian Point facilities, meets state water quality standards before a federal 

license or permit for such activity can be issued. Entergy has requested NYDEC to issue a § 401 

WQC to run concurrently with any renewed nuclear licenses for the Indian Point facilities. 
13 

In a decision dated April 2, 2010, NYDEC determined that the facilities, whether operated as 

they are currently or operated with the addition of a cylindrical wedge-wire screen system 

(NYDEC notes that this proposal was made by Entergy in a February 12, 2010, submission), “do 

not and will not comply with existing New York State water quality standards.” Accordingly, 

pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 621 (Uniform Procedures), NYDEC denied Entergy’s request for a 

§401 WQC (NYDEC 2010). The reasons for denial, as stated by NYDEC were related to 

impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms, the discharge of heated effluent, and failure 

to implement what NYDEC had determined to be the Best Technology Available (closed cycle 

cooling towers), to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Entergy has appealed the denial. 

The matter is currently under adjudication in the state administrative system, and the results are 

uncertain. If New York State ultimately issues a WQC, it may contain conditions that alter the 

operation of the facility and its cooling water system. If this occurs, NMFS and NRC would 

need to review the modifications to operations to determine if consultation would need to be 

reinitiated. 

3.3 Description of Water Withdrawals 

IP2 and IP3 have once-through condenser cooling systems that withdraw water from, and 

discharge water to, the Hudson River. The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system is 

approximately 1,870 cubic feet per second (cfs), 840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubic 

meters per second (m3/s). Two shoreline intake structures, one for each unit, are located along 

the eastern shore of the Hudson River on the northwestern edge of the site and provide cooling 

water to IP2 and IP3. Each structure consists of seven bays, six for circulating water and one for 

service water. IP2 also uses service water withdrawn from the former IP1 intake, located along 

the shoreline between the IP2 and IP3 intakes. The IP2 intake structure has seven independent 

bays, while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays that are served by a common plenum. In each 

structure, six of the seven bays contain cooling water pumps, and the seventh bay contains 

service/auxiliary water pumps. Before it is pumped to the condensers, river water passes through 

traveling screens in the intake structure bays to remove debris, fish and other aquatic life. 

The six IP2 circulating water intake pumps are dual-speed pumps. When operated at high speed 

(254 revolutions per minute (rpm)), each pump provides 312 cfs (140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3/s) and a 

dynamic head of 21 ft (6.4 m). At low speed (187 rpm), each pump provides 38 cfs (84,000 gpm; 

5.30 m3/s) and a dynamic head of 15 ft (4.6 m). The six IP3 circulating water intake pumps are 

variable-speed pumps. When operated at high speed (360 rpm), each pump provides 312 cfs 

(140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3/s); at low speed, it provides a dynamic head of 29 ft (8.8 m) and 143 cfs 

(64,000 gpm; 4.05 m3/s). 

As described in the FSEIS, Entergy adjusts the speed of the intake pumps to mitigate impacts to 

the Hudson River. According to Entergy, the 1980 Hudson River Settlement Agreement 

(HRSA) required Indian Point to be retrofitted with dual speed (at IP2) and variable speed (at 

IP3) pumps to allow for the reduction of cooling water intake flows to the minimum necessary 

for efficient plant operations. The HRSA expired in 1991, but the requirement regarding the 

minimization of intake flows was continued in a series of judicially approved Consent Orders, 

the last of which expired on February 1, 1998. Since then, Indian Point has committed to 

continue to operate both Units in the manner set forth in the final Consent Order until a new 

SPDES permit is issued. Entergy states that the factors affecting pump speed are river water 
14 

temperature, plant operating status, and the need to manage flow rates to comply with water 

quality standards or other SPDES permit conditions. 

Each coolant pump bay is about 15 ft (4.6 m) wide at the entrance, and the bottom is located 27 

ft (8.2 m) below mean sea level. Before entering the intake structure bays, water flows under a 

floating debris skimmer wall, or ice curtain, into the screen wells. This initial screen keeps 

floating debris and ice from entering the bay. At the entrance to each bay, water also passes 

through a subsurface bar screen (consisting of metal bars with 3 inch clear spacing) to prevent 

additional large debris from becoming entrained in the cooling system. At full speed, the 

approach velocity in front of the screens is 1 foot per second (fps); at reduced speed, the 

approach velocity is 0.6 fps (Entergy 2007a). As this area is behind a bulkhead it is outside the 

influence of river currents. Next, smaller debris and fish that pass through the trash bars are 

screened out using modified Ristroph traveling screens. 

The modified Ristroph traveling screens consist of a series of panels that rotate continuously. 

The traveling screens employed by IP2 and IP3 are modified vertical Ristroph-type traveling 

screens installed in 1990 and 1991 at IP3 and IP2, respectively. The screens were designed in 

concert with the Hudson River Fishermen's Association, with screen basket lip troughs to retain 

water and minimize vortex stress (CHGEC 1999). As each screen panel rotates out of the intake 

bay, impinged fish are retained in water-filled baskets at the bottom of each panel and are carried 

over the headshaft, where they are washed out onto a fiberglass sluice using low-pressure sprays 

from the rear side of the machine. There are three different washwater sluices each associated 

with the Ristroph screens at IP2 and IP3: a fish return sluice and two debris return sluices. The 

fish return sluice is located on the east (descending) side of the screens near the top of the 

sprocket wheel and receives fish as the screen mesh rotates from the west (ascending) to the east 

side of each screen. The main debris sluice is located on the west side of each Ristroph screen 

and the auxiliary debris sluice is located on the east side of each screen below the fish return 

sluice. The two debris sluices join into one and discharges the contents into the Hudson RIver at 

the north (IP2) or south (IP3) end of the CWIS bulkhead in locations that minimize re-circulation 

of debris toward the intakes. 

The 0.25-by-0.5-inch (in.) (0.635-by-1.27 centimeters (cm)) mesh is smooth to minimize fish 

abrasion by the mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from the front side of the 

machine after fish removal. From the buckets, fish return to the river via a 12-in. (30-cm) 

diameter sluice pipe. For IP2, the pipe extends 200 ft (61.0 m) into the river north of the IP2 

intake structure and discharges at a depth of 35 ft (11 m). The sluice system is a 12-in.-diameter 

(30.5-cm-diameter) pipe that discharges fish into the river at a depth of 35 ft (10.7 m), 200 ft (61 

m) from shore (CHGEC 1999). The IP3 fish return system discharges to the river by the 

northwest corner of the discharge canal. 

Studies indicated that, assuming the screens continued to operate as they had during laboratory 

and field testing, the screens were "the screening device most likely to impose the least 

mortalities in the rescue of entrapped fish by mechanical means" (Fletcher 1990). It is important 

to note that these studies did not involve shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon or any species that is 

morphologically similar to sturgeon. The same study concluded that further refinements to the 

screens would be unlikely to greatly reduce fish kills. No monitoring is currently ongoing at IP2 

or IP3 for impingement or entrainment or to ensure that the screens are operating per design 
15 

standards, and no monitoring took place after the screens were installed. Additionally, there is 

no monitoring ongoing to quantify any actual incidental take of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon or 

their prey. The proposed action under consultation, as currently defined by NRC, does not 

provide for any monitoring of direct or indirect effects to shortnose sturgeon. 

After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the discharge canal via a 

total of six 96-in. (240-cm) diameter pipes. The cooling water enters below the surface of the 

40-ft (12-m) wide canal. The canal discharges to the Hudson River through an outfall structure 

located south of IP3 at about 4.5 feet per second (fps) (1.4 meters per second (mps)) at full flow. 

As the discharged water enters the river, it passes through 12 discharge ports (4-ft by 12-ft each 

(1-m by 3.7-m)) across a length of 252 ft (76.8 m) about 12 ft (3.7 m) below the surface of the 

river. The increased discharge velocity, about 10 fps (3.0 mps), is designed to enhance mixing to 

minimize thermal impact. 

The discharged cooling water is at an elevated temperature, and therefore, some water is lost 

because of evaporation. Based on conservative estimates, NRC estimates that this induced 

evaporation resulting from the elevated discharge temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 

gpm or 1.7 m3/s). This loss is about 0.5 percent of the annual average downstream flow of the 

Hudson River, which is more than 9000 cfs (4 million gpm or 255 m3/s). The average cooling 

water transient time ranges from 5.6 minutes for the IP3 cooling water system to 9.7 minutes for 

the IP2 system. Auxiliary water systems for service water are also provided from the Hudson 

River via the dedicated bays in the IP2 and IP3 intake structures. The primary role of service 

water is to cool components (e.g., pumps) that generate heat during operation. Secondary 

functions of the service water include the following: 

• protect equipment from potential contamination from river water by providing cooling to 

intermediate freshwater systems; 

• provide water for washing the modified Ristroph traveling screens; and, 

• provide seal water for the main circulating water pumps. 

As noted above, additional service water is provided to the nonessential service water header for 

IP2 through the IP1 river water intake structure. The IP1 intake structure has two redundant 

forebays with a coarse bar screen, each with a maximum or design flow of 10,000 gallons per 

minute (gpm). Each forebay has a dual flow traveling screen equipped with fine mesh screen 

(1/8 inch: 3.2 mm] panels. Each dual traveling screen at IP1 's intake has an estimated design 

through-screen velocity of less than the 0.50 feet per second (fps). The intake structure contains 

two 36-cfs2 (16,000-gpm; 1.0-m3/s) spray wash pumps. The screens are washed automatically 

and materials are sluiced to the Hudson River. 

Based on the description of the action provided in the FEIS, no major construction is proposed 

by Entergy during the relicensing period. Entergy may undertake some refurbishment activities. 

In the FEIS, NRC indicates that Entergy may replace the reactor vessel heads and control rod 

drive mechanisms (CRDMs) for IP2 and IP3 during the term of the renewed license. Grounddisturbing activities associated with this project would involve the construction of a storage 

building to house the retired components. The replacement components would arrive by barge 

and be transported over an existing service road by an all-terrain vehicle (Entergy 2008b). There 

would be no in-water work and there is no indication that effects of this refurbishment activity 

would extend to the Hudson River. As such, no shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon would be exposed 
16 

to effects of this refurbishment activity; therefore, effects of this activity are not considered 

further in this Opinion. 

3.4 Action Area 

The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by 

the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” IP2 and IP3 are 

located on a 239-acre (97-hectare) site on the eastern bank of the Hudson River in the village of 

Buchanan, Westchester County, New York, about 43 miles (mi) (69 kilometers [km) north of the 

southern tip of Manhattan, New York (Figures 1 and 2). The direct and indirect effects of the 

Indian Point facilities are related to the intake of water from the Hudson River and the discharge 

of heated effluent back into the Hudson River. The proposed actions have the potential to affect 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in several ways: impingement or entrainment of individual 

sturgeon at the intakes; altering the abundance or availability of potential prey items; and, 

altering the riverine environment through the discharge of heated effluent and other pollutants. 

The action area for Unit 2 includes the trash bars and intakes used for IP2, but not those used for 

IP3. The action area for Unit 3 includes the trash bars and intakes used for IP3, but not those 

used for IP2. Because discharges from Units 2 and 3 mix in the same discharge canal, which 

leads to the river, the portion of the action area associated with the effects of discharges from 

each Unit cannot be identified separately for each Unit. Therefore, the combined action areas for 

this consultation includes the intake areas of IP1 (for service water), IP2 and IP3 and the region 

where the thermal plume extends into the Hudson River from IP2 and IP3 as described in the 

Effects of the Action section below. 

4.0 STATUS OF THE SPECIES 

We have determined that the actions considered in the Opinion may adversely affect the 

following listed species: 

Common name Scientific name ESA Status 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered 

GOM DPS of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Threatened 

New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered 

Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered 

This section presents biological and ecological information relevant to formulating the 

Biological Opinion. Information on the species’ life history, its habitat and distribution, and 

other factors necessary for its survival are included to provide background for analyses in later 

sections of this opinion. This section reviews the status of the species rangewide as well as the 

status of the species in the Hudson River where the action takes place. 

4.1 Shortnose Sturgeon 

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish that mainly occupy the deep channel sections of large rivers. 

They feed on a variety of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates including mollusks, crustaceans 

(amphipods, isopods), insects, and oligochaete worms (Vladykov and Greeley 1963; Dadswell 

1979 in NMFS 1998). Individual shortnose sturgeon have similar lengths at maturity (45-55 cm 

fork length) throughout their range, but, because sturgeon in southern rivers grow faster than 
17 

those in northern rivers, southern sturgeon mature at younger ages (Dadswell et al. 1984). 

Shortnose sturgeon are long-lived (30-40 years) and, particularly in the northern extent of their 

range, mature at late ages. In the north, males reach maturity at 5 to 10 years, while females 

mature between 7 and 13 years. Based on limited data, females spawn every three to five years 

while males spawn approximately every two years. The spawning period is estimated to last 

from a few days to several weeks. Spawning begins from late winter/early spring (southern 

rivers) to mid to late spring (northern rivers)3

 when the freshwater temperatures increase to 8-

9oC. Several published reports have presented the problems facing long-lived species that delay 

sexual maturity (Crouse et al. 1987; Crowder et al. 1994; Crouse 1999). In general, these reports 

concluded that animals that delay sexual maturity and reproduction must have high annual 

survival as juveniles through adults to ensure that enough juveniles survive to reproductive 

maturity and then reproduce enough times to maintain stable population sizes. 

Total instantaneous mortality rates (Z) are available for the Saint John River (0.12 - 0.15; ages 

14-55; Dadswell 1979), Upper Connecticut River (0.12; Taubert 1980b), and Pee Dee-Winyah 

River (0.08-0.12; Dadswell et al. 1984). Total instantaneous natural mortality (M) for shortnose 

sturgeon in the lower Connecticut River was estimated to be 0.13 (T. Savoy, Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication). There is no recruitment 

information available for shortnose sturgeon because there are no commercial fisheries for the 

species. Estimates of annual egg production for this species are difficult to calculate because 

females do not spawn every year (Dadswell et al. 1984). Further, females may abort spawning 

attempts, possibly due to interrupted migrations or unsuitable environmental conditions (NMFS 

1998). Thus, annual egg production is likely to vary greatly in this species. Fecundity estimates 

have been made and range from 27,000 to 208,000 eggs/female and a mean of 11,568 eggs/kg 

body weight (Dadswell et al. 1984). 

At hatching, shortnose sturgeon are blackish-colored, 7-11mm long and resemble tadpoles 

(Buckley and Kynard 1981). In 9-12 days, the yolk sac is absorbed and the sturgeon develops 

into larvae which are about 15mm total length (TL; Buckley and Kynard 1981). Sturgeon larvae 

are believed to begin downstream migrations at about 20mm TL. Dispersal rates differ at least 

regionally, laboratory studies on Connecticut River larvae indicated dispersal peaked 7-12 days 

after hatching in comparison to Savannah River larvae that had longer dispersal rates with 

multiple, prolonged peaks, and a low level of downstream movement that continued throughout 

the entire larval and early juvenile period (Parker 2007). Synder (1988) and Parker (2007) 

considered individuals to be juvenile when they reached 57mm TL. Laboratory studies 

demonstrated that larvae from the Connecticut River made this transformation on day 40 while 

Savannah River fish made this transition on day 41 and 42 (Parker 2007). 

The juvenile phase can be subdivided in to young of the year (YOY) and immature/ sub-adults. 

YOY and sub-adult habitat use differs and is believed to be a function of differences in salinity 

tolerances. Little is known about YOY behavior and habitat use, though it is believed that they 

are typically found in channel areas within freshwater habitats upstream of the salt wedge for 

about one year (Dadswell et al. 1984, Kynard 1997). One study on the stomach contents of YOY 

revealed that the prey items found corresponded to organisms that would be found in the channel 

 

3

For purposes of this consultation, Northern rivers are considered to include tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay 

northward to the St. John River in Canada. Southern rivers are those south of the Chesapeake Bay. 
18 

environment (amphipods) (Carlson and Simpson 1987). Sub-adults are typically described as 

age one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard 

1997). Though there is evidence from the Delaware River that sub-adults may overwinter in 

different areas than adults and do not form dense aggregations like adults (ERC Inc. 2007). Subadults feed indiscriminately; typical prey items found in stomach contents include aquatic 

insects, isopods, and amphipods along with large amounts of mud, stones, and plant material 

(Dadswell 1979, Carlson and Simpson 1987, Bain 1997). 

In populations that have free access to the total length of a river (e.g., no dams within the 

species’ range in a river: Saint John, Kennebec, Altamaha, Savannah, Delaware and Merrimack 

Rivers), spawning areas are located at the farthest upstream reach of the river (NMFS 1998). In 

the northern extent of their range, shortnose sturgeon exhibit three distinct movement patterns. 

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

In spring, as water temperatures reach between 7-9.7oC (44.6-49.5°F), pre-spawning shortnose 

sturgeon move from overwintering grounds to spawning areas. Spawning occurs from mid/late 

March to mid/late May depending upon location and water temperature. Sturgeon spawn in 

upper, freshwater areas and feed and overwinter in both fresh and saline habitats. Shortnose 

sturgeon spawning migrations are characterized by rapid, directed and often extensive upstream 

movement (NMFS 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon are believed to spawn at discrete sites within their natal river (Kieffer and 

Kynard 1996). In the Merrimack River, males returned to only one reach during a four year 

telemetry study (Kieffer and Kynard 1996). Squires (1982) found that during the three years of 

the study in the Androscoggin River, adults returned to a 1-km reach below the Brunswick Dam 

and Kieffer and Kynard (1996) found that adults spawned within a 2-km reach in the 

Connecticut River for three consecutive years. Spawning occurs over channel habitats 

containing gravel, rubble, or rock-cobble substrates (Dadswell et al. 1984; NMFS 1998). 

Additional environmental conditions associated with spawning activity include decreasing river 

discharge following the peak spring freshet, water temperatures ranging from 8 - 15o (46.4-

59°F), and bottom water velocities of 0.4 to 0.8 m/sec (Dadswell et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1991, 

Kieffer and Kynard 1996, NMFS 1998). For northern shortnose sturgeon, the temperature range 

for spawning is 6.5-18.0oC (Kynard et al. 2012). Eggs are separate when spawned but become 

adhesive within approximately 20 minutes of fertilization (Dadswell et al. 1984). Between 8° 

(46.4°F) and 12°C (53.6°F), eggs generally hatch after approximately 13 days. The larvae are 

photonegative, remaining on the bottom for several days. Buckley and Kynard (1981) found 

week old larvae to be photonegative and form aggregations with other larvae in concealment. 

Adult shortnose sturgeon typically leave the spawning grounds soon after spawning. Nonspawning movements include rapid, directed post-spawning movements to downstream feeding 

areas in spring and localized, wandering movements in summer and winter (Dadswell et al.

1984; Buckley and Kynard 1985; O’Herron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported 

that post-spawning migrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and 

river discharge. Young-of-the-year shortnose sturgeon are believed to move downstream after 

hatching (Dovel 1981) but remain within freshwater habitats. Older juveniles or sub-adults tend 

to move downstream in fall and winter as water temperatures decline and the salt wedge recedes

and move upstream in spring and feed mostly in freshwater reaches during summer. 
19 

Juvenile shortnose sturgeon generally move upstream in spring and summer and move back 

downstream in fall and winter; however, these movements usually occur in the region above the 

saltwater/freshwater interface (Dadswell et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1991). Non-spawning 

movements include wandering movements in summer and winter (Dadswell et al. 1984; Buckley 

and Kynard 1985; O’Herron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported that postspawning migrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river 

discharge. Adult sturgeon occurring in freshwater or freshwater/tidal reaches of rivers in 

summer and winter often occupy only a few short reaches of the total length (Buckley and 

Kynard 1985). Summer concentration areas in southern rivers are cool, deep, thermal refugia, 

where adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon congregate (Flourney et al. 1992; Rogers et al. 1994; 

Rogers and Weber 1995; Weber 1996). 

While shortnose sturgeon do not undertake the significant marine migrations seen in Atlantic 

sturgeon, telemetry data indicates that shortnose sturgeon do make localized coastal migrations. 

This is particularly true within certain areas such as the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and among rivers 

in the Southeast. Interbasin movements have been documented among rivers within the GOM 

and between the GOM and the Merrimack, between the Connecticut and Hudson rivers, the 

Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay, and among the rivers in the Southeast. 

The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not known (Dadswell et al. 1984) but 

shortnose sturgeon have been found in waters with temperatures as low as 2 to 3oC (35.6-37.4°F) 

(Dadswell et al. 1984) and as high as 34oC (93.2°F) (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). However, water 

temperatures above 28oC (82.4°F) are thought to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. In the 

Altamaha River, water temperatures of 28-30oC (82.4-86°F) during summer months create 

unsuitable conditions and shortnose sturgeon are found in deep cool water refuges. Dissolved 

oxygen (DO) also seems to play a role in temperature tolerance, with increased stress levels at 

higher temperatures with low DO versus the ability to withstand higher temperatures with 

elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001). 

Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur at a wide range of depths. A minimum depth of 0.6m 

(approximately 2 feet) is necessary for the unimpeded swimming by adults. Shortnose sturgeon 

are known to occur at depths of up to 30m (98.4 ft) but are generally found in waters less than 

20m (65.5 ft) (Dadswell et al. 1984; Dadswell 1979). Shortnose sturgeon have also 

demonstrated tolerance to a wide range of salinities. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented 

in freshwater (Taubert 1980; Taubert and Dadswell 1980) and in waters with salinity of 30 partsper-thousand (ppt) (Holland and Yeverton 1973; Saunders and Smith 1978). Mcleave et al. 

(1977) reported adults moving freely through a wide range of salinities, crossing waters with 

differences of up to 10ppt within a two hour period. The tolerance of shortnose sturgeon to 

increasing salinity is thought to increase with age (Kynard 1996). Shortnose sturgeon typically 

occur in the deepest parts of rivers or estuaries where suitable oxygen and salinity values are 

present (Gilbert 1989); however, shortnose sturgeon forage on vegetated mudflats and over 

shellfish beds in shallower waters when suitable forage is present. 

Status and Trends of Shortnose Sturgeon Rangewide 

Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and the species 
20 

remained on the endangered species list with the enactment of the ESA in 1973. Although the 

original listing notice did not cite reasons for listing the species, a 1973 Resource Publication, 

issued by the US Department of the Interior, stated that shortnose sturgeon were “in peril...gone 

in most of the rivers of its former range [but] probably not as yet extinct” (USDOI 1973). 

Pollution and overfishing, including bycatch in the shad fishery, were listed as principal reasons 

for the species’ decline. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, shortnose sturgeon 

commonly were taken in a commercial fishery for the closely related and commercially valuable 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). More than a century of extensive fishing for sturgeon 

contributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon along the east coast. Heavy industrial 

development during the twentieth century in rivers inhabited by sturgeon impaired water quality 

and impeded these species’ recovery; possibly resulting in substantially reduced abundance of 

shortnose sturgeon populations within portions of the species’ ranges (e.g., southernmost rivers 

of the species range: Santilla, St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers). A shortnose sturgeon recovery 

plan was published in December 1998 to promote the conservation and recovery of the species 

(see NMFS 1998). Shortnose sturgeon are listed as “vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List. 

Although shortnose sturgeon are listed as endangered range-wide, in the final recovery plan 

NMFS recognized 19 separate populations occurring throughout the range of the species. These 

populations are in New Brunswick Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts (1); Connecticut (1); 

New York (1); New Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland and Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); South 

Carolina (4); Georgia (4); and Florida (2). NMFS has not formally recognized distinct 

population segments (DPS)4

 of shortnose sturgeon under the ESA. Although genetic information 

within and among shortnose sturgeon occurring in different river systems is largely unknown, 

life history studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems are 

substantially reproductively isolated (Kynard 1997) and, therefore, should be considered 

discrete. The 1998 Recovery Plan indicates that while genetic information may reveal that 

interbreeding does not occur between rivers that drain into a common estuary, at this time, such 

river systems are considered a single population compromised of breeding subpopulations 

(NMFS 1998). 

Studies conducted since the issuance of the Recovery Plan have provided evidence that suggests 

that years of isolation between populations of shortnose sturgeon have led to morphological and 

genetic variation. Walsh et al. (2001) examined morphological and genetic variation of 

shortnose sturgeon in three rivers (Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Hudson). The study found that 

the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population differed markedly from the other two rivers for 

most morphological features (total length, fork length, head and snout length, mouth width, 

interorbital width and dorsal scute count, left lateral scute count, right ventral scute count). 

Significant differences were found between fish from Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers for 

interorbital width and lateral scute counts which suggests that even though the Androscoggin and 

 

4 The definition of species under the ESA includes any subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. To be considered a 

DPS, a population segment must meet two criteria under NMFS policy. First, it must be discrete, or separated, from 

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

conservation status of its species or subspecies. This formal legal procedure to designate DPSs for shortnose 

sturgeon has not been undertaken. 
21 

Kennebec rivers drain into a common estuary, these rivers support largely discrete populations of 

shortnose sturgeon. The study also found significant genetic differences among all three 

populations indicating substantial reproductive isolation among them and that the observed 

morphological differences may be partly or wholly genetic. 

Grunwald et al. (2002) examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from shortnose sturgeon in 

eleven river populations. The analysis demonstrated that all shortnose sturgeon populations 

examined showed moderate to high levels of genetic diversity as measured by haplotypic 

diversity indices. The limited sharing of haplotypes and the high number of private haplotypes 

are indicative of high homing fidelity and low gene flow. The researchers determined that 

glaciation in the Pleistocene Era was likely the most significant factor in shaping the 

phylogeographic pattern of mtDNA diversity and population structure of shortnose sturgeon. 

The Northern glaciated region extended south to the Hudson River while the southern nonglaciated region begins with the Delaware River. There is a high prevalence of haplotypes 

restricted to either of these two regions and relatively few are shared; this represents a historical 

subdivision that is tied to an important geological phenomenon that reflects historical isolation. 

Analyses of haplotype frequencies at the level of individual rivers showed significant differences 

among all systems in which reproduction is known to occur. This implies that although higher 

level genetic stock relationships exist (i.e., southern vs. northern and other regional 

subdivisions), shortnose sturgeon appear to be discrete stocks, and low gene flow exists between 

the majority of populations. 

Waldman et al. (2002) also conducted mtDNA analysis on shortnose sturgeon from 11 river 

systems and identified 29 haplotypes. Of these haplotypes, 11 were unique to northern, glaciated 

systems and 13 were unique to the southern non-glaciated systems. Only 5 were shared between 

them. This analysis suggests that shortnose sturgeon show high structuring and discreteness and 

that low gene flow rates indicated strong homing fidelity. 

Wirgin et al. (2005) also conducted mtDNA analysis on shortnose sturgeon from 12 rivers (St. 

John, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Upper Connecticut, Lower Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, 

Chesapeake Bay, Cooper, Peedee, Savannah, Ogeechee and Altamaha). This analysis suggested 

that most population segments are independent and that genetic variation among groups was 

high. 

The best available information demonstrates differences in life history and habitat preferences 

between northern and southern river systems and given the species’ anadromous breeding habits, 

the rare occurrence of migration between river systems, and the documented genetic differences 

between river populations, it is unlikely that populations in adjacent river systems interbreed 

with any regularity. This likely accounts for the failure of shortnose sturgeon to repopulate river 

systems from which they have been extirpated, despite the geographic closeness of persisting 

populations. This characteristic of shortnose sturgeon also complicates recovery and persistence 

of this species in the future because, if a river population is extirpated in the future, it is unlikely 

that this river will be recolonized. Consequently, this Opinion will treat the nineteen separate 

populations of shortnose sturgeon as subpopulations (one of which occurs in the action area) for 

the purposes of this analysis. 
22 

Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all major rivers and 

estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. The range extended from the St 

John River in New Brunswick, Canada to the Indian River in Florida. Today, only 19 

populations remain ranging from the St. Johns River, Florida (possibly extirpated from this 

system) to the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada. Shortnose sturgeon are large, long 

lived fish species. The present range of shortnose sturgeon is disjunct, with northern populations 

separated from southern populations by a distance of about 400 km. Population sizes vary 

across the species’ range. From available estimates, the smallest populations occur in the Cape 

Fear (~8 adults; Moser and Ross 1995) in the south and Merrimack and Penobscot rivers in the 

north (~ several hundred to several thousand adults depending on population estimates used; M. 

Kieffer, United States Geological Survey, personal communication; Dionne 2010), while the 

largest populations are found in the Saint John (~18, 000; Dadswell 1979) and Hudson Rivers 

(~61,000; Bain et al. 1998). As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the 

minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northern 

populations and all natural southern populations. Kynard 1996 indicates that all aspects of the 

species’ life history indicate that shortnose sturgeon should be abundant in most rivers. As such, 

the expected abundance of adults in northern and north-central populations should be thousands 

to tens of thousands of adults. Expected abundance in southern rivers is uncertain, but large 

rivers should likely have thousands of adults. The only river systems likely supporting 

populations of these sizes are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the Kennebec, 

making the continued success of shortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to the species as a 

whole. While no reliable estimate of the size of either the total species population rangewide, or 

the shortnose sturgeon population in the Northeastern United States exists, it is clearly below the 

size that could be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed. 

Threats to shortnose sturgeon recovery rangewide 

The Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (NMFS 1998) identifies habitat degradation or loss 

(resulting, for example, from dams, bridge construction, channel dredging, and pollutant 

discharges) and mortality (resulting, for example, from impingement on cooling water intake 

screens, dredging and incidental capture in other fisheries) as principal threats to the species’ 

survival. 

Several natural and anthropogenic factors continue to threaten the recovery of shortnose 

sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon continue to be taken incidentally in fisheries along the east coast 

and are probably targeted by poachers throughout their range (Dadswell 1979; Dovel et al. 1992; 

Collins et al. 1996). In-water or nearshore construction and demolition projects may interfere 

with normal shortnose sturgeon migratory movements and disturb sturgeon concentration areas. 

Unless appropriate precautions are made, internal damage and/or death may result from blasting 

projects with powerful explosives. Hydroelectric dams may affect shortnose sturgeon by 

restricting habitat, altering river flows or temperatures necessary for successful spawning and/or 

migration and causing mortalities to fish that become entrained in turbines. Maintenance 

dredging of Federal navigation channels and other areas can adversely affect or jeopardize 

shortnose sturgeon populations. Hydraulic dredges can lethally take sturgeon by entraining 

sturgeon in dredge dragarms and impeller pumps. Mechanical dredges have also been 

documented to lethally take shortnose sturgeon. In addition to direct effects, dredging operations 

may also impact shortnose sturgeon by destroying benthic feeding areas, disrupting spawning 
23 

migrations, and filling spawning habitat with resuspended fine sediments. Shortnose sturgeon 

are susceptible to impingement on cooling water intake screens at power plants. Electric power 

and nuclear power generating plants can affect sturgeon by impinging larger fish on cooling 

water intake screens and entraining larval fish. The operation of power plants can have 

unforeseen and extremely detrimental impacts to riverine habitat which can affect shortnose 

sturgeon. For example, the St. Stephen Power Plant near Lake Moultrie, South Carolina was 

shut down for several days in June 1991 when large mats of aquatic plants entered the plant’s 

intake canal and clogged the cooling water intake gates. Decomposing plant material in the 

tailrace canal coupled with the turbine shut down (allowing no flow of water) triggered a low 

dissolved oxygen water condition downstream and a subsequent fish kill. The South Carolina 

Wildlife and Marine Resources Department reported that twenty shortnose sturgeon were killed 

during this low dissolved oxygen event. 

Contaminants, including toxic metals, polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can have substantial deleterious effects on 

aquatic life including production of acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive 

impairment (Cooper 1989; Sinderman 1994). Ultimately, toxins introduced to the water column 

become associated with the benthos and can be particularly harmful to benthic organisms 

(Varanasi 1992) like sturgeon. Heavy metals and organochlorine compounds are known to 

accumulate in fat tissues of sturgeon, but their long term effects are not yet known (Ruelle and 

Henry 1992; Ruelle and Kennlyne 1993). Available data suggests that early life stages of fish 

are more susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress than older life stages (Rosenthal and 

Alderdice 1976). 

Although there is scant information available on the levels of contaminants in shortnose sturgeon 

tissues, some research on other related species indicates that concern about the effects of 

contaminants on the health of sturgeon populations is warranted. Detectible levels of chlordane, 

DDE (1,1-dichloro-2, 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene), DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane), 

and dieldrin, and elevated levels of PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and selenium were found in pallid 

sturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (Ruelle and Henry 1994). These compounds were found 

in high enough levels to suggest they may be causing reproductive failure and/or increased 

physiological stress (Ruelle and Henry 1994). In addition to compiling data on contaminant 

levels, Ruelle and Henry also determined that heavy metals and organochlorine compounds (i.e. 

PCBs) accumulate in fat tissues. Although the long term effects of the accumulation of 

contaminants in fat tissues is not yet known, some speculate that lipophilic toxins could be 

transferred to eggs and potentially inhibit egg viability. In other fish species, reproductive 

impairment, reduced egg viability, and reduced survival of larval fish are associated with 

elevated levels of environmental contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons. A strong 

correlation that has been made between fish weight, fish fork length, and DDE concentration in 

pallid sturgeon livers indicates that DDE increases proportionally with fish size (NMFS 1998). 

Contaminant analysis was conducted on two shortnose sturgeon from the Delaware River in the 

fall of 2002. Muscle, liver, and gonad tissue were analyzed for contaminants (ERC 2002). 

Sixteen metals, two semivolatile compounds, three organochlorine pesticides, one PCB Aroclor, 

as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans 

(PCDFs) were detected in one or more of the tissue samples. Levels of aluminum, cadmium, 
24 

PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, DDE (an organochlorine pesticide) were detected in the “adverse affect” 

range. It is of particular concern that of the above chemicals, PCDDs, DDE, PCBs and 

cadmium, were detected as these have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals. 

Contaminant analysis conducted in 2003 on tissues from a shortnose sturgeon from the 

Kennebec River revealed the presence of fourteen metals, one semivolatile compound, one PCB 

Aroclor, Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans 

(PCDFs) in one or more of the tissue samples. Of these chemicals, cadmium and zinc were 

detected at concentrations above an adverse effect concentration reported for fish in the literature 

(ERC 2003). While no directed studies of chemical contamination in shortnose sturgeon have 

been undertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the rivers where shortnose 

sturgeon are found is likely adversely affecting this species. 

During summer months, especially in southern areas, shortnose sturgeon must cope with the 

physiological stress of water temperatures that may exceed 28oC. Flourney et al.(1992) 

suspected that, during these periods, shortnose sturgeon congregate in river regions which 

support conditions that relieve physiological stress (i.e., in cool deep thermal refuges). In 

southern rivers where sturgeon movements have been tracked, sturgeon refrain from moving 

during warm water conditions and are often captured at release locations during these periods 

(Flourney et al.1992; Rogers and Weber 1994; Weber 1996). The loss and/or manipulation of 

these discrete refuge habitats may limit or be limiting population survival, especially in southern 

river systems. 

Pulp mill, silvicultural, agricultural, and sewer discharges, as well as a combination of non-point 

source discharges, which contain elevated temperatures or high biological demand, can reduce 

dissolved oxygen levels. Shortnose sturgeon are known to be adversely affected by dissolved 

oxygen levels below 5 mg/L. Shortnose sturgeon may be less tolerant of low dissolved oxygen 

levels in high ambient water temperatures and show signs of stress in water temperatures higher 

than 28oC (82.4°F) (Flourney et al. 1992). At these temperatures, concomitant low levels of 

dissolved oxygen may be lethal. 

4.2 Atlantic Sturgeon 

The section below describes the Atlantic sturgeon listing, provides life history information that is 

relevant to all DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon and then provides information specific to the status of 

each DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. Below, we also provide a description of which Atlantic sturgeon 

DPSs likely occur in the action area and provide information on the use of the action area by 

Atlantic sturgeon. 

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) is a subspecies of sturgeon distributed 

along the eastern coast of North America from Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Canada to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida, USA (Scott and Scott, 1988; ASSRT, 2007; T. Savoy, CT DEP, pers. 

comm.). NMFS has delineated U.S. populations of Atlantic sturgeon into five DPSs ( 77 FR 

5880 and 77 FR 5914). These are: the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs (see Figure 1). The results of genetic studies suggest that 

natal origin influences the distribution of Atlantic sturgeon in the marine environment (Wirgin 

and King, 2011). However, genetic data as well as tracking and tagging data demonstrate 

sturgeon from each DPS and Canada occur throughout the full range of the subspecies. 
25 

Therefore, sturgeon originating from any of the five DPSs can be affected by threats in the 

marine, estuarine and riverine environment that occur far from natal spawning rivers. 

On February 6, 2012, we published notice in the Federal Register that we were listing the New 

York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs as endangered, and the Gulf of 

Maine DPS as threatened (77 FR 5880 and 77 FR 5914). The effective date of the listings was 

April 6, 2012. The DPSs do not include Atlantic sturgeon that are spawned in Canadian rivers. 

Therefore, Canadian spawned fish are not included in the listings. 

As described below, individuals originating from three of the five listed DPSs are likely to occur 

in the action area. Information general to all Atlantic sturgeon as well as information specific to 

each of the relevant DPSs, is provided below. 

4.2.1 Determination of DPS Composition in the Action Area 

As explained above, the range of all five DPSs overlaps and extends from Canada through Cape 

Canaveral, Florida. We have considered the best available information to determine from which 

DPSs individuals in the action area are likely to have originated. We have determined that 

Atlantic sturgeon in the action area likely originate from three of the five DPSs at the following 

frequencies: Gulf of Maine 6%; NYB 92%; and, Chesapeake Bay 2%. These percentages are 

based on genetic sampling of individuals (n=39) captured within the Hudson River and therefore, 

represent the best available information on the likely genetic makeup of individuals occurring in 

the action area. The genetic assignments have a plus/minus 5% confidence interval; however, 

for purposes of section 7 consultation we have selected the reported values above, which 

approximate the mid-point of the range, as a reasonable indication of the likely genetic makeup 

of Atlantic sturgeon in the action area. These assignments and the data from which they are 

derived are described in detail in Damon-Randall et al. (2012a). 

Figure 1. Map Depicting the Boundaries of the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs 
26 

4.2.2 Atlantic sturgeon life history 

Atlantic sturgeon are long lived (approximately 60 years), late maturing, estuarine dependent, 

anadromous5

 fish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Vladykov and Greeley 1963; Mangin, 1964; 

Pikitch et al., 2005; Dadswell, 2006; ASSRT, 2007). 

The life history of Atlantic sturgeon can be divided up into five general categories as described 

in the table below (adapted from ASSRT 2007). 

Age Class Size Description

Egg 

Fertilized or 

unfertilized

Larvae

Negative phototaxic, nourished by 

yolk sac

Young of Year 

(YOY)

0.3 grams <41 cm 

TL

Fish that are > 3 

months and < one 

year; capable of 

capturing and 

consuming live 

food

Non-migrant 

subadults or 

juveniles

>41 cm and <76

cm TL 

Fish that are at 

least age 1 and are 

not sexually mature

and do not make 

coastal migrations. 

Subadults

>76cm and 

<150cm TL

Fish that are not 

sexually mature but 

make coastal 

migrations

Adults >150 cm TL

Sexually mature 

fish

Table 1. Descriptions of Atlantic sturgeon life history stages. 

Atlantic sturgeon are a relatively large fish, even amongst sturgeon species (Pikitch et al., 2005). 

Atlantic sturgeons are bottom feeders that suck food into a ventrally-located protruding mouth 

(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Four barbels in front of the mouth assist the sturgeon in locating 

prey (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Diets of adult and migrant subadult Atlantic sturgeon 

include mollusks, gastropods, amphipods, annelids, decapods, isopods, and fish such as sand 

 

5 Anadromous refers to a fish that is born in freshwater, spends most of its life in the sea, and returns to freshwater 

to spawn (NEFSC FAQ’s, available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq1a.html, modified June 16, 2011) 
27 

lance (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; ASSRT, 2007; Guilbard et al., 2007; Savoy, 2007). 

Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon feed on aquatic insects, insect larvae, and other invertebrates (Bigelow 

and Schroeder, 1953; ASSRT, 2007; Guilbard et al., 2007). 

Rate of maturation is affected by water temperature and gender. In general: (1) Atlantic sturgeon 

that originate from southern systems grow faster and mature sooner than Atlantic sturgeon that 

originate from more northern systems; (2) males grow faster than females; (3) fully mature 

females attain a larger size (i.e. length) than fully mature males; and (4) the length of Atlantic 

sturgeon caught since the mid-late 20th century have typically been less than 3 meters (m) (Smith 

et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1984; Smith, 1985; Scott and Scott, 1988; Young et al., 1998; Collins 

et al., 2000; Caron et al., 2002; Dadswell, 2006; ASSRT, 2007; Kahnle et al., 2007; DFO, 2011). 

The largest recorded Atlantic sturgeon was a female captured in 1924 that measured 

approximately 4.26 m (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963). Dadswell (2006) reported seeing seven 

fish of comparable size in the St. John River estuary from 1973 to 1995. Observations of largesized sturgeon are particularly important given that egg production is correlated with age and 

body size (Smith et al., 1982; Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; Van Eenennaam and Doroshov, 

1998; Dadswell, 2006). However, while females are prolific with egg production ranging from 

400,000 to 4 million eggs per spawning year, females spawn at intervals of 2-5 years (Vladykov 

and Greeley, 1963; Smith et al., 1982; Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; Van Eenennaam and 

Doroshov, 1998; Stevenson and Secor, 1999; Dadswell, 2006). Given spawning periodicity and 

a female’s relatively late age to maturity, the age at which 50 percent of the maximum lifetime 

egg production is achieved is estimated to be 29 years (Boreman, 1997). Males exhibit spawning 

periodicity of 1-5 years (Smith, 1985; Collins et al., 2000; Caron et al., 2002). While long-lived, 

Atlantic sturgeon are exposed to a multitude of threats prior to achieving maturation and have a 

limited number of spawning opportunities once mature. 

Water temperature plays a primary role in triggering the timing of spawning migrations 

(ASMFC, 2009). Spawning migrations generally occur during February-March in southern 

systems, April-May in Mid-Atlantic systems, and May-July in Canadian systems (Murawski and 

Pacheco, 1977; Smith, 1985; Bain, 1997; Smith and Clugston, 1997; Caron et al., 2002). Male 

sturgeon begin upstream spawning migrations when waters reach approximately 6° C (43° F) 

(Smith et al., 1982; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; Smith, 1985; ASMFC, 2009), and remain on the 

spawning grounds throughout the spawning season (Bain, 1997). Females begin spawning 

migrations when temperatures are closer to 12° C to 13° C (54° to 55° F) (Dovel and Berggren, 

1983; Smith, 1985; Collins et al., 2000), make rapid spawning migrations upstream, and quickly 

depart following spawning (Bain, 1997). 

The spawning areas in most U.S. rivers have not been well defined. However, the habitat 

characteristics of spawning areas have been identified based on historical accounts of where 

fisheries occurred, tracking and tagging studies of spawning sturgeon, and physiological needs of 

early life stages. Spawning is believed to occur in flowing water between the salt front of 

estuaries and the fall line of large rivers, when and where optimal flows are 46-76 cm/s and 

depths are 3-27 m (Borodin, 1925; Dees, 1961; Leland, 1968; Scott and Crossman, 1973; 

Crance, 1987; Shirey et al. 1999; Bain et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Caron et al. 2002; Hatin 

et al. 2002; ASMFC, 2009). Sturgeon eggs are deposited on hard bottom substrate such as 

cobble, coarse sand, and bedrock (Dees, 1961; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Gilbert, 1989; Smith 
28 

and Clugston, 1997; Bain et al. 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Caron et al., 2002; Hatin et al., 2002; 

Mohler, 2003; ASMFC, 2009), and become adhesive shortly after fertilization (Murawski and 

Pacheco, 1977; Van den Avyle, 1983; Mohler, 2003). Incubation time for the eggs increases as 

water temperature decreases (Mohler, 2003). At temperatures of 20° and 18° C, hatching occurs 

approximately 94 and 140 hours, respectively, after egg deposition (ASSRT, 2007). 

Larval Atlantic sturgeon (i.e. less than 4 weeks old, with total lengths (TL) less than 30 mm; Van 

Eenennaam et al. 1996) are assumed to undertake a demersal existence and inhabit the same 

riverine or estuarine areas where they were spawned (Smith et al., 1980; Bain et al., 2000; 

Kynard and Horgan, 2002; ASMFC, 2009). Studies suggest that age-0 (i.e., young-of-year), age1, and age-2 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon occur in low salinity waters of the natal estuary (Haley, 

1999; Hatin et al., 2007; McCord et al., 2007; Munro et al., 2007) while older fish are more salt 

tolerant and occur in higher salinity waters as well as low salinity waters (Collins et al., 2000). 

Atlantic sturgeon remain in the natal estuary for months to years before emigrating to open ocean 

as subadults (Holland and Yelverton, 1973; Dovel and Berggen, 1983; Waldman et al., 1996; 

Dadswell, 2006; ASSRT, 2007). 

After emigration from the natal estuary, subadults and adults travel within the marine 

environment, typically in waters less than 50 m in depth, using coastal bays, sounds, and ocean 

waters (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; 

Smith, 1985; Collins and Smith, 1997; Welsh et al., 2002; Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; Stein et al., 

2004; USFWS, 2004; Laney et al., 2007; Dunton et al., 2010; Erickson et al., 2011; Wirgin and 

King, 2011). Tracking and tagging studies reveal seasonal movements of Atlantic sturgeon 

along the coast. Satellite-tagged adult sturgeon from the Hudson River concentrated in the 

southern part of the Mid-Atlantic Bight at depths greater than 20 m during winter and spring, and 

in the northern portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight at depths less than 20 m in summer and fall 

(Erickson et al., 2011). Shirey (Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data 

reviewed in ASMFC, 2009) found a similar movement pattern for juvenile Atlantic sturgeon 

based on recaptures of fish originally tagged in the Delaware River. After leaving the Delaware 

River estuary during the fall, juvenile Atlantic sturgeon were recaptured by commercial 

fishermen in nearshore waters along the Atlantic coast as far south as Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina from November through early March. In the spring, a portion of the tagged fish reentered the Delaware River estuary. However, many fish continued a northerly coastal migration 

through the Mid-Atlantic as well as into southern New England waters where they were 

recovered throughout the summer months. Movements as far north as Maine were documented. 

A southerly coastal migration was apparent from tag returns reported in the fall. The majority of 

these tag returns were reported from relatively shallow near shore fisheries with few fish 

reported from waters in excess of 25 m (C. Shirey, Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

unpublished data reviewed in ASMFC, 2009). Areas where migratory Atlantic sturgeon 

commonly aggregate include the Bay of Fundy (e.g., Minas and Cumberland Basins), 

Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut River estuary, Long Island Sound, New York Bight, Delaware 

Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and waters off of North Carolina from the Virginia/North Carolina border 

to Cape Hatteras at depths up to 24 m (Dovel and Berggren, 1983; Dadswell et al., 1984; 

Johnson et al., 1997; Rochard et al., 1997; Kynard et al., 2000; Eyler et al., 2004; Stein et al., 

2004; Wehrell, 2005; Dadswell, 2006; ASSRT, 2007; Laney et al., 2007). These sites may be 

used as foraging sites and/or thermal refuge. 
29 

4.1.2 Distribution and Abundance 

Atlantic sturgeon underwent significant range-wide declines from historical abundance levels 

due to overfishing in the mid to late 19th century when a caviar market was established (Scott and 

Crossman, 1973; Taub, 1990; Kennebec River Resource Management Plan, 1993; Smith and 

Clugston, 1997; Dadswell, 2006; ASSRT, 2007). Abundance of spawning-aged females prior to 

this period of exploitation was predicted to be greater than 100,000 for the Delaware, and at least 

10,000 females for other spawning stocks (Secor and Waldman, 1999; Secor, 2002). Historical 

records suggest that Atlantic sturgeon spawned in at least 35 rivers prior to this period. 

Currently, only 16 U.S. rivers are known to support spawning based on available evidence (i.e., 

presence of young-of-year or gravid Atlantic sturgeon documented within the past 15 years) 

(ASSRT, 2007). While there may be other rivers supporting spawning for which definitive 

evidence has not been obtained (e.g., in the Penobscot and York Rivers), the number of rivers 

supporting spawning of Atlantic sturgeon are approximately half of what they were historically. 

In addition, only four rivers (Kennebec, Hudson, Delaware, James) are known to currently 

support spawning from Maine through Virginia where historical records support there used to be 

fifteen spawning rivers (ASSRT, 2007). Thus, there are substantial gaps in the range between 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning rivers amongst northern and mid-Atlantic states which could make 

recolonization of extirpated populations more difficult. 

There are no current, published population abundance estimates for any spawning stock or for 

any of the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. An annual mean estimate of 863 mature adults (596 

males and 267 females) was calculated for the Hudson River based on fishery-dependent data 

collected from 1985-1995 (Kahnle et al., 2007). An estimate of 343 spawning adults per year is 

available for the Altamaha River, GA, based on fishery-independent data collected in 2004 and 

2005 (Schueller and Peterson, 2006). Using the data collected from the Hudson River and 

Altamaha River to estimate the total number of Atlantic sturgeon in either subpopulation is not 

possible, since mature Atlantic sturgeon may not spawn every year (Vladykov and Greeley, 

1963; Smith, 1985; Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; Stevenson and Secor, 1999; Collins et al. 2000; 

Caron et al., 2002), the age structure of these populations is not well understood, and stage to 

stage survival is unknown. In other words, the information that would allow us to take an 

estimate of annual spawning adults and expand that estimate to an estimate of the total number of 

individuals (e.g., yearlings, subadults, and adults) in a population is lacking. The ASSRT 

presumed that the Hudson and Altamaha rivers had the most robust of the remaining U.S. 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning populations and concluded that the other U.S. spawning populations 

were likely less than 300 spawning adults per year (ASSRT, 2007). 

4.1.3 Threats faced by Atlantic sturgeon throughout their range 

Atlantic sturgeon are susceptible to over exploitation given their life history characteristics (e.g., 

late maturity, dependence on a wide-variety of habitats). Similar to other sturgeon species 

(Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Pikitch et al., 2005), Atlantic sturgeon experienced range-wide 

declines from historical abundance levels due to overfishing (for caviar and meat) and impacts to 

habitat in the 19th and 20th centuries (Taub, 1990; Smith and Clugston, 1997; Secor and 

Waldman, 1999). 

Based on the best available information, NMFS has concluded that unintended catch of Atlantic 
30 

sturgeon in fisheries, vessel strikes, poor water quality, water availability, dams, lack of 

regulatory mechanisms for protecting the fish, and dredging are the most significant threats to 

Atlantic sturgeon (77 FR 5880 and 77 FR 5914; February 6, 2012). While all of the threats are 

not necessarily present in the same area at the same time, given that Atlantic sturgeon subadults 

and adults use ocean waters from the Labrador, Canada to Cape Canaveral, FL, as well as 

estuaries of large rivers along the U.S. East Coast, activities affecting these water bodies are 

likely to impact more than one Atlantic sturgeon DPS. In addition, given that Atlantic sturgeon 

depend on a variety of habitats, every life stage is likely affected by one or more of the identified 

threats. 

 

An ASMFC interstate fishery management plan for sturgeon (Sturgeon FMP) was developed and 

implemented in 1990 (Taub, 1990). In 1998, the remaining Atlantic sturgeon fisheries in U.S. 

state waters were closed per Amendment 1 to the Sturgeon FMP. Complementary regulations 

were implemented by NMFS in 1999 that prohibit fishing for, harvesting, possessing or retaining 

Atlantic sturgeon or its parts in or from the Exclusive Economic Zone in the course of a 

commercial fishing activity. 

Commercial fisheries for Atlantic sturgeon still exist in Canadian waters (DFO, 2011). Sturgeon 

belonging to one or more of the DPSs may be harvested in the Canadian fisheries. In particular, 

the Bay of Fundy fishery in the Saint John estuary may capture sturgeon of U.S. origin given that 

sturgeon from the Gulf of Maine and the New York Bight DPSs have been incidentally captured 

in other Bay of Fundy fisheries (DFO, 2010; Wirgin and King, 2011). Because Atlantic sturgeon 

are listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

(CITES), the U.S. and Canada are currently working on a conservation strategy to address the 

potential for captures of U.S. fish in Canadian directed Atlantic sturgeon fisheries and of 

Canadian fish incidentally in U.S. commercial fisheries. At this time, there are no estimates of 

the number of individuals from any of the DPSs that are captured or killed in Canadian fisheries 

each year. 

Based on geographic distribution, most U.S. Atlantic sturgeon that are intercepted in Canadian 

fisheries are likely to originate from the Gulf of Maine DPS, with a smaller percentage from the 

New York Bight DPS. 

Individuals from all 5 DPSs are caught as bycatch in fisheries operating in U.S. waters. At this 

time, we have an estimate of the number of Atlantic sturgeon captured and killed in sink gillnet 

and otter trawl fisheries authorized by Federal FMPs (NMFS NEFSC 2011) in the Northeast 

Region but do not have a similar estimate for Southeast fisheries. We also do not have an 

estimate of the number of Atlantic sturgeon captured or killed in state fisheries. At this time, we 

are not able to quantify the effects of other significant threats (e.g., vessel strikes, poor water 

quality, water availability, dams, and dredging) in terms of habitat impacts or loss of individuals. 

While we have some information on the number of mortalities that have occurred in the past in 

association with certain activities (e.g., mortalities in the Delaware and James rivers that are 

thought to be due to vessel strikes), we are not able to use those numbers to extrapolate effects 

throughout one or more DPS. This is because of (1) the small number of data points and, (2) 

lack of information on the percent of incidences that the observed mortalities represent. 
31 

As noted above, the NEFSC prepared an estimate of the number of encounters of Atlantic 

sturgeon in fisheries authorized by Northeast FMPs (NEFSC 2011). The analysis prepared by 

the NEFSC estimates that from 2006 through 2010 there were 2,250 to 3,862 encounters per year 

in observed gillnet and trawl fisheries, with an average of 3,118 encounters. Mortality rates in 

gillnet gear are approximately 20%. Mortality rates in otter trawl gear are believed to be lower at 

approximately 5%. 

4.2 Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

The Gulf of Maine DPS includes the following: all anadromous Atlantic sturgeons that are 

spawned in the watersheds from the Maine/Canadian border and, extending southward, all 

watersheds draining into the Gulf of Maine as far south as Chatham, MA. Within this range, 

Atlantic sturgeon historically spawned in the Androscoggin, Kennebec, Merrimack, Penobscot, 

and Sheepscot Rivers (ASSRT, 2007). Spawning still occurs in the Kennebec River, and it is 

possible that it still occurs in the Penobscot River as well. Spawning in the Androscoggin River 

was just recently confirmed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources when they captured a 

larval Atlantic sturgeon during the 2011 spawning season below the Brunswick Dam. There is no 

evidence of recent spawning in the remaining rivers. In the 1800s, construction of the Essex 

Dam on the Merrimack River at river kilometer (rkm) 49 blocked access to 58 percent of 

Atlantic sturgeon habitat in the river (Oakley, 2003; ASSRT, 2007). However, the accessible 

portions of the Merrimack seem to be suitable habitat for Atlantic sturgeon spawning and rearing 

(i.e., nursery habitat) (Keiffer and Kynard, 1993). Therefore, the availability of spawning habitat 

does not appear to be the reason for the lack of observed spawning in the Merrimack River. 

Studies are on-going to determine whether Atlantic sturgeon are spawning in these rivers. 

Atlantic sturgeons that are spawned elsewhere continue to use habitats within all of these rivers 

as part of their overall marine range (ASSRT, 2007). The movement of subadult and adult 

sturgeon between rivers, including to and from the Kennebec River and the Penobscot River, 

demonstrates that coastal and marine migrations are key elements of Atlantic sturgeon life 

history for the Gulf of Maine DPS as well as likely throughout the entire range (ASSRT, 2007; 

Fernandes, et al., 2010). 

Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) surmised that Atlantic sturgeon likely spawned in Gulf of Maine 

Rivers in May-July. More recent captures of Atlantic sturgeon in spawning condition within the 

Kennebec River suggest that spawning more likely occurs in June-July (Squiers et al., 1981; 

ASMFC, 1998; NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Evidence for the timing and location of Atlantic 

sturgeon spawning in the Kennebec River includes: (1) the capture of five adult male Atlantic 

sturgeon in spawning condition (i.e., expressing milt) in July 1994 below the (former) Edwards 

Dam; (2) capture of 31 adult Atlantic sturgeon from June 15,1980, through July 26,1980, in a 

small commercial fishery directed at Atlantic sturgeon from the South Gardiner area (above 

Merrymeeting Bay) that included at least 4 ripe males and 1 ripe female captured on July 

26,1980; and, (3) capture of nine adults during a gillnet survey conducted from 1977-1981, the 

majority of which were captured in July in the area from Merrymeeting Bay and upriver as far as 

Gardiner, ME (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; ASMFC 2007). The low salinity values for waters 

above Merrymeeting Bay are consistent with values found in other rivers where successful 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning is known to occur. 

Several threats play a role in shaping the current status of Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon. 

Historical records provide evidence of commercial fisheries for Atlantic sturgeon in the 
32 

Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers dating back to the 17th century (Squiers et al., 1979). In 

1849, 160 tons of sturgeon was caught in the Kennebec River by local fishermen (Squiers et al., 

1979). Following the 1880's, the sturgeon fishery was almost non-existent due to a collapse of 

the sturgeon stocks. All directed Atlantic sturgeon fishing as well as retention of Atlantic 

sturgeon by-catch has been prohibited since 1998. Nevertheless, mortalities associated with 

bycatch in fisheries occurring in state and federal waters still occurs. In the marine range, Gulf 

of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon are incidentally captured in federal and state managed fisheries, 

reducing survivorship of subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon (Stein et al., 2004; ASMFC 2007). 

As explained above, we have estimates of the number of subadults and adults that are killed as a 

result of bycatch in fisheries authorized under Northeast FMPs. At this time, we are not able to 

quantify the impacts from other threats or estimate the number of individuals killed as a result of 

other anthropogenic threats. Habitat disturbance and direct mortality from anthropogenic 

sources are the primary concerns. 

Riverine habitat may be impacted by dredging and other in-water activities, disturbing spawning 

habitat and also altering the benthic forage base. Many rivers in the Gulf of Maine DPS have 

navigation channels that are maintained by dredging. Dredging outside of Federal channels and 

in-water construction occurs throughout the Gulf of Maine DPS. While some dredging projects 

operate with observers present to document fish mortalities, many do not. To date we have not 

received any reports of Atlantic sturgeon killed during dredging projects in the Gulf of Maine 

region; however, as noted above, not all projects are monitored for interactions with fish. At this 

time, we do not have any information to quantify the number of Atlantic sturgeon killed or 

disturbed during dredging or in-water construction projects. We are also not able to quantify any 

effects to habitat. 

Connectivity is disrupted by the presence of dams on several rivers in the Gulf of Maine region, 

including the Penobscot and Merrimack Rivers. While there are also dams on the Kennebec, 

Androscoggin and Saco Rivers, these dams are near the site of natural falls and likely represent 

the maximum upstream extent of sturgeon occurrence even if the dams were not present. 

Because no Atlantic sturgeon are known to occur upstream of any hydroelectric projects in the 

Gulf of Maine region, passage over hydroelectric dams or through hydroelectric turbines is not a 

source of injury or mortality in this area. While not expected to be killed or injured during 

passage at a dam, the extent that Atlantic sturgeon are affected by the existence of dams and their 

operations in the Gulf of Maine region is currently unknown. The extent that Atlantic sturgeon 

are affected by operations of dams in the Gulf of Maine region is currently unknown; however, 

the documentation of an Atlantic sturgeon larvae downstream of the Brunswick Dam in the 

Androscoggin River suggests that Atlantic sturgeon spawning may be occurring in the vicinity of 

at least that project and therefore, may be affected by project operations. The range of Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Penobscot River is limited by the presence of the Veazie and Great Works Dams. 

Together these dams prevent Atlantic sturgeon from accessing approximately 29 km of habitat, 

including the presumed historical spawning habitat located downstream of Milford Falls, the site 

of the Milford Dam. While removal of the Veazie and Great Works Dams is anticipated to occur 

in the near future, the presence of these dams is currently preventing access to significant 

habitats within the Penobscot River. While Atlantic sturgeon are known to occur in the 

Penobscot River, it is unknown if spawning is currently occurring or whether the presence of the 

Veazie and Great Works Dams affects the likelihood of spawning occurring in this river. The 
33 

Essex Dam on the Merrimack River blocks access to approximately 58% of historically 

accessible habitat in this river. Atlantic sturgeon occur in the Merrimack River but spawning has 

not been documented. Like the Penobscot, it is unknown how the Essex Dam affects the 

likelihood of spawning occurring in this river. 

Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon may also be affected by degraded water quality. In 

general, water quality has improved in the Gulf of Maine over the past decades (Lichter et al. 

2006; EPA, 2008). Many rivers in Maine, including the Androscoggin River, were heavily 

polluted in the past from industrial discharges from pulp and paper mills. While water quality 

has improved and most discharges are limited through regulations, many pollutants persist in the 

benthic environment. This can be particularly problematic if pollutants are present on spawning 

and nursery grounds as developing eggs and larvae are particularly susceptible to exposure to 

contaminants. 

There are no empirical abundance estimates for the Gulf of Maine DPS. The Atlantic sturgeon 

SRT (2007) presumed that the Gulf of Maine DPS was comprised of less than 300 spawning 

adults per year, based on abundance estimates for the Hudson and Altamaha River riverine 

populations of Atlantic sturgeon. Surveys of the Kennebec River over two time periods, 1977-

1981 and 1998-2000, resulted in the capture of nine adult Atlantic sturgeon (Squiers, 2004). 

However, since the surveys were primarily directed at capture of shortnose sturgeon, the capture 

gear used may not have been selective for the larger-sized, adult Atlantic sturgeon; several 

hundred subadult Atlantic sturgeon were caught in the Kennebec River during these studies. 

Summary of the Gulf of Maine DPS 

Spawning for the Gulf of Maine DPS is known to occur in two rivers (Kennebec and 

Androscoggin) and possibly in a third. Spawning may be occurring in other rivers, such as the 

Sheepscot or Penobscot, but has not been confirmed. There are indications of increasing 

abundance of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Gulf of Maine DPS. Atlantic sturgeon continue 

to be present in the Kennebec River; in addition, they are captured in directed research projects 

in the Penobscot River, and are observed in rivers where they were unknown to occur or had not 

been observed to occur for many years (e.g., the Saco, Presumpscot, and Charles rivers). These 

observations suggest that abundance of the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is sufficient 

such that recolonization to rivers historically suitable for spawning may be occurring. However, 

despite some positive signs, there is not enough information to establish a trend for this DPS. 

Some of the impacts from the threats that contributed to the decline of the Gulf of Maine DPS 

have been removed (e.g., directed fishing), or reduced as a result of improvements in water 

quality and removal of dams (e.g., the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in 1999). There are 

strict regulations on the use of fishing gear in Maine state waters that incidentally catch sturgeon. 

In addition, there have been reductions in fishing effort in state and federal waters, which most 

likely would result in a reduction in bycatch mortality of Atlantic sturgeon. A significant amount 

of fishing in the Gulf of Maine is conducted using trawl gear, which is known to have a much 

lower mortality rate for Atlantic sturgeon caught in the gear compared to sink gillnet gear 

(ASMFC, 2007). Atlantic sturgeon from the GOM DPS are not commonly taken as bycatch in 

areas south of Chatham, MA, with only 8 percent (e.g., 7 of the 84 fish) of interactions observed 

in the Mid Atlantic/Carolina region being assigned to the Gulf of Maine DPS (Wirgin and King, 
34 

2011). Tagging results also indicate that Gulf of Maine DPS fish tend to remain within the 

waters of the Gulf of Maine and only occasionally venture to points south. However, data on 

Atlantic sturgeon incidentally caught in trawls and intertidal fish weirs fished in the Minas Basin 

area of the Bay of Fundy.(Canada) indicate that approximately 35 percent originated from the 

Gulf of Maine DPS (Wirgin et al., in draft). 

As noted previously, studies have shown that in order to rebuild, Atlantic sturgeon can only 

sustain low levels of bycatch and other anthropogenic mortality (Boreman, 1997; ASMFC, 2007; 

Kahnle et al., 2007; Brown and Murphy, 2010). NMFS has determined that the Gulf of Maine 

DPS is at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range (i.e., 

is a threatened species) based on the following: (1) significant declines in population sizes and 

the protracted period during which sturgeon populations have been depressed; (2) the limited 

amount of current spawning; and, (3) the impacts and threats that have and will continue to affect 

recovery. 

4.3 New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

The New York Bight DPS includes the following: all anadromous Atlantic sturgeon spawned in 

the watersheds that drain into coastal waters from Chatham, MA to the Delaware-Maryland 

border on Fenwick Island. Within this range, Atlantic sturgeon historically spawned in the 

Connecticut, Delaware, Hudson, and Taunton Rivers (Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Secor, 

2002; ASSRT, 2007). Spawning still occurs in the Delaware and Hudson Rivers, but there is no 

recent evidence (within the last 15 years) of spawning in the Connecticut and Taunton Rivers 

(ASSRT, 2007). Atlantic sturgeon that are spawned elsewhere continue to use habitats within the 

Connecticut and Taunton Rivers as part of their overall marine range (ASSRT, 2007; Savoy, 

2007; Wirgin and King, 2011). 

The abundance of the Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon riverine population prior to the onset of 

expanded exploitation in the 1800’s is unknown but, has been conservatively estimated at 10,000 

adult females (Secor, 2002). Current abundance is likely at least one order of magnitude smaller 

than historical levels (Secor, 2002; ASSRT, 2007; Kahnle et al., 2007). As described above, an 

estimate of the mean annual number of mature adults (863 total; 596 males and 267 females) was 

calculated for the Hudson River riverine population based on fishery-dependent data collected 

from 1985-1995 (Kahnle et al., 2007). Kahnle et al. (1998; 2007) also showed that the level of 

fishing mortality from the Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon fishery during the period of 1985-

1995 exceeded the estimated sustainable level of fishing mortality for the riverine population and 

may have led to reduced recruitment. All available data on abundance of juvenile Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Hudson River Estuary indicate a substantial drop in production of young since 

the mid 1970s (Kahnle et al., 1998). A decline appeared to occur in the mid to late 1970s 

followed by a secondary drop in the late 1980s (Kahnle et al., 1998; Sweka et al., 2007; 

ASMFC, 2010). Catch-per-unit-effort data suggests that recruitment has remained depressed 

relative to catches of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the estuary during the mid-late 1980’s (Sweka 

et al., 2007; ASMFC, 2010). In examining the CPUE data from 1985-2007, there are significant 

fluctuations during this time. There appears to be a decline in the number of juveniles between 

the late 1980s and early 1990s and while the CPUE is generally higher in the 2000s as compared 

to the 1990s. Given the significant annual fluctuation, it is difficult to discern any trend. Despite 

the CPUEs from 2000-2007 being generally higher than those from 1990-1999, they are low 
35 

compared to the late 1980s. There is currently not enough information regarding any life stage 

to establish a trend for the Hudson River population. 

There is no abundance estimate for the Delaware River population of Atlantic sturgeon. Harvest 

records from the 1800s indicate that this was historically a large population with an estimated 

180,000 adult females prior to 1890 (Secor and Waldman, 1999; Secor, 2002). Sampling in 2009 

to target young-of- the year (YOY) Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River (i.e., natal sturgeon) 

resulted in the capture of 34 YOY, ranging in size from 178 to 349 mm TL (Fisher, 2009) and 

the collection of 32 YOY Atlantic sturgeon in a separate study (Brundage and O’Herron in Calvo 

et al., 2010). Genetics information collected from 33 of the 2009 year class YOY indicates that 

at least 3 females successfully contributed to the 2009 year class (Fisher, 2011). Therefore, while 

the capture of YOY in 2009 provides evidence that successful spawning is still occurring in the 

Delaware River, the relatively low numbers suggest the existing riverine population is limited in 

size. 

Several threats play a role in shaping the current status and trends observed in the Delaware 

River and Estuary. In-river threats include habitat disturbance from dredging, and impacts from 

historical pollution and impaired water quality. A dredged navigation channel extends from 

Trenton seaward through the tidal river (Brundage and O’Herron, 2009), and the river receives 

significant shipping traffic. Vessel strikes have been identified as a threat in the Delaware River; 

however, at this time we do not have information to quantify this threat or its impact to the 

population or the New York Bight DPS. Similar to the Hudson River, there is currently not 

enough information to determine a trend for the Delaware River population. 

Summary of the New York Bight DPS

Atlantic sturgeon originating from the New York Bight DPS spawn in the Hudson and Delaware 

rivers. While genetic testing can differentiate between individuals originating from the Hudson 

or Delaware river the available information suggests that the straying rate is high between these 

rivers. There are no indications of increasing abundance for the New York Bight DPS (ASSRT, 

2009; 2010). Some of the impact from the threats that contributed to the decline of the New York 

Bight DPS have been removed (e.g., directed fishing) or reduced as a result of improvements in 

water quality since passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, there have been 

reductions in fishing effort in state and federal waters, which may result in a reduction in bycatch 

mortality of Atlantic sturgeon. Nevertheless, areas with persistent, degraded water quality, 

habitat impacts from dredging, continued bycatch in state and federally-managed fisheries, and 

vessel strikes remain significant threats to the New York Bight DPS. 

In the marine range, New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon are incidentally captured in federal 

and state managed fisheries, reducing survivorship of subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon (Stein 

et al., 2004; ASMFC 2007). As explained above, currently available estimates indicate that at 

least 4% of adults may be killed as a result of bycatch in fisheries authorized under Northeast 

FMPs. Based on mixed stock analysis results presented by Wirgin and King ( 2011), over 40 

percent of the Atlantic sturgeon bycatch interactions in the Mid Atlantic Bight region were 

sturgeon from the New York Bight DPS. Individual-based assignment and mixed stock analysis 

of samples collected from sturgeon captured in Canadian fisheries in the Bay of Fundy indicated 

that approximately 1-2% were from the New York Bight DPS. At this time, we are not able to 
36 

quantify the impacts from other threats or estimate the number of individuals killed as a result of 

other anthropogenic threats. 

Riverine habitat may be impacted by dredging and other in-water activities, disturbing spawning 

habitat and also altering the benthic forage base. Both the Hudson and Delaware rivers have 

navigation channels that are maintained by dredging. Dredging is also used to maintain channels 

in the nearshore marine environment. Dredging outside of Federal channels and in-water 

construction occurs throughout the New York Bight region. While some dredging projects 

operate with observers present to document fish mortalities many do not. We have reports of one 

Atlantic sturgeon entrained during hopper dredging operations in Ambrose Channel, New Jersey. 

At this time, we do not have any information to quantify the number of Atlantic sturgeon killed 

or disturbed during dredging or in-water construction projects are also not able to quantify any 

effects to habitat. 

In the Hudson and Delaware Rivers, dams do not block access to historical habitat. The Holyoke 

Dam on the Connecticut River blocks further upstream passage; however, the extent that Atlantic 

sturgeon would historically have used habitat upstream of Holyoke is unknown. Connectivity 

may be disrupted by the presence of dams on several smaller rivers in the New York Bight 

region. Because no Atlantic sturgeon occur upstream of any hydroelectric projects in the New 

York Bight region, passage over hydroelectric dams or through hydroelectric turbines is not a 

source of injury or mortality in this area. The extent that Atlantic sturgeon are affected by 

operations of dams in the New York Bight region is currently unknown. 

New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon may also be affected by degraded water quality. In 

general, water quality has improved in the Hudson and Delaware over the past decades (Lichter 

et al. 2006; EPA, 2008). Both the Hudson and Delaware rivers, as well as other rivers in the New 

York Bight region, were heavily polluted in the past from industrial and sanitary sewer 

discharges. While water quality has improved and most discharges are limited through 

regulations, many pollutants persist in the benthic environment. This can be particularly 

problematic if pollutants are present on spawning and nursery grounds as developing eggs and 

larvae are particularly susceptible to exposure to contaminants. 

Vessel strikes occur in the Delaware River. Twenty-nine mortalities believed to be the result of 

vessel strikes were documented in the Delaware River from 2004 to 2008, and at least 13 of 

these fish were large adults. Given the time of year in which the fish were observed 

(predominantly May through July, with two in August), it is likely that many of the adults were 

migrating through the river to the spawning grounds. Because we do not know the percent of 

total vessel strikes that the observed mortalities represent, we are not able to quantify the number 

of individuals likely killed as a result of vessel strikes in the New York Bight DPS. 

Studies have shown that to rebuild, Atlantic sturgeon can only sustain low levels of 

anthropogenic mortality (Boreman, 1997; ASMFC, 2007; Kahnle et al., 2007; Brown and 

Murphy, 2010). There are no empirical abundance estimates of the number of Atlantic sturgeon 

in the New York Bight DPS. NMFS has determined that the New York Bight DPS is currently 

at risk of extinction due to: (1) precipitous declines in population sizes and the protracted period 

in which sturgeon populations have been depressed; (2) the limited amount of current spawning; 
37 

and (3) the impacts and threats that have and will continue to affect population recovery. 

4.4 Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

The Chesapeake Bay DPS includes the following: all anadromous Atlantic sturgeons that are 

spawned in the watersheds that drain into the Chesapeake Bay and into coastal waters from the 

Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island to Cape Henry, VA. Within this range, Atlantic 

sturgeon historically spawned in the Susquehanna, Potomac, James, York, Rappahannock, and 

Nottoway Rivers (ASSRT, 2007). Based on the review by Oakley (2003), 100 percent of 

Atlantic sturgeon habitat is currently accessible in these rivers since most of the barriers to 

passage (i.e. dams) are located upriver of where spawning is expected to have historically 

occurred (ASSRT, 2007). Spawning still occurs in the James River, and the presence of juvenile 

and adult sturgeon in the York River suggests that spawning may occur there as well (Musick et 

al., 1994; ASSRT, 2007; Greene, 2009). However, conclusive evidence of current spawning is 

only available for the James River. Atlantic sturgeon that are spawned elsewhere are known to 

use the Chesapeake Bay for other life functions, such as foraging and as juvenile nursery habitat 

prior to entering the marine system as subadults (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; ASSRT, 2007; 

Wirgin et al., 2007; Grunwald et al., 2008). 

Age to maturity for Chesapeake Bay DPS Atlantic sturgeon is unknown. However, Atlantic 

sturgeon riverine populations exhibit clinal variation with faster growth and earlier age to 

maturity for those that originate from southern waters, and slower growth and later age to 

maturity for those that originate from northern waters (75 FR 61872; October 6, 2010). Age at 

maturity is 5 to 19 years for Atlantic sturgeon originating from South Carolina rivers (Smith et 

al., 1982) and 11 to 21 years for Atlantic sturgeon originating from the Hudson River (Young et 

al., 1998). Therefore, age at maturity for Atlantic sturgeon of the Chesapeake Bay DPS likely 

falls within these values. 

Several threats play a role in shaping the current status of Chesapeake Bay DPS Atlantic 

sturgeon. Historical records provide evidence of the large-scale commercial exploitation of 

Atlantic sturgeon from the James River and Chesapeake Bay in the 19th century (Hildebrand and 

Schroeder, 1928; Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; ASMFC, 1998; Secor, 2002; Bushnoe et al., 

2005; ASSRT, 2007) as well as subsistence fishing and attempts at commercial fisheries as early 

as the 17th century (Secor, 2002; Bushnoe et al., 2005; ASSRT, 2007; Balazik et al., 2010). 

Habitat disturbance caused by in-river work such as dredging for navigational purposes is 

thought to have reduced available spawning habitat in the James River (Holton and Walsh, 1995; 

Bushnoe et al., 2005; ASSRT, 2007). At this time, we do not have information to quantify this 

loss of spawning habitat. 

Decreased water quality also threatens Atlantic sturgeon of the Chesapeake Bay DPS, especially 

since the Chesapeake Bay system is vulnerable to the effects of nutrient enrichment due to a 

relatively low tidal exchange and flushing rate, large surface to volume ratio, and strong 

stratification during the spring and summer months (Pyzik et al., 2004; ASMFC, 1998; ASSRT, 

2007; EPA, 2008). These conditions contribute to reductions in dissolved oxygen levels 

throughout the Bay. The availability of nursery habitat, in particular, may be limited given the 

recurrent hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) conditions within the Bay (Niklitschek and Secor, 

2005; 2010). At this time we do not have sufficient information to quantify the extent that 

degraded water quality effects habitat or individuals in the James River or throughout the 
38 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Vessel strikes have been observed in the James River (ASSRT, 2007). Eleven Atlantic sturgeon 

were reported to have been struck by vessels from 2005 through 2007. Several of these were 

mature individuals. Because we do not know the percent of total vessel strikes that the observed 

mortalities represent, we are not able to quantify the number of individuals likely killed as a 

result of vessel strikes in the New York Bight DPS. 

In the marine and coastal range of the Chesapeake Bay DPS from Canada to Florida, fisheries 

bycatch in federally and state managed fisheries pose a threat to the DPS, reducing survivorship 

of subadults and adults and potentially causing an overall reduction in the spawning population 

(Stein et al., 2004; ASMFC, 2007; ASSRT, 2007). 

Summary of the Chesapeake Bay DPS 

Spawning for the Chesapeake Bay DPS is known to occur in only the James River. Spawning 

may be occurring in other rivers, such as the York, but has not been confirmed. There are 

anecdotal reports of increased sightings and captures of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. 

However, this information has not been comprehensive enough to develop a population estimate 

for the James River or to provide sufficient evidence to confirm increased abundance. Some of 

the impact from the threats that facilitated the decline of the Chesapeake Bay DPS have been 

removed (e.g., directed fishing) or reduced as a result of improvements in water quality since 

passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA). We do not currently have enough information about 

any life stage to establish a trend for this DPS. 

Areas with persistent, degraded water quality, habitat impacts from dredging, continued bycatch 

in U.S. state and federally-managed fisheries, Canadian fisheries and vessel strikes remain 

significant threats to the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. Studies have shown that 

Atlantic sturgeon can only sustain low levels of bycatch mortality (Boreman, 1997; ASMFC, 

2007; Kahnle et al., 2007). The Chesapeake Bay DPS is currently at risk of extinction given (1) 

precipitous declines in population sizes and the protracted period in which sturgeon populations 

have been depressed; (2) the limited amount of current spawning; and, (3) the impacts and 

threats that have and will continue to affect the potential for population recovery. 

4.5 Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River and the action area 

The action area is limited to the reach of the Hudson River affected by the operations of IP2 and 

IP3, including IP1 to the extent its water intake services IP2, as described in the “Action Area” 

section above. As such, this section will discuss the available information related to the 

presence and status of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and in the action area. 

Shortnose sturgeon were first observed in the Hudson River by early settlers who captured them 

as a source of food and documented their abundance (Bain et al. 1998). Shortnose sturgeon in 

the Hudson River were documented as abundant in the late 1880s (Ryder 1888 in Hoff 1988). 

Prior to 1937, a few fishermen were still commercially harvesting shortnose sturgeon in the 

Hudson River; however, fishing pressure declined as the population decreased. During the late 

1800s and early 1900s, the Hudson River served as a dumping ground for pollutants that lead to 

major oxygen depletions and resulted in fish kills and population reductions. During this same 
39 

time there was a high demand for shortnose sturgeon eggs (caviar), leading to overharvesting. 

Water pollution, overfishing, and the commercial Atlantic sturgeon fishery are all factors that 

may have contributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River (Hoff 1988). 

In the 1930s, the New York State Biological Survey launched the first scientific analysis that 

documented the distribution, age, and size of mature shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River (see 

Bain et al. 1998). In the 1970s, scientific sampling resumed precipitated by the lack of 

biological data and concerns about the impact of electric generation facilities on fishery 

resources (see Bain et al. 1998). The current population of shortnose sturgeon has been 

documented by studies conducted throughout the entire range of shortnose sturgeon in the 

Hudson River (see: Dovel 1979, Hoff et al. 1988, Geoghegan et al. 1992, Bain et al. 1998, Bain 

et al. 2000, Dovel et al. 1992). 

Several population estimates were conducted throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Dovel 1979; 

Dovel 1981; Dovel et al. 1992). Most recently, Bain et al. (1998) conducted a mark recapture 

study from 1994 through 1997 focusing on the shortnose sturgeon active spawning stock. 

Utilizing targeted and dispersed sampling methods, 6,430 adult shortnose sturgeon were captured 

and 5,959 were marked; several different abundance estimates were generated from this 

sampling data using different population models. Abundance estimates generated ranged from a 

low of 25, 255 to a high of 80,026; though 61,057 is the abundance estimate from this dataset 

and modeling exercise that is typically used. This estimate includes spawning adults estimated 

to comprise 93% of the entire population or 56,708, non-spawning adults accounting for 3% of 

the population and juveniles 4% (Bain et al. 2000). Bain et al. (2000) compared the spawning 

population estimate with estimates by Dovel et al. (1992) concluding an increase of 

approximately 400% between 1979 and 1997. Although fish populations dominated by adults 

are not common for most species, there is no evidence that this is atypical for shortnose sturgeon 

(Bain et al. 1998). 

Woodland and Secor (2007) examined the Bain et al. (1998, 2000, 2007) estimates to try and 

identify the cause of the major change in abundance. Woodland and Secor (2007) concluded that 

the dramatic increase in abundance was likely due to improved water quality in the Hudson 

River which allowed for high recruitment during years when environmental conditions were 

right, particularly between 1986-1991. These studies provide the best information available on 

the current status of the Hudson River population and suggests that the population is relatively 

healthy, large, and particular in habitat use and migratory behavior (Bain et al. 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in the Hudson River from upper Staten Island (RM -3 

(rkm -4.8)) to the Troy Dam (RM 155 (rkm 249.5); for reference, Indian Point is located at RM 

43 (rkm 69))6

 (Bain et al. 2000, ASA 1980-2002). Prior to the construction of the Troy Dam in 

1825, shortnose sturgeon are thought to have used the entire freshwater portion of the Hudson 

River (NYHS 1809). Spawning fish congregated at the base of Cohoes Falls where the Mohawk 

River emptied into the Hudson. In recent years (since 1999), shortnose sturgeon have been 

documented below the Tappan Zee Bridge from June through December (ASA 1999-2002; 

Dynegy 2003). While shortnose sturgeon presence below the Tappan Zee Bridge had previously 

been thought to be rare (Bain et al. 2000), increasing numbers of shortnose sturgeon have been 

 

6

See Figure 3 for a map of the Hudson River with these areas highlighted. 
40 

documented in this area over the last several years (ASA 1999-2002; Dynegy 2003) suggesting 

that the range of shortnose sturgeon is extending downstream. Shortnose sturgeon were 

documented as far south as the Manhattan/Staten Island area in June, November and December 

2003 (Dynegy 2003). 

From late fall to early spring, adult shortnose sturgeon concentrate in a few overwintering areas. 

Reproductive activity the following spring determines overwintering behavior. The largest 

overwintering area is just south of Kingston, NY, near Esopus Meadows (RM 86-94, rkm 139-

152) (Dovel et al. 1992). The fish overwintering at Esopus Meadows are mainly spawning 

adults. Recent capture data suggests that these areas may be expanding (Hudson River 1999-

2002, Dynegy 2003). Captures of shortnose sturgeon during the fall and winter from Saugerties 

to Hyde Park (greater Kingston reach), indicate that additional smaller overwintering areas may 

be present (Geoghegan et al. 1992). Both Geoghegan et al. (1992) and Dovel et al. (1992) also 

confirmed an overwintering site in the Croton-Haverstraw Bay area (RM 33.5 – 38,rkm 54-61). 

The Indian Point facility is located approximately 8km (5 miles) north of the northern extent of 

this overwintering area, which is near rkm 61 (RM 38). Fish overwintering in areas below 

Esopus Meadows are mainly thought to be pre-spawning adults. Typically, movements during 

overwintering periods are localized and fairly sedentary. 

In the Hudson River, males usually spawn at approximately 3-5 years of age while females 

spawn at approximately 6-10 years of age (Dadswell et al. 1984; Bain et al. 1998). Males may 

spawn annually once mature and females typically spawn every 3 years (Dovel et al. 1992). 

Mature males feed only sporadically prior to the spawning migration, while females do not feed 

at all in the months prior to spawning. 

In approximately late March through mid-April, when water temperatures are sustained at 8o-9

C (46.4-48.2°F) for several days7

, reproductively active adults begin their migration upstream to 

the spawning grounds that extend from below the Federal Dam at Troy to about Coeymans, NY 

(rkm 245-212 (RM 152-131); located more than 150km (93 miles) upstream from the Indian 

Point facility) (Dovel et al. 1992). Spawning typically occurs at water temperatures between 10-

18C (50-64.4°F) (generally late April-May) after which adults disperse quickly down river into 

their summer range. Dovel et al. (1992) reported that spawning fish tagged at Troy were 

recaptured in Haverstraw Bay in early June. The broad summer range occupied by adult 

shortnose sturgeon extends from approximately rkm 38 to rkm 177 (RM 23.5-110). The Indian 

Point facility (at rkm 69) is located within the broad summer range. 

There is scant data on actual collection of early life stages of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson 

River. During a mark recapture study conducted from 1976-1978, Dovel et al. (1979) captured 

larvae near Hudson, NY (rkm 188, RM 117) and young of the year were captured further south 

near Germantown (RM 106, rkm 171). Between 1996 and 2004, approximately 10 small 

shortnose sturgeon were collected each year as part of the Falls Shoals Survey (FSS) (ASA 

2007). Based upon basic life history information for shortnose sturgeon it is known that eggs 

 

7 Based on information from the USGS gage in Albany (gage no. 01359139), in 2002 mean water temperatures 

reached 8oC on April 10 and 15oC on April 20; 2003 - 8oC on April 14 and 15oC on May 19; 2004 - 8oC on April 17 

and 15oC on May 11. In 2011, water temperatures reached 8°C on April 11 and reached 15°C on May 19. In 2012, 

water temperatures reached 8°C on March 20 and reached 15°C on May 13. 
41 

adhere to solid objects on the river bottom (Buckley and Kynard 1981; Taubert 1980) and that 

eggs and larvae are expected to be present within the vicinity of the spawning grounds (rkm 245-

212, RM 152-131) for approximately four weeks post spawning (i.e., at latest through mid-June). 

Shortnose sturgeon larvae in the Hudson River generally range in size from 15 to 18 mm (0.6-0.7 

inches) TL at hatching (Pekovitch 1979). Larvae gradually disperse downstream after hatching, 

entering the tidal river (Hoff et al. 1988). Larvae or fry are free swimming and typically 

concentrate in deep channel habitat (Taubert and Dadswell 1980; Bath et al. 1981; Kieffer ad 

Kynard 1993). Given that fry are free swimming and foraging, they typically disperse 

downstream of spawning/rearing areas. Larvae can be found upstream of the salt wedge in the 

Hudson River estuary and are most commonly found in deep waters with strong currents, 

typically in the channel (Hoff et al. 1988; Dovel et al. 1992). Larvae are not tolerant of saltwater 

and their occurrence within the estuary is limited to freshwater areas. The transition from the 

larval to juvenile stage generally occurs in the first summer of life when the fish grows to 

approximately 2 cm (0.8 in) TL and is marked by fully developed external characteristics 

(Pekovitch 1979). 

Similar to non-spawning adults, most juveniles occupy the broad region of Haverstraw Bay (rkm 

55-64.4) RM 34-40; Indian Point is located near the northern edge of the bay) (Dovel et al. 

1992; Geoghegan et al. 1992) by late fall and early winter. Migrations from the summer 

foraging areas to the overwintering grounds are triggered when water temperatures fall to 8°C 

(46.4°F) (NMFS 1998), typically in late November8

. Juveniles are distributed throughout the 

mid-river region during the summer and move back into the Haverstraw Bay region during the 

late fall (Bain et al. 1998; Geoghegan et al. 1992; Haley 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon are bottom feeders and juveniles may use the protuberant snout to “vacuum” 

the river bottom. Curran & Ries (1937) described juvenile shortnose sturgeon from the Hudson 

River as having stomach contents of 85-95% mud intermingled with plant and animal material. 

Other studies found stomach contents of adults were solely food items, implying that feeding is 

more precisely oriented. The ventral protrusable mouth and barbells are adaptations for a diet of 

small live benthic animals. Juveniles feed on smaller and somewhat different organisms than 

adults. Common prey items are aquatic insects (chironomids), isopods, and amphipods. Unlike 

adults, mollusks do not appear to be an important part of the diet of juveniles (Bain 1997). As 

adults, their diet shifts strongly to mollusks (Curran & Ries 1937). 

Telemetry data has been instrumental in informing the extent of shortnose sturgeon coastal 

migrations. Recent telemetry data from the Gulf of Maine indicate shortnose sturgeon in this 

region undertake significant coastal migrations between larger river systems and utilize smaller 

coastal river systems during these interbasin movements (Fernandes 2008; UMaine unpublished 

data). Some outmigration has been documented in the Hudson River, albeit at low levels in 

comparison to coastal movement documented in the Gulf of Maine and Southeast rivers. Two 

individuals tagged in 1995 in the overwintering area near Kingston, NY were later recaptured in 

 

8

In 2002, water temperatures at the USGS gage at Hastings-on-Hudson (No. 01376304; the farthest downstream 

gage on the river) fell to 8°C on November 23. In 2003, water temperatures at this gage fell to 8°C on November 

29. In 2010, water temperatures at the USGS gage at West Point, NY (No. 01374019; currently the farthest 

downstream gage on the river) fell to 8°C on November 23. In 2011, water temperatures at the USGS gage at West 

Point, NY (No. 01374019) fell to 8°C on November 24. This gage ceased operations on March 1, 2012. 
42 

the Connecticut River. One of these fish was at large for over two years and the other 8 years 

prior to recapture. As such, it is reasonable to expect some level of movement out of the Hudson 

into adjacent river systems; however, based on available information it is not possible to predict 

what percentage of adult shortnose sturgeon originating from the Hudson River may participate 

in coastal migrations. 

4.6 Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River and the action area 

Use of the river by Atlantic sturgeon has been described by several authors. The area around 

Hyde Park (approximately rkm134) has consistently been identified as a spawning area through 

scientific studies and historical records of the Hudson River sturgeon fishery (Dovel and 

Berggren, 1983; Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; Kahnle et al., 1998; Bain et al., 2000). Habitat 

conditions at the Hyde Park site are described as freshwater year round with bedrock, silt and 

clay substrates and waters depths of 12-24 m (Bain et al., 2000). Bain et al. (2000) also 

identified a spawning site at rkm 112 based on tracking data. The rkm 112 site, located to one 

side of the river, has clay, silt and sand substrates, and is approximately 21-27 m deep (Bain et 

al., 2000). 

Young-of-year (YOY) have been recorded in the Hudson River between rkm 60 and rkm 148, 

which includes some brackish waters; however, larvae must remain upstream of the salt wedge 

because of their low salinity tolerance (Dovel and Berggren, 1983; Kahnle et al., 1998; Bain et 

al., 2000). Catches of immature sturgeon (age 1 and older) suggest that juveniles utilize the 

estuary from the Tappan Zee Bridge through Kingston (rkm 43- rkm 148) (Dovel and Berggren, 

1983; Bain et al., 2000). Seasonal movements are apparent with juveniles occupying waters 

from rkm 60 to rkm 107 during summer months and then moving downstream as water 

temperatures decline in the fall, primarily occupying waters from rkm 19 to rkm 74 (Dovel and 

Berggren, 1983; Bain et al., 2000). Based on river-bottom sediment maps (Coch, 1986) most 

juvenile sturgeon habitats in the Hudson River have clay, sand, and silt substrates (Bain et al., 

2000). Newburgh and Haverstraw Bays in the Hudson River are areas of known juvenile 

sturgeon concentrations (Sweka et al., 2007). Sampling in spring and fall revealed that highest 

catches of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon occurred during spring in soft-deep areas of Haverstraw 

Bay even though this habitat type comprised only 25% of the available habitat in the Bay (Sweka 

et al., 2007). Overall, 90% of the total 562 individual juvenile Atlantic sturgeon captured during 

the course of this study (14 were captured more than once) came from Haverstraw Bay (Sweka et 

al., 2007). At around 3 years of age, Hudson River juveniles exceeding 70 cm total length begin 

to migrate to marine waters (Bain et al., 2000). 

Atlantic sturgeon adults are likely to migrate through the action area in the spring as they move 

from oceanic overwintering sites to upstream spawning sites and then migrate back through the 

area as they move to lower reaches of the estuary or oceanic areas in the late spring and early 

summer. Atlantic sturgeon adults are most likely to occur in the action area from May –

September. Tracking data from tagged juvenile Atlantic sturgeon indicates that during the spring 

and summer individuals are most likely to occur within rkm 60-170. During the winter months, 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are most likely to occur between rkm 19 and 74. This seasonal change 

in distribution may be associated with seasonal movements of the saltwedge and differential 

seasonal use of habitats. 
43 

Based on the available data, Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the action area year round. As 

explained above, Atlantic sturgeon in the action area are likely to have originated from the New 

York Bight DPS, Chesapeake Bay DPS and Gulf of Maine DPS, with the majority of individuals 

originating from the New York Bight DPS, and the majority of those individuals originating 

from the Hudson River. 

4.7 Factors Affecting the Survival and Recovery of Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in 

the Hudson River 

There are several activities that occur in the Hudson River that affect individual shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon. Impacts of activities that occur within the action area are considered in the 

“Environmental Baseline” section (Section 5.0, below). Activities that impact sturgeon in the 

Hudson River but do not necessarily overlap with the action area are discussed below. 

4.7.1 Hudson River Power Plants 

The mid-Hudson River provides cooling water to four large power plants: Indian Point Nuclear 

Generating Station, Roseton Generating Station (RM 66, rkm 107), Danskammer Point 

Generating Station (RM 66, rkm 107), and Bowline Point Generating Station (RM 33, rkm 52.8). 

All of these stations use once-through cooling. The Lovett Generating Station (RM 42, rkm 67) 

is no longer operating. 

In 1998, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC), the operator of the Roseton 

and Danskammer Point power plants initiated an application with us for an incidental take (ITP) 

permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA.9

 As part of this process CHGEC submitted a 

Conservation Plan and application for a 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit that proposed to 

minimize the potential for entrainment and impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the Roseton 

and Danskammer Point power plants. These measures ensure that the operation of these plants 

will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of shortnose sturgeon in 

the wild. In addition to the minimization measures, a proposed monitoring program was 

implemented to assess the periodic take of shortnose sturgeon, the status of the species in the 

project area, and the progress on the fulfillment of mitigation requirements. In December 2000, 

Dynegy Roseton L.L.C. and Dynegy Danskammer Point L.L.C. were issued incidental take 

permit no. 1269 (ITP 1269). At the time the ITP was issued, Atlantic sturgeon were not listed 

under the ESA; therefore, the ITP does not address Atlantic sturgeon. 

The ITP exempts the incidental take of two shortnose sturgeon at Roseton and four at 

Danskammer Point annually. This incidental take level is based upon impingement data 

collected from 1972-1998. NMFS determined that this level of take was not likely to reduce the 

numbers, distribution, or reproduction of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon in a 

way that appreciably reduces the likelihood of shortnose sturgeon to survive and recover in the 

wild. Since the ITP was issued, the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged has been very low. 

Dynegy has indicated that this may be due in part to reduced operations at the facilities which 

 

9 CHGEC has since been acquired by Dynegy Danskammer L.L.C. and Dynegy Roseton L.L.C. (Dynegy), thus the 

current incidental take permit is held by Dynegy. ESA Section 9 prohibits take, among other things, without express 

authorization through a Section 10 permit or exemption through a Section 7 Incidental Take Statement. 
44 

results in significantly less water withdrawal and therefore, less opportunity for impingement. 

While historical monitoring reports indicate that a small number of sturgeon larvae were 

entrained at Danskammer, no sturgeon larvae have been observed in entrainment samples 

collected since the ITP was issued. While the ITP does not currently address Atlantic sturgeon, 

the number of interactions with Atlantic sturgeon at Roseton and Danskammer that have been 

reported to NMFS since the ITP became effective has been very low. 

4.7.2 Scientific Studies permitted under Section 10 of the ESA 

The Hudson River population of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon have been the focus of a 

prolonged history of scientific research. In the 1930s, the New York State Biological Survey 

launched the first scientific sampling study and documented the distribution, age, and size of 

mature shortnose sturgeon (Bain et al. 1998). In the early 1970s, research resumed in response 

to a lack of biological data and concerns about the impact of electric generation facilities on 

fishery resources (Hoff 1988). In an effort to monitor relative abundance, population status, and 

distribution, intensive sampling of shortnose sturgeon in this region has continued throughout the 

past forty years. Sampling studies targeting other species, including Atlantic sturgeon, also 

incidentally capture shortnose sturgeon. 

There are currently three scientific research permits issued pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

ESA that authorize research on sturgeon in the Hudson River. The activities authorized under 

these permits are presented below. 

NYDEC holds a scientific research permit (#16439, which replaces their previously held permit 

#1547) authorizing the assessment of habitat use, population abundance, reproduction, 

recruitment, age and growth, temporal and spatial distribution, diet selectivity, and contaminant 

load of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River Estuary from New York Harbor (RKM 0) to 

Troy Dam (RKM 245). NYDEC is authorized to use gillnets and trawls to capture up to 240 and 

2,340 shortnose sturgeon in year one through years three and four and five, respectively. 

Research activities include: capture; measure, weigh; tag with passive integrated transponder 

(PIT) tags and Floy tags, if untagged; and sample genetic fin clips. A first subset of fish will also 

be anesthetized and tagged with acoustic transmitters; a second subset will have fin rays sampled 

for age and growth analysis; and a third subset will have gastric contents lavaged for diet 

analysis, as well as blood samples taken for contaminants. The unintentional mortality of nine 

shortnose sturgeon is anticipated over the five year life of the permit. This permit expires on 

November 24, 2016. 

In April 2012, NYDEC was issued a scientific research permit (#16436) which authorizes the 

capture, handling and tagging of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. NYDEC is authorized 

to capture 1,350 juveniles and 200 adults. The unintentional mortality of two juveniles is 

anticipated annually over the five year life of the permit. This permit expires on April 5, 2017. 

A permit was issued to Dynegy10 in 2007 (#1580, originally issued in December 2000 as #1254 

to Dynegy Danskammer, LLC and Dynegy Roseton, LLC) to evaluate the life history, population 

 

10 Permit 1580 was issued by NMFS to Dynegy on behalf of "other Hudson River Generators including Entergy 

Nuclear Indian Point 2, L.L.C., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, L.L.C. and Mirant (now GenOn) Bowline, L.L.C." 
45 

trends, and spacio-temporal and size distribution of shortnose sturgeon collected during the 

annual Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program. This permit was reissued to Entergy in 

August 2012 as permit #17095; the permit will expire in 2017. The permit holders are 

authorized to capture up to 82 shortnose sturgeon adults/juveniles and 82 Atlantic sturgeon 

annually to measure, weigh, tag, photograph, and collect tissue samples for genetic analyses. 

The permit also authorizes the lethal take of up to 40 larvae of each species annually. No lethal 

take of any juvenile, subadult or adult sturgeon is authorized. 

4.7.3 Hudson River Navigation Project 

The Hudson River navigation project authorizes a channel 600 feet wide, New York City to 

Kingston narrowing to 400 feet wide to 2,200 feet south of the Mall Bridge (Dunn Memorial 

Bridge) at Albany with a turning basin at Albany and anchorages near Hudson and Stuyvesant, 

all with depths of 32 feet in soft material and 34 feet in rock; then 27 feet deep and 400 feet wide 

to 900 feet south of the Mall Bridge (Dunn Memorial Bridge); then 14 feet deep and generally 

400 feet wide, to the Federal Lock at Troy; and then 14 feet deep and 200 feet wide, to the 

southern limit of the State Barge Canal at Waterford; with widening at bends and widening in 

front of the cities of Troy and Albany to form harbors 12 feet deep. The total length of the 

existing navigation project (NYC to Waterford) is about 155 miles. The only portion of the 

channel that is regularly dredged is the North Germantown and Albany reaches. Dredging is 

scheduled at times of year when sturgeon are least likely to be in the dredged reaches; no 

interactions with sturgeon have been observed. 

4.7.4 Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement Project 

The U.S. Federal Highway Authority (FHWA), the New York Department of Transportation 

(DOT), the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) are planning to replace the existing 

Tappan Zee Bridge. A Record of Decision was signed in September 2012 and construction may 

start as soon as Fall 2012. Construction is expected to take 5 years. We issued a Biological 

Opinion to FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, in June 2012. This Opinion concluded that the 

proposed bridge replacement project may adversely affect but was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. The ITS included 

with the Opinion exempts the lethal take of 2 shortnose sturgeon and 2 Atlantic sturgeon (from 

the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight or Chesapeake Bay DPS), as well as the capture and injury 

of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight and Chesapeake 

Bay DPS. As described in the Opinion, we anticipate injury and mortality will occur as a result 

of exposure to underwater noise from pile driving or capture in the dredge bucket. FHWA 

carried out a pile installation demonstration project in spring 2012 and no injured or dead 

sturgeon were observed. 

4.7.5 Other Federally Authorized Actions 

We have completed several informal consultations on effects of in-water construction activities 

in the Hudson River and New York Harbor permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE). This includes several dock and pier projects. No interactions with shortnose or 

Atlantic sturgeon have been reported in association with any of these projects. 

We have also completed several informal consultations on effects of private dredging projects 

permitted by the USACE. All of the dredging was with a mechanical dredge. No interactions 
46 

with shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon have been reported in association with any of these projects. 

4.7.6 State Authorized Fisheries 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon may be vulnerable to capture, injury and mortality in fisheries 

occurring in state waters. Information on the number of sturgeon captured or killed in state 

fisheries is extremely limited and as such, efforts are currently underway to obtain more 

information on the numbers of sturgeon captured and killed in state water fisheries. We are 

currently working with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the 

coastal states to assess the impacts of state authorized fisheries on sturgeon. We anticipate that 

some states are likely to apply for ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permits to cover their 

fisheries; however, to date, no applications have been submitted. Below, we discuss the different 

fisheries authorized by the states and any available information on interactions between these 

fisheries and sturgeon. 

American Eel 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is exploited in fresh, brackish and coastal waters from the 

southern tip of Greenland to northeastern South America. American eel fisheries are conducted 

primarily in tidal and inland waters. In the Hudson River, eels between 6 and 14 inches long 

may be kept for bait; no eels may be kept for food (due to potential PCB contamination). Eels 

are typically caught with hook and line or with eel traps and may also be caught with fyke nets. 

Sturgeon are not known to interact with the eel fishery. 

Shad and River herring 

Shad and river herring (blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewives (Alosa 

pseudoharengus)) are managed under an ASMFC Interstate Fishery Management Plan. In 2005, 

the ASMFC approved a coastwide moratorium on commercial and recreational fishing for shad. 

In May 2009, ASMFC adopted Amendment 2 to the ISFMP for Shad and River Herring, which 

closes all recreational and commercial fisheries unless each state can show its fisheries are 

sustainable. New York has submitted a Sustainable Fishing Plan that is currently under review. 

The plan prohibits the taking of river herring in any state waters, except for Hudson River stocks, 

for which it proposes partial closure in the tributaries and a five-year commercial gillnet fishery 

in the lower river. Although now closed, in the past this fishery was known to capture Atlantic 

and shortnose sturgeon. 

Striped bass 

Fishing for striped bass occurs within the Hudson River. Striped bass are managed by ASMFC 

through Amendment 6 to the Interstate FMP, which requires minimum sizes for the commercial 

and recreational fisheries, possession limits for the recreational fishery, and state quotas for the 

commercial fishery (ASMFC 2003). Under Addendum 2, the coastwide striped bass quota 

remains the same, at 70% of historical levels. Data from the Atlantic Coast Sturgeon Tagging 

Database (2000-2004) shows that the striped bass fishery accounted for 43% of Atlantic sturgeon 

recaptures; however, no information on the total number of Atlantic sturgeon caught by 

fishermen targeting striped bass is available. No information on interactions between shortnose 

sturgeon and the striped bass fishery is available; however, because shortnose sturgeon can be 

caught in hook and line fisheries as well as in otter trawls, if this gear is used in areas of the river 

and estuary where shortnose sturgeon are present, there could be some capture of shortnose and 
47 

Atlantic sturgeon in this fishery. 

4.7.7 Other Impacts of Human Activities in the Action Area 

Impacts of Contaminants and Water Quality 

Historically, shortnose sturgeon were rare in the lower Hudson River, likely as a result of poor 

water quality precluding migration further downstream. However, in the past several years, the 

water quality has improved and sturgeon have been found as far downstream as the 

Manhattan/Staten Island area. It is likely that contaminants remain in the water and in the action 

area, albeit to reduced levels. Sewage, industrial pollutants and waterfront development has 

likely decreased the water quality in the action area. Contaminants introduced into the water 

column or through the food chain, eventually become associated with the benthos where bottom 

dwelling species like sturgeon are particularly vulnerable. Several characteristics of shortnose 

sturgeon life history including long life span, extended residence in estuarine habitats, and being 

a benthic omnivore, predispose this species to long term repeated exposure to environmental 

contaminants and bioaccumulation of toxicants (Dadswell 1979). 

Principal toxic chemicals in the Hudson River include pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals, 

and other organic contaminants such as PAHs and PCBs. Concentrations of many heavy metals 

also appear to be in decline and remaining areas of concern are largely limited to those near 

urban or industrialized areas. With the exception of areas near New York City, there currently 

does not appear to be a major concern with respect to heavy metals in the Hudson River, 

however metals could have previously affected sturgeon. 

PAHs, which are products of incomplete combustion, most commonly enter the Hudson River as 

a result of urban runoff. As a result, areas of greatest concern are limited to urbanized areas, 

principally near New York City. The majority of individual PAHs of concern have declined 

during the past decade in the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor. 

PCBs are the principal toxic chemicals of concern in the Hudson River. Primary inputs of PCBs 

in freshwater areas of the Hudson River are from the upper Hudson River near Fort Edward and 

Hudson Falls, New York. In the lower Hudson River, PCB concentrations observed are a result 

of both transport from upstream as well as direct inputs from adjacent urban areas. PCBs tend to 

be bound to sediments and also bioaccumulate and biomagnify once they enter the food chain. 

This tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify results in the concentration of PCBs in the tissue 

concentrations in aquatic-dependent organisms. These tissue levels can be many orders of 

magnitude higher than those observed in sediments and can approach or even exceed levels that 

pose concern over risks to the environment and to humans who might consume these organisms. 

PCBs can have serious deleterious effects on aquatic life and are associated with the production 

of acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive impairment (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993). 

PCB’s may also contribute to a decreased immunity to fin rot (Dovel et al. 1992). Large areas of 

the upper Hudson River are known to be contaminated by PCBs, and this is thought to account 

for the high percentage of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River exhibiting fin rot. Under a 

statewide toxics monitoring program, the NYSDEC analyzed tissues from four shortnose 

sturgeon to determine PCB concentrations. In gonadal tissues, where lipid percentages are 

highest, the average PCB concentration was 29.55 parts per million (ppm; Sloan 1981) and in all 
48 

tissues ranged from 22.1 to 997.0 ppm. Dovel (1992) reported that more than 75% of the 

shortnose sturgeon captured in his study had severe incidence of fin rot. Given that Atlantic 

sturgeon have similar sensitivities to toxins as shortnose sturgeon it is reasonable to anticipate 

that Atlantic sturgeon have been similarly affected. In the Connecticut River, coal tar leachate 

was suspected of impairing sturgeon reproductive success. Kocan (1993) conducted a laboratory 

study to investigate the survival of sturgeon eggs and larvae exposed to PAHs, a by-product of 

coal distillation. Only approximately 5% of sturgeon embryos and larvae survived after 18 days 

of exposure to Connecticut River coal-tar (i.e., PAH) demonstrating that contaminated sediment 

is toxic to shortnose sturgeon embryos and larvae under laboratory exposure conditions (NMFS 

1998). Manufactured Gas Product (MGP) waste, which is chemically similar to the coal tar 

deposits found in the Connecticut River, is known to occur at several sites within the Hudson 

River and this waste may have had similar effects on any sturgeon present in the action area over 

the years. 

 

Point source discharge (i.e., municipal wastewater, paper mill effluent, industrial or power plant 

cooling water or waste water) and compounds associated with discharges (i.e., metals, dioxins, 

dissolved solids, phenols, and hydrocarbons) contribute to poor water quality and may also 

impact the health of sturgeon populations. The compounds associated with discharges can alter 

the pH of receiving waters, which may lead to mortality, changes in fish behavior, deformations, 

and reduced egg production and survival. 

Heavy usage of the Hudson River and development along the waterfront could have affected 

shortnose sturgeon throughout the action area. Coastal development and/or construction sites 

often result in excessive water turbidity, which could influence sturgeon spawning and/or 

foraging ability. 

The Hudson River is used as a source of potable water, for waste disposal, transportation and 

cooling by industry and municipalities. Rohman et al. (1987) identified 183 separate industrial 

and municipal discharges to the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. The greatest number of users were 

in the chemical industry, followed by the oil industry, paper and textile manufactures, sand, 

gravel, and rock processors, power plants, and cement companies. Approximately 20 publicly 

owned treatment works discharge sewage and wastewater into the Hudson River. Most of the 

municipal wastes receive primary and secondary treatment. A relatively small amount of sewage 

is attributed to discharges from recreational boats. 

Water quality conditions in the Hudson River have dramatically improved since the mid-1970s. 

It is thought that this improvement may be a contributing factor to the improvement in the status 

of shortnose sturgeon in the river. However, as evidenced above, there are still concerns 

regarding the impacts of water quality on sturgeon in the river; particularly related to legacy 

contaminants for which no new discharges may be occurring, but environmental impacts are long 

lasting (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, coal tar, etc.) 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present impacts of all state, 

federal or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of 

all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early 
49 

Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with 

the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline for this Opinion 

includes the effects of several activities that may affect the survival and recovery of the listed 

species in the action area. 

As described above, the action area is limited to the area where direct and indirect effects of the 

Indian Point facility are experienced and by definition is limited in the Hudson River to the 

intake areas of IP1 (for service water), IP2 and IP3 and the region where the thermal plume 

extends into the Hudson River from IP2 and IP3. The discussion below focuses on effects of 

state, federal or private actions, other than the action under consideration, that occur in the action 

area. 

5.1 Federal Actions that have Undergone Formal or Early Section 7 Consultation 

The only Federal actions that occur within the action area are the operations of the Indian Point 

facility and research activities authorized pursuant to Section 10 of the ESA (discussed above). 

No Federal actions that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation occur in the action 

area. 

Impacts of the Historical Operation of the Indian Point Facility 

IP1 operated from 1962 through October 1974. IP2 and IP3 have been operational since 1973 

and 1975, respectively. Since 1963, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River have 

been exposed to effects of this facility. Eggs and early larvae would be the only life stages of 

sturgeon small enough to be vulnerable to entrainment at the Indian Point intakes (openings in 

the wedge wire screens are 6mm x 12.5 mm (0.25 inches by 0.5 inches); eggs are small enough 

to pass through these openings but are not expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of the 

Indian Point site. 

Studies to evaluate the effects of entrainment at IP2 and IP3 occurred from the early 1970s 

through 1987, with intense daily sampling during the spring of 1981-1987. As reported by the 

NRC in its FSEIS considering the proposed relicensing of IP2 and IP3 (NRC 2011), entrainment 

monitoring reports list no shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon eggs or larvae at IP2 or IP3. Given 

what is known about these life stages (i.e., no eggs expected to be present in the action area; 

larvae only expected to be found in the deep channel area away from the intakes) and the 

intensity of the past monitoring, it is reasonable to assume that this past monitoring provides an 

accurate assessment of past entrainment of sturgeon early life stages. Based on this, it is unlikely 

that any entrainment of sturgeon eggs and larvae occurred historically. 

We have no information on any monitoring for impingement that may have occurred at the IP1 

intakes. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether any monitoring did occur at the IP1 

intakes and whether shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon were recorded as impinged at IP1 intakes. 

Despite this lack of data, given that the IP1 intake is located between the IP2 and IP3 intakes and 

operates in a similar manner, it is reasonable to assume that some number of shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon were impinged at the IP1 intakes during the time that IP1 was operational. 

However, based on the information available to us, we are unable to make a quantitative 

assessment of the likely number of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP1 during the 

period in which it was operational. 
50 

The impingement of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 has been documented (NRC 

2011). Impingement monitoring occurred from 1974-1990, and during this time period, 21 

shortnose sturgeon were observed impinged at IP2. For Unit 3, 11 impinged shortnose sturgeon 

were recorded. At Unit 2, 251 Atlantic sturgeon were observed as impinged during this time 

period, with an annual range of 0-118 individuals (peak number in 1975); at Unit 3, 266 Atlantic 

sturgeon were observed as impinged, with an annual range of 0-153 individuals (peak in 1976). 

No monitoring of the intakes for impingement has occurred since 1990. 

While models of the current thermal plume are available, it is not clear whether this model 

accurately represents past conditions associated with the thermal plume. As no information on 

past thermal conditions are available and no monitoring was done historically to determine if the 

thermal plume was affecting shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon or their prey, it is not possible to 

estimate past effects associated with the discharge of heated effluent from the Indian Point 

facility. No information is available on any past impacts to shortnose sturgeon prey due to 

impingement or entrainment or exposure to the thermal plume. This is because no monitoring of 

sturgeon prey in the action area has occurred. 

6.0 CLIMATE CHANGE 

The discussion below presents background information on global climate change and 

information on past and predicted future effects of global climate change throughout the range of 

the listed species considered here. Additionally, we present the available information on 

predicted effects of climate change in the action area and how listed sturgeon may be affected by 

those predicted environmental changes over the life of the proposed action. Climate change is 

relevant to the Status of the Species, Environmental Baseline and Cumulative Effects sections of 

this Opinion; rather than include partial discussion in several sections of this Opinion, we are 

synthesizing this information into one discussion. Effects of the proposed action that are 

relevant to climate change are included in the Effects of the Action section below (section 7.0 

below). 

6.1 Background Information on predicted climate change 

The global mean temperature has risen 0.76oC (1.36°F) over the last 150 years, and the linear 

trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a). Precipitation 

has increased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 

2000). There is a high confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in 

marine systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice 

cover, salinity, oxygen levels, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting from massive 

amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants released into the air can have major adverse 

impacts on the calcium balance in the oceans. Changes to the marine ecosystem due to climate 

change include shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (IPCC 

2007b); these trends have been most apparent over the past few decades. 

Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperature and 

precipitation over the next century. Both of the principal climate models used by the National 

Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) project warming in the southeast by the 2090s, but at 

different rates (NAST 2000): the Canadian model scenario shows the southeast U.S. 

experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher 
51 

temperatures increase evaporation; the Hadley model scenario projects less warming and a 

significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). The scenarios examined, which assume no 

major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse gases (GHG), indicate that 

temperatures in the U.S. will rise by about 3o-5oC (5o-9oF) on average in the next 100 years 

which is more than the projected global increase (NAST 2000). A warming of about 0.2oC 

(0.4°F) per decade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios 

(IPCC 2007). This temperature increase will very likely be associated with more extreme 

precipitation and faster evaporation of water, leading to greater frequency of both very wet and 

very dry conditions. Climate warming has resulted in increased precipitation, river discharge, 

and glacial and sea-ice melting (Greene et al. 2008). 

The past three decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns in the Arctic, 

and these were accompanied by climate associated changes as well (Greene et al. 2008). Shifts 

in atmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns and the export of 

freshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). With respect specifically to 

the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), changes in salinity and temperature are thought to be the 

result of changes in the earth’s atmosphere caused by anthropogenic forces (IPCC 2006). The 

NAO impacts climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (IPCC 2006). Data from 

the 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increased from minimum values in 

the 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC 

2006). This warming extends over 1000m (0.62 miles) deep and is deeper than anywhere in the 

world oceans and is particularly evident under the Gulf Stream/ North Atlantic Current system 

(IPCC 2006). On a global scale, large discharges of freshwater into the North Atlantic subarctic 

seas can lead to intense stratification of the upper water column and a disruption of North 

Atlantic Deepwater (NADW) formation (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). There is evidence that 

the NADW has already freshened significantly (IPCC 2006). This in turn can lead to a slowing 

down of the global ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms lowdensity upper ocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those 

waters back to the upper ocean), which can have climatic ramifications for the whole earth 

system (Greene et al. 2008). 

While predictions are available regarding potential effects of climate change globally, it is more 

difficult to assess the potential effects of climate change over the next few decades on coastal 

and marine resources on smaller geographic scales, such as the Hudson River, especially as 

climate variability is a dominant factor in shaping coastal and marine systems. The effects of 

future change will vary greatly in diverse coastal regions for the U.S. Additional information on 

potential effects of climate change specific to the action area is discussed below. Warming is 

very likely to continue in the U.S. over the next 25 to 50 years regardless of reduction in GHGs, 

due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 2000). It is very likely that the magnitude 

and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue to increase in the next 25 to 50 years, and it is 

possible that rate of change will accelerate. Climate change can cause or exacerbate direct stress 

on ecosystems through high temperatures, a reduction in water availability, and altered frequency 

of extreme events and severe storms. Water temperatures in streams and rivers are likely to 

increase as the climate warms and are very likely to have both direct and indirect effects on 

aquatic ecosystems. Changes in temperature will be most evident during low flow periods when 

they are of greatest concern (NAST 2000). In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in 
52 

geographic ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance are associated with high 

confidence with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, 

oxygen levels and circulation (IPCC 2007). 

 

A warmer and drier climate is expected to result in reductions in stream flows and increases in 

water temperatures. Expected consequences could be a decrease in the amount of dissolved 

oxygen in surface waters and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals 

due to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Because many rivers are already under a 

great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress may 

be exacerbated by changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be 

critical (Hulme 2005). A warmer-wetter climate could ameliorate poor water quality conditions 

in places where human-caused concentrations of nutrients and pollutants other than heat 

currently degrade water quality (Murdoch et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature and 

changes in seasonal patterns of runoff will very likely disturb fish habitat and affect recreational 

uses of lakes, streams, and wetlands. Surface water resources in the southeast are intensively 

managed with dams and channels and almost all are affected by human activities; in some 

systems water quality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. A global analysis of the 

potential effects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and 

water stress, the area of large river basins in need of reactive or proactive management 

interventions in response to climate change will be much higher for basins impacted by dams 

than for basins with free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). Human-induced disturbances also 

influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the systems to adapt so that 

systems that might ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less able to 

do so. Because stresses on water quality are associated with many activities, the impacts of the 

existing stresses are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Within 50 years, river basins 

that are impacted by dams or by extensive development may experience greater changes in 

discharge and water stress than unimpacted, free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). 

While debated, researchers anticipate: 1) the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods will 

change across the nation; 2) a warming of about 0.2oC (0.4°F) per decade; and 3) a rise in sea 

level (NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water 

temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and 

toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea level is expected to continue rising: during the 20th 

century global sea level has increased 15 to 20 cm (6-8 inches). 

6.2 Species Specific Information Related to Predicted Impacts of Climate Change 

6.2.1 Shortnose sturgeon 

Global climate change may affect shortnose sturgeon in the future. Rising sea level may result in 

the salt wedge moving upstream in affected rivers. Shortnose sturgeon spawning occurs in fresh 

water reaches of rivers because early life stages have little to no tolerance for salinity. Similarly, 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon have limited tolerance to salinity and remain in waters with little to 

no salinity. If the salt wedge moves further upstream, shortnose sturgeon spawning and rearing 

habitat could be restricted. In river systems with dams or natural falls that are impassable by 

sturgeon, the extent that spawning or rearing may be shifted upstream to compensate for the shift 

in the movement of the saltwedge would be limited. While there is an indication that an increase 
53 

in sea level rise would result in a shift in the location of the salt wedge, for most spawning rivers 

there are no predictions on the timing or extent of any shifts that may occur; thus, it is not 

possible to predict any future loss in spawning or rearing habitat. However, in all river systems, 

spawning occurs miles upstream of the saltwedge. It is unlikely that shifts in the location of the 

saltwedge would eliminate freshwater spawning or rearing habitat. If habitat was severely 

restricted, productivity or survivability may decrease. 

The increased rainfall predicted by some models in some areas may increase runoff and scour 

spawning areas and flooding events could cause temporary water quality issues. Rising 

temperatures predicted for all of the U.S. could exacerbate existing water quality problems with 

DO and temperature. While this occurs primarily in rivers in the southeast U.S. and the 

Chesapeake Bay, it may start to occur more commonly in the northern rivers. Shortnose 

sturgeon are tolerant to water temperatures up to approximately 28°C (82.4°F); these 

temperatures are experienced naturally in some areas of rivers during the summer months. If 

river temperatures rise and temperatures above 28°C are experienced in larger areas, sturgeon 

may be excluded from some habitats. 

Increased droughts (and water withdrawal for human use) predicted by some models in some 

areas may cause loss of habitat including loss of access to spawning habitat. Drought conditions 

in the spring may also expose eggs and larvae in rearing habitats. If a river becomes too shallow 

or flows become intermittent, all shortnose sturgeon life stages, including adults, may become 

susceptible to strandings. Low flow and drought conditions are also expected to cause additional 

water quality issues. Any of the conditions associated with climate change are likely to disrupt 

river ecology causing shifts in community structure and the type and abundance of prey. 

Additionally, cues for spawning migration and spawning could occur earlier in the season 

causing a mismatch in prey that are currently available to developing shortnose sturgeon in 

rearing habitat; however, this would be mitigated if prey species also had a shift in distribution or 

if developing sturgeon were able to shift their diets to other species. 

6.2.2 Atlantic sturgeon 

Global climate change may affect all DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon in the future; however, effects of 

increased water temperature and decreased water availability are most likely to effect the South 

Atlantic and Carolina DPSs. Rising sea level may result in the salt wedge moving upstream in 

affected rivers. Atlantic sturgeon spawning occurs in fresh water reaches of rivers because early 

life stages have little to no tolerance for salinity. Similarly, juvenile Atlantic sturgeon have 

limited tolerance to salinity and remain in waters with little to no salinity. If the salt wedge 

moves further upstream, Atlantic sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat could be restricted. In 

river systems with dams or natural falls that are impassable by sturgeon, the extent that spawning 

or rearing may be shifted upstream to compensate for the shift in the movement of the saltwedge 

would be limited. While there is an indication that an increase in sea level rise would result in a 

shift in the location of the salt wedge, at this time there are no predictions on the timing or extent 

of any shifts that may occur; thus, it is not possible to predict any future loss in spawning or 

rearing habitat. However, in all river systems, spawning occurs miles upstream of the 

saltwedge. It is unlikely that shifts in the location of the saltwedge would eliminate freshwater 

spawning or rearing habitat. If habitat was severely restricted, productivity or survivability may 

decrease. 
54 

The increased rainfall predicted by some models in some areas may increase runoff and scour 

spawning areas and flooding events could cause temporary water quality issues. Rising 

temperatures predicted for all of the U.S. could exacerbate existing water quality problems with 

DO and temperature. While this occurs primarily in rivers in the southeast U.S. and the 

Chesapeake Bay, it may start to occur more commonly in the northern rivers. Atlantic sturgeon 

prefer water temperatures up to approximately 28°C (82.4°F); these temperatures are 

experienced naturally in some areas of rivers during the summer months. If river temperatures 

rise and temperatures above 28°C are experienced in larger areas, sturgeon may be excluded 

from some habitats. 

Increased droughts (and water withdrawal for human use) predicted by some models in some 

areas may cause loss of habitat including loss of access to spawning habitat. Drought conditions 

in the spring may also expose eggs and larvae in rearing habitats. If a river becomes too shallow 

or flows become intermittent, all Atlantic sturgeon life stages, including adults, may become 

susceptible to strandings or habitat restriction. Low flow and drought conditions are also 

expected to cause additional water quality issues. Any of the conditions associated with climate 

change are likely to disrupt river ecology causing shifts in community structure and the type and 

abundance of prey. Additionally, cues for spawning migration and spawning could occur earlier 

in the season causing a mismatch in prey that are currently available to developing sturgeon in 

rearing habitat. 

6.3 Potential Effects of Climate Change in the Action Area 

Information on how climate change will impact the action area is extremely limited. Available 

information on climate change related effects for the Hudson River largely focuses on effects 

that rising water levels may have on the human environment. The New York State Sea Level 

Rise Task Force (Spector in Bhutta 2010) predicts a state-wide sea level rise of 7-52 inches by 

the end of this century, with the conservative range being about 2 feet. This compares to an 

average sea level rise of about 1 foot in the Hudson Valley in the past 100 years. Sea level rise is 

expected to result in the northward movement of the salt wedge. The location of the salt wedge 

in the Hudson River is highly variable depending on season, river flow, and precipitation so it is 

unclear what effect this northward shift could have. Potential negative effects of a shift in the 

salt wedge include restricting the habitat available for early life stages and juvenile sturgeon 

which are intolerant to salinity and are present exclusively upstream of the salt wedge. While 

there is an indication that an increase in sea level rise would result in a shift in the location of the 

salt wedge, at this time there are no predictions on the timing or extent of any shift that may 

occur. 

Air temperatures in the Hudson Valley have risen approximately 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1970. In 

the 2000s, the mean Hudson river water temperature, as measured at the Poughkeepsie Water 

Treatment Facility, was approximately 2°C (3.6°F) higher than averages recorded in the 1960s 

(Pisces 2008). However, while it is possible to examine past water temperature data and observe 

a warming trend, there are not currently any predictions on potential future increases in water 

temperature in the action area specifically or the Hudson River generally. The Pisces report 

(2008) also states that temperatures within the Hudson River may be becoming more extreme. 

For example, in 2005, water temperature on certain dates was close to the maximum ever 
55 

recorded and also on other dates reached the lowest temperatures recorded over a 53-year period. 

Other conditions that may be related to climate change that have been reported in the Hudson 

Valley are warmer winter temperatures, earlier melt-out and more severe flooding. An average 

increase in precipitation of about 5% is expected; however, information on the effects of an 

increase in precipitation on conditions in the action area is not available. 

Sea surface temperatures have fluctuated around a mean for much of the past century, as 

measured by continuous 100+ year records at Woods Hole (Mass.), and Boothbay Harbor 

(Maine) and shorter records from Boston Harbor and other bays. Periods of higher than average 

temperatures (in the 1950s) and cooler periods (1960s) have been associated with changes in the 

North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which affects current patterns. Over the past 30 years 

however, records indicate that ocean temperatures in the Northeast have been increasing; for 

example, Boothbay Harbor’s temperature has increased by about 1°C since 1970. While we are 

not able to find predictive models for New York, given the geographic proximity of these waters 

to the Northeast, we assume that predictions would be similar. For marine waters, the model 

projections are for an increase of somewhere between 3-4°C by 2100 and a pH drop of 0.3-0.4 

units by 2100 (Frumhoff et al. 2007). Assuming that these predictions also apply to the action 

area, one could anticipate similar conditions in the action area over that same time period; 

considering that the proposed action will occur until 2035, we could predict an increase in 

ambient water temperatures of 0.034-0.045 per year for an overall increase of 0.078-1.035°C . 

6.4 Effects of Climate Change in the Action Area to Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon 

As there is significant uncertainty in the rate and timing of change as well as the effect of any 

changes that may be experienced in the action area due to climate change, it is difficult to predict 

the impact of these changes on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. IP2 could operate until 2033 

and IP3 could operate until 2035; thus, we consider here, likely effects of climate change over 

this time period. 

Over time, the most likely effect to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would be if sea level rise was 

great enough to consistently shift the salt wedge far enough north which would restrict the range 

of juvenile sturgeon and may affect the development of these life stages. Upstream shifts in 

spawning or rearing habitat in the Hudson River are limited by the existence of the Troy Dam 

(RKM 250, RM 155), which is impassable by sturgeon. Currently, the saltwedge normally shifts 

seasonally from Yonkers to as far north as Poughkeepsie (RKM 120, RM 75). Given that 

sturgeon currently have over 75 miles of habitat upstream of the salt wedge before the Troy 

Dam, it is unlikely that the saltwedge would shift far enough upstream to result in a significant 

restriction of spawning or nursery habitat. The available habitat for juvenile sturgeon could 

decrease over time; however, even if the saltwedge shifted several miles upstream, it seems 

unlikely that the decrease in available habitat would have a significant effect on juvenile 

sturgeon because there would still be many miles of available low salinity habitat between the 

salt wedge and the Troy Dam. 

In the action area, it is possible that changing seasonal temperature regimes could result in 

changes in the timing of seasonal migrations through the area as sturgeon move to spawning and 

overwintering grounds. There could be shifts in the timing of spawning; presumably, if water 

temperatures warm earlier in the spring, and water temperature is a primary spawning cue, 
56 

spawning migrations and spawning events could occur earlier in the year. However, because 

spawning is not triggered solely by water temperature, but also by day length (which would not 

be affected by climate change) and river flow (which could be affected by climate change), it is 

not possible to predict how any change in water temperature or river flow alone will affect the 

seasonal movements of sturgeon through the action area. 

Any forage species that are temperature dependent may also shift in distribution as water 

temperatures warm. However, because we do not know the adaptive capacity of these 

individuals or how much of a change in temperature would be necessary to cause a shift in 

distribution, it is not possible to predict how these changes may affect foraging sturgeon. If 

sturgeon distribution shifted along with prey distribution, it is likely that there would be minimal, 

if any, impact on the availability of food. Similarly, if sturgeon shifted to areas where different 

forage was available and sturgeon were able to obtain sufficient nutrition from that new source 

of forage, any effect would be minimal. The greatest potential for effect to forage resources 

would be if sturgeon shifted to an area or time where insufficient forage was available; however, 

the likelihood of this happening seems low because sturgeon feed on a wide variety of species 

and in a wide variety of habitats. 

Limited information on the thermal tolerances of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon is available. 

Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in water temperatures above 30°C in the south (see 

Damon-Randall et al. 2010); in the wild, shortnose sturgeon are typically found in waters less 

than 28°C. In the laboratory, juvenile Atlantic sturgeon showed negative behavioral and 

bioenergetics responses (related to food consumption and metabolism) after prolonged exposure 

to temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F) (Niklitschek 2001). Tolerance to temperatures is 

thought to increase with age and body size (Ziegweid et al. 2008 and Jenkins et al. 1993), 

however, no information on the lethal thermal maximum or stressful temperatures for subadult or 

adult Atlantic sturgeon is available. Shortnose sturgeon, have been documented in the lab to 

experience mortality at temperatures of 33.7°C (92.66°F) or greater and are thought to 

experience stress at temperatures above 28°C. For purposes of considering thermal tolerances, 

we consider Atlantic sturgeon to be a reasonable surrogate for shortnose sturgeon given similar 

geographic distribution and known biological similarities. 

Normal surface water temperatures in the Hudson River can be as high as 24-27°C at some times 

and in some areas during the summer months; temperatures in deeper waters and near the bottom 

are cooler. A predicted increase in water temperature of 3-4°C within 100 years is expected to 

result in temperatures approaching the preferred temperature of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

(28°C) on more days and/or in larger areas. This could result in shifts in the distribution of 

sturgeon out of certain areas during the warmer months. Information from southern river 

systems suggests that during peak summer heat, sturgeon are most likely to be found in deep 

water areas where temperatures are coolest. Thus, we could expect that over time, sturgeon 

would shift out of shallow habitats on the warmest days. This could result in reduced foraging 

opportunities if sturgeon were foraging in shallow waters. 

As described above, over the long term, global climate change may affect shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon by affecting the location of the salt wedge, distribution of prey, water temperature and 

water quality. However, there is significant uncertainty, due to a lack of scientific data, on the 
57 

degree to which these effects may be experienced and the degree to which shortnose or Atlantic 

sturgeon will be able to successfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within 

and outside the action area that contribute to global climate change are also expected to affect 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the action area. While we can make some predictions on the 

likely effects of climate change on these species, without modeling and additional scientific data 

these predictions remain speculative. Additionally, these predictions do not take into account the 

adaptive capacity of these species which may allow them to deal with change better than 

predicted. 

7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

This section of an Opinion assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities 

that are interrelated or interdependent (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused 

by the proposed action and occur later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. 

Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for 

their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from 

the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). This Opinion examines the likely effects of the 

proposed action on listed species and their habitat in the action area within the context of the 

species current status, the environmental baseline and cumulative effects. The effects of the 

proposed action are the effects of the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 pursuant to the existing 

licenses and proposed renewed licenses to be issued by the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy 

Act. NRC has requested consultation on the proposed extended operation of the facilities under 

the same terms as in the existing licenses and existing SPDES permits. 

The proposed action has the potential to affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in several ways: 

impingement or entrainment of individual sturgeon at the intakes; altering the abundance or 

availability of potential prey items; and, altering the riverine environment through the discharge 

of heated effluent and other pollutants. 

7.1 Effects of Water Withdrawal 

Under the terms of the existing licenses and the proposed renewal licenses, IP2 and IP3 will 

continue to withdraw water from the Hudson River for cooling. Both units utilize once through 

cooling and will continue to use once through cooling during the extended operating period, 

assuming no changes are made to the proposed action. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that 

the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best 

technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. According to the draft 

SPDES permit for the facility, the NYDEC has determined for CWA purposes that the sitespecific best technology available to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the IP 

cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling (NYDEC 2003b). IP2 and IP3 currently 

operate pursuant to the terms of the SPDES permits issued by NYDEC in 1987 but 

administratively extended since then. NYDEC issued a draft SPDES permit in 2003. Its final 

contents and timeframe for issuance are uncertain, given it is still under adjudication at this time. 

While it is also uncertain that the facility will be able to operate under the same terms as those in 

its existing license and SPDES permit, NRC sought consultation on its proposal to renew the 

license for the facility under the same terms as the existing license and SPDES permit, which 

authorize once through cooling. Here, we consider the impacts to shortnose and Atlantic 
58 

sturgeon of the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 with the existing once through cooling system 

and existing SPDES permits from now through the duration of the proposed license renewal 

period for IP2 and IP3 (i.e., through September 28, 2033 and December 12, 2035, respectively). 

But, it is important to note that changes to the effects of the action, including but not limited to 

changes in the effects of the cooling water system, as well as changes in other factors, may 

trigger reinitiation of consultation (see 50 CFR 402.16). 

7.1.1 Entrainment 

Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling 

system during water withdrawals. Entrainment primarily affects small organisms with limited 

swimming ability that can pass through the screen mesh, used on the intake systems. Once 

entrained, organisms pass through the circulating pumps and are carried with the water flow 

through the intake conduits toward the condenser units. They are then drawn through one of the 

many condenser tubes used to cool the turbine exhaust steam (where cooling water absorbs heat) 

and then enter the discharge canal for return to the Hudson River. As entrained organisms pass 

through the intake they can be injured from abrasion or compression. Within the cooling system, 

they encounter physical impacts in the pumps and condenser tubing; pressure changes and shear 

stress throughout the system; thermal shock within the condenser; and exposure to chemicals, 

including chlorine and residual industrial chemicals discharged at the diffuser ports (Mayhew et 

al. 2000 in NRC 2011). Death can occur immediately or at a later time from the physiological 

effects of heat, or it can occur after organisms are discharged if stresses or injuries result in an 

inability to escape predators, a reduced ability to forage, or other impairments. 

7.1.1.1 Entrainment of Shortnose Sturgeon 

The southern extent of the shortnose sturgeon spawning area in the Hudson River is 

approximately RM 118 (rkm 190), approximately 75 miles (121 km) upstream of the Indian 

Point facility. The eggs of shortnose sturgeon are demersal, sinking and adhering to the bottom 

of the river, and, upon hatching the larvae in both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages remain on 

the bottom of the river, primarily upstream of RM 110 (rkm 177) (NMFS 2000). Because eggs 

do not occur near the IP intakes, there is no probability of entrainment. Shortnose sturgeon 

larvae are 20mm (0.8 inches) in length at the time they begin downstream migrations (Buckley 

and Kynard 1995). Because of intolerance to salinity, larvae occur only in freshwater, above the 

salt wedge. The location of the salt wedge in the Hudson River varies both seasonally and 

annually, depending at least partially on freshwater input (e.g., rainfall, snow melt). In many 

years, the salt wedge is located upstream of the Indian Point intakes; in those years, larvae would 

not be expected to occur near the IP intakes as the salinity levels would be too high. However, at 

times when the salt wedge is downstream of the intakes, which is most likely to occur in the late 

summer, there is the potential for shortnose sturgeon larvae to be present in the action area. 

Larvae occur in the deepest water and in the Hudson River, they are found in the deep channel 

(Taubert and Dadswell 1980; Bath et al. 1981; Kieffer and Kynard 1993). Larvae grow rapidly 

and after a few weeks are too large to be entrained by the cooling water intake; thus, any 

potential for entrainment is limited to any period when individuals are small enough to pass 

through the openings in the mesh screens that coincide with a period when the salt wedge is 

located downstream of the intakes. Given the distance between the intake and the deep channel 

(2000 feet; 610 meters) where any larvae would be present if in the action area, larvae are 

unlikely to occur near the intake where they could be susceptible to entrainment. 
59 

Studies to evaluate the effects of entrainment at IP2 and IP3 conducted since the early 1970s 

employed a variety of methods to assess actual entrainment losses and to evaluate the survival of 

entrained organisms after they are released back into the environment by the once-through 

cooling system. IP2 and IP3 monitored entrainment from 1972 through 1987. Entrainment 

monitoring became more intensive at Indian Point from 1981 through 1987, and sampling was 

conducted for nearly 24 hours per day, four to seven days per week, during the spawning season 

in the spring. As reported by NRC, entrainment-monitoring reports list no shortnose sturgeon 

eggs or larvae at IP2 or IP3. During the development of the HCP for steam electric generators 

on the Hudson River, NMFS reviewed all available entrainment data. In the HCP, NMFS (2000) 

lists only eight sturgeon larvae collected at any of the mid-Hudson River power plants (all eight 

were collected at Danskammer (approximately 23 miles upstream of Indian Point), and four of 

the eight may have been Atlantic sturgeon). Entrainment sampling data supplied by the 

applicant (Entergy 2007b) include large numbers of larvae for which the species could not be 

determined; however, NRC has indicated that as sturgeon larvae are distinctive it is unlikely that 

sturgeon larvae would occur in the “unaccounted” category as it is expected that if there were 

any sturgeon larvae in these samples they would have been identifiable. Entergy currently is not 

required to conduct any monitoring program to record entrainment at IP2 and IP3; however, it is 

reasonable to use past entrainment results to predict future effects. This is because: (1) there 

have not been any operational changes that make entrainment more likely now than it was during 

the time when sampling took place and, (2)there have been no changes in the locations where 

sturgeon spawn which would increase the exposure of eggs or larvae to entrainment. 

Additionally, the years when intense entrainment sampling took place overlap with two of the 

years (1986 and 1987; Woodland and Secor 2007) when shortnose sturgeon recruitment is 

thought to have been the highest and therefore, the years when the greatest numbers of shortnose 

sturgeon larvae were available for entrainment. Reliance on the lack of observed entrainment of 

shortnose sturgeon during sampling at IP2 and IP3 is also reasonable given the known 

information on the location of shortnose sturgeon spawning and the distribution of eggs and 

larvae in the river. 

NRC was not able to provide NMFS with any historical monitoring data from the IP1 intakes and 

it is not clear if any monitoring at IP1 ever occurred. However, given that the IP1 intake (used 

for service water for IP2) is located adjacent to the IP2 and IP3 intakes and that intake velocity 

and screen size is comparable to IP2 and IP3 it is reasonable to expect that the potential for 

entrainment of early life stages of shortnose sturgeon at the IP1 intake is comparable to the 

potential for entrainment of early life stages of shortnose sturgeon at the IP2 and IP3 intakes. 

Based on the life history of the shortnose sturgeon, the location of spawning grounds within the 

Hudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and larvae, it is extremely unlikely that 

any shortnose sturgeon early life stages would be entrained at IP2 and/or IP3. This conclusion is 

supported by the lack of any eggs or larvae positively identified as sturgeon and documented 

during entrainment monitoring at IP2 or IP3. Provided that assumption is true, NMFS does not 

anticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae in the future when IP2 and IP3 

are operating pursuant to their current licenses or when they are operating pursuant to their 

extended operating license (i.e., through September 28, 2033 and December 12, 2035, 

respectively). It is important to note that this determination is dependent on the validity of the 
60 

assumption that none of the unidentified larvae were shortnose sturgeon. All other life stages of 

shortnose sturgeon are too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained at the 

facility. As NMFS expects that the potential for entrainment of shortnose sturgeon at the IP1 

intake is comparable to IP2 and IP3, NMFS does not anticipate any entrainment of any life stage 

of shortnose sturgeon at the IP1 intake, as used for service water for IP2. 

7.1.1.2 Entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon 

In order to be entrained, Atlantic sturgeon would need to be small enough to pass through the 

mesh of the traveling screens (0.25-by-0.5-inch (in.) (0.635-by-1.27 centimeters (cm)). Eggs are 

adhesive and demersal and occur only on the spawning grounds. At hatching, Atlantic sturgeon 

larvae are approximately 7.8 mm TL (Smith 1980, 1981)). As described above, the location of 

spawning in a given year is likely dependent on the location of the salt wedge; the most recent 

reports of spawning have been upstream of river kilometer 112 (Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; 

Kahnle et al., 1998; Bain et al., 2000). Young-of-year (YOY) have been recorded in the Hudson 

River between rkm 60 and rkm 148; which, because young of year are not likely to make 

extensive upstream movements, indicates that spawning likely occurs upstream of these areas. 

Larvae must remain upstream of the salt wedge because of their low salinity tolerance (Dovel 

and Berggren, 1983; Kahnle et al., 1998; Bain et al., 2000). 

As noted above, the location of the salt wedge in the Hudson River varies both seasonally and 

annually, depending at least partially on freshwater input. In many years, the salt wedge is 

located upstream of the Indian Point intakes; in those years, larvae would not be expected to 

occur near the IP intakes as the salinity levels would be too high. However, at times when the 

salt wedge is downstream of the intakes, which is most likely to occur in the late summer, there 

is the potential for Atlantic sturgeon larvae to be present in the action area. Like shortnose 

sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon larvae occur in the deepest water and in the Hudson River, they are 

found in the deep channel (Taubert and Dadswell 1980; Bath et al. 1981; Kieffer and Kynard 

1993). Larvae grow rapidly; at hatching larvae are within 2 mm of the size of the opening of the 

mesh, in a short time they are too large to be entrained by the cooling water intake. Any 

potential for entrainment is limited to any period when individuals are small enough to pass 

through the openings in the mesh screens that coincide with a period when the salt wedge is 

located downstream of the intakes. Given the distance between the intake and the deep channel 

(2,000 feet; 610 meters) where any larvae would be present if in the action area, larvae are 

unlikely to occur near the intake where they could be susceptible to entrainment. No Atlantic 

sturgeon larvae have been documented as entrained at IP2 or IP3. The nearest documentation of 

Atlantic sturgeon larvae to IP2 and IP3 is at the Danskammer facility, approximately 23 miles 

upstream. 

Based on the life history of Atlantic sturgeon, the location of spawning grounds within the 

Hudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and larvae, it is extremely unlikely that 

any Atlantic sturgeon early life stages would be entrained at IP2 and/or IP3. This conclusion is 

supported by the lack of any eggs or larvae positively identified as sturgeon and documented 

during entrainment monitoring at IP2 or IP3. Provided that assumption is true, we do not 

anticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae in the future when IP2 and IP3 

are operating pursuant to their current licenses or when they are operating pursuant to their 

extended operating license (i.e., through September 28, 2033 and December 12, 2035, 
61 

respectively). It is important to note that this determination is dependent on the validity of the 

assumption that none of the unidentified larvae were Atlantic sturgeon. All other life stages of 

Atlantic sturgeon are too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained at the 

facility. As we expect the potential for entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon at the IP1 intake is 

comparable to IP2 and IP3, we do not anticipate any entrainment of any life stage of Atlantic 

sturgeon at the IP1 intake, as used for service water for IP2. 

7.1.2 Impingement 

Generally speaking, impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling water 

intake screens or racks by the force of moving water. Impingement can kill organisms 

immediately or contribute to death resulting from exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to 

air when screens are rotated for cleaning. The potential for injury or death is generally related to 

the amount of time an organism is impinged, its susceptibility to injury, and the physical 

characteristics of the screenwashing and fish return system that the plant operator uses. Below, 

NMFS considers the available data on the impingement of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at the 

facility and then considers the likely rates of mortality associated with this impingement. 

Generally, impingement occurs when a fish cannot swim fast enough to escape the intake (e.g., 

the fish’s swimming ability is overtaken by the velocity of water being sucked into the intake). 

A few studies have been carried out to examine the swimming ability of sturgeon and their 

vulnerability to impingement. Generally speaking, fish swimming ability, and therefore ability 

to avoid impingement and entrainment, are affected not just by the flow velocity into the intakes, 

but also fish size and age, water temperature, level of fatigue, ability to remain a head-first 

orientation into current, and whether the fish is sick or injured. As indicated below, because 

some of the intakes at the Indian Point facilities are fitted with Ristrophe screens that also have 

rotating buckets, in the specific case of Indian Point, we consider impingement to include not 

just the trapping of fish against the screens, but also the collection of fish in the rotating buckets. 

Kynard et al. (2005) conducted tests in an experimental flume of behavior, impingement, and 

entrainment of yearlings (minimum size tested 280mm FL, 324mm TL), juveniles (minimum 

size tested 516mm FL, 581mm TL) and adult shortnose sturgeon (minimum size tested 

600mmFL, 700mm TL). Impingement and entrainment were tested in relation to a vertical bar 

rack with 2 inch clear spacing. The authors observed that after yearlings contacted the bar rack, 

they could control swimming at 1 and 2 feet/sec, but many could not control swimming at 3 

feet/sec velocity. After juveniles or adults contacted the rack, they were able to control 

swimming and move along the rack at all three velocities. During these tests, no adults or 

juveniles were impinged or entrained at any approach velocity. No yearlings were impinged at 

velocities of 1 ft/sec, but 7.7-12.5% were impinged at 2 ft/sec, and 33.3-40.0% were impinged at 

3 ft/sec. The range of entrainment of yearlings (measured as passage through the rack) during 

trials at 1, 2, and 3 ft/sec approach velocities follow: 4.3-9.1% at 1 ft/sec, 7.1-27.8% at 2 ft/sec, 

and 66.7-80.0% at 3 ft/sec. From this study, we can conclude that shortnose sturgeon that are 

yearlings and older (at least 280mm FL) would have sufficient swimming ability to avoid 

impingement at an intake with velocities of 1 fps or less, as long as conditions are similar to 

those in the study (e.g., fish are healthy and no other environmental factors in the field, such as 

heat stress, pollution, and/or disease, operate to adversely affect their swimming ability). 
62 

The swimming speed that causes juvenile shortnose sturgeon to experience fatigue was 

investigated by Deslauriers and Kieffer (2012). Juvenile shortnose sturgeon (19.5 cm average 

total length) were exposed to increasing current velocities in a flume to determine the velocity 

that caused fatigue. Fish were acclimated for 30 minutes to a current velocity of 5 cm/sec (0.16 

fps). Current velocities in the flume then were increased by 5 cm/sec increments for 30 minutes 

per increment until fish exhibited fatigue. Fish were considered fatigued when they were 

impinged on the down-stream plastic screen for a period of 5 seconds (Deslauriers and Kieffer 

(2012). 

The current velocity that induced fatigue was reported as the critical swimming speed (“Ucrit”) 

under the assumption that the fish swam at the same speed as the current. The effect of water 

temperature on Ucrit for juvenile shortnose sturgeon was determined by repeating the experiment 

at five water temperatures: 5°C, 10°C, 15°C, 20°C and 25°C. Shortnose sturgeon in this study 

swam at a maximum of 2.7 body lengths/second (BL/s) at velocities of 45 cm/s (1.47 fps). In 

this study, the authors developed a prediction equation to describe the relationship between Ucrit 

and water temperature. The authors report that amongst North American sturgeon species, only 

the pallid and shovelnose sturgeon have higher documented Ucrit values (in BL/s) than shortnose 

sturgeon at any given temperature . 

Boysen and Hoover (2009) conducted swimming performance trials in a laboratory swim tunnel 

with hatchery-reared juvenile white sturgeon to evaluate entrainment risk in cutterhead dredges. 

The authors observed that 80% of individuals tested, regardless of size (80-100mm TL) were 

strongly rheotactic (i.e., they were oriented into the current), but that endurance was highly 

variable. Small juveniles (< 82 mm TL) had lower escape speeds (< 40 cm/s (1.31fps)) than 

medium (82–92 mm TL) and large (> 93 mm TL) fish (42–45 cm/s (1.47 fps)). The authors 

concluded that the probability of entrainment of juvenile white sturgeon could be minimized by 

maintaining dredge head flow fields at less than 45 cm/s (1.47 fps). 

Hoover et al. (2011) used a Blazka-type swim tunnel, to quantify positive rheotaxis (head-first 

orientation into flowing water), endurance (time to fatigue), and behavior (method of movement) 

of juvenile sturgeon in water velocities ranging from 10 to 90 cm/s (0.3-3.0 fps). The authors 

tested lake and pallid sturgeon from two different populations in the U.S. Rheotaxis, endurance, 

and behavioral data were used to calculate an index of entrainment risk, ranging from 0 

(unlikely) to 1.00 (inevitable), which was applied to hydraulic models of dredge flow fields. The 

authors concluded that at distances from the draghead where velocity had decreased to 40cm/s 

(1.31 fps) entrainment was unlikely. 

7.1.2.1 Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon at Indian Point 

Impingement of most fish species at IP2 and IP3 was monitored daily until 1981. Impingement 

of sturgeon species was monitored daily from 1974-1990 (Entergy 2009). Collections were 

reduced to a randomly selected schedule of 110 days per year until 1991, and then monitoring 

ceased in 1991 with the installation of the modified Ristroph traveling screens. All historic 

monitoring occurred at the Ristroph screens. No monitoring of impingement at the trash racks 

has ever occurred and we have no reports of any past impingement of sturgeon at the IP1, IP2 or 

IP3 trash racks; however, this lack of reported impingement at the trash racks is due to a lack of 
63 

monitoring, not necessarily a lack of actual impingements. For reasons described below, we 

believe impingements occur at the trash racks. 

After NRC submitted its 2008 BA, Entergy submitted revised impingement data to NRC to 

correct certain accounting errors related to sampling frequency. The corrected impingement data 

for shortnose sturgeon, presented in NRC’s 2010 BA, is summarized below (Table 2). The 

actual observed number of impingements is recorded as “Observed Fish” below (called the Level 

5 Count in NRC 2010 and 2012). This number was adjusted to account for collection efficiency 

to determine the “Estimated Fish” below (the “CE Adjusted Level 5 Count” in NRC 2010 and 

2012). 

A total of 32 shortnose sturgeon were observed during impingement monitoring at IP2 and IP3 

from 1974-1990. Adjusting for collection efficiency, it is estimated that a total of 71 shortnose 

sturgeon were impinged at IP2 and IP3 during this period. For this period, the average number 

of shortnose sturgeon impinged per year at IP2 and IP3 was 4.2 shortnose sturgeon/year (see 

Table 2 below). 

Table 2. Actual and Adjusted Level of Annual Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon 1974-1990 

IP2 IP3

Year Observed 

Fish

Estimated 

Fish

Observed 

Fish 

Estimated 

Fish 

Total IP2

and IP3 

Annual 

Estimate

1974 3 9 0 0 9

1975 1 3 NR NR 3*

1976 1 2 0 0 2

1977 5 11 1 2 13

1978 2 5 3 5 10

1979 2 4 2 3 7

1980 0 0 1 2 2

1981 0 0 0 0 0

1982 0 0 0 0 0

1983 0 0 0 0 0

1984 1 3 1 2 5

1985 0 0 0 0 0

1986 0 0 0 0 0

1987 2 4 1 2 6

1988 3 7 1 2 9

1989 0 0 1 2 2

1990 1 3 0 0 3

Total 21 51 11 20 71

In addition to the withdrawal of water from the IP2 and IP3 intakes for cooling water and service 

water, additional service water for IP2 is withdrawn through the IP1 intakes. This intake is 
64 

located between the IP2 and IP3 intakes, also along the eastern shore of the Hudson River. NRC 

was not able to provide NMFS with any monitoring data from IP1 and it is unclear if any 

monitoring at IP1 has ever occurred. As such, we have no reports of impingement at IP1 and 

none of the materials submitted by NRC or Entergy have contained an estimate of impingement 

at IP1. For reasons discussed below, we believe impingement occurs at the intakes for IP2 

(which includes the IP1 intake providing service water for IP2) and IP3 

Following the reinitiation of consultation in 2012, Entergy provided us with a report on 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impingement at Indian Point (Entergy 2012). According to the 

report, Entergy has made the assumption that the likelihood of impingement is related to the 

amount of water withdrawn. This seems to be a reasonable assumption as the more water that is 

withdrawn through the intakes the greater the opportunity is for fish to be drawn into the intakes 

and impinged. Entergy reports that the amount of water withdrawn varies seasonally and 

annually. They suspect that these differences could account for some of the interannual 

variability in impingement of sturgeon. To account for interannual variations in operations, 

Entergy calculated an “impingement density” of sturgeon; that is, the number of 

sturgeon/volume of water withdrawn (cooling plus service water). This value was calculated 

using the adjusted impingement values (Estimated Fish in the table above) from 1976-1990 and 

the actual water withdrawal rates from IP2 and IP3 during the same period. Monthly average 

impingement densities were estimated by dividing the total number of sturgeon impinged during 

that month by the actual average withdrawal rate (gpm x 106) for the month (Entergy 2012). 

Using this method, Entergy determined that on average during 1976-1990, the highest 

impingement occurred in April (approximately 1 per month), with the lowest impingement 

(none) occurring in the June, July or December. In other months, the average was less than one 

per month. 

Impingement density values are shown for each year 1976 through 199011 for shortnose sturgeon 

in Figure 2. This figure presents year on the horizontal axis and the vertical axis shows the 

annual sturgeon impingement density (sturgeon per million gpm) for IP2 and IP3 combined. The 

annual sturgeon impingement density shown on the vertical axis of Figure 2 is calculated as the 

annual number (count) of sturgeon impinged and then scaled upward by monthly collection 

efficiency values for each Unit in each year and divided by the annual average cooling water 

withdrawal rate for that Unit and year in million gallons per minute. The impingement density 

values plotted on the vertical axis in Figure 3 represents the sum of each density value for IP2 

and IP3 for each year. 

Annual shortnose sturgeon impingement density (average of monthly estimates of impingement 

density based on number impinged and the average monthly flow rate) ranged from 0 (1981, 

1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986) to 2.1 (1977). These are also the years with the lowest and highest 

estimated total impingement (see Table above). 

 

11 Entergy used the years 1976-1990 for this method because those were the years that flow data was available. 

Also, IP3 was not operational in 1975. 
65 

Figure 2. Among year pattern of shortnose sturgeon impingement density at IP2 and IP3 

(combined). Annual density is the average of monthly estimates of impingement density based 

on number impinged and the average monthly flow rate (million gpm). From Entergy 2012. 
66 

Figure 3. Among-month pattern of average shortnose sturgeon impingement at IP2 and IP3, and 

average IP flows (cooling water plus service water) for the years 1976-1990. 

These calculations suggest that there may be factors other than water withdrawal volume that 

contributed to the number of sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3. For example, according to the 

information presented in Figure 3, June and July (months 6 and 7) are two of the months with the 

highest amount of water withdrawal, yet there is an average of zero impingements during these 

months. We would also expect that if the volume of water withdrawn was the only factor 

associated with impingement, there would be very little variability in impingement density from 

one year to the next. As demonstrated in Figure 2 there is substantial variability in impingement 

density from year to year. 

Possible explanations for monthly and annual differences in impingement density include 

environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature, availability of forage, location of the salt 

wedge) that would influence the likelihood of shortnose sturgeon presence in the action area as 

well as changes in the number of sturgeon in the action area due to the strength of various year 

classes and overall size of the population. We do not have data on water temperature, 

availability of forage, location of the salt wedge, or other possible factors that might explain the 

differences, for the time period that impingement monitoring occurred; therefore we are not able 

to explore any of these possible explanations. As discussed in more detail below, shortnose 

sturgeon in the Hudson River experienced an increasing trend over the time period that 

impingement monitoring occurred. We would expect that there would also be an increasing 

trend in impingement due to the presence of a greater number of shortnose sturgeon in the 

Hudson River, particularly after 1985; however, this is not seen. 

Predicted Future Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon 

We anticipate impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes. In front of all 

three intakes there are trash bars with 3-inch spacing between them. Entergy reports that the 

intake water approach velocity 3-12 inches upstream from the bar racks at IP2 and IP3 was 

estimated at mean low water to be 1.0 fps for 100% circulating water flow (840,000 gpm) and 

0.6 fps for 60% reduced circulating water flow (504,000 gpm) (see Entergy 2007). Fish that are 

narrower than 3-inches can pass through the trash bars. Fish wider than 3-inches would be 

impinged on the trash racks if they were not able to swim away. Once inside the trash racks, fish 

that do not swim back out through the racks into the river would be impinged at the screens in 

front of the intakes or captured in the moving buckets that are part of the Ristroph screens. 

At IP2 and IP3 there are modified Ristroph traveling screens. Fletcher (1990) reports that the 

mean water velocity in the area between the trash rack and the traveling screens was 

30cm/second (0.98 feet/second) and varied with the tide during testing of the screens carried out 

in 1986. Fletcher (1990) does not report the range of velocities that are experienced in this area. 

Entergy reports that the velocity through the Ristroph traveling screens at mean low water has 

been calculated to be 1.6 fps for 100% circulating water flow rate and 1.0 fps for 60% circulating 

water flow rate. The traveling screens continually move vertically through the water column as 

they rotate. The Ristroph screens have a screen basket equipped with a water-filled lifting 

bucket. Fish can be forcibly impinged on the screens or can be captured by the buckets. Fish 

can also be impinged on the screen and then fall off it into the buckets. As each bucket passes 
67 

over the top of the screen, fish are rinsed into a collection trough by a spraywash system. For the 

purposes of this Opinion, we are characterizing “impingement” as both forcible impingement on 

the trash racks or screens at any of the intakes (i.e., getting stuck and not being able to swim 

away) and capture in the Ristroph screen buckets. 

Impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the trash racks 

If through-rack velocity at the trash racks in front of IP1, IP2 and IP3 is 1.0 fps, as reported by 

Entergy, and assuming the condition of the fish and environmental factors in the river are similar 

to those in the laboratory studies previously discussed, we would not anticipate any impingement 

of shortnose sturgeon at the trash racks, because sturgeon that are big enough to not be able to 

pass through the racks (i.e., those that have body widths greater than three inches) would be 

adults. If their swimming ability is not compromised, these fish should be able to avoid 

impingement at velocities of up to 3 feet per second and should be able to readily avoid getting 

stuck on the trash racks. The only impingement at the trash racks that we anticipate is adult or 

large juvenile shortnose sturgeon that are dead or stressed and, therefore, unable to avoid the 

current caused by the facility’s water intake and swim away from the trash racks. We know 

sturgeon (whether dead or alive) are present at the trash bars given that the smaller individuals 

have to pass through them to get to the screens, and both smaller and larger individuals use this 

part of the Hudson. Therefore, we expect the larger individuals that are too large to pass through 

the bars, yet unable to swim away from them, will be impinged on them. While we expect 

shortnose sturgeon will be impinged at the trash racks, the cause of death/stressor is currently 

unknown. However, impingement on the trash bars, at a minimum, would be “capture” or 

“collection” under the ESA’s definition of “take.” As noted above, there has been no past 

monitoring of impingement of any species, including shortnose sturgeon, at the trash racks. 

Therefore, there is no information from which to predict a future impingement estimate. We 

considered estimating impingement based on impingement of shortnose sturgeon at other power 

plants, however there are no comparable facilities. Therefore, we are unable to predict the 

number of dead or stressed shortnose sturgeon that are likely to be impinged at IP1, IP2 or IP3 

trash racks during the continued operation of IP2 and IP3. 

Impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the intake screens 

Entergy and Fletcher (1990) both report that velocities in front of the traveling screens are on 

average 1.0 fps or less. The laboratory studies on sturgeon swimming ability discussed in 

Section 7.1.2 indicate that shortnose sturgeon older than one year and larger than 28cm long 

should be able to avoid impingement, assuming similar conditions in the river as in the 

laboratory. The Kynard study suggest that impingement rates for yearlings would be less than 

10% at this intake velocity. 

We examined the available data on shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 to determine the 

length of impinged fish. Of the 32 shortnose sturgeon recorded at IP2 and IP3 from 1974-1990, 

length is available for only nine individuals. These fish ranged in size from 32-71 cm. This is 

consistent with our estimates of the size of fish that would be able to pass through the trash bars 

but is larger than the size of fish we would expect to be vulnerable to impingement if the flow 

velocity is 1 fps. 
68 

Entergy applied the prediction equation for Ucrit as a function of water temperature (from 

Deslauriers and Kieffer 2012) to the range of monthly water temperatures in the vicinity of IP2 

and IP3 to estimate the minimum size of sturgeon that would have a Ucrit swimming speed 

greater than the through-screen velocity and therefore should be able to avoid impingement at 

IP2 and IP3 (Entergy 2012). In the equation, the through-screen intake velocity was assumed to 

be 1.0 ft/sec for full flow conditions and 0.6 ft/sec for reduced flow conditions (Enercon 2010); 

these are the velocities measured 3-12 inches upstream from the bar racks during these flow 

conditions (see Entergy 2007). Based on the average historical flows at IP2 and IP3 (Figures 2 

and 3), Entergy assumed that full flow conditions might exist from May through October, and 

reduced flow conditions would exist from November through April. 

The results of Entergy’s analysis indicate that healthy sturgeons over 19.5 cm TL should be 

capable of sustained avoidance of impingement at IP2 and IP3 throughout the year. Entergy 

states that these results may be conservative. In an earlier study, Kieffer et al. (2009) measured 

Ucrit values for juvenile shortnose sturgeon ranging in length from 14 to 18 cm TL at a 

temperature of 15°C. These authors estimated Ucrit at this temperature to be 2.18 BL/sec. 

Assuming this value, any shortnose sturgeon longer than 14.0 cm TL would be able to avoid 

impingement during the months of May through September, when the average water temperature 

at Indian Point is equal to or greater than 15°C. 

Based on the size of the shortnose sturgeon that have been impinged at IP2 and IP3 and the 

analysis completed by Entergy, it appears that there are other factors than the size of the fish that 

are contributing to the likelihood of impingement. It is possible that the configuration of the 

buckets on the traveling screen results in the capture of sturgeon prior to them getting “stuck” on 

the screens. This would explain why fish of a size that should be able to avoid impingement on 

the traveling screens have been documented during impingement sampling. It is interesting to 

note that Fletcher (1990) reports that striped bass are capable of sustained swimming at the flow 

speeds (mean 30cm/s) in front of the Ristroph screens yet during sampling at one intake bay in 

September and October 1986, 86 striped bass were documented as impinged (as determined by 

observation of individuals in the fish return sluice or the debris return sluice). Fletcher (1990) 

reports that the vast majority of these striped bass were not dead or dying upon collection. Of 

the 86 individuals, 2 were “damaged” and 5 were dead when collected. Fletcher suggests that 

freely swimming fish will still encounter the collection troughs with the likelihood of encounter 

increasing with the length of time that the fish spends in the collection area. 

Another possible explanation for the impingement of shortnose sturgeon that should be of 

sufficient size to avoid impingement at the reported intake velocities is that these fish are 

impaired prior to impingement. Fish that are stressed, sick or injured may have reduced 

swimming speed or endurance and may not be able to avoid impingement the way a healthy fish 

would. Unfortunately, the data that are available on the 32 impinged shortnose sturgeon only 

indicate condition (alive or dead) for nine individuals. We examined the available information to 

see if there was a relationship between the length of these nine fish and whether they were alive 

or dead, and there did not appear to be a relationship between size and condition. 

It is also possible that fish that pass through the trash bars become stressed, tired or disoriented 

when trying to find an escape route. Even if through-rack velocity is not high enough to 
69 

preclude fish from exiting the area, they may have difficulty finding a way out, especially if there 

is debris in front of the trash bars. Information presented by Fletcher (1990) on the length of 

time that fish spent in the area between the trash racks and the Ristroph screens supports this 

idea; for marked striped bass during a release-recapture study at Indian Point, the mean time 

spent in the area between the trash racks and Ristroph screens prior to observation in the fish 

return sluice was 9.73 hours. Some fish may swim into the area between the trash bars and the 

Ristroph screens and swim away without any injury or impairment of normal behaviors. We 

expect any fish that remain in this area long enough to become stressed, tired or disoriented 

would become impinged on the Ristroph screens or captured in the traveling buckets. 

We have considered whether the thermal plume may affect shortnose sturgeon in a way that 

increases the potential for impingement (see 7.2.1, below) and have determined that based on the 

available information on the thermal plume, it is not likely that the thermal plume directly 

influences impingement of sturgeon. The impingement of sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 is probably 

due to a combination of the factors mentioned above, all of which explain how impingement can 

occur despite intake velocities at levels that are below those that most sturgeon should be able to 

readily escape from. The lack of information on the condition of the impinged shortnose 

sturgeon makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about other factors that may contribute to 

impingement, including the impact of the thermal plume on the swimming endurance of sturgeon 

near the intake. Despite the low intake velocity reported by Entergy, impingement of sturgeon 

occurred in the past and likely continues to occur. The lack of recent monitoring data makes 

predictions of future impingement more difficult. Estimating future impingement is made more 

difficult by the variability in annual impingement rates and not knowing the degree to which 

factors discussed above contribute to these differences. We have considered several ways to 

estimate likely future impingement including: (1) using the annual average number of 

impingements to predict future impingement; and (2) using Entergy’s impingement density 

calculations. 

Calculations based on Impingement data from 1974-1990 

During the period that impingement sampling occurred, the number of shortnose sturgeon 

impinged ranged from zero to 13. The average annual impingement was 4.2 shortnose 

sturgeon/year. Excluding 1975, when only IP2 was operational, the average was 4 per year. As 

noted in the Status of the Species section of this Opinion, the shortnose sturgeon population has 

grown since the time impingement monitoring ceased. Therefore, we considered if the average 

impingement rate during 1974-1990 would underestimate future impingement. 

We have made the basic assumption that the risk of impingement increases with the size of the 

population. That is, we expect that if there are more fish in the river there is more opportunity for 

individuals to be impinged. We expect if there are more sturgeon in the action area then the 

impingement rate would be higher. The shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River 

exhibited tremendous growth in the 20 year period between the late 1970s and late 1990s, with 

exceptionally strong year classes between 1986-1992 thought to have led to resulting increases in 

the subadult and adult populations sampled in the late 1990s (Woodland and Secor 2007). 

According to data presented by Bain (2000) and Woodland and Secor (2007), there were 4 times 

as many shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River in the late 1990s as compared to the late 1970s. 

An increasing trend is also observed in the juvenile index of shortnose sturgeon (prepared by 
70 

NYDEC) and the CPUE of the utilities Long River and Fall Shoals Survey (Mattson 2012). 

Woodland and Secor (2007) state that the population of shortnose sturgeon is currently stable at 

the high level described also by Bain (2000). 

The period for which impingement sampling occurred (1974-1990) partially overlaps with the 

period of increased recruitment. During the portion of the sampling period that overlaps with the 

period of increased recruitment (1986-1990) the increases in the shortnose sturgeon population 

would have been fish less than 4 years old. Those are the year classes that would be most 

vulnerable to impingement. As such, we would expect a peak in impingement numbers from 

1986-1990; however, such a peak is not seen in the data that is available to us. In fact, average 

impingement from 1986-1990 is just slightly higher (five fish per year, collectively at IP2 and 

IP3) as compared to the 17-year average, and is lower than the average from 1976-1980 (7.4 

fish/year collectively at IP2 and IP3) and two of the years (1985 and 1986) had no impingement. 

One possible explanation is that the fish being impinged are not the small fish (yearlings) that we 

expect (see above), so even if there was an increase in the number of yearling shortnose sturgeon 

during this period that may not be reflected in the impingement numbers. It is also possible that 

while there was an increase in the number of yearlings from 1986-1990 as compared to earlier 

years, the size of the total population was not significantly different. This could be the case as 

shortnose sturgeon are long-lived fish, and there are expected to be at least 20-30 year classes in 

the river at one time. Another explanation is that the location of the salt wedge during 1986-

1990 or a subset of those years precluded or minimized the use of the action area by juvenile 

shortnose sturgeon, which could also affect the impingement rate; however, we do not have the 

information necessary to investigate that hypothesis as salt wedge location data are only 

available since 1990. 

Entergy conducted an analysis to determine if there was a statistically significant correlation 

between reported shortnose sturgeon population size and impingement density. It is expected 

that the more sturgeon there were in the river, the higher the impingement density would be 

because there would be more sturgeon that had the potential to be impinged. However, the 

analysis does not reveal a statistically significant correlation (Entergy 2012). It is likely that this 

lack of statistical correlation is not due to the fact that there is no relationship between population 

size and impingement but because impingement of sturgeon is a rare event which makes 

detection of a statistically significant correlation difficult. 

As noted above, one factor that may affect the likelihood of impingement is the condition of fish 

prior to impingement, which may dilute the relationship between numbers of fish in the river and 

impingement rates. Factors that have changed over time that could be related to the condition of 

fish in the action area include water quality, and bycatch in the direct Atlantic sturgeon fishery 

and the American shad fishery. The directed fishery for Atlantic sturgeon occurred until 1996. 

Because impingement monitoring was discontinued after 1990, we are not able to make any 

comparisons of impingement rates during years when fishing was occurring and years it was not. 

We also do not have any information on the intensity of fishing effort over time or the bycatch 

rate of shortnose sturgeon that we could use to compare to the impingement rates at IP2 or IP3. 

Similarly, we do not have the necessary information on the shad fishery to compare to the 

impingement rates. We do know that, generally, water quality improved significantly in the 

Hudson River beginning in the mid-1970s. This improvement is considered by Woodland and 
71 

Secor to be one of the primary factors contributing to the increase in the shortnose sturgeon 

population. It is possible that improvements in water quality resulted in an improvement of the 

general health of sturgeon in the action area which could have contributed to a reduction in 

impingement despite an increase in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the action area. 

Similarly, a reduction in fishing effort could lead to a reduction in bycatch and subsequent 

release of injured or stressed fish. However, all of this is speculative. 

Other factors that may explain interannual variability in impingement numbers that are not 

related to absolute population size are environmental conditions in the river that are associated 

with the distribution of shortnose sturgeon. As established above, younger, smaller sturgeon are 

most likely to be vulnerable to impingement. These fish are restricted to the area of the river 

above the salt-freshwater interface. In some years, the saltwedge is located downstream of the 

Indian Point intakes and in some years it is above the Indian Point intakes. In years when the 

saltwedge is located further upstream, impingement would be expected to be low because, 

regardless of the total number of shortnose sturgeon in the river at that time, there would be few, 

if any, juveniles in the action area. The salt front (100 milligrams per liter of chloride) ranges 

from below Hastings-on-Hudson to New Hamburg during most years, but can move as far north 

as Poughkeepsie during periods of drought. As such, in drier periods, when the salt front is 

above Buchannan, we would anticipate that very few juvenile sturgeon would be present in the 

action area. Unfortunately, the available data on the location of the salt front in the Hudson 

River (October 1991 – March 2012; USGS 2012), do not overlap at all with the period of time 

for which impingement data is available. Therefore, we are unable to test this hypothesis 

regarding relationship between salt wedge location and impingement. 

We considered reviewing impingement data for other Hudson River power plants to determine if 

this predicted correlation between increases in population size and increased impingement of 

individuals would be observed. Long term shortnose sturgeon impingement monitoring is only 

available for the Roseton and Danskammer facilities. However, since 2000, both facilities have 

operated at reduced rates and there has been minimal shortnose sturgeon impingement; in every 

year it has been less than the 2 and 4 impingements estimated respectively for these two 

facilities. As the Roseton and Danskammer facilities are not currently operating in the same 

capacity they were in the past, it is not possible to make an accurate comparison of past and 

present impingement which could serve to determine if it was reasonable to assume that an 

increase in impingement would occur in association with an increase in the number of shortnose 

sturgeon in the Hudson River. As noted above, the Lovett facility has been closed. The Bowline 

facility has always operated with extremely low levels of impingement, thought to be primarily 

due to the location of the intakes in a nearly enclosed embayment of the River where shortnose 

sturgeon are thought to be unlikely to occur (Bowline Pond) (NMFS 2000). Therefore, we are 

not able to use information from other power intakes to determine if there is an association 

between changes in population size and rates of impingement. 

We also considered examining relationships between population trend and impingement rates at 

facilities outside the Hudson River. Monitoring of sturgeon impingement at the Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, on the Delaware River, has been ongoing since 1978. However, the 

population of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River has been stable at approximately 12,000 

adults since 1981. The impingement rate has similarly been stable at an average of less than one 
72 

fish per year throughout this period. Because of the stable trend in the population and the 

impingement rate at this facility, it is not possible to use this information to determine if changes 

in population size are related to changes in impingement rates. 

Despite the uncertainty in determining the factors that are related to impingement, the 

assumption that the more sturgeon there are in the river the higher the potential for impingement, 

is reasonable. If we adjust the average number of shortnose sturgeon impinged annually at IP2 

and IP3 by 400% (the increase in the size of the population reported by Bain and Woodland and 

Secor), we would anticipate the impingement of an average of 16 shortnose sturgeon per year at 

IP2 and IP3 (combined) during the period that these facilities will continue to operate (i.e., 1974-

1990 annual average was 4, times 4 = 16). From September 28, 2033 – December 12, 2035, 

only IP3 will be operational. During the period 1974-1990, approximately 28% of the impinged 

shortnose sturgeon were at IP3. Using that ratio and applying it to the estimate of 16 shortnose 

sturgeon when both facilities are operational, we expect an average of 4.5 shortnose sturgeon to 

be impinged annually when just IP3 is operational. Over the two year period we expect the 

impingement of nine shortnose sturgeon. 

In addition to the withdrawal of water from the IP2 and IP3 intakes for cooling water and service 

water, additional service water for IP2 will be withdrawn from the IP1 intakes. This intake is 

located between the IP2 and IP3 intakes, also along the eastern shore of the Hudson River. NRC 

was not able to provide us with any monitoring data from IP1, and it is unclear if any monitoring 

at IP1 has ever occurred. Given the lack of intake specific monitoring data, we have assessed the 

likelihood of impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the IP1 intakes as compared to the likelihood 

of impingement at the IP2 and IP3 intakes. As noted above, there is no geographic difference in 

intake location which would make impingement at IP1 more or less likely at IP2 or IP3. The 

intake velocity, trash bar spacing and screen mesh size are also comparable between IP1 and IP2 

and IP3. The major difference between the IP1 intake and the IP2 and IP3 intakes is the volume 

of water removed. Together, IP2 and IP3 remove a maximum flow of approximately 1.746 

million gallons per minute. According to information provided by Entergy12, the IP1 intake 

structure has two redundant forebays, each with a maximum or design flow of 10,000 gpm; 

however, as currently configured in a redundant manner, the maximum flow of the intake is 

10,000 gpm. Entergy further indicates that the typical peak operating flow for IP1 is 5,500 gpm 

with 6,000 gpm as the limit of the IP2 load. 

Given the maximum 6,000 gpm operation of the IP1 intake, this represents approximately 0.34% 

of the total intake flow from IP2 and IP3 (6,000gpm/1,746,000gpm). Assuming, that all other 

parameters being equal, the potential for impingement is related to the volume of water 

withdrawn, we expect that the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at the IP1 intakes would 

be 0.34% of the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3. As explained above, 

adjusting the long term average by 400%, we expect 16 shortnose sturgeon to be impinged at IP2 

and IP3 annually. Assuming that an additional 0.34% would be impinged at the IP1 intake, we 

would expect an average of 0.05 shortnose sturgeon to be impinged annually at IP1 intakes. 

Between now and 2033 when the IP2 license expires (a period of 21 years), we would expect one 

shortnose sturgeon to be impinged at IP1. 

 

12 Email from Elise Zoli, representing Entergy, to NMFS and NRC on September 21, 2011. 
73 

In summary, using the average annual impingement from 1974-1990 and adjusting it by 400% to 

account for increases in the shortnose sturgeon population and then adding 0.34% to account for 

the IP1 intakes, we would expect a total impingement at the intake screens of 337 shortnose 

sturgeon between now and September 2033 (the time period when IP2 and IP3 will be 

operational and water will be withdrawn through the IP1 intakes) and an additional 9 shortnose 

sturgeon from September 28, 2033-December 12, 2035 when just IP3 will be operational. This 

results in a total estimate of 346 shortnose sturgeon impinged at Indian Point intake screens. 

Calculations based on Entergy’s Impingement Density Calculations

Entergy states that some of the interannual variability in impingement is likely due to the 

variable operation of the facility (i.e., changes in the volume of water withdrawn due to outages). 

To account for this variable, Entergy developed the impingement density estimate which 

calculates the average number of sturgeon impinged per month per volume of water removed. 

Entergy has determined that operations of IP2 and IP3 from 2001-2008 are representative of 

future operations, including under the terms of the proposed new licenses. Entergy has indicated 

that there are no power uprates or other changes being proposed at the facility that would result 

in more water being withdrawn in the future. Therefore, Entergy applied an adjusted 

impingement density (to account for increases in the shortnose sturgeon population) to the 

predicted volume of water to be removed in the future (based on 2001-2008 operation), to predict 

future impingement of shortnose sturgeon. 

Entergy predicted future impingement using the impingement density values. They consider the 

annual average water withdrawal rate for 2001-2008 to be representative of future operations of 

the Indian Point cooling water intake structures. Because operations vary monthly, with average 

water withdrawal lower in some months than others, they factored this variability in operations 

into the calculations. To account for the increase in shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River, 

Entergy adjusted the monthly impingement density rates by 400%. They then applied this 

impingement density rate to the predicted water withdrawal for the future operating period. 

Using this method, they predict that impingement would vary monthly, with no impingement in 

June, July and December and a peak in April; in total, this method estimates the impingement of 

20 shortnose sturgeon per year (see Figure 4 below). 

 
74 

Figure 4. Among-month pattern of projected average shortnose sturgeon impingement at IP2 

and IP3, and average of IP2 and IP3 flows (cooling water plus service water) for the years 2001-

2008. From Entergy 2012. 

Comparison of results of the two calculation methods 

Both of the methods considered above make adjustments to account for the greater number of 

shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River now as compared to the number when impingement 

monitoring occurred. The Entergy method predicts greater numbers of future impingement than 

just using the average annual impingement rate from 1974-1990. Entergy predicts that future 

operations will be similar to operations from 2001-2008. During that time, average service and 

cooling water flows through the IP2 and IP3 intakes ranged from 1 million to 1.8 million gallons 

per minute depending on the month. From 1976-1990, average service and cooling water flows 

through the IP2 and IP3 intakes ranged from 0.6-1.2 million gallons per minute depending on the 

month suggesting an overall increase of 1.5-1.6 times the amount of water to be withdrawn in the 

future as compared to 1976-1990. If we assume that the risk of impingement increases with the 

volume of water removed through the intakes, then it becomes important to factor in increased 

water usage when considering future impingement. If we adjust the calculated impingement 

number (16; based on the annual average) by a factor of 1.6 to account for increased water usage 

we would estimate an annual average of 25.6 shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3. 

Because of the uncertainty related to the factors associated with impingement rates, it is difficult 

to determine which estimate is a better predictor of future impingement. The Entergy 

methodology assumes there will be no impingement of shortnose sturgeon in June, July or 
75 

December. However, a review of the impingement data that are available suggests that this may 

not be a reasonable assumption. For example, two of the 32 impinged shortnose sturgeon were 

impinged in June (1974 and 1975), which suggests that impingement is likely to occur in June. 

Because of this, and because we believe that by making adjustments to our estimate to account 

for increased water usage we are removing the potential for underestimating due to lower water 

usage in the past, we have determined that the best estimate of future impingement at IP2 and 

IP3 is an average of 19 shortnose sturgeon per year at IP2 and 7 at IP3 . This estimate is based 

on the annual average estimate of 4 sturgeon per year during the period of 1974-1990 (exclusive 

of 1975 when only IP3 was operational) and adjustments made to account for a 400% increase in 

the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River now as compared to the time when 

impingement sampling occurred and a 160% increase to account for increases in the predicted 

amount of water to be withdrawn in the future as compared to 1976-1990. Using the calculation 

discussed previously for IP1, we expect the annual average impingement of 0.09 shortnose 

sturgeon at the IP1 intakes. 

Between now and September 23, 2033 when the proposed renewed operating license for IP2 will 

expire, we expect up to 395 shortnose sturgeon will be impinged at the IP2 intakes (Ristroph 

screens), inclusive of 2 shortnose sturgeon impinged at the IP1 intakes used for IP2 service 

water. Between now and December 12, 2035 when the proposed renewed operating license for 

IP3 will expire, we expect up to 167 shortnose sturgeon will be impinged at the IP3 intakes 

(Ristroph screens). In total, if both facilities operate until the expiration dates of the proposed 

renewed licenses, up to 562 shortnose sturgeon will be impinged as a result of Indian Point 

operations. We expect the amount of impingement to vary annually; however, the conclusions 

reached in the Opinion are based on it taking 21 years to reach the total impingement level for 

IP2 (inclusive of IP1 intakes) and 23 years to reach the total impingement level for IP3. 

Consistent with the period when monitoring was ongoing, we expect the number of 

impingements to be variable year to year. Adjusting the annual impingement values from 1974-

1990 using the methodology outlined above to account for differences in population size and 

increased water withdrawal (i.e., multiplying the estimated impingement value by 4 and then by 

1.6), we expect that annual impingement values will range from zero to 83 shortnose sturgeon 

per year at IP2 and IP3, collectively (range of 0-71 at IP2 and 0-32 at IP3). However, over time, 

we expect the average to be 19 shortnose sturgeon impinged per year at the IP2 Ristroph screens 

and 8 at the IP3 Ristroph screens. We also anticipate that there will be no more than two 

consecutive years where there are more than 25 impingements at IP2 and no more than two 

consecutive years where there are more than 13 impingements at IP3. For example, we do not 

anticipate that there would ever be more than 71 shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 in any given 

year or 26 shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 in any three consecutive years. Similarly, for IP3 

we do not anticipate the impingement of more than 32 shortnose sturgeon in any given year or 14 

(or more) shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP3 in any three consecutive years. 

Our calculations are illustrated below: 

a. Average annual impingement 1974-1990 (excluding 1975): 4 

b. Multiply 4 by 400% to account for increase in shortnose sturgeon population = 16 
76 

c. Account for increased water usage by multiplying 16 by 160% = 25.6 rounded up to 

26 

d. During 1974-1990, 28% of reported impingement of shortnose sturgeon occurred at 

IP2. Annually we then expect 28% of 26 to occur at IP3; = 19 at IP2 and 7 at IP3 

e. IP1 withdraws 0.34% of the water withdrawn by IP2 and IP3. Expect 0.34% of total 

impingement at IP1. (0.0034 x 26) = .088 annually; water will be withdrawn through 

the IP1 intakes for 21 years. 0.088 x 21 = 1.85, rounded up to 2 

f. Based on license dates, we expect IP2 to operate from now until September 28, 2033, 

a total of 21 years. Adjusting the annual average impingement for IP2 and IP3 by 

72% to account for the percentage of the impingement we expect at IP2 times 21 

years (26*.72*21) = 393 shortnose sturgeon plus two at IP1 = 395, at an average rate 

of 19 shortnose sturgeon per year. 

g. Based on license dates, we expect IP3 to operate from now until December 12, 2035, 

a total of 23 years. Adjusting the annual average impingement for IP2 and IP3 by 

28% to account for the percentage of the impingement we expect at IP3 times 23 

years (26*.28*23) = 167 shortnose sturgeon, at an average rate of 7 per year. 

h. In total, we expect the impingement of 562 shortnose sturgeon to be impinged at the 

IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes. 

Comparison of estimate of impingement of shortnose sturgeon in NMFS 2011 Opinion and this 

Opinion 

In the 2011 Opinion, we estimated that over the 20 year extended operating period, 168 

shortnose sturgeon would be impinged at IP1, IP2 and IP3, collectively. We calculated this 

estimate by first determining the average annual impingement rate at IP2 from 1974-1990 and 

the average annual impingement rate at IP3 from 1976-1990, which we stated was 1.3 and 0.73, 

respectively. To account for the 400% increase in the shortnose sturgeon population between the 

late 1970s and the late 1990s, we adjusted those annual impingement rates by a factor of 4 was 

5.2 and 2.9 shortnose sturgeon per year, respectively. We then multiplied those annual estimates 

by the number of years each unit would be operational (20) to get a total estimate for IP2 of 104 

and a total estimate for IP3 of 58. We then used the calculations noted above 

(6,000gpm/1,746,000gpm) to estimate the amount of impingement at IP1. We estimated the 

impingement of six additional shortnose sturgeon at IP1. However, it appears that we made a 

mathematical error (multiplying 162 by 0.034 instead of 0.0034) and that number should have 

been one, not six. 

In reviewing the methodology used in 2011, we now recognize three ways that this resulted in an 

underestimate of future impingement. First, we relied on the actual observed number of 

impingements of shortnose sturgeon, not the estimated number of impingements based on 

collection efficiency. Collection efficiency takes into account the fraction of fish that enter the 

intake structure but do not make it into impingement collections. According to NRC, currents 

may sweep some fish around the traveling screens because screens do not form a perfectly water 

tight seal against the intake structure. NRC has stated that the CE adjusted estimates should be 

more accurate. We also have new information on the volume of water Entergy is likely to 

withdraw through the IP2 and IP3 intakes in the future (Entergy 2012). The information 

provided by Entergy indicates that water withdrawal will range from 1.2-1.6 mgd depending on 

the month. They report water usage from 1974-1990 as ranging from 0.6-1.2 mgd depending on 
77 

the month. We expect a relationship between water usage and impingement; the more water that 

is withdrawn the higher the risk for impingement. Therefore, by not adjusting the historic 

impingement numbers to account for current and future increases in water use, our 2011 estimate 

likely underestimates future impingement of shortnose sturgeon. Additionally, in the 2011 

Opinion we did not consider additional shortnose sturgeon that we expect will be be impinged at 

the trash racks. While we are still not able to estimate the number of shortnose sturgeon that will 

be impinged at the trash racks, we recognize that this is an additional source of impingement. 

We believe the methodology described above, which avoids the underestimation of impingement 

at the intake screens, and results in a total estimate of 562 shortnose sturgeon impinged at Indian 

Point intake screens is a better approach. 

Predicted Mortality of Impinged Shortnose Sturgeon 

NRC has stated that the installation of the modified Ristroph screens following the 1987-1990 

monitoring period is expected to have reduced impingement mortality for shortnose sturgeon. 

However, because no monitoring occurred after the installation of the modified Ristroph screens, 

more recent data are not available and, it is not possible to determine to what extent the modified 

Ristroph screens may have reduced impingement mortality for sturgeon as compared to pre-1991 

levels. 

Of the 32 shortnose sturgeon collected during impingement sampling at IP2 and IP3, condition 

(alive or dead) is reported for nine fish (NRC BA 2010); of these, seven are reported as dead 

(78% mortality rate). There is no information to indicate whether alive meant alive and not 

injured, or alive and injured. There is also no additional information to assess whether these fish 

reported as dead were likely killed prior to impingement and drifted into the intake or whether 

being in the intake bays and/or impingement was the sole cause of death or a contributing cause 

of death. 

Before installation of modified Ristroph screen systems in 1991, impingement mortality at IP2 

and IP3 was assumed to be 100 percent. Beginning in 1985, pilot studies were conducted to 

evaluate whether the addition of Ristroph screens would decrease impingement mortality for 

representative species. The final design of the screens, as reported in Fletcher (1990), appeared 

to reduce impingement mortality for some species based on a pilot study compared to the 

original system in place at IP2 and IP3. The Fletcher study reported mortality following an 8-

hour holding period in an attempt to account for delayed mortality that may result from injuries 

suffered during impingement. As reported in Fletcher (1990), this monitoring occurred between 

September 16 and October 24, 1986 at one intake bay at IP2. Mortality rates are reported for a 

variety of species: bay anchovy, American shad, bluegill, pumpkinseed, American eel, 

hogchoker, banded killifish, blueback herring, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod, white perch and 

weakfish. The size of individual fish or the range of sizes per species are not provided. During 

release-recapture studies at IP2 carried out from September 4-13, 1986, striped bass and white 

perch were tested, with sizes ranging from 5.0-15.2cm FL. Based on the information reported by 

Fletcher (1990), impingement mortality and injury are lowest for striped bass, weakfish, and 

hogchoker, and highest for alewife, white catfish, and American shad, with mortality rates 

ranging from 9-62%, depending on species. No evaluation of survival of shortnose sturgeon on 

the modified Ristroph screens at IP2 or IP3 was made and no monitoring has occurred since the 

screens were installed in 1991. No shortnose sturgeon were observed during the limited 
78 

monitoring that occurred at the modified Ristroph screens. While mortality rates for all species 

observed were lower as compared to the previous screen design, because the monitoring 

occurred over such a limited period of time and in only one intake bay and at a different time of 

year than the 1985 studies, we have concerns about whether the 1986 monitoring results are 

representative of impingement mortality year round at all intake bays. There are several reasons 

why we are unable to rely on any reported increase in survival for the modified screens or use the 

survival rates for other species to predict survival of sturgeon. This is because (1) none of these 

tests used sturgeon; (2) the species considered in the monitoring and testing are not 

morphologically similar to sturgeon and are considerably smaller than the larger sturgeon that 

could pass through the trash bars and be impinged at the Ristroph screens, and (3) there are no 

studies comparing impingement mortality or likelihood of injury of sturgeon compared to other 

species at any intake screens that could be used to estimate mortality rates for sturgeon based on 

the rates for other species. PSEG prepared estimates of impingement survival following 

interactions with Ristroph screens at their Salem Nuclear Generating Station located on the 

Delaware River (PSEG in Seabey and Henderson 2007); survival of shortnose sturgeon was 

estimated at 60% following impingement on a conventional screen and 80% following survival 

at a Ristroph Screen; survival for other species ranged from 0-100%. It is important to note that 

PSEG did not conduct field verifications with shortnose sturgeon to demonstrate whether these 

survival estimates are observed in the field. A review by NMFS of shortnose sturgeon 

impingement information at Salem indicates that all recorded impingements (20 total since 1978; 

NRC 2010) have been at the trash racks, not on the Ristroph screens. This is consistent with the 

expectation that all shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the Salem intakes would be too large to 

fit through the trash bars and potentially contact the Ristroph screens. Thus, while there is 

impingement data from Salem, there is no information on post-impingement survival for 

shortnose sturgeon impinged on the Ristroph screens. The majority of impinged shortnose 

sturgeon at Salem have been dead at the time of removal from the trash racks (17 out of 20; 

85%), 

In his 1979 testimony, Dadswell discussed a mortality rate of shortnose sturgeon at traditional 

screens of approximately 60%, although it is unclear what information this number is derived 

from as no references were provided and no explanation was given in the testimony. NRC states 

in their BA that this was based on the percent of shortnose sturgeon alive vs. dead during one 

year of impingement monitoring that was available at the time. 

No further monitoring of the IP2 or IP3 intakes or impingement rates or impingement mortality 

estimates was conducted after the new Ristroph screens were installed at IP2 and IP3 in 1991, 

and any actual reduction in mortality or injury to shortnose sturgeon resulting from impingement 

after installation of these systems at IP2 and IP3 has not been established. As explained above, 

shortnose sturgeon with a body width of at least three inches would not be able to pass through 

the trash bars and would become impinged on the trash bars and not pass through to the Ristroph 

screens. Survival for shortnose sturgeon impinged on the trash bars would be dependent on the 

length of time the fish was impinged and whether it also interacted with debris that collects on 

the bars. The available data for shortnose sturgeon impingement at trash bars indicates that 

mortality is likely to be high (e.g., 85% at Salem nuclear facility) even when a monitoring 

program is in place designed to observe and remove impinged fish13

. 

 

13 At Salem, trash racks in front of the intakes are cleaned at least three times per week and the trash bars are 
79 

As noted above, with particular assumptions, healthy shortnose sturgeon (yearlings and older) 

are expected to be able to readily avoid an intake with an approach velocity of 1.0 fps or less. As 

noted above, we expect that all shortnose sturgeon impinged at the trash racks will be dead or 

stressed, yet the cause of death/stressor is currently unknown. 

Some of the shortnose sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens are likely to be dead or 

suffering from injury or illness. Some sturgeon caught in the buckets of the Ristroph screen are 

likely to be healthy and free swimming; some of those fish are likely to experience injury or 

mortality while being transported to the sluice. Other sturgeon that become impinged on the 

traveling screens are likely to suffer injury or mortality due to their impingement. We also 

expect that some sturgeon will become injured or die from being in the intake embayment 

between the trash bars and screens; we expect that these fish will become impinged on the 

Ristroph screens due to the flow of water and operation of the bucket system. Past monitoring at 

IP2 and IP3 indicates that mortality rates are approximately 78% (assuming the best case, that all 

shortnose sturgeon recorded as “alive” were not just alive but were uninjured), monitoring at the 

Salem nuclear facility indicates that mortality rates at the trash bars are approximately 85%. 

With no monitoring or inspection plan in place to detect and remove shortnose sturgeon that 

become impinged on the trash bars, mortality rates for shortnose sturgeon impinged on the trash 

bars are more likely to be as high as 100%, as there would be no opportunity for fish to be 

removed once stuck between or on the bars. 

Based on the available information, it is difficult to predict the likely mortality rate for shortnose 

sturgeon following impingement on the Ristroph screens. Shortnose sturgeon passing through 

the trash bars and becoming impinged on the Ristroph screens are likely to be small juveniles 

with body widths less than three inches. Based on the 8-hour survival rates reported by Fletcher 

for other species, it is likely that some percentage of shortnose sturgeon impinged on the 

Ristroph screens will survive. Some shortnose sturgeon that become impinged on the Ristroph 

screens are likely to be suffering from injuries, illnesses, or other stressors that have impaired 

their swimming ability and prevented them from being able to escape from the relatively low 

approach velocity (reported to be 1.0 fps or less as measured within the intake bay in front of the 

Ristroph screens, which yearling and older shortnose sturgeon are expected to be able to avoid 

(Kynard et al. 2005)). However, because we do not know the condition of the fish prior to 

impingement, and we have no site-specific studies to base an estimate or even species-specific 

studies at different facilities, we will assume the worst case, that mortality is 100%. 

Using the impingement rates calculated above, and the worst case mortality rate of 100% at the 

modified Ristroph screens, 2 shortnose sturgeon are likely to die as a result of impingement at 

the IP1 screens, 393 at the IP2 Ristroph screens and 167 at the IP3 Ristroph screens. 

Therefore, we expect a total of 562 shortnose sturgeon to die as a result of impingement at IP2 ( 

including IP1) and IP3 Ristroph screens between now and the time that the extended operating 

licenses expire. For the reasons given above, we believe that the 100% mortality estimate is a 

conservative, yet reasonable, mortality rate for impinged shortnose sturgeon at the Ristroph 

screens. We can not predict the number of shortnose sturgeon likely to be impinged at the IP 

 

inspected every four hours from April through October. 
80 

trash racks. However, based on the available information, we expect all of these shortnose 

sturgeon to be dead or stressed, with the cause of death/stressor currently unknown. 

7.1.2.2 Impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 

Daily monitoring for sturgeon occurred at the IP2 and IP3 Ristroph screens from 1974-1990. 

The actual observed number of impingements is recorded as “Observed Fish” below (called the 

“Level 5 Count” in NRC 2010 and 2012). This number was adjusted to account for collection 

efficiency to determine the “Estimated Fish” below (the “CE Adjusted Level 5 Count” in NRC 

2010 and 2012). No monitoring of impingement of Atlantic sturgeon or any other species has 

occurred at the trash bars. 

A total of 601 Atlantic sturgeon were observed during impingement monitoring at IP2 and IP3 

from 1974-1990. Adjusting for collection efficiency, it is estimated that a total of 1,334 Atlantic 

sturgeon were impinged at IP2 and IP3 during this period. For this period, the average number 

of Atlantic sturgeon impinged per year at IP2 and IP3 was 78.5 Atlantic sturgeon/year (see Table 

3 below). 

IP2 IP3

Year Observed 

Fish

Estimated 

Fish

Observed 

Fish 

Estimated 

Fish 

Total IP2 and 

IP3 Annual 

Estimate

1974 101 282 10 17 299

1975 118 302 NR NR 302

1976 8 17 8 14 31

1977 44 105 153 252 357

1978 16 38 21 31 69

1979 32 75 38 51 126

1980 9 24 10 17 41

1981 3 8 5 7 15

1982 1 2 1 1 3

1983 3 6 0 0 6

1984 3 6 5 10 16

1985 9 19 17 25 44

1986 2 6 5 6 12

1987 2 6 1 2 8

1988 1 2 0 0 2

1989 0 0 0 0 0

1990 0 0 2 3 3

Total 352 898 276 436 1334
81 

To account for interannual variations in operations, Entergy calculated an “impingement density” 

of sturgeon (see above). For Atlantic sturgeon, on average, the highest impingement occurred in 

April (approximately 15 per month), with the lowest impingement (less than two per month) 

occurring in late Fall. 

The impingement density values calculated by Entergy are shown for each year 1976 through 

199014 for Atlantic sturgeon in Figure 5. This figure presents year on the horizontal axis and the 

vertical axis shows the annual sturgeon impingement density (sturgeon per million gpm) for IP2 

and IP3 combined. The annual sturgeon impingement density shown on the vertical axis of 

Figure 5 is calculated as the annual number (count) of sturgeon impinged and then scaled upward 

by monthly collection efficiency values for each Unit in each year and divided by the annual 

average cooling water withdrawal rate for that Unit and year in million gallons per minute. The 

impingement density values plotted on the vertical axis in Figure 6 represents the sum of each 

density value for IP2 and IP3 for each year. 

Annual Atlantic sturgeon impingement density (average of monthly estimates of impingement 

density based on number impinged and the average monthly flow rate) ranged from 0 (1989) to 

54 (1977). 

Figure 5. Among year pattern of Atlantic sturgeon impingement density at IP2 and IP3 

(combined). Annual density is the average of monthly estimates of impingement density based 

on number impinged and the average monthly flow rate (million gpm). From Entergy 2012. 

 

14 Entergy used the years 1976-1990 for this method because those were the years that flow data was available. 

Also, IP3 was not operational in 1975. 
82 

Figure 6. Among-month pattern of average Atlantic sturgeon impingement at IP2 and IP3, and 

average flows (cooling water plus service water) for the years 1976-1990. 

Predicted Future Impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at IP Trash Racks 

If through-rack velocity at the trash racks in front of IP1, IP2 and IP3 is 1.0 fps, as reported by 

Entergy, and assuming conditions similar to those in laboratory studies, we would not anticipate 

any impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at the trash racks. That is because sturgeon that are big 

enough to not be able to pass through the racks (i.e., those that have body widths greater than 

three inches) would be adults or large subadults. These fish are able to avoid impingement at 

velocities of up to 3 feet per second and should be able to readily avoid getting stuck on the trash 

racks. We know sturgeon (whether dead or alive) are present at the trash bars given that the 

smaller individuals have to pass through them to get to the screens, and both smaller and larger 

individuals use this part of the Hudson. Therefore, we expect the larger individuals that are too 

large to pass through the bars, yet unable to swim away from them, will be impinged on them. 

The only impingement at the trash racks that we anticipate is adult or subadult Atlantic sturgeon 

that are dead or stressed and therefore unable to swim away from the trash racks. While we 

expect Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged at the trash racks, the cause of death/stressor is 

currently unknown. As noted above, there has been no past monitoring of impingement of any 

species, including Atlantic sturgeon, at the trash racks. Therefore, there is no information from 

which to predict a future impingement estimate. We considered estimating impingement based 

on impingement of shortnose sturgeon at other power plants, however there are no comparable 

facilities. Therefore, while we expect that dead or stressed Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged at 
83 

IP1, IP2 or IP3 during the continued operation of IP2 and IP3, we are unable to estimate the total 

number of these sturgeon on an annual average. 

Predicted Future Impingement of Atlantic Sturgeon at IP2 (including IP1) and IP3 Intake 

Screens 

We examined the available data on Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 to determine the 

length of impinged fish. Of the 601 Atlantic sturgeon recorded at IP2 and IP3 from 1974-1990, 

length is available for 36 individuals. These fish ranged in size from 14-79 cm. Like shortnose 

sturgeon, this is consistent with our estimates of the size of fish that would be able to pass 

through the trash bars but is larger than the size of fish we would expect to be vulnerable to 

impingement. 

We examined condition information to determine if there was an indication that these fish were 

sick or injured. We expect fish that are sick or injured to have reduced swimming speed or 

endurance and that they may not be able to avoid impingement the way a healthy fish would. 

Unfortunately, the data that is available on the 601 impinged Atlantic sturgeon only indicates 

condition (alive or dead) for 37 individuals (the same ones that had length recorded plus one 

additional). Of these 37 fish, 22 were dead; however, there does not appear to be a relationship 

between the length of the fish and whether they were alive or dead. 

Like shortnose, based on the size of the Atlantic sturgeon that have been impinged at IP2 and IP3 

and the analysis completed by Entergy, it appears that there are other factors than the size of the 

fish that are contributing to the likelihood of impingement. We expect that the factors discussed 

above for shortnose (i.e,. “active” capture of fish by the buckets on the Ristroph screens, possible 

impairment due to illness or injury, disorientation or exhaustion due to being “trapped” between 

the trash racks and Ristroph screens, conditions in the area including water temperature), also 

contribute to the impingement of Atlantic sturgeon and would explain why fish that are of 

sufficient size to avoid impingement at the reported velocities would still be impinged. 

The impingement of sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 is probably due to a combination of the factors 

mentioned above, all of which explain how impingement can occur despite reported intake 

velocities at levels that are below those that most sturgeon should be able to readily escape from. 

Despite the low intake velocity reported by Entergy, impingement of Atlantic sturgeon occurred 

in the past and is expected to continue to occur. The lack of recent monitoring data makes 

predictions of future impingement more difficult. Estimating future impingement is made more 

difficult by the variability in annual impingement rates and not knowing the degree to which 

factors discussed above contribute to these differences. Like we did for shortnose sturgeon, we 

have considered several ways to estimate likely future impingement of Atlantic sturgeon 

including: (1) using the annual average number of impingements to predict future impingement; 

and (2) using Entergy’s impingement density calculations. 

Calculations based on Impingement data from 1974-1990 

During the period that impingement sampling occurred, the number of Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged ranged from zero to 357. The average annual impingement was 78.4 Atlantic 

sturgeon/year. Excluding 1975, when only IP2 was operational, the average was 60.8 per year. 

As noted in the Status of the Species section of this Opinion, the Atlantic sturgeon population in 
84 

the Hudson River has had a decreasing trend over the time period that impingement monitoring 

occurred. Therefore, we considered if the average impingement rate during 1974-1990 would 

overestimate future impingement. 

We have made the basic assumption that the risk of impingement increases with the size of the 

population. That is, we expect that if there are more fish in the river there is more opportunity for 

individuals to be impinged. We expect if there are more sturgeon in the action area then the 

impingement rate would be higher. As evidenced by estimates of juvenile abundance, the 

Atlantic sturgeon population in the Hudson River has declined over time. Peterson et al. (2000) 

found that the abundance of age-1 Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River declined 80% from 

1977 to 1995. Similarly, longterm indices of juvenile abundance (the Hudson River Long River 

and Fall Shoals surveys) demonstrate a longterm declining trend in juvenile abundance. The 

figure below (Figure 7) illustrates the CPUE of Atlantic sturgeon in the two longterm surveys of 

the Hudson River. Please note that the Fall Shoals survey switched gear types in 1985. We do 

not have the CPUE data for the Long River Survey for 2006-2011. 
85 

As evidenced in the above table, impingement of Atlantic sturgeon declined over time. The 

annual average impingement from 1974-1978 was 211.6 Atlantic sturgeon; from 1986-1990 it 

was 5. Unlike for shortnose sturgeon where the impingement trend did not seem to match the 

trend of the population, the decline in Atlantic sturgeon in the river appears to be reflected in the 

declining trend in impingements of Atlantic sturgeon over time. This could be due to the time 

period of impingement monitoring better reflecting the time when changes were experienced in 

the Atlantic sturgeon population than changes in the shortnose sturgeon population. 

CPUE for the Fall Juvenile Survey for the most recent five year period (2007-2011) is 

approximately 27% of the CPUE from 1985-1990 (1.41 compared to 5.17). The CPUE results 

suggest a sharp decline in juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River after 1989. While the 

CPUE results only indicate trends for juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, given the size of the Atlantic 

sturgeon impinged at Indian Point, they are a good representative of the year classes affected by 

operations of Indian Point. Therefore, while we do not have an index of the Hudson River 

population as a whole, that type of index may not be relevant for considering the number of 

Atlantic sturgeon available for impingement at Indian Point. Because of the change in gear type, 

we cannot directly compare CPUE from 1974-1990 (when impingement monitoring occurred) to 

CPUEs for more recent time periods. The only CPUEs that overlap with the impingement 

monitoring that can be directly compared to current CPUEs are those from 1985-1990. 

However, as evidenced in the figure above, there was an overall declining trend in the number of 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River since the mid-1970s. This declining trend is 

reflected in declines in impingement at Indian Point. CPUE data from 2007-2011 is more than 

two times higher than the CPUE from 1991-1996 which may be suggestive of an increasing 

trend in juvenile abundance. However, the index suggests that numbers of juveniles are still 

significantly lower now than during the end of the impingement monitoring period. Given the 

high variability between years, it is difficult to use this data to assess short term trends, however, 

when looking at a five-year moving average, the index appears to be increasing from lows in the 

early 1990s, but is still much lower than the 1970s and 1980s. 

Based on the CPUE, there appear to be approximately 27% of the number of Atlantic sturgeon 

juveniles in the Hudson River now as compared to the period 1985-1990. During that period, the 

average annual impingement rate was 11.5 Atlantic sturgeon per year. Using the CPUE to adjust 

that rate to predict current abundance (i.e., 27% of 11.5), we would expect an annual average 

impingement rate of 3.1 Atlantic sturgeon per year. As noted above, there are some indications 

that the trend in juvenile abundance is increasing. The period 1985-1990 captures the period just 

prior to the sharp decline in Atlantic sturgeon juvenile abundance. Because there is some 

evidence of an increasing trend in juveniles in the Hudson River, it is possible that by reducing 

the average impingement rate from 1985-1990 we could underestimate future impingement. 

Entergy conducted an analysis to determine if there was a statistically significant correlation 

between reported Atlantic sturgeon population size and impingement density. We would expect 

that the more sturgeon there were in the river, the higher the impingement density would be 

because there would be more sturgeon that had the potential to be impinged. However, the 

analysis does not reveal a statistically significant correlation (Entergy 2012). It is likely that this 

lack of statistical correlation is not due to the fact that there is no relationship between population 

size and impingement but because impingement of sturgeon is a rare event and because of the 
86 

high interannual variability in impingement numbers which makes detection of a statistically 

significant correlation difficult. 

We considered reviewing impingement data for other Hudson River power plants to determine if 

this predicted correlation between decreases in individuals and increased impingement of 

individuals would be observed. Long term sturgeon impingement monitoring is only available 

for the Roseton and Danskammer facilities. However, since 2000, both facilities have operated 

at reduced rates and there has been minimal sturgeon impingement; in every year it has been no 

more than one. As the Roseton and Danskammer facilities are not currently operating in the 

same capacity they were in the past, it is not possible to make an accurate comparison of past and 

present impingement which could serve to determine if it was reasonable to assume that an 

increase in impingement would occur in association with any change in the number of Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Hudson River. As noted above, the Lovett facility has been closed. The Bowline 

facility has always operated with extremely low levels of impingement, thought to be primarily 

due to the location of the intakes in a nearly enclosed embayment of the River where Atlantic 

sturgeon are thought to be unlikely to occur (Bowline Pond) (NMFS 2000). Therefore, we are 

not able to use information from other power intakes to determine if there is an association 

between changes in population size and rates of impingement. 

We also considered examining relationships between population trend and impingement rates at 

facilities outside the Hudson River. Monitoring of shortnose sturgeon impingement at the Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station, on the Delaware River, has been ongoing since 1978. However, 

reporting of impinged Atlantic sturgeon only began in 2010, with one impingement recorded to 

date. Because of the lack of data, it is not possible to use this information to determine if 

changes in population size are related to changes in impingement rates. 

Despite the uncertainty in determining the factors that are related to impingement, the 

assumption that the more sturgeon there are in the river the higher the potential for impingement, 

is reasonable. Because we expect fewer Atlantic sturgeon in the river now than during the period 

of impingement monitoring we considered adjusting the annual impingement value by 73% (the 

decrease in juveniles suggested by the CPUE from the Fall Shoals Survey). However, by doing 

this we may be underestimating future impingement if Atlantic sturgeon juvenile abundance is 

increasing in the way the Fall Shoals Survey CPUE suggests (i.e., an increase from the early 

1990s, but still depressed from the 1970s). Based on what we know about Atlantic sturgeon in 

the river, the impingement rates from 1985-1990 appear to be the most reflective of future 

impingement rates. Using the annual average of Atlantic sturgeon impinged during this period, 

we would anticipate the impingement of an average of 11.5 Atlantic sturgeon per year at IP2 and 

IP3 (combined) during the period that these facilities will continue to operate. From September 

28, 2033 – December 12, 2035, only IP3 will be operational. During the period 1974-1990, 

approximately 33% of the impinged Atlantic sturgeon were at IP3. Using that ratio and applying 

it to the estimate of 11.5 Atlantic sturgeon when both facilities are operational, we expect an 

average of 3.8 Atlantic sturgeon to be impinged annually when just IP3 is operational. Over the 

two year period we expect the impingement of 8 Atlantic sturgeon. 

As described above for shortnose sturgeon, we also need to account for impingement of Atlantic 

sturgeon at IP1. Using the methodology discussed above, we assume that an additional 0.34% 
87 

would be impinged at the IP1 intake; therefore, we would expect an average of 0.04 Atlantic 

sturgeon to be impinged annually at IP1 intakes. Between now and 2033 when the IP2 license 

expires (a period of 21 years), we would expect one Atlantic sturgeon to be impinged at IP1. 

In summary, using the average annual impingement from 1985-1990 and then adding 0.34% to 

account for the IP1 intakes, we would expect a total impingement of 243 Atlantic sturgeon 

between now and September 2033 (the time period when IP2 and IP3 will be operational and 

water will be withdrawn through the IP1 intakes) and an additional 8 Atlantic sturgeon from 

September 28, 2033-December 12, 2035 when just IP3 will be operational. This results in a total 

estimate of 251 Atlantic sturgeon impinged at Indian Point screens from now until December 

12, 2035. 

Calculations based on Entergy’s Impingement Density Calculations

Entergy applied an adjusted impingement density (to account for decreases in the Atlantic 

sturgeon population) to the predicted volume of water to be removed in the future (based on 

2001-2008 operation), to predict future impingement of Atlantic sturgeon. 

Entergy predicted future impingement using the impingement density values. They consider the 

annual average water withdrawal rate for 2001-2008 to be representative of future operations of 

the Indian Point cooling water intake structures. Because operations vary monthly, with average 

water withdrawal lower in some months than others, they factored this variability in operations 

into the calculations. To account for the decrease in Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, 

Entergy adjusted the monthly impingement density rates by reducing them 80%. This was based 

on Peterson et al. (2000) finding that the abundance of age-1 Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson 

River declined 80% from 1977 to 1995. They then applied this impingement density rate to the 

predicted water withdrawal for the future operating period. Using these rates to estimate future 

impingement, Entergy predicted an annual average impingement rate of 11.45 individuals per 

year. 

 
88 

Figure 8. Among-month pattern of projected average Atlantic sturgeon impingement at IP2 and 

IP3, and average of IP2 and 3 flows (cooling water plus service water) for the years 2001-2008. 

From Entergy 2012. 

Comparison of results of the two calculation methods 

Both of the methods considered above make adjustments to account for the lesser number of 

Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River now as compared to the number when impingement 

monitoring occurred. The Entergy method predicts an annual average impingement rate of 11.4 

Atlantic sturgeon per year. Our method, using the average impingement rate from 1985-1990, 

predicts an annual average rate of 11.5 Atlantic sturgeon per year. Entergy predicts that future 

operations will be similar to operations from 2001-2008. During that time, average service and 

cooling water flows through the IP2 and IP3 intakes ranged from 1 million to 1.8 million gallons 

per minute depending on the month. From 1976-1990, average service and cooling water flows 

through the IP2 and IP3 intakes ranged from 0.6-1.2 million gallons per minute depending on the 

month suggesting an overall increase of 1.5-1.6 times the amount of water to be withdrawn in the 

future as compared to 1976-1990. If we assume that the risk of impingement increases with the 

volume of water removed through the intakes, then it becomes important to factor in increased 

water usage when considering future impingement. If we adjust the calculated impingement 

number (6; based on the annual average from 1985-1990) by a factor of 1.6 to account for 

increased water usage we would estimate an annual average of 18.4 Atlantic sturgeon impinged 

at IP2 and IP3. 

Because of the uncertainty related to the factors associated with impingement rates, it is difficult 

to determine which estimate is a better predictor of future impingement. The Entergy 
89 

methodology assumes an 80% reduction in impingement in the future as compared to the time 

when monitoring took place. Based on comparisons of CPUE from 1985-1990 as compared to 

2007-2011, it appears that at 73% reduction may be more reasonable. When we reduce our 

expected annual average impingement of 18.4 by 73%, we result in a calculated average annual 

impingement of 13.4 Atlantic sturgeon per year. The major difference in these two estimates is 

that our estimate considers that the juvenile Atlantic sturgeon population in the Hudson River 

shows evidence of an increasing trend. Therefore, we have considered impingement rates from 

1985-1990 to be the best predictor of future impingement and have not reduced these to account 

for a currently low population. Entergy’s estimate factors in impingement density from the 

1970s when impingement rates were very high but then applies an overall 80% reduction to the 

impingement rates. Those differences in methodology accounts for the differences in our 

predicted annual impingement. However, we believe that our estimate is a reasonable predictor 

of future Atlantic sturgeon impingement. This estimate is based on the annual average estimate 

of 11.5 Atlantic sturgeon per year during the period of 1985-1990 and a 160% increase to 

account for increases in the predicted amount of water to be withdrawn in the future as compared 

to 1976-1990. Using the calculation discussed previously for IP1, we expect the annual average 

impingement of 0.04 Atlantic sturgeon at the IP1 intakes. 

Between now and September 23, 2033 when the proposed renewed operating license for IP2 will 

expire, we expect up to 269 Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged at the IP2 intakes (Ristroph 

screens), inclusive of 2 Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP1 intakes used for IP2 service water. 

Between now and December 12, 2035 when the proposed renewed operating license for IP3 will 

expire, we expect up to 145 Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged at the IP3 intakes (Ristroph 

screens). In total, if both facilities operate until the expiration dates of the proposed renewed 

licenses, up to 414 Atlantic sturgeon will be killed as a result of Indian Point operations. 

Consistent with the period when monitoring was ongoing, we expect the number of 

impingements to be variable year to year. Adjusting the annual impingement values from 1985-

1990 using the methodology outlined above to account for differences in population size and 

increased water withdrawal, we expect that annual impingement values will range from zero to 

71 Atlantic sturgeon per year. Adjusting the annual impingement values from 1985-1990 using 

the methodology outlined above to account for differences in increased water withdrawal (i.e., 

multiplying the estimated impingement value by 1.6), we expect that annual impingement values 

will range from zero to 71 Atlantic sturgeon per year at IP2 and IP3, collectively (range of 0-31 

at IP2 and 0-40 at IP3). However, over time, we expect the average to be 13 Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged per year at the IP2 Ristroph screens and 6 at the IP3 Ristroph screens. We also 

anticipate that there will be no more than two consecutive years where there are more than 10 

impingements at IP2 and no more than two consecutive years where there are more than 10 

impingements at IP3. For example, we do not anticipate that there would ever be more than 31 

Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 in any given year or 11 (or more)Atlantic sturgeon impinged 

at IP2 in any three consecutive years. Similarly, for IP3 we do not anticipate the impingement of 

more than 40 Atlantic sturgeon in any given year or 11 (or more) Atlantic sturgeon impinged at 

IP3 in any three consecutive years. 
90 

Our calculations are illustrated below: 

a) Average annual impingement 1985-1990: 11.5 

b) Account for increased water usage by multiplying 11.5 by 160% = 18.4 rounded up to 19 

c) During 1985-1990, 33% of reported impingement of Atlantic sturgeon occurred at IP2. 

Annually we then expect 33% of 19 impingements to occur at IP3 = 13 at IP2 and 6 at 

IP3 

d) IP1 withdraws 0.34% of the water withdrawn by IP2 and IP3. Expect 0.34% of total 

impingement at IP1. (0.0034 x 19) = .006 annually; water will be withdrawn through the 

IP1 intakes for 21 years. 0.006 x 21 = 1.36, rounded up to 2 

e) Based on license dates, we expect IP2 to operate from now until September 28, 2033, a 

total of 21 years. Adjusting the annual average impingement for IP2 and IP3 (19) to 

account for the % of impingements we expect at IP2 (67%) times 21 years = 267 Atlantic 

sturgeon plus two at IP1 = 269 at an average rate of 13 per year. 

f) Based on license dates, we expect IP3 to operate from now until December 12, 2035, a 

total of 23 years. Adjusting the annual average impingement for IP2 and IP3 (19) to 

account for the % of impingements we expect at IP2 (33%) times 23 years = 145 Atlantic 

sturgeon, at an average rate of 6 per year. 

g) In total, we expect 414 Atlantic sturgeon to be impinged at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes, 

with an average annual impingement rate of 19 Atlantic sturgeon for the 21 years IP2 and 

IP3 are operational and an annual average impingement rate of 6 shortnose sturgeon for 

the 2 years only IP3 is operational. 

As explained in section 4.2.2, we have determined that Atlantic sturgeon in the action area likely 

originate from three of the five DPSs at the following frequencies: NYB 92%; Gulf of Maine 

6%; and, Chesapeake Bay 2%. However, it is important to note that only subadults and adults 

leave their natal rivers. Therefore, any young of the year or juveniles that are impinged would 

originate from the Hudson River and the New York Bight DPS. We can identify the life stage of 

Atlantic sturgeon by length. Subadults may move to coastal waters once reaching lengths of 

approximately76-92 cm (Murawski and Pacheco 1977; Smith 1985). 

From 1985 through 1990, lengths (mm total length, “mmTL”) and weights (wet weight in grams) of 

impinged Atlantic sturgeon were reported at IP2 and IP3; however, from 1974-1984, weights were 

reported but lengths were not. Therefore, for 1974-1984, Entergy predicted lengths of impinged 

Atlantic sturgeon based on reported weights of impinged Atlantic sturgeon. The prediction equation 

(R2=0.85) was developed from length and weight measurements obtained from 36 Atlantic sturgeon 

collected during impingement sampling from 1985-1990 (Figure 9 below). 
91 

Figure 9. Atlantic sturgeon length-weight relationship based on length (mm TL) and weight 

measurements (dots) recorded on 36 Atlantic sturgeon collected during impingement sampling at IP2 

and IP3 from 1985-1990. 

 

In addition, measurements on greatest body width (mm) and depth (mm) from Atlantic sturgeon 

collected in FSS and striped bass mark-recapture sampling programs from July through 

December 2011 were used to predict the longest Atlantic sturgeon that would fit through the 3” 

wide opening of the bar racks, and could be impinged at IP2 or IP3. Applying this approach, the 

longest Atlantic sturgeon that would not be excluded by the bar racks, i.e., that could fit between 

the bars regardless of orientation, would be approximately 600 mmTL. 

 

The length frequency distributions for impinged Atlantic sturgeon (Figure 9) show a median 

length of approximately 330 mmTL, with a 10th percentile of approximately 200 mmTL and a 

90th percentile of approximately 500 mmTL. Although the median length of Atlantic sturgeon 

collected by 35 foot otter trawls in the Hudson River in 1978 was almost 600mm (Dovel and 

Berggren, 1980), only 2.5% of impinged Atlantic sturgeon were greater than 600 mmTL, which 

supports the conclusion that Atlantic sturgeon larger than 600 mmTL are excluded from 

impingement on the Ristroph screens by the bar racks. 
92 

 

Of the 36 impinged Atlantic sturgeon where length was recorded, only two were longer than 

76cm and could have been migrants from outside the Hudson River. However, given their size 

(77 and 78 cm) at the low end of the range at which coastal migrations begin (76-92 cm) and the 

time of year that they were impinged (February 14 and March 13) it is likely that these two fish 

originated from the Hudson River. 

Based on the available information on past impingements and the predicted size of individuals 

that will be impinged in the future, it is likely that all impingements at the screens will be of 

young of year, juveniles and subadults originating from the Hudson River. Therefore, we expect 

all individuals impinged at the screens will originate from the New York Bight DPS. 

We cannot predict the number of Atlantic sturgeon likely to be impinged at the IP trash racks. 

However, based on the available information, we expect all of these Atlantic sturgeon to be dead 

or stressed, with the cause of death/stressor currently unknown. Because these individuals are 

likely to be subadults or adults, they could originate from the New York Bight, Gulf of Maine or 

Chesapeake Bay DPS. 

Predicted Mortality of Impinged Atlantic Sturgeon 

NRC has stated that the installation of the modified Ristroph screens following the 1987-1990 

monitoring period is expected to have reduced impingement mortality for sturgeon. However, 

because no monitoring occurred after the installation of the Ristroph screens and more recent 

data are not available, it is not possible to determine to what extent the modified Ristroph screens 

may have reduced impingement mortality as compared to pre-1991 levels. 

Of the 601 Atlantic sturgeon collected during impingement sampling at IP2 and IP3, condition 

(alive or dead) is reported for 37 fish (NRC BA 2012); of these, 22 are reported as dead (59% 

mortality rate). There is no information to indicate whether alive meant alive and not injured, or 

alive and injured. There is also no additional information to assess whether these fish reported as 

dead were likely killed prior to impingement and drifted into the intake or whether being in the 

intake bays and/or impingement was the sole cause of death or a contributing cause of death. 

Before installation of modified Ristroph screen systems in 1991, 100 percent impingement 

mortality at IP2 and IP3 was assumed. Beginning in 1985, pilot studies were conducted to 

evaluate whether the addition of Ristroph screens would decrease impingement mortality for 

representative species. The final design of the screens, as reported in Fletcher (1990), appeared 

to reduce impingement mortality for some species based on a pilot study compared to the 

original system in place at IP2 and IP3. The Fletcher study reported mortality following an 8-

hour holding period in an attempt to account for delayed mortality that may result from injuries 

suffered during impingement. Based on the information reported by Fletcher (1990), 

impingement mortality and injury are lowest for striped bass, weakfish, and hogchoker, and 

highest for alewife, white catfish, and American shad, with mortality rates ranging from 9-62%, 

depending on species. No evaluation of survival of Atlantic sturgeon on the modified Ristroph 

screens at IP2 or IP3 was made and no monitoring has occurred since the screens were installed 

in 1991. No Atlantic sturgeon were observed during the limited monitoring that occurred at the 

modified Ristroph screens. As discussed in section 7.2.1.1 above, there are several reasons why 

we are unable to rely on any reported increase in survival for the modified screens or use the 
93 

survival rates for other species to predict survival of sturgeon. This is because (1) none of these 

tests used sturgeon; (2) the species considered in the monitoring and testing are not 

morphologically similar to sturgeon and are considerably smaller than the larger sturgeon that 

could pass through the trash bars and be impinged at the Ristroph screens, and (3) there are no 

studies comparing impingement mortality or likelihood of injury of sturgeon compared to other 

species at any intake screens that could be used to estimate mortality rates for sturgeon based on 

the rates for other species. 

No further monitoring of the IP2 or IP3 intakes or impingement rates or impingement mortality 

estimates was conducted after the new Ristroph screens were installed at IP2 and IP3 in 1991, 

and any actual reduction in mortality or injury to Atlantic sturgeon resulting from impingement 

after installation of these systems at IP2 and IP3 has not been established. As explained above, 

Atlantic sturgeon with a body width of at least three inches would not be able to pass through the 

trash bars and would become impinged on the trash bars and not pass through to the Ristroph 

screens. Survival for Atlantic sturgeon impinged on the trash bars would be dependent on the 

length of time the fish was impinged and whether it also interacted with debris that collects on 

the bars. Assuming that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon mortality rates are similar, we expect 

that the mortality of Atlantic sturgeon at the trash barsis likely to be high (e.g., 85% for shortnose 

sturgeon at Salem nuclear facility) even when a monitoring program is in place designed to 

observe and remove impinged fish. 

As noted above, healthy Atlantic sturgeon (yearlings and older) are expected to be able to readily 

avoid an intake with an approach velocity of 1.0 fps or less. Therefore, any Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged at the trash bars, where the velocity is 1.0 fps or less depending on operating condition, 

are likely to already be suffering from injury or illness which has impaired their swimming 

ability and are likely to be dead or stressed with the cause of death/stressor currently unknown. 

Based on the available information, it is difficult to predict the likely mortality rate for Atlantic 

sturgeon following impingement on the Ristroph screens. Atlantic sturgeon passing through the 

trash bars and becoming impinged on the Ristroph screens are likely to be small juveniles or 

subadults with body widths less than three inches. Based on the 8-hour survival rates reported 

by Fletcher for other species, it is likely that some percentage of Atlantic sturgeon impinged on 

the Ristroph screens will survive. Some Atlantic sturgeon that become impinged on the Ristroph 

screens are likely to be suffering from injuries, illnesses, or other stressors that have impaired 

their swimming ability and prevented them from being able to escape from the relatively low 

reported approach velocity (1.0 fps or less as measured within the intake bay in front of the 

Ristroph screens, which yearling and older Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be able to avoid. 

Given the design of the Ristroph screens and the short passage time, it is unlikely that passage 

through the screen system would increase the likelihood of mortality or exacerbate injury or 

illness. However, because we do not know the condition of the fish prior to impingement, and 

we have no site-specific studies to base an estimate or even species-specific studies at different 

facilities, we will assume the worst case, that mortality is 100%. 

Using the impingement rates calculated above, and the worst case mortality rate of 100% at the 

modified Ristroph screens, we expect a total of 414 Atlantic sturgeon to die as a result of 

impingement at IP1, IP2 and IP3 between now and the time that the extended operating licenses 
94 

expire (2 at IP1, 267 at IP2 and 145 at IP3). For the reasons given above, we believe that the 

100% mortality estimate is a conservative, yet reasonable, mortality rate for impinged Atlantic 

sturgeon at the trash bars and Ristroph screens. As noted above, we expect all impinged Atlantic 

sturgeon to originate from the Hudson River and the New York Bight DPS. Therefore, we 

expect the mortality of 414 juvenile New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon between now and 

December 12, 2035. We can not predict the number of Atlantic sturgeon likely to be impinged at 

the IP trash racks. However, based on the available information, we expect all of these shortnose 

sturgeon to be dead or stressed, with the cause of death/stressor currently unknown. 

7.1.3 Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon prey 

Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates. As these prey species 

are found on the bottom and are generally immobile or have limited mobility and are not within 

the water column, they are less vulnerable to impingement or entrainment. Impingement and 

entrainment studies have not included macroinvertebrates as focus species. No 

macroinvertebrates are represented in the Representative Important Species (RIS) species 

focused on by NRC in the FSEIS. However, given the life history characteristics (sessile, 

benthic, not suspended in or otherwise occupying the water column) of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon forage items which make impingement and entrainment unlikely, any loss of sturgeon 

prey due to impingement or entrainment is likely to be minimal. Therefore, we have determined 

that the effect on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon due to the potential loss of forage items caused 

by impingement or entrainment in the IP1, IP2 or IP3 intakes is insignificant and discountable. 

7.1.4 Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal 

IP2 and IP3 currently operate pursuant to operating licenses issued by NRC; this will continue 

until a licensing decision is made. If new licenses are issued as proposed, IP2 and IP3 will 

continue to operate with once through cooling until September 28, 2033 and December 12, 2035 

respectively. 

In the analysis outlined above, we determined the impingement of shortnose sturgeon is likely to 

occur at IP2 and IP3 while IP2 and IP3 continue to operate as well as at the IP1 intake which will 

be used for withdrawing service water for the operation of IP2. We estimate, using the 

impingement and mortality rates calculated above, that each year an average of 26 shortnose 

sturgeon will die as a result of impingement at the screens at the Indian Point facilities, for a 

total of 562 shortnose sturgeon mortalities caused by the operations of Indian Point between now 

and December 12, 2035 (2 at IP1, 393 at IP2 and 167 at IP3) . We also estimate that an average 

of 19 Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged and die each year, for a total of 414 Atlantic sturgeon 

mortalities caused by the operations of Indian Point between now and December 12, 2035 (2 at 

IP1, 267 at IP2 and 145 at IP3). All of these Atlantic sturgeon are likely to originate from the 

Hudson River and the New York Bight DPS. We believe that the 100% mortality estimate is a 

conservative, yet reasonable estimate of the likely mortality rate for impinged shortnose sturgeon 

at the screens. Additionally, we anticipate the impingement of dead or stressed shortnose 

sturgeon, New York Bight DPS, Gulf of Maine DPS and Chesapeake Bay DPS Atlantic sturgeon 

with body widths greater than 3” at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash bars. The cause of death/stressor 

of these sturgeon impinged at the trash bars is currently unknown. Due to the size of shortnose 

and Atlantic sturgeon that occur in the action area, no entrainment at any of the IP intakes is 
95 

anticipated. Any effects to shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon prey from the continued operation of 

IP2 and IP3, as defined by the proposed action, would be insignificant and discountable. 

7.2 Effects of Discharges to the Hudson River 

The discharge of pollutants from the IP facility is regulated for CWA purposes through the New 

York SPDES program. The SDPES permit (NY-0004472) specifies the discharge standards and 

monitoring requirements for each discharge. Under this regulatory program, Entergy treats 

wastewater effluents, collects and disposes of potential contaminants, and undertakes pollution 

prevention activities. As currently configured, IP2 and IP3 cannot operate without withdrawing 

water from and discharging water to the Hudson River. Therefore, effects of the continued 

operation of IP2 and IP3 include the discharge of effluent to the Hudson River. 

As explained above, Entergy’s 1987 SPDES permit remains in effect while NYDEC 

administrative proceedings continue on a new draft permit. As such, pursuant to NRC’s 

consultation request, the effects of the IP facility continuing to operate under the terms of the 

existing licenses and the proposed renewed licenses and under the terms of the 1987 SPDES 

permit will be discussed below. 

7.2.1 Heated Effluent 

As indicated above, the extended operation of IP2 and IP3 will be regulated by the NRC through 

the issuance of renewed operating licenses. Given the facilities with a once-through cooling 

water system cannot operate without the intake and discharge of water, the effects of discharges 

are effects of the proposed action. This is also true for the existing licenses under which the 

facility will operate until NRC makes a licensing decision. The discharges would not occur but 

for the operation of the facilities. 

Thermal discharges associated with the operation of the once through cooling water system for 

IP2 and IP3 are regulated for CWA purposes by the terms of the SPDES permit. Temperature 

limitations are established and imposed on a case-by-case basis for each facility subject to 

NYCRR Part 704. Specific conditions associated with the extent and magnitude of thermal 

plumes are addressed in 6 NYCRR Part 704 as follows:

(5) Estuaries or portions of estuaries. 

i. The water temperature at the surface of an estuary shall not be raised to more 

than 90°F at any point. 

ii. At least 50 percent of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the flow of the 

estuary including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured from 

water edge to water edge at any stage of tide, shall not be raised to more than 

4°F over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial 

origin or a maximum of 83°F, whichever is less. 

iii. From July through September, if the water temperature at the surface of an 

estuary before the addition of heat of artificial origin is more than an 83°F 

increase in temperature not to exceed 1.5°F at any point of the estuarine 

passageway as delineated above, may be permitted. 

iv. At least 50 percent of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the flow of the 

estuary including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured from 

water edge to water edge at any stage of tide, shall not be lowered more than 

4°F from the temperature that existed immediately prior to such lowering. 
96 

Specific conditions of permit NY-0004472 related to thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 are 

specified by NYSDEC (2003b) and include the following: 

• The maximum discharge temperature is not to exceed 110°F (43°C). 

• The daily average discharge temperature between April 15 and June 30 is not to exceed 

93.2°F (34°C) for an average of more than 10 days per year during the term of the permit, 

beginning in 1981, provided that it not exceed 93.2°F (34°C) on more than 15 days 

during that period in any year. 

The discharge of heated water has the potential to cause lethal or sublethal effects on fish and 

other aquatic organisms and create barriers, preventing or delaying access to other areas within 

the river. Limited information is available on the characteristics of the thermal plume associated 

with discharges from IP2 and IP3. As water withdrawn through the IP1 intakes will be used for 

service water, not cooling water, the discharge of this water is not heated. Below, NMFS 

summarizes the available information on the thermal plume, discusses the thermal tolerances of 

shortnose sturgeon, and considers effects of the plume on shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon 

and their prey. 

7.2.1.1 Characteristics of Indian Point’s Thermal Plume 

Thermal studies at IP2 and IP3 were conducted in the 1970s. These studies included thermal 

modeling of near-field effects using the Cornell University Mixing Zone Model (CORMIX), and 

modeling of far-field effects using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dynamic 

network model (also called the far-field thermal model). For the purpose of modeling, near-field 

was defined as the region in the immediate vicinity of each station discharge where cooling 

water occupies a clearly distinguishable, three-dimensional temperature regime in the river that 

is not yet fully mixed; far-field was defined as the region farthest from the discharges where the 

plumes are no longer distinguishable from the river, but the influence of the discharge is still 

present (CHGEC et al. 1999). The MIT model was used to simulate the hydraulic and thermal 

processes present in the Hudson River at a scale deemed sufficient by the utilities and their 

contractor and was designed and configured to account for time-variable hydraulic and 

meteorological conditions and heat sources of artificial origins. Model output included a 

prediction of temperature distribution for the Hudson River from the Troy Dam to the island of 

Manhattan. Using an assumption of steady-state flow conditions, the permit applicants applied 

CORMIX modeling to develop a three-dimensional plume configuration of near-field thermal 

conditions that could be compared to applicable water quality criteria. 

The former owners of IP2 and IP3 conducted thermal plume studies employing both models for 

time scenarios that encompassed the period of June–September. These months were chosen 

because river temperatures were expected to be at their maximum levels. The former owners 

used environmental data from 1981 to calibrate and verify the far-field MIT model and to 

evaluate temperature distributions in the Hudson River under a variety of power plant operating 

conditions. They chose the summer months of 1981 because data for all thermal discharges were 

available and because statistical analysis of the 1981 summer conditions indicated that this year 

represented a relatively low-flow, high-temperature summer that would represent a conservative 

(worst-case) scenario for examining thermal effects associated with power plant thermal 
97 

discharges. Modeling was performed under the following two power plant operating scenarios to 

determine if New York State thermal criteria would be exceeded: 

i. Individual station effects—full capacity operation of Roseton Units 1 and 2, IP2 and IP3, 

or Bowline Point Units 1 and 2, with no other sources of artificial heat. 

ii. Extreme operating conditions—Roseton Units 1 and 2, IP2 and IP3, and Bowline Point 

Units 1 and 2, and all other sources of artificial heat operating at full capacity. 

Modeling was initially conducted using MIT and CORMIX Version 2.0 under the conditions of 

maximum ebb and flood currents (CHGEC et al. 1999). These results were supplemented by 

later work using MIT and CORMIX Version 3.2 and were based on the hypothetical conditions 

represented by the 10th-percentile flood currents, mean low water depths in the vicinity of each 

station, and concurrent operation of all three generating stations at maximum permitted capacity 

(CHGEC et al. 1999). The 10th percentile of flood currents was selected because it represents 

the lowest velocities that can be evaluated by CORMIX, and because modeling suggests that 

flood currents produce larger plumes than ebb currents. The results obtained from the CORMIX 

model runs were integrated with the riverwide temperature profiles developed by the MIT 

dynamic network model to evaluate far-field thermal impacts (e.g., river water temperature rises 

above ambient) for various operating scenarios, the surface width of the plume, the depth of the 

plume, the percentage of surface width relative to the river width at a given location, and the 

percentage of cross-sectional area bounded by the 4°F (2°C) isotherm. In addition, the decay in 

excess temperature was estimated from model runs under near slack water conditions (CHGEC 

et al. 1999). For IP2 and IP3, two-unit operation at full capacity resulted in a monthly average 

cross-sectional temperature increase of 2.13 to 2.86°F (1.18 to 1.59°C) for ebb tide events in 

June and August, respectively. The average percentage of river surface width bounded by the 4°F 

(2°C) temperature rise isotherm ranged from 54 percent (August ebb tide) to 100 percent (July 

and August flood tide). Average cross-sectional percentages bounded by the plume ranged from 

14 percent (June and September) to approximately 20 percent (July and August). When the 

temperature rise contributions of IP2 and IP3, Bowline Point, and Roseton were considered 

collectively (with all three facilities operating a maximum permitted capacity and discharging the 

maximum possible heat load), the monthly cross-sectional temperature rise in the vicinity of IP2 

and IP3 ranged from 3.24°F (1.80°C) during June ebb tides to 4.63°F (2.57°C) during flood tides 

in August. Temperature increases exceeded 4°F (2°C) on both tide stages in July and August. 

After model modifications were made to account for the variable river geometry near IP2 and 

IP3, predictions of surface width bounded by the plume ranged from 36 percent during 

September ebb tides to 100 percent during flood tides in all study months. On near-slack tide, the 

percentage of the surface width bounded by the 4°F (2°C) isotherm was 99 to 100 percent in all 

study months. The average percentage of the cross-sectional area bounded by the plume ranged 

from 27 percent (June ebb tide) to 83 percent (August flood tide) and was 24 percent in all study 

months during slack water events. 

Exceedences generally occurred under scenarios that Entergy indicated may be considered quite 

conservative (maximum operation of three electrical generation facilities simultaneously for long 

periods of time, tidal conditions promoting maximum thermal impacts, atypical river flows). The 

steady-state assumptions of CORMIX are also important because, although the modeled flow 

conditions in the Hudson River would actually occur for only a short period of time when slack 

water conditions are replaced by tidal flooding, CORMIX assumes this condition has been 
98 

continuous over a long period of time. CHGEC et al. (1999) found that this assumption can result 

in an overestimate of the cross-river extent of the plume centerline. 

Information provided by Entergy during the consultation period indicates that the CORMIX 

model has significant limitations which limit its utility when considering the discharge of heated 

effluent into the Hudson River. Specifically, the CORMIX model results in an overestimate of 

the scope and extent of the thermal plume. As more recent information on the thermal plume is 

available (see below) and this new information has been reviewed by NYDEC and determined to 

be appropriate to use when considering the effects of the thermal discharge on the Hudson River, 

NMFS is not relying on the CORMIX model in our effects analysis, but rather is relying on the 

more recent triaxial thermal plume study described below. 

More recently, a triaxial thermal plume study was completed. Swanson et al. (2011 b) conducted 

thermal sampling and modeling of the cooling water discharge at Indian Point and reported that 

the extent and shape of the thermal plume varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal currents. 

For example, the plume (illustrated as a 4°F temperature increase or LH isotherm, Figure 5-6 in 

Swanson et al. 2011 b) generally followed the eastern shore of the Hudson River and extended 

northward from Indian Point during flood tide and southward from Indian Point during ebb tide. 

Depending on tides, the plume can be well-defined and reach a portion of the near-shore bottom 

or be largely confined to the surface. 

Temperature measurements reported by Swanson et al. (2011 b) generally show that the warmest 

water in the thermal plume is close to the surface and plume temperatures tend to decrease with 

depth. Occasionally, the thermal plume extends deeply rather than across the surface. A crossriver survey conducted in front of Indian Point captured one such incident during spring tide on 

July 13, 2010 (Figure 3-28 in Swanson et al. 2011b). Across most of the river, water 

temperatures were close to 82°F (28°C), often with warmer temperatures near the surface and 

cooler temperatures near the bottom. The Indian Point thermal plume at that point was clearly 

defined and extended about 1000 ft (300 m) from shore. Surface water temperatures reached 

about 85°F (29°C). At 23-ft to about 25-ft (7-m to 8-m) depths, observed plume temperatures 

were 83° to 84°F (28° to 29°C). Maximum river depth along the measured transect is 

approximately 50 ft (15 m). 

A temperature contour plot of a cross-river transect at Indian Point prepared in response to a 

NYSDEC review illustrates a similar condition on July 11, 2010 during slack before flood tide 

(Swanson et al. 2011a, Figure 1-10). Here the thermal plume is evident to about 2000 ft (600 m) 

from the eastern shore (the location of the Indian Point discharge) and extends to a depth of 

about 35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore. Bottom temperatures above 82°F (28°C), were 

confined to about the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. The river here is over 4500 ft (1400 m) 

wide. In that small area, bottom water temperatures might also exceed 30°C (86°F); elsewhere, 

bottom water temperatures were about 80°F (27°C). These conditions would not last long, 

however, as they would change with the tidal cycle. Under no conditions did interpolated 

temperatures in Entergy's modeled results exceed the 28°C in the deep reaches of the river 

channel (Swanson 2011 a). 
99 

In response to the NYSDEC's review of the Indian Point thermal studies (Swanson et al. 2011 b), 

Mendelsohn et al. (2011) modeled the maximum area and width of the thermal plume (defined 

by the 4°F (2°C) ΔT isotherms) in the Hudson River. Mendelsohn, et al. reported that for four 

cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river area of the plume would not 

exceed 12.3 percent and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6 

percent of the river (Mendelsohn, et al.'s Table 3-1). 

7.2.1.2 Thermal Tolerances – Shortnose sturgeon 

Most organisms can acclimate (i.e. metabolically adjust) to temperatures above or below those to 

which they are normally subjected. Bull (1936) demonstrated, from a range of marine species, 

that fish could detect and respond to a temperature front of 0.03 to 0.07°C (0.05 – 0.13°F). Fish 

will therefore attempt to avoid stressful temperatures by actively seeking water at the preferred 

temperature. 

The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not known (Dadswell et al. 1984) but 

shortnose sturgeon have been found in waters with temperatures as low as 2 to 3oC (35.6-

37.4°F)(Dadswell et al. 1984) and as high as 27-30°C in the Connecticut River (Dadswell et al. 

1984) and 34oC in the Altamaha River, Georgia (93.2°F) (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). Foraging is 

known to occur at temperatures greater than 7°C (44.6°F) (Dadswell 1979). In the Altamaha 

River, temperatures of 28-30oC (82.4-86°F) during summer months are correlated with 

movements to deep cool water refuges. Some information specific to the Hudson River is 

available. Smith (1985 in Gilbert 1989) reports that juvenile Atlantic sturgeon were most 

common in areas where water temperatures were 24.2-24.7°C. Haley (1999) conducted studies 

on the distribution of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River in 1995 and 1996. 

Water temperatures at capture locations were recorded. Atlantic sturgeon were found in warmer 

areas than shortnose sturgeon. The mean temperature of areas where Atlantic sturgeon were 

present was 25.6°C (s.d. +/- 2.0); the mean temperature for shortnose sturgeon was 24.34°C (s.d. 

+/- 2.8°C. 

Ziegeweid et al. (2008a) conducted studies to determine critical and lethal thermal maxima for 

young-of-the-year (YOY) shortnose sturgeon acclimated to temperatures of 19.5 and 24.1°C 

(67.1 – 75.4°F). These studies were carried out in a lab with fish from the Warm Springs 

National Fish Hatchery (Warm Springs, Georgia). The fish held at this fish hatchery were reared 

from broodstock collected from the Altamaha and Ogeechee rivers in Georgia. Lethal thermal 

maxima were 34.8°C (±0.1) and 36.1°C (±0.1) (94.6°F and 97°F) for fish acclimated to 19.5 and 

24.1°C (67.1°F and 75.4°F), respectively. The acclimation temperature of 24.1°C is similar to 

the temperature where shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon juveniles were most often found in the 

Hudson River (24.1°C) suggesting that this it is reasonable to rely on these results for assessing 

effects to Hudson River sturgeon. However, it is important to note that there may be 

physiological differences in sturgeon originating from different river systems. Fish originating 

from southern river systems may have different thermal tolerances than fish originating from 

northern river systems. However, the information presented in this study is currently the best 

available information on thermal maxima and critical temperatures for shortnose sturgeon. The 

study also used thermal maximum data to estimate upper limits of safe temperature, final thermal 

preferences, and optimum growth temperatures for YOY shortnose sturgeon. Visual 

observations suggest that fish exhibited similar behaviors with increasing temperature regardless 
100 

of acclimation temperature. As temperatures increased, fish activity appeared to increase; 

approximately 5–6°C (9-11°F) prior to the lethal endpoint, fish began frantically swimming 

around the tank, presumably looking for an escape route. As fish began to lose equilibrium, their 

activity level decreased dramatically, and at about 0.3°C (0.54°F)before the lethal endpoint, most 

fish were completely incapacitated. Estimated upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) ranged 

from 28.7 to 31.1°C (83.7-88°F) and varied with acclimation temperature and measured 

endpoint. Upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) were determined by subtracting a safety 

factor of 5°C (9°F) from the lethal and critical thermal maxima data. Final thermal preference 

and thermal growth optima were nearly identical for fish at each acclimation temperature and 

ranged from 26.2 to 28.3°C (79.16-82.9°F). Critical thermal maxima (the point at which fish lost 

equilibrium) ranged from 33.7 (±0.3) to 36.1°C (±0.2) (92.7-97°F) and varied with acclimation 

temperature. Ziegeweid et al. (2008b) used data from laboratory experiments to examine the 

individual and interactive effects of salinity, temperature, and fish weight on the survival of 

young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Survival in freshwater declined as temperature increased, but 

temperature tolerance increased with body size. The authors conclude that temperatures above 

29°C (84.2°F) substantially reduce the probability of survival for young-of-year shortnose 

sturgeon. However, previous studies indicate that juvenile sturgeons achieve optimum growth at 

temperatures close to their upper thermal survival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004; Allen et al. 

2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a), suggesting that shortnose sturgeon may seek out a narrow 

temperature window to maximize somatic growth without substantially increasing maintenance 

metabolism. Ziegeweid (2006) examined thermal tolerances of young of the year shortnose 

sturgeon in the lab. The lowest temperatures at which mortality occurred ranged from 30.1 –

31.5°C (86.2-88.7°F) depending on fish size and test conditions. For shortnose sturgeon, 

dissolved oxygen (DO) also seems to play a role in temperature tolerance, with increased stress 

levels at higher temperatures with low DO versus the ability to withstand higher temperatures 

with elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001). 

7.2.1.3 Thermal Tolerances – Atlantic sturgeon 

Limited information on the thermal tolerances of Atlantic sturgeon is available. Atlantic 

sturgeon have been observed in water temperatures above 30°C in the south (see Damon-Randall 

et al. 2010). In the laboratory, juvenile Atlantic sturgeon showed negative behavioral and 

bioenergetics responses (related to food consumption and metabolism) after prolonged exposure 

to temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F) (Niklitschek 2001). These tests were carried out with 

fish reared at the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Northeast Fishery Center (Lamar, PA) and are 

progeny of Hudson River broodstock. Thus, it is reasonable to rely on results of this study when 

considering thermal tolerances of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. 

Tolerance to temperatures is thought to increase with age and body size (Ziegweid et al.. 2008 

and Jenkins et al.. 1993); however, no information on the lethal thermal maximum or stressful 

temperatures for subadult or adult Atlantic sturgeon is available. For purposes of considering 

effects of thermal tolerances, shortnose sturgeon are a reasonable surrogate for Atlantic sturgeon 

given similar geographic distribution and known biological similarities. 

7.2.1.4 Effect of Thermal Discharge on Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon 

The lab studies discussed in Section 7.2.1.2 above, indicate that thermal preferences and thermal 

growth optima for shortnose sturgeon range from 26.2 to 28.3°C (79.2-83°F). This is consistent 
101 

with field observations which correlate movements of shortnose sturgeon to thermal refuges 

when river temperatures are greater than 28°C (82.4°F) in the Altamaha River. Lab studies (see 

above; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a and 2008b) indicate that thermal maxima for shortnose sturgeon 

are 33.7 (±0.3) – 36.1(±0.1) (92.7-97°F), depending on endpoint (loss of equilibrium or death) 

and acclimation temperature (19.5 or 24.1°C). Upper limits of safe temperature were calculated 

to be 28.7 – 31.1°C (83.7-88°F). At temperatures 5-6°C (9-11°F) less than the lethal maximum, 

shortnose sturgeon are expected to begin demonstrating avoidance behavior and attempt to 

escape from heated waters; this behavior would be expected when the upper limits of safe 

temperature are exceeded. For purposes of this consultation, we will consider these threshold 

temperature values to also apply to Atlantic sturgeon. 

We first consider the potential for sturgeon to be exposed to temperatures which would most 

likely result in mortality. To be conservative, we considered mortality to be likely at 

temperatures that are expected to result in loss of equilibrium (33.7±0.3 for fish acclimated to 

temperatures of 19.5°C and 36.1±0.2 for fish acclimated to temperatures of 24.1°C). As noted 

above, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River are most often found in areas where 

temperatures are approximately 24°C suggesting that use of temperatures for fish acclimated to 

temperatures of 24.1°C is reasonable. 

The maximum observed temperature of the thermal discharge is approximately 35°C (95°F). 

Modeling has demonstrated that the surface area of the river affected by the Indian Point plume 

where water temperatures would exceed 32.22°C ( 90°F) would be limited to an area no greater 

than 75 acres. Information provided by Entergy and presented in the recent thermal model 

(Swanson et al. 2011) indicate that water temperatures will not exceed 32.2°C (90°F) in waters 

more than 5 meters (16.4 feet) from the surface. Because 32.22°C is below the temperature that 

would result in a loss of equilibrium, we do not expect loss of equilibrium or death to fish 

exposed to this temperature. Water depths in the area are approximately 18 meters (59 feet) 

meaning that there should be 13 meters of water column with water temperatures below 32.22°C. 

Given this information, it is unlikely that shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon remaining near the 

bottom of the river or even in the middle of the water column would be exposed to water 

temperatures of 33.7°C (92.7°F). Temperatures at or above 33.7°C (92.7°F) will occasionally be 

experienced at the surface of the river in areas closest to the discharge point. Shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon are known to move to deep cool water areas during the summer months in 

southern rivers. Laboratory studies using shortnose sturgeon (progeny from Savannah River 

broodstock) and Atlantic sturgeon (progeny from Hudson River broodstock) demonstrate that 

these species are able to identify and select between water quality conditions that significantly 

affect growth and metabolism, including temperature. Based on field observations and 

laboratory studies, we expect that sturgeon would actively avoid areas where temperatures are 

intolerable. Assuming that there is a gradient of temperatures decreasing with distance from the 

outfall (as illustrated in Swanson et al. 2011), we expect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to begin 

avoiding areas with temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F). We do not expect individuals to 

remain within the heated surface waters to swim towards the outfall and be exposed to 

temperatures which could result in mortality. As such, provided that conditions allow for 

sturgeon to detect changes in temperature (i.e., that there is a gradual gradient of temperatures 

decreasing with increasing distance from the outfall as reported in Swanson et al. 2011) and 

escape from the area prior to prolonged exposure to critical temperatures, it is extremely unlikely 
102 

that any sturgeon would remain within the area where surface temperatures are elevated to 

33.7°C (92.7°F) and be exposed to potentially lethal temperatures. This gradient of 

temperatures that decreases from the surface to the bottom is also expected to deter sturgeon 

from moving high enough up into the water column to encounter surface waters that have 

stressful or lethal temperatures. Tis risk is further reduced by the limited amount of time 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon spend near the surface, the small area where such high 

temperatures will be experienced and the gradient of warm temperatures extending from the 

outfall. Near the bottom where shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon most often occur, water 

temperatures are not likely to ever reach 33.7°C (92.7°F), creating no risk of exposure to 

temperatures likely to be lethal near the bottom of the river. It is important to note that this 

analysis is dependent on the assumption that exposure to increased temperatures will be gradual; 

that is, we do not anticipate that sturgeon would be exposed to rapid changes in water 

temperature. Information provided by Entergy confirms that there are no rapid changes in water 

temperature associated with routine operations, during outages and restarts or during pump speed 

adjustment (Entergy 2012b). As noted in Ziegweid (2008a), heating rate is a factor in 

determining critical maxima (loss of equilibrium and mortality). In order for there to be a loss of 

equilibrium or mortality a fish must be exposed to the heat source long enough for deep body 

temperatures to equal water temperatures. However, Ziegweid does not provide any indication 

of the length of time fish were exposed to critical temperatures before loss of equilibrium or 

mortality would occur. He does note, however, that larger fish will take longer to “heat up” than 

smaller fish. 

We have also considered the potential for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to be exposed to water 

temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F). Available information from field observations 

(primarily in southern systems; however this may be related to the prevalence of temperatures 

greater than 28°C in those areas compared to the rarity of ambient temperatures greater than 

28°C in northern rivers) and laboratory studies (using progeny of fish from southern and 

northern rivers) suggests that water temperatures of 28°C (82.4°F) or greater can be stressful for 

sturgeon and that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are likely to actively avoid areas with these 

temperatures. This temperature (28°C; (82.4°F)) is close to both the final thermal preference and 

thermal growth optimum temperatures that Ziegeweid et al. (2008) reported for juvenile 

shortnose sturgeon acclimated to 24.1 °C (75.4 °F), and thus is consistent with observations that 

optimum growth temperatures are often near the maximum temperatures fish can endure without 

experiencing physiological stress. Based on the available information, it is reasonable to 

anticipate that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will actively avoid areas with temperatures 

greater than 28°C. 

In the summer months (June – September) ambient river temperatures can be high enough that 

temperature increases as small as 1-4°C (1.8-7.2°C) would cause water temperatures within the 

plume to be high enough to be avoided by shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon (greater than 28°C 

(82.4°F)). When ambient river temperatures are at or above 28°C (82.4°F), the area where 

temperatures are raised by more than 1.5°C (2.7°F) are expected to be limited to a surface area of 

up to 75 acres. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon exposure to the surface area where water 

temperature would be elevated above 28°C (82.4°F) due to the influence of the thermal plume is 

limited by their normal behavior as benthic-oriented fish, which results in limited occurrence 

near the water surface. Assuming that there is a gradient of water temperatures that decreases 
103 

with increasing distance from the outfall and decreases with depth from the surface, any 

surfacing shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon are likely to detect the increase in water temperature and 

swim away from near surface waters with temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F). Reactions to 

this elevated temperature are expected to consist of swimming away from heated surface waters 

by traveling deeper in the water column or by swimming around bottom waters heated by the 

plume. 

Swanson (2011a) presents vertical section views of temperature contours. These contours were 

created using numerous interpolation techniques on actual measured temperatures at 66 

moorings deployed near Indian Point. Under no conditions did interpolated exceed 28°C (82°F) 

in the deep reaches of the river channel (Swanson 2011 a) where shortnose sturgeon are most 

likely to occur. Swanson also examined other sources of available bottom water temperature 

data for the Indian Point area. Based upon examination of the 1997 through 2010 long river 

survey water temperature data from the near-bottom stations near Indian Point, 28°C (82.4°F) 

was exceeded for just 56 of 1,877 observations or 2.98% during this 14-year period (readings 

measured weekly from March through November). These already low incidences of observed 

near-bottom water temperatures above 28°C (82.4°F) would be even lower when viewed in the 

context of an entire year instead of the nine months sampled due to the cold water period not 

sampled from December through February (i.e., 2.24% for the Indian Point region). 

The available information on the thermal plume indicates that water temperature at the bottom of 

the river will be elevated to above 28°C only rarely (approximately 2.24% of the time). We 

expect that sturgeon will avoid bottom waters where temperatures are greater than 28°C. 

Sturgeon in the action area are likely to be foraging, resting or migrating. Disruptions to these 

behaviors will be limited to moving away from the area with stressful temperatures. Given the 

small area that would have temperatures elevated above 28°C (82.4°F) it is extremely unlikely 

that these minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any 

essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals 

will be affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that 

has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, 

reproduction, or general health. 

 

Given that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are known to actively seek out cooler waters when 

temperatures rise to 28°C (82.4°F), any shortnose sturgeon encountering bottom waters with 

temperatures above 28°C (82.4°F) area are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated 

temperature are expected to be limited to swimming away from the plume by swimming around 

it. Given the extremely small percentage of the estuary that would have temperatures elevated 

above 28°C (82.4°F) and the limited spatial and temporal extent of any elevations of bottom 

water temperatures above 28°C (82.4°F), it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in 

behavior will preclude any shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon from completing any essential 

behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be 

affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has 

any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, 

reproduction, or general health. 
104 

We have considered whether avoidance of the thermal plume would affect the likelihood of 

impingement at the intakes. The intakes are located upstream of the discharge canal. During ebb 

tides, the thermal plume is largely directed downstream; at flood tide the area of stressful 

temperatures can overlap the intake area. The thermal plume could influence the likelihood of 

impingement if sturgeon were more likely to be present near the intakes because of avoidance 

behavior related to the thermal plume or if sturgeon present near the intakes were suddenly 

overcome by discharges of warm water and lost equilibrium. Based on the available 

information, neither one of these scenarios seems likely. Based on illustrations of the thermal 

plume (see Swanson et al. 2011a and 2011b) there do not appear to be any conditions during 

which sturgeon would move to the intake area to seek refuge from heated waters. Sturgeon are 

most likely to be present in the deep channel. Considering the cross section of the river 

immediately adjacent to the intakes, there do not appear to be any conditions under which 

sturgeon would be displaced from the deepwater areas by thermal conditions and would move 

towards the eastern shoreline where the intakes are located. Therefore, it is not reasonable to 

anticipate that sturgeon that move to avoid the thermal plume would be more likely to be present 

near the intakes as there are adjacent deepwater areas near by as well as the area on the western 

side of the river that is largely unaffected by the plume. The available information on the 

thermal discharge indicates that there is a gradual gradient of warmed water originating from the 

discharge canal. Given the distance of the discharge canal from the intakes (over 200 meters 

(700 feet) to IP3 and over 400 meters (1,400 feet) to IP2), and our understanding of the discharge 

it is unlikely that water temperature changes in the river near the intake would be rapid enough to 

prevent sturgeon from avoiding water at temperatures that would result in impairment and a 

resulting increased likelihood of impingement. We also considered whether swimming to avoid 

the thermal plume would make sturgeon tired and less able to avoid impingement. However, 

because of the gradual gradient of water temperatures and the size of the plume, sturgeon will 

not need to swim long distances to avoid heated water. As noted above, we do not expect any 

energy expenditure to have any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that swimming to avoid the thermal plume would result in exhaustion 

and decreased ability to avoid the intakes. 

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are related, with warmer water generally holding 

less dissolved oxygen. As such, we considered the potential for the discharge of heated effluent 

to affect dissolved oxygen in the action area. Entergy provided an assessment of dissolved 

oxygen conditions in the vicinity of the thermal plume and nearby downstream areas. Swanson 

examined dissolved oxygen concentrations observed among 14 recent years (1997 through 2010) 

of water quality samples taken 0.3 m (1 ft) above the river bottom weekly during the Utilities 

Fall Shoals surveys in the Indian Point region of the Hudson River from March through 

November of each year. Only 17 (0.91%) dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 mg/l were 

observed in the Indian Point region during this 14-year period consisting of 1,877 readings, and 

the lowest dissolved oxygen concentration of 3.4 mg/l occurred just once, while the remaining 16 

values were between 4.4 mg/l and 4.9 mg/l. Although I/FS survey water quality sampling did 

not occur in the Indian Point region during the winter period from December through February 

of each year due to river ice conditions, it is unlikely that dissolved oxygen concentrations below 

5 mg/l would be observed then due to the high oxygen saturation of the cold water in the 

winter. The Hudson River region south of the Indian Point region had 501 dissolved oxygen 

concentrations below 5 mg/l (6.33% of 7,918 total observations) in the near bottom waters, seven 
105 

times more frequently than the Indian Point region. Based on this information the discharge of 

heated effluent appears to have no discernible effect on dissolved oxygen levels in the area. As 

the thermal plume is not contributing to reductions in dissolved oxygen levels, it will not cause 

changes in dissolved oxygen levels that could affect any shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. 

7.2.1.5 Effect on Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Prey 

Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates; these prey species are 

found on the bottom. As explained above, the IP thermal plume is largely a surface plume with 

elevated temperatures near the bottom limited to short duration and a geographic area limited to 

the area close to the discharge point. No analysis specific to effects of the thermal plume on the 

macroinvertebrate community has been conducted. However, given what is known about the 

plume (i.e., that it is largely a surface plume and has limited effects on water temperatures at or 

near the bottom) and the areas where shortnose sturgeon forage items are found (i.e., on the 

bottom), it is unlikely that potential sturgeon forage items would be exposed to the effects of the 

thermal plume. If the thermal plume is affecting benthic invertebrates, the most likely effect 

would be to limit their distribution to areas where bottom water temperatures are not affected by 

the thermal plume. Considering that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are also likely to be 

excluded from areas where the thermal plume influences bottom water temperatures and given 

that those areas are small, foraging sturgeon are not likely to be affected by any limits on the 

distribution of benthic invertebrates caused by the thermal plume’s limited influence on bottom 

waters. Thus, based on this analysis, it appears that the prey of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon, 

would be impacted insignificantly, if at all, by the thermal discharge from IP. 

7.2.2 Potential Discharge of Radionuclides to the Hudson River 

Environmental monitoring and surveillance for radionuclides have been conducted at IP2 and 

IP3 since 1958, four years before the startup of IP1. The preoperational program was designed 

and implemented to determine the background radioactivity and to measure the variations in 

activity levels from natural and other sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclear 

weapons tests. The preoperational radiological data include both natural and manmade sources 

of environmental radioactivity. These background environmental data permit the detection and 

assessment of current levels of environmental activity attributable to plant operations. 

The annual REMP is carried out by Entergy to monitor and document radiological impacts to the 

environment and the public around the IP2 and IP3 site and compare these to NRC standards. 

Additional sampling of fish for radionuclides captured during ongoing surveys in Harverstraw 

Bay will occur in 2013. Radionuclides monitored include tritium (3H), strontium-90 (90Sr), 

nickel-63, and cesium-137. Entergy summarizes the results of its REMP in an Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The objectives of the IP2 and IP3 REMPs are the 

following: (1) to enable the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the 

area; and, (2) to measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to 

operations of the IP2 and IP3 site (NRC 2010). 

The REMP at IP2 and IP3 directs Entergy to sample environmental media in the environs around 

the site to analyze and measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The REMP 

designates sampling locations for the collection of environmental media for analysis. These 

sampling locations are divided into indicator and control locations. Indicator locations are 
106 

established near the site, where the presence of radioactivity of plant origin is most likely to be 

detected. Control locations are established farther away (and upwind/upstream, where 

applicable) from the site, where the level would not generally be affected by plant discharges or 

effluents. The use of indicator and control locations enables the identification of potential 

sources of detected radioactivity as either background or from plant operations. The media 

samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways to the public from all plant 

radioactive effluents. The REMP is used to measure the direct radiation and the airborne and 

waterborne pathway activity in the vicinity of the IP2 and IP3 site. Direct radiation pathways 

include radiation from buildings and plant structures, airborne material that may be released from 

the plant, or from cosmic radiation, fallout, and the naturally occurring radioactive materials in 

soil, air, and water. The liquid waste processing system at IP2 and IP3 collects, holds, treats, 

processes, and monitors all liquid radioactive wastes for reuse or disposal. During normal plant 

operations the system receives input from numerous sources, such as equipment drains and leak 

lines, chemical laboratory drains, decontamination drains, demineralizer regeneration, reactor 

coolant loops and reactor coolant pump secondary seals, valve and reactor vessel flange leak 

lines, and floor drains. After it is determined that the amount of radioactivity in the wastewater 

is diminished to acceptable levels, the water is released into the Hudson River. 

Entergy has also identified the migration of tritium to the Hudson River through groundwater 

pathways. In 2005, Entergy discovered a spent fuel pool water leak to groundwater while 

installing a new crane to facilitate transfer of Unit 2 spent fuel to dry cask storage. This leak was 

determined to have generated a groundwater plume of tritium (3H). During efforts to track the 

3H plume, 90Sr was discovered in a downgradient portion of the plume and traced back to a leak 

in the Unit 1 spent fuel pool (Skinner and Sinnott 2009). Because site groundwater flows to the 

Hudson River, the 2006 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by 

Entergy was modified to include 90Sr as an analyte in fish samples. 90Sr was detected in 4 of 10 

samples of fish taken from the river in the vicinity of the Indian Point facility, and in three of five 

samples from an upstream reference location near the Roseton Generating Station in Newburgh, 

NY. The tissues analyzed were composites of edible flesh from fish representing several species. 

Entergy concluded that the 90Sr levels were low and may be indistinguishable from background 

levels from fallout from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s (Entergy 2007). The 

New York State Departments of Health (NYSDOH) and NYSDEC concurred with Entergy’s 

assessment. However, the NYSDEC and NYSDOH were concerned that the home ranges of 

several sampled species, and all striped bass, may overlap at the two sampling sites (Skinner and 

Sinnott 2009). In order to assure independence of sampling sites, the NY agencies initiated a 

one-time enhanced radiological surveillance for 2007 (results presented in Skinner and Sinnott 

2009). The objectives of the enhanced radiological monitoring effort were to: gain information 

about the levels, impacts, and possible 90Sr sources at the reference locations and the indicator 

station; determine if significant spatial differences in 90Sr concentrations were present; to assess 

whether or not 90Sr concentrations in the bones and flesh of fish signify heightened risk either to 

aquatic life in the Hudson River; and, provide information for an independent assessment of 

potential public health impacts. 

The one-time design modifications for the 2007 effort included: the addition of carp (Cyprinus 

carpio) – a benthic feeder – to the target species list; adding 90Sr to the list of radionuclide 

analytes; analysis of fish bone or crab carapace; and , sampling fish at a third location, the 
107 

Catskill Region between river miles 107 and 125. The NY agencies stated that this upstream 

location assures appropriate separation of fish populations that are resident to the river, and, 

consequently, assures isolation of resident fish populations from the potential influence of 

discharges from the Indian Point facility. 

The study concluded that there were no apparent excursions above criteria for the protection of 

biota based on the radionuclide data available. The levels of radionuclides, including 90Sr, were 

two to five orders of magnitude lower than criteria established by the US Department of Energy 

(USDOE 2002) for the protection of aquatic animals and freshwater ecosystems. Also, the study 

concluded that there were no spatial differences in concentrations of 90Sr and 224Ra in resident 

fish from the three locations sampled in the lower Hudson River (i.e., Indian Point facility, and 

the reference sites at the Roseton Generating Station and at Catskill). In contrast, 40K levels were 

somewhat greater in the vicinity of Roseton Generating Station, but the differing concentrations 

have no known significance. 

Detailed information on the radiological investigations, including groundwater, is available in 

the 2006-2009 REMPs. NRC indicates in the FSEIS that this multi-year period provides a 

representative data set that covers a broad range of activities that occur at IP2 and IP3 such as, 

refueling outages, non-refueling outage years, routine operation, and years where there may be 

significant maintenance activities, and that effects during an extended operating period would be 

consistent with these sampling periods. In the FSEIS, NRC reports that tritium releases in total 

(groundwater as well as routine liquid effluent) represent less than 0.001% of the Federal dose 

limits for radioactive effluents from the site. In addition to monitoring potential effects to human 

health from exposure to radiation, Entergy conducts inspections of radionuclides in the 

environment, including fish and river sediments. 

NRC has reported to NMFS that NRC has reviewed all of the available information on 

radionuclides and has identified no unusual trends or significant radiological impacts to the 

environment, including Hudson River water, river sediments and fish tissues, due to operation of 

the Indian Point facility. In the FSEIS, NRC states that no radioactivity distinguishable from 

background was detected during the most recent sampling and analysis of fish and crabs taken 

from the affected portion of the Hudson River and designated control locations. NRC also 

summarizes a 2007 NYSDEC report which concludes that strontium-90 levels in fish near the 

site (18.8 pCi/kg (0.69 Bq/kg)) are no higher than in those fish collected from background 

locations across New York State. 

As explained above, additional information on potential impacts of radionuclides potentially 

originating from the Indian Point facility on aquatic organisms in the Hudson River is available 

in a recent report prepared by NYDEC (Skinner and Sinnott 2009). Neither the Skinner and 

Sinnott report or any of the REMPs identified radionuclide levels attributable to operation of the 

Indian Point facility that are at levels that are thought to negatively impact fish. It is important to 

note that no shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon have been tested to determine levels of radionuclides; 

however, as other species that have been sampled that are similarly mobile through the Hudson 

River have not indicated that they have radionuclide levels of concern and because expert review 

(NRC and NYDEC) of environmental indicators (Hudson River water, sediments, aquatic 

organisms) also indicates that radionuclides originating from the Hudson River, are not at levels 
108 

of concern. Based on this information, while shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon could be exposed 

to radionuclides originating from Indian Point, as well as other sources, any exposure is not 

likely to be at levels that would affect the health or fitness of any individual shortnose or Atlantic 

sturgeon. Thus, NMFS considers the effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from 

radionuclides to be insignificant and discountable. 

7.2.3 Other Pollutants Discharged from IP2 and IP3 

The 1987 SPDES permit contains effluent limits related to an on-site sewage treatment plant, as 

well as cooling water discharges. The on-site sewage treatment plant is no longer operational 

and sanitary waste from Indian Point is now routed to the community wastewater treatment 

plant. Therefore, no sanitary waste discharges at the Indian Point outfalls will occur during the 

extended operating period. Other than the pollutants associated with sanitary wastes, pollutants 

limited by the 1987 SPDES permit include: total residual chlorine (TRC), lithium hydroxide, 

boron, pH, total suspended solids (TSS), and, oil and grease. 

NMFS has no information on the actual levels of these pollutants discharged in the past. NMFS 

assumes, for the purposes of this analysis, that discharges from Indian Point will be in 

compliance with the pollutant limits included in the 1987 SPDES permit. The effect of 

discharges in compliance with these limits on shortnose sturgeon is discussed below. 

7.2.3.1 Total Residual Chlorine 

TRC is limited at a maximum daily average of 0.2mg/l. This level of chlorine is measured in the 

plant, prior to dilution in the Hudson River. Once the waste stream mixes with the Hudson 

River, concentrations of TRC will be a maximum of 0.019 mg/l (for one hour) and 0.011mg/l 

(indefinitely). 

To date, the effects of TRC on shortnose sturgeon have not been studied; however, there have 

been a number of studies that have examined the effects of levels of TRC on various fish species 

(Post 1987; Buckley 1976), including a recent study done on the white sturgeon (Campbell and 

Davidson 2007). Campbell and Davidson (2007) found that at concentrations of 0.034-0.042 

mg/l of chlorine over four days, 50% of the test population, which consisted of 30 day old and 

160 day old early life stage and juvenile sturgeon, died (i.e., 96 hour LC50). Similarly, adverse 

effects to rainbow trout (e.g., reductions of hemoglobin and hemocrit levels indicative of anemia) 

were found to occur at TRC levels of approximately 0.03 -0.04 mg/L (Buckley 1976; Black and 

McCarthy 1990). In a study conducted by Dwyer et al. (2000a), researchers compared toxicity 

test results for a range of species tested, including shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. While TRC 

was not one of the compounds tested, the authors concluded that toxicity test results for rainbow 

trout were a good surrogate for effects to listed fish species, including shortnose sturgeon. As 

such, while recognizing that these conclusions are based on a limited number of chemical 

exposures, if rainbow trout can be considered a reasonable surrogate for toxicity testing for 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, and TRC levels of 0.03-0.04mg/l have been shown to cause 

adverse affects to rainbow trout, it is reasonable to conclude that shortnose sturgeon would also 

experience adverse effects if exposed to TRC levels of 0.03-0.04mg/l. The concentration of TRC 

authorized by the SPDES permit (0.011mg/l in the river) is below the levels shown to adversely 

affect fish. As such, NMFS anticipates that any effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from 

exposure to TRC at concentrations authorized by the SPDES permit would be insignificant and 
109 

discountable. 

7.2.3.2 Lithium hydroxide 

The 1987 SPDES permit authorizes the discharge of lithium hydroxide at a daily maximum 

concentration of 0.01mg/l. Limited information is available on the toxicity of lithium hydroxide 

to aquatic species. The no effect concentration level for fish is reported at 13mg/l as determined 

by exposure of fathead minnows; no effect concentration levels for Daphnia magna are reported 

at 11mg/l (Long et al. 1997). While no studies have examined the effects of lithium exposure to 

shortnose sturgeon, as the levels of lithium authorized by the SPDES permit are lower than the 

levels shown to have no effects to fathead minnows, which are typically used as a surrogate 

species for other fish in toxicity testing, we anticipate that any effects to shortnose or Atlantic 

sturgeon from exposure to boron at concentrations authorized by the SPDES permit would be 

insignificant and discountable. 

7.2.3.3 Boron 

The 1987 SPDES permit authorizes the discharge of boron at monthly average concentrations of 

1.0mg/l. Chronic toxicity studies with Daphnia magna indicate no effect concentration (NOEC) 

levels ranging between 6 and 10 mg boron/litre (IPCS 1998). A 28-day laboratory study 

consisting of six trophic stages yielded a NOEC of 2.5 mg boron/litre. Acute tests with several 

fish species yielded toxicity values ranging from about 10 to nearly 300 mg boron/litre. Rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and zebra fish (Brachydanio rerio) were the most sensitive, 

providing values around 10 mg boron/liter (IPCS 1998). While no studies have examined the 

effects of boron exposure to shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon, as the levels of boron authorized by 

the SPDES permit are lower than the levels shown to have no effects to a variety of fish species, 

we anticipate that any effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from exposure to boron at 

concentrations authorized by the SPDES permit would be insignificant and discountable. 

7.2.3.4 pH 

The permit requires that the discharge maintain a pH of 6.0 – 9.0. This pH is within the normal 

range of pH for river water. As such, any change in the pH of the receiving water due to the 

discharge from Indian Point is not expected to deviate significantly from the receiving waters pH 

and will remain within the normal range for river water that is known to be harmless to aquatic 

life. Therefore, any effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will be discountable. 

7.2.3.5 Total Suspended Solids 

The 1987 SPDES permit limits the discharge of TSS to a daily maximum of 50mg/l and a 

monthly average of 30mg/L. TSS can affect aquatic life directly by killing them or reducing 

growth rate or resistance to disease, by preventing the successful development of fish eggs and 

larvae, by modifying natural movements and migration, and by reducing the abundance of 

available food (EPA 1976). These effects are caused by TSS decreasing light penetration and by 

burial of the benthos. Eggs and larvae are most vulnerable to increases in solids. Due to the 

distance from the spawning site, neither shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon eggs or larvae are likely 

to occur in the vicinity of the discharge. 

Studies of the effects of turbid waters on fish suggest that concentrations of suspended solids can 

reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton 1993). 
110 

The studies reviewed by Burton demonstrated lethal effects to fish at concentrations of 580mg/L 

to 700,000mg/L depending on species. Sublethal effects have been observed at substantially 

lower turbidity levels. For example, prey consumption was significantly lower for striped bass 

larvae tested at concentrations of 200 and 500 mg/L compared to larvae exposed to 0 and 75 

mg/L (Breitburg 1988 in Burton 1993). Studies with striped bass adults showed that prespawners did not avoid concentrations of 954 to 1,920 mg/L to reach spawning sites (Summerfelt 

and Moiser 1976 and Combs 1979 in Burton 1993). While there have been no directed studies 

on the effects of TSS on shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon juveniles and adults 

are often documented in turbid water and Dadswell (1984) reports that shortnose sturgeon are 

more active under lowered light conditions, such as those in turbid waters. As such, shortnose 

sturgeon are assumed to be as least as tolerant to suspended sediment as other estuarine fish such 

as striped bass. Given that Atlantic sturgeon occur in similar habitats to shortnose sturgeon, we 

expect Atlantic sturgeon to have similar tolerances to suspended sediments and turbidity as 

shortnose sturgeon. 

No adverse effects to juvenile or adult fish have been documented at levels at or below 50mg/L 

(above the highest level authorized by this permit). Based on this information, it is likely that the 

discharge of TSS in the concentrations authorized by the permit will have an insignificant effect 

on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 

7.2.3.6 Oil and Grease 

High concentrations of petroleum products such as oil and grease can be toxic to aquatic life, 

including shortnose sturgeon. EPA (1976) indicates that lethal levels of gasoline for finfish are 

91mg/L and for waste oil are 1700mg/L. No information is available on the toxic levels of 

petroleum products on shortnose sturgeon specifically. The limits in the SPDES permit (15mg/L 

monthly average) is well below the limits demonstrated to cause effects to fish. In addition, as 

the permit prohibits the discharge of levels of oil and grease at levels that are visible, levels are 

not likely to reach those where there is a risk of coating. As such, the effect of any exposure of 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to oil and grease discharged at levels in compliance with the 

SPDES permit will be insignificant and discountable. 

7.2.3.7 Other Criteria and Requirements of the SPDES Permit 

The permit also contains criteria for the thermal plume. Effects of the thermal discharge are 

considered above. The 1987 SPDES permit also directs Entergy to comply with the biological 

sampling requirements of the HRSA. These include sampling surveys conducted throughout the 

Hudson River. These surveys result in the capture of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon; however, 

capture and handling of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon during these studies is authorized by 

NMFS through the ESA Section 10 scientific research permit discussed above (currently permit 

#17095, available at: 

https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/applicationpreview.cfm?ProjectID=17095&view=01000000

000000). The permit authorizes the take of 82 shortnose sturgeon and 82 Atlantic sturgeon 

annually. These fish will be captured in trawls and will be tagged (PIT and dart), measured, 

weighed and have tissue samples taken. The permit also authorizes the lethal collection of 40 

shortnose sturgeon eggs/larvae and 40 Atlantic sturgeon eggs/larvae annually. These early life 

stages will be collected during ichthyoplankton sampling. The permit is valid from January 20, 

2012 until August 28, 2017. All sturgeon captured during the trawl surveys are expected to be 
111 

returned to the river alive. No lethal or sublethal effects of trawling are anticipated. The only 

lethal take authorized by the Section 10 permit is for the 40 eggs or larvae captured during 

ichthyoplankton sampling. The ESA Section 7 consultation completed on the issuance of this 

permit determined that the action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

shortnose sturgeon or any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultation/opinions.htm). Because effects to listed species from 

these studies have already been considered, these studies will not be considered further in this 

Opinion. 

7.3 Non-Routine and Accidental Events 

By their nature, non-routine and accidental events that may affect the marine environment are 

unpredictable and typically unexpected. In the FSEIS, NRC considers design-basis accidents 

(DBAs); these are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that 

the plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated 

accidents, without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. NRC states that “a 

number of these postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but 

are evaluated to establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems 

of the facility” (NRC FSEIS 2011). NRC states that the environmental impacts of these DBAs 

will be “small” (i.e., insignificant), because the plant is designed to withstand these types of 

accidents including during the extended operating period. 

NRC also states that the risk of severe accidents initiated by internal events, natural disasters or 

terrorist events is small. As noted by Thompson (2006) in a report regarding the risks of spentfuel pool storage at nuclear power plants in the U.S., the available information does not allow a 

statistically valid estimate of the probability of an attack-induced spent-fuel-pool fire. However, 

Thompson states that “prudent judgment” indicates that a probability of at least one per century 

within the U.S. is a reasonable assumption. There have been very few instances of accidents or 

natural disasters that have affected nuclear facilities and none at IP2 or IP3 that have led to any 

impacts to the Hudson River. While the experience at Fukishima in Japan provides evidence that 

natural disaster induced problems at nuclear facilities can be severe and may have significant 

consequences to the environment, the risk of non-routine and accidental events at Indian Point 

that would affect the riverine environment, and subsequently affect shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon, is extremely low. Because of this, effects to listed species are discountable. We expect 

that in the unlikely event of any accident or disaster that affects the riverine environment, 

reinitiation of consultation, or an emergency consultation, would be necessary. 

7.4 Effects of Operation in light of Anticipated Future Climate Change 

In the future, global climate change is expected to continue and may impact listed species and 

their habitat in the action area. The period considered for the continued operation of IP2 is now 

through 2033 and for IP3 is now through 2035. 

In section 6.0 above we considered effects of global climate change on shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon. It is possible that there will be effects to sturgeon from climate change over the time 

that IP2 and IP3 continue to operate. As explained above, based on currently available 

information and predicted habitat changes, these effects are most likely to be changes in 

distribution and timing of seasonal migrations of sturgeon throughout the Hudson River 
112 

including the action area. However, because we expect only a small increase in water 

temperature (1°C) and a small change in the location of the salt wedge (shifting further upstream 

from the action area), there are not likely to be major shifts in abundance, distribution or seasonal 

use of the action area by Atlantic sturgeon or shortnose sturgeon. 

The greatest potential for climate change to impact our assessment would be if (1) ambient water 

temperatures increased enough such that a larger portion of the thermal plume had temperatures 

that were stressful for listed species or their prey or if (2) the status, distribution and abundance 

of listed species or their prey changed significantly in the action area. Given the small predicted 

increase in ambient water temperatures in the action area during the time period considered 

(1°C), it is not likely that over the remainder of the operating period that any water temperature 

changes would be significant enough to affect the conclusions reached by us in this consultation. 

If new information on the effects of climate change becomes available then reinitiation of this 

consultation may be necessary. 

8.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects, as defined in 50 CFR 402.02, are those effects of future State or private 

activities, not involving Federal activities, which are reasonably certain to occur within the 

action area. Future Federal actions are not considered in the definition of “cumulative effects.” 

It is important to note that the definition of “cumulative effects” in the section 7 regulations is 

not the same as the NEPA definition of cumulative effects. However, the factors discussed in the 

Cumulative Effects section of NRC’s FSEIS - continued withdrawal of water to support fossil 

fuel electrical generation or water for human use; the presence of invasive or nuisance species; 

fishing pressure; habitat loss; changes to water and sediment quality; and, climate change are 

largely consistent with the cumulative effects we consider here. 

Activities reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that are carried out or regulated by 

the State of New York and that may affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon include the 

authorization of state fisheries and the regulation of point and non-point source pollution through 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. We are not aware of any local or private 

actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area that may affect listed species. 

While there may be other in-water construction or coastal development within the action area, all 

of these activities are likely to need a permit or authorization from the US Army Corps of 

Engineers and would therefore, be subject to section 7 consultation. 

State Water Fisheries - Future recreational and commercial fishing activities in state waters may 

take shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. In the past, it was estimated that up to 100 shortnose 

sturgeon were captured in shad fisheries in the Hudson River each year, with an unknown 

mortality rate. Atlantic sturgeon were also incidentally captured in NY state shad fisheries. In 

2009, NY State closed the shad fishery indefinitely. That state action is considered to benefit 

both sturgeon species. Should the shad fishery reopen, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would be 

exposed to the risk of interactions with this fishery. However, NMFS has no indication that 

reopening the fishery is reasonably certain to occur. 

Information on interactions with shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon for other fisheries operating in 
113 

the action area is not available, and it is not clear to what extent these future activities would 

affect listed species differently than the current state fishery activities described in the Status of 

the Species/Environmental Baseline section. However, this Opinion assumes effects in the 

future would be similar to those in the past and are, therefore, reflected in the anticipated trends 

described in the status of the species/environmental baseline section. 

State PDES Permits – The State of New York has been delegated authority to issue NPDES 

permits by the EPA. These permits authorize the discharge of pollutants in the action area. 

Some of the facilities that operate pursuant to these permits are included in the Environmental 

Baseline. Other permitees include municipalities for sewage treatment plants and other 

industrial users. The states will continue to authorize the discharge of pollutants through the 

SPDES permits. However, this Opinion assumes effects in the future would be similar to those 

in the past and are therefore reflected in the anticipated trends described in the status of the 

species/environmental baseline section. 

9.0 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS 

We have estimated that the continued operation of IP2 with continued withdrawal of water 

through the IP1 intake, pursuant to the existing operating license and through the proposed 

extended license period (now through September 28, 2033) will result in the impingement and 

mortality of 395 shortnose sturgeon and 269 juvenile New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon at 

the Ristroph screens. The continued operation of IP3, pursuant to the existing operating license 

and through the proposed extended license period (now through December 12, 2035), will result 

in the impingement and mortality of 167 shortnose sturgeon and 145 juvenile New York Bight 

DPS Atlantic sturgeon at that IP3 Ristroph screens. An additional number of dead or stressed 

adult shortnose sturgeon and dead or stressed subadult or adult New York Bight, Chesapeake 

Bay and Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash 

bars. However, the cause of death/stressor of sturgeon impinged at the trash bars is currently 

unknown. As explained in the “Effects of the Action” section, all other effects to shortnose 

sturgeon and New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon, 

including to their prey and from the discharge of heat, will be insignificant or discountable. No 

entrainment of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon is anticipated. 

In the discussion below, we consider whether the effects of the proposed action reasonably 

would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the 

survival and recovery of the listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution of any listed species. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the 

proposed action, in the context established by the status of the species, environmental baseline, 

and cumulative effects, would jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. In the 

NMFS/USFWS Section 7 Handbook, for the purposes of determining jeopardy, survival is 

defined as, “the species’ persistence as listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading 

to its endangerment, with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from 

endangerment. Said in another way, survival is the condition in which a species continues to 

exist into the future while retaining the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by 

a species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic 

heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which 

exists in an environment providing all requirements for completion of the species’ entire life 
114 

cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter.” Recovery is defined as, “Improvement in 

the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria 

set out in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act.” Below, for the listed species that may be affected by the 

proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether the proposed 

action will result in reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species and then 

considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution resulting from the 

proposed action would reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of 

that species, as those terms are defined for purposes of the federal Endangered Species Act. 

9.1 Shortnose Sturgeon 

Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all major rivers and 

estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. Today, only 19 populations 

remain. The present range of shortnose sturgeon is disjunct, with northern populations separated 

from southern populations by a distance of about 400 km. Population sizes range from under 

100 adults in the Cape Fear and Merrimack Rivers to tens of thousands in the St. John and 

Hudson Rivers. As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the minimum 

estimated viable population abundance of 1,000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northern populations 

and all natural southern populations. The only river systems likely supporting populations close 

to expected abundance are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the Kennebec 

(Kynard 1996), making the continued success of shortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to the 

species as a whole. 

The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon is the largest in the United States. Historical 

estimates of the size of the population are not available as historic records of sturgeon in the river 

did not discriminate between Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. Population estimates made by 

Dovel et al. (1992) based on studies from 1975-1980 indicated a population of 13,844 adults. 

Bain et al. (1998) studied shortnose sturgeon in the river from 1993-1997 and calculated an adult 

population size of 56,708 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 50,862 to 64,072 adults. 

Bain determined that based on sampling effort and methodology his estimate is directly 

comparable to the population estimate made by Dovel et al. Bain concludes that the population 

of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River in the 1990s was 4 times larger than in the late 1970s. 

Bain states that as his estimate is directly comparable to the estimate made by Dovel, this 

increase is a “confident measure of the change in population size.” Bain concludes that the 

Hudson River population is large, healthy and particular in habitat use and migratory behavior. 

Woodland and Secor (2007) conducted studies to determine the cause of the increase in 

population size. Woodland and Secor captured 554 shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and 

made age estimates of these fish. They then hindcast year class strengths and corrected for gear 

selectivity and cumulative mortality. The results of this study indicated that there was a period 

of high recruitment (31,000 – 52,000 yearlings) in the period 1986-1992 which was preceded and 

succeeded by 5 years of lower recruitment (6,000 – 17,500 yearlings/year). Woodland and Secor 

reports that there was a 10-fold recruitment variability (as measured by the number of yearlings 

produced) over the 20-year period from the late 1970s to late 1990s and that this pattern is 

expected in a species, such as shortnose sturgeon, with periodic life history characterized by 

delayed maturation, high fecundity and iteroparous spawning, as well as when there is variability 

in interannual hydrological conditions. Woodland and Secor examined environmental conditions 

throughout this 20-year period and determined that years in which water temperatures drop 
115 

quickly in the fall and flow increases rapidly in the fall (particularly October), are followed by 

high levels of recruitment in the spring. This suggests that these environmental factors may 

index a suite of environmental cues that initiate the final stages of gonadal development in 

spawning adults. 

The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon has exhibited tremendous growth in the 20-

year period between the late 1970s and late 1990s. Woodland and Secor conclude that this is a 

robust population with no gaps in age structure. Lower recruitment that followed the 1986-1992 

period is coincident with record high abundance suggesting that the population may be reaching 

carrying capacity. The population in the Hudson River exhibits substantial recruitment and is 

considered to be stable at high levels. 

While no reliable estimate of the size of either the shortnose sturgeon population in the 

Northeastern US or of the species throughout its range exists, it is clearly below the size that 

could be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed. Based on the number of 

adults in population for which estimates are available, there are at least 104,662 adult shortnose 

sturgeon, including 18,000 in the Saint John River in Canada. The lack of information on the 

status of some populations, such as that in the Chesapeake Bay, add uncertainty to any 

determination on the status of this species as a whole. Based on the best available information, 

NMFS believes that the status of shortnose sturgeon throughout their range is at best stable, with 

gains in populations such as the Hudson, Delaware and Kennebec offsetting the continued 

decline of southern river populations, and at worst declining. 

As described in the Status of the Species/Environmental Baseline, and Cumulative Effects 

sections above, shortnose sturgeon in the action area are affected by impingement at water 

intakes, habitat alteration, bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, water quality and inwater construction activities. It is difficult to quantify the number of shortnose sturgeon that may 

be killed in the Hudson River each year due to anthropogenic sources. Through reporting 

requirements implemented under Section 7 and Section 10 of the ESA, for specific actions 

NMFS obtains some information on the number of incidental and directed takes of shortnose 

sturgeon each year. Typically, scientific research results in the capture and collection of less 

than 100 shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River each year, with little if any mortality. NMFS 

has no reports of interactions or mortalities of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River resulting 

from dredging or other in-water construction activities. NMFS also has no quantifiable 

information on the effects of habitat alteration or water quality; in general, water quality has 

improved in the Hudson River since the 1970s when the CWA was implemented. NMFS also 

has anecdotal evidence that shortnose sturgeon are expanding their range in the Hudson River 

and fully utilizing the river from the Manhattan area upstream to the Troy Dam, which suggests 

that the movement and distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the river is not limited by habitat or 

water quality impairments. Impingement at the Roseton and Danskammer plants is regularly 

reported to NMFS. Since reporting requirements were implemented in 2000, less than the 

exempted number of takes (6 total for the two facilities) have occurred each year. We also 

anticipate the mortality of two shortnose sturgeon over the next five years as a result of impacts 

of the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Despite these ongoing threats, there is evidence 

that the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon experienced tremendous growth between 

the 1970s and 1990s and that the population is now stable at high numbers. Shortnose sturgeon 
116 

in the Hudson River continue to experience anthropogenic and natural sources of mortality. 

However, NMFS is not aware of any future actions that are reasonably certain to occur that are 

individually or cumulatively likely to change this trend or reduce the stability of the Hudson 

River population. Also, as discussed above, NMFS does not expect shortnose sturgeon to 

experience any new effects associated with climate change during the 23-year duration of the 

proposed action. As such, NMFS expects that numbers of shortnose sturgeon in the action area 

will continue to be stable at high levels over the 23-year duration of the proposed action. 

We have estimated that the proposed continued operation of IP2 through the duration of the 

existing operating license and the proposed extended operating license (i.e., through September 

28, 2033) will result in the impingement of an average of 19 shortnose sturgeon per year at the 

Ristroph screens, for a total of 395 shortnose sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens, 

inclusive of the impingement of 2 shortnose sturgeon impinged at the IP1 Ristroph screens. The 

proposed continued operation of IP3 through the duration of the existing operating license and 

the proposed extended operating license (i.e., through December 12, 2035) will result in the 

impingement of an average of 7 shortnose sturgeon per year at the Ristroph screens, for a total of 

167 shortnose sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens. Based on the available information, 

we are not able to determine what portion of these shortnose sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph 

screens will be alive, injured or previously killed, or die as a result of their impingement. 

Because we know that there will be impingement mortality (available monitoring results suggest 

at least an 80% mortality rate for shortnose sturgeon), but are not able to accurately predict the 

mortality rate, we have made the conservative assumption that all shortnose sturgeon impinged at 

the Ristroph screens will be mortally injured or killed. Therefore, we expect that over the 23 

year period, up to 562 shortnose sturgeon will be killed as a result of impingement at the Indian 

Point Ristroph screens (395 as a result of the operations of IP2 and 167 as a result of the 

operations of IP3). We expect the amount of impingement to vary annually; however, the 

conclusions reached in the Opinion are based on it taking 21 years to reach the total impingement 

level for IP2 (inclusive of IP1 intakes) and 23 years to reach the total impingement level for IP3. 

In any given year, we do not expect impingement of shortnose sturgeon to be higher than 71 

individuals per year at the IP2 Ristroph screens or higher than 32 individuals per year at the IP3 

Ristroph screens. We also do not expect impingement levels to be higher than 50 shortnose 

sturgeon for more than two consecutive years at IP2 or higher than 26 shortnose sturgeon for 

more than two consecutive years at IP3. 

We expect an additional number of adult shortnose sturgeon (body widths greater than 3”) will 

be impinged on the trash bars in front of the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes. Because of the size of 

these fish and the low velocity at the trash bars (0.6-1.0 fps) and because sturgeon would need to 

get stuck on the racks in order to be impinged (as opposed to the Ristroph screens where free 

swimming fish could be captured by the traveling buckets), and fish of this size should be able to 

readily avoid impingement at these velocities, all shortnose sturgeon impinged at the trash bars 

are expected to be dead or stressed in a way that decreases their normal swimming ability. Based 

on the current lack of available information, the cause of death/stressor is currently unknown. 

The operation of Indian Point will cause the impingement and the “capture” or “collection” of 

these fish given the presence of the trash bars, the flow of water through them into the facilities’ 

service and cooling water systems, and the simple facts that some fish will be too big to fit 

through the bars and incapable of avoiding the trash bars. The capture and collection of fish 
117 

killed prior to impingement would not affect the numbers, reproduction or distribution of 

shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River or throughout their range. 

The number of shortnose sturgeon we expect to be killed due to the operations of the two Indian 

Point facilities (562 over 23 years) represents a very small percentage of the shortnose sturgeon 

population in the Hudson River, which is believed to be stable at high numbers, and an even 

smaller percentage of the total population of shortnose sturgeon rangewide. The best available 

population estimates indicate that there are approximately 56,708 (95% CI=50,862 to 64,072) 

adult shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and an unknown number of juveniles (Bain 2000). 

While the death of up to 562 shortnose sturgeon over the next 23 years will reduce the number of 

shortnose sturgeon in the population compared to the number that would have been present 

absent the proposed action, it is not likely that this reduction in numbers will change the status of 

this population or its stable trend. This is because this loss represents a very small percentage of 

the population (less than 1.0%, just considering the number of adults). The impact of this loss is 

even less when considered on an annual basis. Based on the available monitoring data (1974-

1990), we expect the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens will be 

variable. Adjusting the past annual impingement numbers for the increased population size and 

the increased water usage, we would predict that the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at 

the Ristroph screens each year would range from 0 to 71 for IP2 and 0-32 for IP3. However, we 

expect the annual average to be 19 shortnose sturgeon at IP2 and 6 at IP3 and do not expect 

impingement of more than 50 shortnose sturgeon at IP2 or 26 at IP3 to occur in more than two 

consecutive years. The average annual loss of 26 shortnose sturgeon represents approximately 

0.05% of the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population; even the worst predicted annual loss 

of 103 shortnose sturgeon (the maximum annual loss at IP2 plus the maximum annual loss at 

IP3) represents only 0.18% of the population. Additionally, it is important to note that this is not 

a new source of mortality. The Hudson River population has exhibited tremendous growth 

during the period of time that IP2 and IP3 have been operational; we do not expect the rate of 

impingement to change in the future, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the continued 

operation of IP2 and IP3 would not preclude maintenance of the population’s stable trend. 

Reproductive potential of the Hudson population is not expected to be affected in any other way 

other than through a reduction in numbers of individuals. A reduction in the number of 

shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River would have the effect of reducing the amount of 

potential reproduction in this system as the fish killed would have no potential for future 

reproduction. However, it is estimated that on average, approximately 1/3 of adult females 

spawn in a particular year and approximately 1⁄2 of males spawn in a particular year. Given that 

the best available estimates indicate that there are more than 56,000 adult shortnose sturgeon in 

the Hudson River, it is reasonable to expect that there are at least 20,000 adults spawning in a 

particular year. Because fish with body widths greater than 3” would be excluded from the 

Ristroph screens by the trash racks, we expect that the only shortnose sturgeon that would be 

impinged at the Ristroph screens and die would be juveniles. While this will result in fewer 

spawning adults in the future, it is unlikely that the loss of an average of 26 juvenile shortnose 

sturgeon per year over a 23-year period would affect the success of spawning in any year. 

Additionally, this small reduction in potential spawners is expected to result in a small reduction 

in the number of eggs laid or larvae produced in future years and similarly, a very small effect on 

the strength of subsequent year classes. Even considering the potential future spawners that 
118 

would be produced by the individuals that would be killed as a result of the proposed action, any 

effect to future year classes is anticipated to be very small and would not change the stable trend 

of this population. Additionally, the proposed action will not affect spawning habitat in any way 

and will not create any barrier to pre-spawning sturgeon accessing the overwintering sites or the 

spawning grounds and will not result in the death of spawning adults. 

The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impede 

shortnose sturgeon from accessing any seasonal concentration areas, including foraging, 

spawning or overwintering grounds in the Hudson River. Further, the action is not expected to 

reduce the river by river distribution of shortnose sturgeon. Additionally, as the number of 

shortnose sturgeon likely to be killed (562) as a result of the proposed action is less than 1.0% of 

the Hudson River population, there is not likely to be a loss of any unique genetic haplotypes and 

therefore, it is unlikely to result in the loss of genetic diversity. 

While generally speaking, the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or 

species can have an appreciable effect on the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species, 

this is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the individuals 

occur in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of genetic 

diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of shortnose sturgeon because: the species is 

widely geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity (see 

status of the species/environmental baseline section above), and there are thousands of shortnose 

sturgeon spawning each year. 

Based on the information provided above, the death of up to 562 shortnose sturgeon over a 23-

year period (i.e., from now through December 12, 2035) resulting from the proposed continued 

operation of IP2 and IP3 will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of this species 

(i.e., the likelihood that the species will continue to exist in the future while retaining the 

potential for recovery) because, (1) it will not cause so many mortalities that the population will 

decrease; (2) the population trend of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River is stable at high 

levels; (3) the death of an average of 26 shortnose sturgeon per year represents an extremely 

small percentage of the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and an even smaller 

percentage of the species as a whole; (4) the loss of these shortnose sturgeon is likely to have 

such a small effect on reproductive output of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon 

or the species as a whole that the loss of these shortnose sturgeon will not change the status or 

trends of the Hudson River population or the species as a whole; and, (5) the action will have 

only a minor and temporary effect on the distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the action area 

(related to movements around the thermal plume) and no effect on the distribution of the species 

throughout its range. 

In rare instances, an action that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species’ survival 

might appreciably reduce its likelihood of recovery. As explained above, NMFS has determined 

that the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon will 

survive in the wild, which includes consideration of recovery potential. Here, we consider 

whether the action will appreciably reduce the likelihood of recovery from the perspective of 

ESA Section 4. As noted above, recovery is defined as the improvement in status such that 

listing under Section 4(a) as “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
119 

range” (endangered) or “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range...” (threatened) is no longer appropriate. 

Thus, we have considered whether the proposed action will appreciably reduce the likelihood 

that shortnose sturgeon can rebuild to a point where shortnose sturgeon are no longer in danger 

of extinction through all or a significant part of its range. 

A Recovery Plan for shortnose sturgeon was published in 1998 pursuant to Section 4(f) of the 

ESA. The Recovery Plan outlines the steps necessary for recovery and indicates that each 

population may be a candidate for downlisting (i.e., to threatened) when it reaches a minimum 

population size that is large enough to prevent extinction and will make the loss of genetic 

diversity unlikely. However, the plan states that the minimum population size for each 

population has not yet been determined. The Recovery Outline contains three major tasks, (1) 

establish delisting criteria; (2) protect shortnose sturgeon populations and habitats; and, (3) 

rehabilitate habitats and population segments. We know that in general, to recover, a listed 

species must have a sustained positive trend of increasing population over time. To allow that to 

happen for sturgeon, individuals must have access to enough habitat in suitable condition for 

foraging, resting and spawning. Conditions must be suitable for the successful development of 

early life stages. Mortality rates must be low enough to allow for recruitment to all age classes 

so that successful spawning can continue over time and over generations. There must be enough 

suitable habitat for spawning, foraging, resting and migrations of all individuals. Habitat 

connectivity must also be maintained so that individuals can migrate between important habitats 

without delays that impact their fitness. Here, we consider whether this proposed action will 

affect the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon in a way that would affect the species 

likelihood of recovery. 

The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon has experienced an increasing trend and is 

currently stable at high levels. This action will not change the status or trend of the Hudson 

River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole. This is because the reduction 

in numbers will be small and the impact on reproduction and future year classes will also be 

small enough not to affect the stable trend of the population. The proposed action will have 

only insignificant effects on habitat and forage and will not impact the river in a way that makes 

additional growth of the population less likely, that is, it will not reduce the river’s carrying 

capacity. This is because impacts to forage will be insignificant and discountable, and the area 

of the river that sturgeon will be precluded from (due to high temperatures) is small. The 

proposed action will not affect shortnose sturgeon outside of the Hudson River. Therefore, 

because it will not reduce the likelihood that the Hudson River population can recover, it will not 

reduce the likelihood that the species as a whole can recover. Therefore, the proposed action will 

not appreciably reduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon can be brought to the point at 

which they are no longer listed as endangered. Based on the analysis presented herein, the 

proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species. 

9.2 Atlantic sturgeon 

As explained above, the proposed continued operation of IP2 is likely to result in the 

impingement of 269 juvenile New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon at the Ristroph screens 

between now and September 28, 2033, inclusive of 2 Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP1 

Ristroph screens, at an average rate of 13 Atlantic sturgeon per year. We anticipate the 
120 

continued operation of IP3 will result in the impingement of 145 juvenile New York Bight DPS 

Atlantic sturgeon at the Ristroph screens between now and December 12, 2035, at an average 

rate of 6 per year. We expect that an additional number of subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon 

(body widths greater than 3”) will be impinged on the trash bars in front of the IP1, IP2 and IP3 

intakes. Because of the size of these fish and the low velocity at the trash bars (0.6-1.0 fps) and 

because sturgeon would need to get stuck on the racks in order to be impinged (as opposed to the 

Ristroph screens where free swimming fish could be captured by the traveling buckets), and fish 

of this size should be able to readily avoid impingement at these velocities, all Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged at the trash bars are expected to be dead or stressed and the cause of death/stressor is 

currently unknown. The operation of Indian Point would, however, cause the impingement and 

the “capture” or “collection” of these previously killed fish; based on mixed stock analysis, we 

expect the individuals impinged on the trash bars to originate from the Gulf of Maine, New York 

Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPSs. Individual Atlantic sturgeon from the Gulf of Maine, New 

York Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPSs would be exposed to effects of the action including the 

thermal plume, other pollutants and impacts to prey and habitats. Based on the best available 

information, we do not expect that individuals from the Carolina or South Atlantic DPS will 

occur in the action area. 

9.2.1 New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

The NYB DPS has been listed as endangered. While Atlantic sturgeon occur in several rivers in 

the NYB DPS, recent spawning has only been documented in the Delaware and Hudson rivers. 

As noted above, we expect all Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the Indian Point Ristroph screens 

will originate from the Hudson River. There is limited information on the demographics of the 

Hudson River population of Atlantic sturgeon. An annual mean estimate of 863 mature adults 

(596 males and 267 females) was calculated for the Hudson River based on fishery-dependent 

data collected from 1985-1995 (Kahnle et al. 2007). 

No data on abundance of juveniles are available prior to the 1970s; however, catch depletion 

analysis estimated conservatively that 6,000-6,800 females contributed to the spawning stock 

during the late 1800s (Secor 2002, Kahnle et al. 2005). Two estimates of immature Atlantic 

sturgeon have been calculated for the Hudson River population, one for the 1976 year class and 

one for the 1994 year class. Dovel and Berggren (1983) marked immature fish from 1976-1978. 

Estimates for the 1976 year class at age were approximately 25,000 individuals. Dovel and 

Berggren estimated that in 1976 there were approximately 100,000 juvenile (non-migrant) 

Atlantic sturgeon from approximately 6 year classes, excluding young of year. 

In October of 1994, the NYDEC stocked 4,929 marked age-0 Atlantic sturgeon, provided by a 

USFWS hatchery, into the Hudson Estuary at Newburgh Bay. These fish were reared from 

Hudson River brood stock. In 1995, Cornell University sampling crews collected 15 stocked and 

14 wild age-1 Atlantic sturgeon (Peterson et al. 2000). A Petersen mark-recapture population 

estimate from these data suggests that there were 9,529 (95% CI = 1,916 – 10,473) age-0 

Atlantic sturgeon in the estuary in 1994. Since 4,929 were stocked, 4,600 fish were of wild 

origin, assuming equal survival for both hatchery and wild fish and that stocking mortality for 

hatchery fish was zero. 

 

Information on trends for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River are available from a number of 
121 

long term surveys. From July to November during 1982-1990 and 1993, the NYSDEC sampled 

the abundance of juvenile fish in Haverstraw Bay and the Tappan Zee Bay. The CPUE of 

immature Atlantic sturgeon was 0.269 in 1982 and declined to zero by 1990. This study has not 

been carried out since this time. 

 

The Long River Survey (LRS) samples ichthyoplankton river-wide from the George Washington 

Bridge (rkm 19) to Troy (rkm 246) using a stratified random design (CONED 1997). These data, 

which are collected from May-July, provide an annual index of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the 

Hudson River estuary since 1974. The Fall Juvenile Survey (FJS), conducted from July –

October by the utilities, calculates an annual index of the number of fish captured per haul. 

Between 1974 and 1984, the shoals in the entire river (rkm 19-246) were sampled by epibenthic 

sled; in 1985 the gear was changed to a three-meter beam trawl. While neither of these studies 

were designed to catch sturgeon, given their consistent implementation over time they provide 

indications of trends in abundance, particularly over long time series. When examining CPUE, 

these studies suggest a sharp decline in the number of young Atlantic sturgeon in the early 

1990s. While the amount of interannual variability makes it difficult to detect short term trends, 

a five year running average of CPUE from the FJS indicates a slowly increasing trend since 

about 1996. Interestingly, that is when the in-river fishery for Atlantic sturgeon closed. While 

that fishery was not targeting juveniles, a reduction in the number of adult mortalities would be 

expected to result in increased recruitment and increases in the number of young Atlantic 

sturgeon in the river. There also could have been bycatch of juveniles that would have suffered 

some mortality. 

In 2000, the NYSDEC created a sturgeon juvenile survey program to supplement the utilities’ 

survey; however, funds were cut in 2000, and the USFWS was contracted in 2003 to continue the 

program. In 2003 – 2005, 579 juveniles were collected (N = 122, 208, and 289, respectively) 

(Sweka et al. 2006). Pectoral spine analysis showed they ranged from 1 – 8 years of age, with 

the majority being ages 2 – 6. There has not been enough data collected to use this information 

to detect a trend, but at least during the 2003-2005 period, the number of juveniles collected 

increased each year which could be indicative of an increasing trend for juveniles. 

NYB DPS origin Atlantic sturgeon are affected by numerous sources of human induced 

mortality and habitat disturbance throughout the riverine and marine portions of their range. The 

largest single source of mortality appears to be capture as bycatch in commercial fisheries 

operating in the marine environment. A bycatch estimate provided by NEFSC indicates that 

approximately 376 Atlantic sturgeon die as a result of bycatch each year. Mixed stock analysis 

from the NMFS NEFOP indicates that 49% of these individuals are likely to originate from the 

NYB and 91% of those likely originate from the Hudson River, for a total of approximately 167 

adult and subadult mortalities annually. Because juveniles do not leave the river, they are not 

impacted by fisheries occurring in Federal waters. Bycatch and mortality also occur in state 

fisheries; however, the primary fishery that impacted juvenile sturgeon (shad), has now been 

closed and there is no indication that it will reopen soon. NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon are killed 

as a result of anthropogenic activities in the Hudson River and other rivers; sources of potential 

mortality include vessel strikes and entrainment in dredges. As noted above, we expect the 

mortality of two Atlantic sturgeon as a result of the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project; it is 

possible that these individuals could originate from the Hudson River. There could also be the 
122 

loss of a small number of juveniles at other water intakes in the River including the Danskammer 

and Roseton plants. 

The Atlantic sturgeon that will be killed at Indian Point are expected to be juveniles that 

originate from Hudson River. The most recent estimate of juveniles was 4,600 wild Hudson 

River juveniles in the 1994 year class. While we have no estimates of the number of juveniles 

since that time, the available information on trends indicates that there may be a slight increasing 

trend in juvenile abundance in the Hudson River since the mid-1990s. This suggests that there 

may be more juveniles in the river now than in 1994. Based on the size of fish impinged in the 

past, Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 are likely to be less than three years old. Even 

assuming that the three youngest year classes in the Hudson River only have 4,600 individuals 

each, we would estimate that there are at least 13,800 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson 

River. We are anticipating a loss of approximately 19 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon per year for 23 

years. While there are likely other sources of mortality for juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the 

Hudson River, there appears to be a recent increasing trend of juveniles in the river, as evidenced 

by the upward trend in the 5-year moving average for the FJS CPUE. The closure of the directed 

Atlantic sturgeon fishery in 1996 and the shad fishery in 2010 are expected to have led to 

reduced bycatch of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon and subsequently may contribute to increased 

survival of young sturgeon. It is also important to note that the mortality we are considering here 

is not a new source of mortality. Any increase in the juvenile population has occurred with the 

ongoing impingement of individuals at IP2 and IP3. 

The proposed continued operation of IP2 is likely to result in the impingement of 269 juvenile 

New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon at the Ristroph screens between now and September 28, 

2033, inclusive of 2 Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP1 Ristroph screens, at an average rate of 

13 Atlantic sturgeon per year. We anticipate the continued operation of IP3 will result in the 

impingement of 145 juvenile New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon at the Ristroph screens 

between now and December 12, 2035, at an average rate of 6 per year. In total, we expect the 

continued operation of IP2 and IP3 to result in the impingement of 414 NYB DPS Atlantic 

sturgeon at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 Ristroph screens. Based on the available information, we are 

not able to determine what portion of these Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens 

will be alive, injured, previously killed, or will die as a result of their impingement. Because we 

know that there will be impingement mortality (available monitoring results suggest at least an 

60% mortality rate for Atlantic sturgeon), but are not able to accurately predict the mortality rate, 

we have made the conservative assumption that all Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph 

screens will be mortally injured or killed. Therefore, we expect that over the 23 year period, up 

to 414 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon will be killed as a result of impingement at the Indian Point 

Ristroph screens (2 at IP1, 267 at IP2 and 145 at IP3). We expect the amount of impingement to 

vary annually; however, the conclusions reached in the Opinion are based on it taking 21 years to 

reach the total impingement level for IP2 (inclusive of IP1 intakes) and 23 years to reach the 

total impingement level for IP3. In any given year, we do not expect impingement of NYB DPS 

Atlantic sturgeon to be higher than 31 individuals per year at the IP2 Ristroph screens or higher 

than 40 individuals per year at the IP3 Ristroph screens. We also do not expect impingement 

levels to be higher than 10 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon for more than two consecutive years at 

IP2 or higher than 10 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon for more than two consecutive years at IP3. 
123 

Wwe expect an additional number of subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon (body widths greater 

than 3”) will be impinged on the trash bars in front of the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes. Because of 

the size of these fish and the low velocity at the trash bars (0.6-1.0 fps) and because sturgeon 

would need to get stuck on the racks in order to be impinged (as opposed to the Ristroph screens 

where free swimming fish could be captured by the traveling buckets), and healthy fish of this 

size should be able to readily avoid impingement at these velocities, all shortnose sturgeon 

impinged at the trash bars are expected to be dead or stressed. Based on currently available 

information, the cause of death/stressor is currently unknown. The operation of Indian Point will 

cause the impingement and the “capture” or “collection” of these fish. The capture and 

collection of NYB DPS subadults or adults killed prior to impingement would not affect the 

numbers, reproduction or distribution of the NYB DPS in the Hudson River or throughout their 

range. 

The number of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon we expect to be killed due to the operation of Indian 

Point (414over 23 years) represents a small percentage of the Atlantic sturgeon population in the 

Hudson River. While the death of up to 414 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon over the next 23 years 

will reduce the number of NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon compared to the number that would have 

been present absent the proposed action, it is not likely that this reduction in numbers will 

change the status of this species as this loss represents a very small percentage of the Hudson 

River population of juveniles and an even smaller percentage of the overall Hudson River 

population or the DPS as a whole. The impact of this loss is even less when considered on an 

annual basis. Based on the available monitoring data (1974-1990), we expect the number of 

Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens will be variable each year. Adjusting the past 

annual impingement numbers for the 1985-1990 period to account for the increased water usage, 

we would predict that the number of Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the Ristroph screens each 

year would range from 0 to 71. However, we expect the annual average to be 19 Atlantic 

sturgeon and do not expect impingement of more than 10 Atlantic sturgeon at either IP2 or IP3 to 

occur in more than two consecutive years. The average annual loss of 19 juvenile Atlantic 

sturgeon from the NYB DPS represents a very small percentage of our minimum estimated 

juvenile population (13,800 see above); the loss of an average of 19 Atlantic sturgeon per year is 

approximately 0.14% of the estimated Hudson River origin juvenile population (ages 1-3). The 

percentage would be much less if we also considered the number of adults, subadults and young 

of year as well as any Delaware River origin sturgeon. Even considering a year when 71 

individuals are impinged at the Ristroph screens (the highest level of annual impingement that 

we expect will occur), this would represent approximately 0.5% of the Hudson River origin 

juveniles. It is important to note that we expect the loss of 414 individuals to occur over the 23 

period, we do not expect the loss of more than 19 individuals for two consecutive years and 

never anticipate the loss of more than 71 individuals in any one year. 

Because there will be no loss of adults, the reproductive potential of the NYB DPS will not be 

affected in any way other than through a reduction in numbers of individual future spawners as 

opposed to current spawners. The loss of an average of 19 juveniles per year for 23 years would 

have the effect of reducing the amount of potential reproduction as any dead NYB DPS Atlantic 

sturgeon would have no potential for future reproduction. This small reduction in potential future 

spawners is expected to result in an extremely small reduction in the number of eggs laid or 

larvae produced in future years and similarly, an extremely small effect on the strength of 
124 

subsequent year classes. Even considering the potential future spawners that would be produced 

by the individuals that would be killed as a result of the proposed action, any effect to future year 

classes is anticipated to be extremely small and would not change the status of this species. The 

proposed action will also not affect the spawning grounds within the Hudson River or Delaware 

River where NYB DPS fish spawn. We do not anticipate the impingement of any spawning 

adults. All effects to spawning adults will be insignificant and discountable and there will be no 

reduction in individual fitness or any future reduction in spawning by these individuals. 

The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impede NYB 

DPS Atlantic sturgeon from accessing any seasonal concentration areas, including foraging, 

spawning or overwintering grounds in the Delaware or Hudson River or elsewhere. Any effects 

to distribution will be minor and temporary and limited to the temporary avoidance of the area of 

the thermal plume. 

Based on the information provided above, the death of an average of 19 juvenile NYB DPS 

Atlantic sturgeon annually for 23 years, will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of 

the New York Bight DPS (i.e., it will not decrease the likelihood that the species will continue to 

persist into the future with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from 

endangerment). The action will not affect NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon in a way that prevents the 

species from having a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic 

heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, and it will 

not result in effects to the environment which would prevent Atlantic sturgeon from completing 

their entire life cycle or completing essential behaviors including reproducing, foraging and 

sheltering. This is the case because: (1) the death of these juvenile NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon 

represents an extremely small percentage of the species; (2) the death of these juvenile NYB 

DPS Atlantic sturgeon will not change the status or trends of the species as a whole; (3) the loss 

of these NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon is not likely to have an effect on the levels of genetic 

heterogeneity in the population; (4) the loss of these juvenile NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon is 

likely to have such a small effect on reproductive output that the loss of these individuals will not 

change the status or trends of the species; (5) the action will have only a minor and temporary 

effect on the distribution of NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon in the action area and no effect on the 

distribution of the species throughout its range; and, (6) the action will have no effect on the 

ability of NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon to shelter and only an insignificant effect on individual 

foraging NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon. 

In rare instances, an action that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species’ survival 

might appreciably reduce its likelihood of recovery. As explained above, NMFS has determined 

that the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that the NYB DPS of Atlantic 

sturgeon will survive in the wild, which includes consideration of recovery potential. Here, we 

consider whether the action will appreciably reduce the likelihood of recovery from the 

perspective of ESA Section 4. As noted above, recovery is defined as the improvement in status 

such that listing under Section 4(a) as “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range” (endangered) or “likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range...” (threatened) is no longer 

appropriate. Thus, we have considered whether the proposed action will appreciably reduce the 
125 

likelihood that shortnose sturgeon can rebuild to a point where the NYB DPS of Atlantic 

sturgeon is no longer in danger or extinction through all or a significant part of its range. 

No Recovery Plan for the NYB DPS has been published. The Recovery Plan will outline the 

steps necessary for recovery and the demographic criteria which once attained would allow the 

species to be delisted. We know that in general, to recover, a listed species must have a 

sustained positive trend of increasing population over time. To allow that to happen for 

sturgeon, individuals must have access to enough habitat in suitable condition for foraging, 

resting and spawning. Conditions must be suitable for the successful development of early life 

stages. Mortality rates must be low enough to allow for recruitment to all age classes so that 

successful spawning can continue over time and over generations. There must be enough 

suitable habitat for spawning, foraging, resting and migrations of all individuals. For Atlantic 

sturgeon, habitat conditions must be suitable both in the natal river and in other rivers and 

estuaries where foraging by subadults and adults will occur and in the ocean where subadults and 

adults migrate, overwinter and forage. Habitat connectivity must also be maintained so that 

individuals can migrate between important habitats without delays that impact their fitness. 

Here, we consider whether this proposed action will affect the Hudson River population of 

Atlantic sturgeon in a way that would affect the NYB DPS likelihood of recovery. 

This action will not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of Atlantic 

sturgeon or the status and trend of the NYB DPS as a whole. The proposed action will result in a 

small amount of mortality (an average of 19 juveniles annually from a population of at least 

4,600 juveniles and likely at least 24,000 juveniles, just considering the Hudson River and not 

the DPS as a whole) and a subsequent small reduction in future reproductive output. This 

reduction in numbers will be small and the impact on reproduction and future year classes will 

also be small enough not to affect the stable trend of the population. The proposed action will 

have only insignificant effects on habitat and forage and will not impact the river in a way that 

makes additional growth of the population less likely, that is, it will not reduce the river’s 

carrying capacity. This is because impacts to forage will be insignificant and discountable and 

the area of the river that sturgeon will be precluded from (due to high temperatures) is small. 

The proposed action will not affect Atlantic sturgeon outside of the Hudson River or affect 

habitats outside of the Hudson River. Therefore, it will not affect estuarine or oceanic habitats 

that are important for sturgeon. Because it will not reduce the likelihood that the Hudson River 

population can recover, it will not reduce the likelihood that the NYB DPS as a whole can 

recover. Therefore, the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that the NYB 

DPS of Atlantic sturgeon can be brought to the point at which they are no longer listed as 

endangered. Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species. 

9.2.2 Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

As explained above, the proposed action is likely to result in the impingement of adult and 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon at the trash bars. As explained in the Effects of the Action, we are not 

able to estimate the number of Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the trash bars. Based on mixed 

stock analysis of Atlatnic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, we expect 6% of the adult and 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon in the action area to be GOM DPS origin. Therefore, we also expect 

6% of the subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP trash racks to be GOM DPS 
126 

origin. As noted above, because of the size of these fish and the low velocity at the trash bars 

(0.6-1.0 fps) and because sturgeon would need to get stuck on the racks in order to be impinged 

(as opposed to the Ristroph screens where free swimming fish could be captured by the traveling 

buckets), and fish of this size should be able to readily avoid impingement at these velocities, all 

Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the trash bars are expected to be dead or stressed and the cause of 

death/stressor is currently unknown. The operation of Indian Point will cause the impingement 

and the “capture” or “collection” of these fish. The capture and collection of fish killed prior to 

impingement would not affect the numbers, reproduction or distribution of the GOM DPS of 

Atlantic sturgeon. Individual Atlantic sturgeon from the Gulf of Maine DPS would be exposed 

to effects of the action including the thermal plume, other pollutants and impacts to prey and 

habitats; however, these effects will be insignificant and discountable. Based on this analysis, 

the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Gulf of Maine DPS 

of Atlantic sturgeon. 

9.2.3 Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 

As explained above, the proposed action is likely to result in the impingement of adult and 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon at the trash bars. As explained in the Effects of the Action, we are not 

able to estimate the number of Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the trash bars. Based on mixed 

stock analysis of Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Hudson River, we expect 2% of the adult and 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon in the action area to be Chesapeake Bay DPS origin. Therefore, we 

also expect 6% of the subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP trash racks to be 

Chesapeake Bay DPS origin. As noted above, because of the size of these fish and the low 

velocity at the trash bars (0.6-1.0 fps) and because sturgeon would need to get stuck on the racks 

in order to be impinged (as opposed to the Ristroph screens where free swimming fish could be 

captured by the traveling buckets), and fish of this size should be able to readily avoid 

impingement at these velocities, all Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the trash bars are expected to 

be dead or stressed and the cause of death/stressor is currently unknown. The operation of 

Indian Point will cause the impingement and the “capture” or “collection” of these fish. The 

capture and collection of fish killed prior to impingement would not affect the numbers, 

reproduction or distribution of the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. Individual 

Atlantic sturgeon from the Chesapeake Bay DPS would be exposed to effects of the action 

including the thermal plume, other pollutants and impacts to prey and habitats; however, these 

effects will be insignificant and discountable. Based on this analysis, the proposed action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. 

10.0 CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the best available information on the status of endangered and threatened species 

under NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the 

proposed action, interdependent and interrelated actions and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ 

biological opinion that the continued operation of Indian Point Unit 2 is likely to adversely 

affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or the New 

York Bight, Gulf of Maine or Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. It is also NMFS’ 

biological opinion that the continued operation of Indian Point Unit 3 is likely to adversely affect 

but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or the New York 

Bight, Gulf of Maine or Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. No critical habitat is 

designated in the action area; therefore, none will be affected by the proposed actions. 
127 

11.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species of fish and wildlife. “Fish and 

wildlife” is defined in the ESA “as any member of the animal kingdom, including without 

limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird 

for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, 

reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, 

or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(8). “Take” is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by NMFS to include any act which actually kills or 

injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation 

that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral 

patterns including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take 

is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. “Otherwise lawful activities” are those actions that meet all State and Federal 

legal requirements except for the prohibition against taking in ESA Section 9 (51 FR 19936, June 

3, 1986), which would include any state endangered species laws or regulations. Section 9(g) 

makes it unlawful for any person “to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any offense defined [in the ESA.]” 16 U.S.C. 1538(g). A “person” is defined in part 

as any entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including an individual, corporation, 

officer, employee, department or instrument of the Federal government (see 16 U.S.C. 

1532(13)). Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and 

not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA 

provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take 

Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC and the 

applicant, Entergy, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NRC has a continuing duty to 

regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If NRC (1) fails to assume and 

implement the terms and conditions consistent with its authority or (2) fails to require the 

applicant, Entergy, to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement 

through enforceable terms, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. The effects 

analysis and conclusions reached in this Opinion, and, therefore, the incidental take levels, are 

based on data collected between 1974 and 1990. While there are uncertainties in this data, as 

acknowledged in the Opinion, it is the best available and relying on it for the development of this 

Opinion was reasonable. The monitoring and reporting required by this ITS will serve in part as 

a check on our reliance on this data. If NRC or Entergy fail to implement the required terms and 

conditions or are otherwise not in compliance with the terms and conditions at any point during 

the period when IP2 or IP3 are operating under the existing operating licenses or the proposed 

renewed operating licenses, reinitiation of consultation will be necessary. Reinitiation would be 

necessary in that case to determine why noncompliance was occurring and whether any changes 

to the terms and conditions would promote better compliance. In order to monitor the impact of 

incidental take, NRC or the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the 

species to the NMFS as specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)] (See 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service’s Joint Endangered 

Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook (1998) at 4-49). 
128 

11.1 Amount or Extent of Take 

This ITS serves two important functions: (1) it provides an exemption from the Section 9 

prohibitions for any taking incidental to the proposed action that is in compliance with the terms 

and conditions; and (2) it provides the means to insure the action as it is carried out is not 

jeopardizing the continued existence of affected species by monitoring and reporting the progress 

of the action and its impact on the species such that consultation can be reinitiated if any of the 

criteria in 50 CFR 402.16 are met. This ITS applies to the remaining term of the existing 

operating licenses and any extended operating period through the expiration date of those 

licenses. As such, we anticipate that this amount of take will occur at IP2, from now through 

September 28, 2033 and at IP3 until December 12, 2035. Take will also occur at the IP1 intakes 

as long as they are used for service water for IP2 which will occur from now until the IP2 license 

expires on September 28, 2033. The continued operation of IP2 and IP3 will adversely affect 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon due to impingement at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intake trash bars and 

intakes screens. 

As explained in the “Effects of the Action” section, effects of the facilities on shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon also include effects of the thermal plume on distribution and prey. However, 

based on the available information on the thermal plume and the assumptions regarding sturgeon 

behavior and thermal tolerances outlined in the Opinion, we do not anticipate or exempt any take 

of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon due to effects to prey items or due to exposure to the thermal 

plume. 

We expect adult shortnose sturgeon and adult and subadult Atlantic sturgeon from the New York 

Bight, Gulf of Maine and Chesapeake Bay DPSs with body widths greater than 3” to be 

impinged at the trash bars. However, as explained in the Effects of the Action section, we expect 

that all sturgeon impinged on the trash bars will be dead or stressed prior to the impingement and 

the cause of death/stressor is currently unknown. This impingement is expected to result from 

the operation of Indian Point and the presence of the trash bars. These interactions at the trash 

bars constitute “capture” or “collect” in the definition of “take.” Because no monitoring has 

ever occurred at the trash bars and we do not have information on the number or percentage of 

sturgeon populations in the area, we have no information on which to base a prediction of future 

impingement at the trash bars in terms of a specific number of fish or a surrogate measure of 

incidental take. This ITS exempts the take (capture or collect only, not injure or kill) of all 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the trash bars. We anticipate, based on mixed stock 

analysis of Atlantic sturgeon captured in the action area, that 92% of the Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged at the intakes will originate from the New York Bight DPS, 6% from the Gulf of 

Maine DPS and 2% from the Chesapeake Bay DPS. 

The continued operation of IP2 and IP3 will result in the impingement of shortnose sturgeon and 

New York Bight DPS origin Atlantic sturgeon at the intake screens. We expect that some of the 

sturgeon impinged at the screens will be dead or suffering from injury or illness. Some sturgeon 

caught in the buckets of the Ristroph screen are likely to have been healthy and free swimming; 

some of those fish are likely to experience injury or mortality while being transported to the 

sluice. Other sturgeon that become impinged on the screens are likely to suffer injury or 

mortality due to their impingement. We also expect that some sturgeon will become tired, 
129 

disoriented and stressed such that their normal behaviors are impaired or they become injured 

while in the intake embayment between the trash bars and screens; we expect that these fish will 

become impinged on the Ristroph screens. Based on the available information, we are not able 

to determine what portion of these shortnose sturgeon or New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon 

impinged at the Ristroph screens will fall into each of the above categories. Because we know 

that there will be impingement mortality (available monitoring results suggest at least an 80% 

mortality rate for shortnose sturgeon and at least 60% for Atlantic sturgeon), but are not able to 

accurately predict the mortality rate, we have made the conservative determination that all 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the screens will be mortally injured or killed. 

Sturgeon that are impinged at the Ristroph screens but safely returned (i.e, with no injury) alive 

to the Hudson River are “captured” or “collected.” Other impinged sturgeon will be injured or 

killed. IP1 and IP2 operate under one license, which is up for renewal, and IP3 operates under a 

separate license, which is also up for renewal. As a result, “take” will be apportioned to each of 

the two separate actions. 

Between now and September 23, 2035 when the proposed renewed operating license for IP2 will 

expire, we expect up to 395 shortnose sturgeon and 269 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon 

will be impinged at the IP2 intakes (Ristroph screens), inclusive of 2 shortnose sturgeon and 2 

Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP1 intakes used for IP2 service water. Between now and 

December 12, 2035 when the proposed renewed operating license for IP3 will expire, we expect 

up to 167 shortnose sturgeon and 145 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged 

at the IP3 intakes (Ristroph screens). In total, we expect that over the 23 year period, up to 562 

shortnose sturgeon and 414 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon will be killed as a result of 

Indian Point operations. We expect the amount of impingement to vary annually; however, the 

conclusions reached in the Opinion are based on it taking 21 years to reach the total impingement 

level for IP2 (inclusive of IP1 intakes) and 23 years to reach the total impingement level for IP3. 

In any given year, we do not expect impingement of shortnose sturgeon to be higher than 71 

individuals per year at the IP2 Ristroph screens or higher than 32 individuals per year at the IP3 

Ristroph screens. We also do not expect impingement levels to be higher than 50 shortnose 

sturgeon for more than two consecutive years at IP2 or higher than 26 shortnose sturgeon for 

more than two consecutive years at IP3. For NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon, in any year we do not 

expect impingement to be higher than 27 individuals at the IP2 Ristroph screens or higher than 

40 individuals at the IP3 Ristroph screens. We also do not expect impingement levels to be 

higher than 10 Atlantic sturgeon in two consecutive years at IP2 or higher than 10 Atlantic 

sturgeon in two consecutive years at IP3. 

We recognize that some sturgeon impinged at Indian Point screens are likely to be dead prior to 

impingement. While it is possible the cause of death is unrelated to the operation of Indian 

Point, we do not currently have any information to determine whether that is the case. The take 

level that is exempted is inclusive of “previously killed” fish; this ITS exempts the “collection” 

or “capture” of these previously killed fish. At this time, because there are no necropsy reports 

for any sturgeon collected at Indian Point and very little data on the condition of impinged 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon (other than “dead” or “alive” for a few fish), we are unable to 

predict what percent of the impinged sturgeon are likely to have been killed prior to 

impingement at Indian Point. Future monitoring, as required by the RPMs and Terms and 

Conditions, will enable the ITS to serve its function of supporting the reinitiation provision. 
130 

Given the impingement of these fish is a result of the operation of Indian Point and given the 

ESA’s definitions of “take” and “fish and wildlife” even the impingement of previously killed 

fish is considered “incidental take.” 

This ITS exempts the following take (injure, kill, capture or collect, as described below): 

 A total of 2 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 2 

dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) 

impinged at the Unit 115 intake screens from now until the IP2 proposed renewed 

operating license would expire on September 28, 2033. 

 A total of 395 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 

269 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) impinged 

at Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP2 proposed renewed 

operating license would expire on September 28, 2033. 

 A total of 167 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 

145 dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or 

collect) impinged at the Unit 3 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP3 

proposed renewed operating license would expire on December 12, 2035. 

 All shortnose sturgeon with body widths greater than 3” impinged at the IP1, IP2 and 

IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). 

 All Atlantic sturgeon with body widths greater than 3” impinged at the IP1, IP2 and 

IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). These Atlantic sturgeon will originate from the 

New York Bight (92%), Gulf of Maine (6%) and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (2%). 

We will consider the ITS to be exceeded if any of the following occur: 

 More than 2 shortnose sturgeon or more than 2 New York Bight DPS Atlantic 

sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 1 intake screens from now until the IP2 proposed 

renewed operating license would expire on September 28, 2033. 

 More than 395 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph screens) 

from now until the IP2 proposed renewed operating license would expire on 

September 28, 2033. 

 More than 269 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 2 

intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP2 proposed renewed operating license 

would expire on September 28, 2033. 

 More than 167 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 intakes (Ristroph 

screens) from now until the IP3 proposed renewed operating license would expire on 

December 12, 2035. 

 More than 145 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 

intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP3 proposed renewed operating license 

would expire on December 12, 2035. 

 More than 71 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph 

screens) in any one calendar year. 

 More than 27 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 2 Ristroph 

screens in any one calendar year. 

 

15 As explained in the Opinion, water withdrawn through the Unit 1 intakes is used for service water for the 

operation of IP2. 
131 

 More than 32 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 Ristroph screens in any 

one calendar year. 

 More than 40 NYB Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 Ristroph screens in 

any one calendar year. 

 More than 50 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph 

screens) in any two consecutive calendar years. 

 More than 26 shortnose sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 Ristroph screens in any 

two consecutive years. 

 More than 10 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 2 Ristroph 

screens in any two consecutive calendar years. 

 More than 10 NYB DPS Atlantic sturgeon are impinged at the Unit 3 Ristroph 

screens in any two consecutive calendar year. 

 Any shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon with body widths narrower than 3” are impinged 

at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). 

 Any Atlantic sturgeon from the Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, or South 

Atlantic DPS are impinged at the IP1, IP2 or IP3 screens. 

 The proportion of Atlantic sturgeon impinged at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash racks is 

different than: New York Bight (92%), Gulf of Maine (6%) and Chesapeake Bay 

DPSs (2%). 

We do not anticipate the impingement of any Atlantic sturgeon originating from the South 

Atlantic or Carolina DPSs as we do not expect individuals originating from these DPSs to occur 

in the action area. The impingement of individuals originating from these DPSs at the trash bars 

or the intake screens would represent new information that would necessitate reinitiation of 

consultation. We also do not anticipate the impingement of Chesapeake Bay or Gulf of Maine 

DPS Atlantic sturgeon at the screens. The impingement of Chesapeake Bay or Gulf of Maine 

DPS Atlantic sturgeon at the screens would represent new information that would necessitate 

reinitiation of this consultation. 

The Section 9 prohibitions against take apply to live individuals as well as to dead specimens and 

their parts. The Section 9 prohibitions include “capture” and “collect” in the definition of take, 

as well as injury and mortality. NMFS recognizes that some shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that 

have been killed prior to impingement at the IP facility are likely to become impinged on the 

intakes at IP1, IP2 and IP3. However, the capture or collection of previously dead animals is 

prohibited under Section 9 and will be exempted through this ITS. Additionally, NMFS 

recognizes the potential for some shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to pass through the trash bars, 

contact the Ristroph screens and travel down the sluice back to the River without significant 

injury or mortality. The Section 9 prohibitions on take also apply to the capture or collection of 

live, uninjured animals even if these animals are released without injury. Thus, it is appropriate 

for this ITS to also address shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that are captured or collected at the 

Ristroph screens and returned to the river unharmed. As no monitoring has taken place at the 

intakes since 1990, we cannot accurately predict what percentage of sturgeon would be collected 

at the Ristroph screens without injury or mortality and, therefore, we are not able to refine this 

estimate of take to separate out the number of fish that will be collected but not killed. Due to 

the difficulty in determining the cause of death of sturgeon found dead at the intakes and the lack 

of past necropsy results that would allow us to better assess the likely cause of death of impinged 
132 

sturgeon, the aforementioned anticipated level of take includes shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

that are killed prior to impingement on the IP intakes. As explained in the Opinion, we do not 

have sufficient information to predict what percentage of impinged sturgeon were previously 

killed and merely captured or collected at the facility and sturgeon that died as a result of their 

impingement at the Indian Point intakes. Therefore, we are not able to further refine this 

estimate of take into a number of previously dead sturgeon captured or collected at the facility 

and a number of sturgeon whose death was caused by operation of the facility. In the 

accompanying Opinion, we determined that the level of anticipated incidental take caused by the 

operation of IP2 is not likely to result in jeopardy to shortnose sturgeon or to any DPS of Atlantic 

sturgeon even if IP3 is operating at the same time. Similarly, we determined that the level of 

anticipated incidental take caused by the operation of IP3 is not likely to result in jeopardy to 

shortnose sturgeon or to any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon, even if IP2 is operating at the same time. 

11.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

In order to effectively monitor the effects of this action, it is necessary to monitor the intakes to 

document the amount of incidental take (i.e., the number of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

captured, collected, injured or killed) and to examine the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that are 

impinged at the facility. Monitoring minimizes take by providing information on the 

characteristics of the sturgeon encountered and factors related to interactions that is useful for 

judging the effectiveness of current measures and for developing more effective measures to 

avoid and/or minimize future interactions with listed species. Monitoring also serves to check 

the assumptions and conclusions in the Opinion’s analysis, thereby enabling NRC and NMFS to 

know whether reinitiation of consultation is necessary. We do not anticipate any additional 

injury or mortality to be caused by removing the fish from the water and examining them as 

required in the RPMs. Even if there is, any such additional take is exempted as long as the terms 

and conditions of the ITS are complied with. Any live sturgeon are to be released back into the 

river, away from the intakes and thermal plume. These RPMs and their implementing terms and 

conditions apply to operations of IP2 and IP3 under their existing licenses as well as the license 

to be issued for the continued operation of IP2 and the license to be issued for the continued 

operation of IP3. 

We have determined the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate 

to minimize and monitor impacts of incidental take of endangered shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon: 

1. A program to monitor the incidental take of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at the IP1, 

IP2 and IP3 intakes must be developed, approved by NMFS, and implemented as 

described in the Terms and Conditions. This program must be implemented throughout 

the remaining duration of the existing IP2 and IP3 operating licenses as well as during the 

time IP2 and/or IP3 operate pursuant to the proposed renewed operating license(s). 

2. All live, incidentally taken shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon must be released back into the 

Hudson River at an appropriate location away from the intakes and thermal plume that 

does not pose additional risk of take, including death, injury, harassment, 

collection/capture. 
133 

3. Any dead, incidentally taken shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon must be transferred to NMFS 

or an appropriately permitted research facility NMFS will identify so that a necropsy can 

be undertaken to attempt to determine the cause of death. 

4. A genetic sample must be taken of all incidentally taken Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. 

5. All incidental takes of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon associated with the Indian Point 

facilities and any shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon sightings in the action area must be 

reported to NMFS. 

11.3 Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, Entergy must comply with, and 

NRC, consistent with its authorities, must ensure through enforceable terms of the existing and 

renewed licenses that Entergy does comply with, the following terms and conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described 

above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are 

non-discretionary. Any taking that is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified in 

this ITS shall not be considered a prohibited taking of the species concerned (ESA Section 

7(o)(2)). With regard to the existing licenses for IP2 and IP3: upon issuance of this Opinion, 

NRC shall take prompt and effective action to require Entergy to adhere to the terms and 

conditions of this ITS. With regard to the proposed renewed licenses for IP2 and IP3: NRC shall 

ensure that each renewed license contains a condition that requires Entergy to adhere to the terms 

and conditions of this ITS upon issuance of the renewed license(s). 

1. To implement RPM #1, Entergy must develop a proposed, draft monitoring plan 

designed to document all shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP1, IP2 and IP3 

(trash racks and intake screens) while these facilities are operating under their existing 

operating licenses and the proposed renewed operating licenses. The draft monitoring 

plan must be provided to NMFS and NRC within 60 days of the issuance of this Opinion 

for NMFS review and approval. NMFS may: (1) revise the draft plan and approve it as 

revised; (2) provide comments to NRC and Entergy noting changes that Entergy needs to 

make; or (3) approve the plan as submitted. If NMFS determines modifications to the 

draft plan are appropriate and provides comments, Entergy must submit a modified draft 

plan to NMFS within 30 days of receiving the comments. NMFS retains sole discretion 

to determine the final contents of the plan. The draft monitoring plan must contain an 

implementation schedule for each of the components noted below. The plan must be 

fully implemented within 120 days of NMFS final approval, unless additional time is 

necessary to obtain approvals required by law from NRC or the State of New York or 

because physical plant alterations are necessary to implement a monitoring component; 

requirements related to those circumstances are provided below. NMFS final approval of 

the monitoring plan will include an approval of the implementation schedule. The 

monitoring plan must be designed and implemented to allow for the detection and 

observation of all shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that are impinged anywhere at the 

intakes, including on the trash bars, or that are impinged at the screens or captured in the 

fish buckets. All references to intake screens below are inclusive of all parts of the intake 

screen systems at IP1, IP2, and IP3 including the screening itself, the fish buckets, and 

the fish return system. This monitoring plan must contain the following components: 
134 

a. An implementation schedule for each of the components noted below. The 

implementation schedule must identify the timeline for implementing each of the 

following components of the monitoring plan. For all components, Entergy must 

identify any approvals that are required by law from NRC or the State of New York 

as well as the specific statutory requirement and the anticipated timeframe associated 

with obtaining those approvals. In those instances, Entergy must identify the steps 

they will take to obtain those approvals and the anticipated timeline for implementing 

that component of the monitoring plan. The implementation schedule for each 

component must also identify any physical plant alterations that are necessary to 

allow each component to be implemented, steps that must be taken to make these 

alterations and the timeline for making these alterations. In instances where a portion 

of the monitoring component could be implemented without additional approvals 

and/or physical plant alterations, implementation must occur within 120 days of 

NMFS approval of the monitoring plan. 

b. methods and procedures for monitoring the intake trash bars on a schedule that 

ensures detection of all shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged on the trash bars 

and timely collection and release of any live shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that 

minimizes the opportunity for injury and timely collection of any dead shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon that minimizes the opportunity for decomposition; 

c. any method developed to monitor the intake trash bars for shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon must be able to detect all individuals impinged at the trash bars within 24 

hours of impingement; 

d. methods and procedures for monitoring the intake embayment (area behind the trash 

bars and including the intake screens) on a schedule that ensures detection of all 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that are in the embayment either in the water or 

impinged on the intake screens, including those captured in the fish buckets; 

e. any method developed to monitor the intake embayment, including the intake screen 

system must ensure the detection and capture of all shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

such that live sturgeon can be inspected and assessed for injury and dead shortnose 

and Atlantic sturgeon can be retained for necropsy; 

f. procedures to monitor the collection efficiency for Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon 

(i.e., fraction of fish that enter the intake structure but do not make it into 

impingement collections). 

g. a handling and release plan that describes how all live shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon that are impinged at the trash bars or found in the intake embayment, 

including those impinged on the intake screens, will be safely removed from the 

water, handled for examination, and returned to the River; handling and disposal 

procedures for all dead shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon or body parts of shortnose 

and Atlantic sturgeon; 

h. procedures for obtaining genetic samples from all shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

collected at the intakes; 

i. reporting forms that contain all information to be reported for all incidental takes of 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon; 
135 

j. procedures for notifying NMFS of all incidental takes; 

k. measuring the actual water velocity at the trash bars (approach and through-rack 

velocity), between the trash bars and screens and at the screens (approach and 

through-screen velocity) at IP1, IP2 and IP3 so that this information can be reported 

any time a take occurs; 

l. measuring actual water temperature at the trash bars and at the Ristroph screens at 

IP1, IP2 and IP3 (surface, mid-water and bottom water) so that this information can 

be reported any time a take occurs. If existing thermal monitoring accurately 

documents water temperatures in these areas, the monitoring plan should explain why 

additional thermal monitoring is not necessary and demonstrate how existing thermal 

monitoring meets the requirements of this component; 

m. monitoring operating conditions so that this information can be reported any time a 

take occurs. Operating conditions to be reported include: number of pumps running, 

their speed and pumping volumes, number of reactors operating, reactor power levels 

at time of observation, reactor power levels in previous 48 hours, and any other 

notable operational observations or events within previous 48 hours (e.g., shutdowns, 

restarts, etc.); 

n. coordination procedures regarding personnel who will be carrying out this 

monitoring. Qualifications must be submitted to NMFS for review and approval. All 

monitors will need to demonstrate experience in identifying and handling sturgeon 

species. 

o. any other component determined to be necessary or appropriate to monitor incidental 

take. 

and, 

p. procedures for making any necessary updates or modifications to the monitoring plan. 

2. To implement RPM #1, the final NMFS approved monitoring plan must be implemented 

as approved by NMFS throughout the period during which the facilities operate pursuant 

to the existing operating licenses. The monitoring plan must also continue to be 

implemented through the duration of the operating period authorized by any new 

operating licenses issued by NRC for IP2 and/or IP3. 

3. To implement RPM #2, Entergy must ensure that all live shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

removed from the trash racks, intake embayment (including screens and buckets) or fish 

return system, are returned to the river away from the intakes and the thermal plume, 

following complete documentation of the event pursuant to the approved monitoring 

plans and forms provided with this ITS as required by Term and Condition #1. 

4. To implement RPM #3, Entergy must ensure that all dead specimens or body parts of 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon or fish that might be sturgeon retrieved from the Indian 

Point intakes are photographed, measured, and preserved (refrigerate or freeze). No dead 

shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon or body parts of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon may be 
136 

disposed without discussing disposal procedures with NMFS for each fish or part thereof. 

NMFS may request that the specimen be transferred to NMFS or to an appropriately 

permitted researcher so that a necropsy can be conducted. The forms included as 

Appendix II and III must be completed and submitted to NMFS as noted in Term and 

Condition #7. 

5. To implement RPM#4, Entergy must obtain genetic samples from all captured or 

collected (including impinged) Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. This must be done in 

accordance with the procedures provided in Appendix IV. 

6. To implement RPM #5, if any live or dead shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon are taken (e.g., 

captured, collected, killed, injured) at IP1, IP2 or IP3, Entergy must notify NMFS (978-

281-9328 and incidental.take@noaa.gov) and NRC (endangeredspecies@nrc.gov) within 

24 hours. An incident report (Appendix I) must also be completed by plant personnel and 

sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator via e-mail (incidental.take@noaa.gov) within 24 

hours of the take. The form included as Appendix III must be filled out for any dead 

sturgeon and submitted via e-mail (incidental.take@noaa.gov) within 24 hours of the 

take. Every shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon collected at the Indian Point intakes, must be 

photographed and photographs must be submitted to NMFS within 24 hours 

(incidental.take@noaa.gov). Information in Appendix V will assist in identification of 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 

7. To implement RPM #5, Entergy must submit an annual report of all incidental takes to 

NMFS and NRC by February 15 of each year (reporting on takes that occurred in the 

previous calendar year). The report must include, as detailed in this Incidental Take 

Statement and the monitoring plan required by Term and Condition #1 and #2, any 

necropsy reports of specimens, incidental take reports, photographs , a record of all 

sightings of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the vicinity of Indian Point, conditions at 

the time of the take (operations as well as environmental conditions including water 

velocity and water temperature) and a record of when inspections of the intake trash bars 

and Ristroph screens were conducted for the 48 hours prior to the take. The annual report 

must also identify any potential measures to reduce shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon 

impingement, injury, and mortality at the intake structures along with any plans to 

implement those measures. At the time the report is submitted, NMFS will supply NRC 

and Entergy with any information on changes to reporting requirements (i.e., staff 

changes, phone or fax numbers, e-mail addresses) for the coming year. This report must 

be submitted via e-mail (incidental.take@noaa.gov) or U.S. mail (Attn: Section 7 

Coordinator, NMFS NERO Protected Resources Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930). 

8. To implement RPM#5, following the submittal of the annual report, but prior to April 15 

of each year, a conference call or in person meeting between Entergy, NMFS and NRC 

will be held during which the take information for the previous year will be discussed. 

NMFS will use the information presented in each annual report, in addition to other 

sources of information, to determine if there is any new information on effects of the 

action that were not anticipated in this Opinion. At this time, we anticipate this type of 

new information could include a higher than anticipated impingement of any species of 
137 

sturgeon, different size classes of fish impinged than anticipated, different condition of 

fish impinged than anticipated, or different percent of Atlantic sturgeon from the different 

DPSs than anticipated. This annual meeting or conference call will also be used to 

review the requirements of the monitoring plan and to discuss any changes to the 

monitoring plan that NMFS, NRC or Entergy believe are necessary. 

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are 

designed to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that results from the proposed 

action. Specifically, these RPMs and Terms and Conditions will ensure that Entergy monitors 

the intakes in a way that allows for the detection of all impinged shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

and implements measures to reduce the potential of mortality for all shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon impinged at Indian Point, to report all interactions to NMFS and NRC and to provide 

information on the likely cause of death of any dead shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at 

the facility. The discussion below explains why each of these RPMs and Terms and Conditions 

are necessary or appropriate to minimize or monitor the level of incidental take associated with 

the proposed action. The RPMs and terms and conditions involve only a minor change to the 

proposed action. We have determined that incidental take of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon 

includes impingement on the trash bars and impingement at the intake screens (which includes 

collection in the fish buckets). The RPMs and Terms and Conditions ensure that all incidental 

take is monitored and reported to NRC and NMFS. 

RPM #1 and Term and Condition #1 and 2 require Entergy to design and implement a 

monitoring plan that will allow for the detection and collection of all shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon at the Indian Point intakes, whether impinged at the trash bars, impinged on the intake 

screen system (which includes collection in the fish buckets), or in the intake embayment behind 

the trash bars prior to impingement on the intake screen system. Removing sturgeon from the 

intake embayment before they interact with the screen system minimizes incidental take caused 

by impingement on the screens. An effective monitoring plan is essential to ensure NRC and 

Entergy monitor the level of incidental take that occurs during the license periods and to enable 

NMFS and NRC to determine whether the incidental take level in this ITS is exceeded, thereby 

triggering reinitiation of consultation. These requirements are necessary and appropriate because 

they are specifically designed to ensure that all appropriate measures are carried out to monitor 

the incidental take of sturgeon at Indian Point, which by definition includes the capture or 

collection of live sturgeon as well as the injury or mortality of impinged sturgeon. These 

requirements are also essential for confirming the cause of death of any sturgeon that are dead 

when collected These conditions ensure that the potential for detection of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon at the intakes is maximized and that any sturgeon removed from the water are removed 

in a manner that minimizes the potential for further injury. Monitoring actual collection 

efficiency is necessary or appropriate to determine how many sturgeon enter the intake structure 

but do not make it into impingement collections. We do not believe that the handling of 

impinged sturgeon will result in an increased risk of injury or mortality if proper handling 

procedures are implemented, which the monitoring plan will include. For example, both 

shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are routinely captured in a trawl survey in the Hudson River that 

the applicant participates in. Captured sturgeon are brought into the boat, removed from the 

trawl gear, weighed, measured and tagged. There have been no reported instances of injury or 

mortality to any of the hundreds of Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon captured during this survey in 
138 

over twenty years. Similarly, sturgeon that enter the fish lift at the Holyoke Hydroelectric 

facility on the Connecticut River are netted, removed from the water, weighed, measured and 

tagged. There have been no reports of any injuries or mortalities to sturgeon caused by these 

handling procedures. The RPMs and Terms and Conditions related to monitoring do not dictate 

the details of the plan (i.e., how Entergy must monitor the trash racks or intake screens) to allow 

Entergy the flexibility to design the monitoring plan in a way that minimizes impacts to project 

operations and results in no more than a minor change to the operations of Indian Point 2 and 3. 

While we believe the enumerated, specific components are sufficient to monitor incidental take, 

review of Entergy’s draft monitoring plan and/or other information may lead NMFS to believe 

that additional or different monitoring plan components may be necessary or appropriate. 

Therefore, NMFS may design or have Entergy propose, additional or different monitoring 

components that NMFS determines are necessary or appropriate to monitor incidental take. 

RPM#2 and Term and Condition #3 are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any shortnose 

or Atlantic sturgeon that survive impingement is given the maximum probability of remaining 

alive and not suffering additional injury or subsequent mortality through inappropriate handling 

or release near the intakes. This RPM and Term and Condition serve to minimize lethal take. 

 

RPM #3 and Term and Condition #4 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper handling 

and documentation of any shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon removed from the intakes that are 

dead or die while in Entergy possession. This is essential for monitoring the level of incidental 

take associated with the proposed action, confirming cause of death and ensuring proper 

disposal. 

RPM #4 and Term and Condition #5 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper 

documentation of species and/or DPS of origin for any impinged sturgeon collected at Indian 

Point. Sampling of fin tissue is used for genetic sampling. This procedure does not harm 

shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon and is common practice in fisheries science. Tissue sampling 

does not appear to impair the sturgeon’s ability to swim and is not thought to have any long-term 

adverse impact. NMFS has received no reports of injury or mortality to any shortnose or 

Atlantic sturgeon sampled in this way. 

RPM#5 and Term and Condition #6-8 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper 

handling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the prompt 

reporting of these interactions to NMFS. This is necessary to allow NMFS to monitor the level 

of take and to determine if take is exceeded or if any other triggers for reinitiation have been met. 

This RPM and Term and Condition also ensure that NMFS, NRC and Entergy will continue to 

monitor the effectiveness of the monitoring program and make any changes that may be 

necessary to the monitoring program in the future. 

12.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to Section 7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that all projects will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA places a 

responsibility on all federal agencies to “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of 

this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species.” Conservation 

Recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a 
139 

proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to 

develop information. As such, NMFS recommends that the NRC consider the following 

Conservation Recommendations: 

1. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure tissue analysis of dead shortnose sturgeon 

removed from the Indian Point intakes is performed to determine contaminant loads, 

including radionuclides. 

2. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure studies are performed that document 

impacts of impingement, entrainment and heat shock to benthic resources that may serve 

as forage for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 

3. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure studies are performed to ground truth the 

thermal plume model published in 2011 (Swanson et al. 2011) with field sampling across 

a range of environmental conditions (weather, tide, etc.). 

4. The NRC should use its authorities to require that the REMP sample species that may 

serve as forage for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 

5. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure a scientific study on the mortality of 

sturgeon impinged on Ristroph Screens is performed. 

6. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure in-water assessments, abundance, and 

distribution surveys for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, and 

Haverstraw Bay specifically, are performed. 

7. The NRC should use its authorities to ensure studies are performed that document the 

presence, if any, of shortnose sturgeon in the broadest area affected by the thermal plume 

in order to validate the assumption in this Opinion that shortnose sturgeon are likely to 

move away from the thermal plume. 

13.0 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION 

This concludes formal consultation on the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 under the terms of 

the existing operating licenses and the proposed renewed operating licenses. As provided in 50 

CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary federal agency 

involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the 

amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new 

information reveals effects of the action that may not have been previously considered; (3) the 

identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species; or 

(4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified 

action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, Section 7 

consultation must be reinitiated immediately. 

If in the future, NY State issues a revised SPDES permit or 401 WQC that modifies the 

operations of IP2 or IP3, reinitiation of this consultation is likely to be necessary. Additionally, 

it is our understanding that revised CWA 316(b) regulations may be issued by EPA in 2013. If 

there are any modifications to the Indian Point facility resulting from the implementation of these 
140 

regulations, reinitiation of this consultation is likely to be necessary. Reinitiation of consultation 

will also be necessary if NRC or Entergy fail to implement the terms and conditions of the ITS or 

are otherwise not in compliance with the ITS. 
141 

14.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Allen PJ, Nicholl M, Cole S, Vlazny A, Cech JJ Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green 

sturgeon in elevated temperature regimes. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:89–96 

ASA (Analysis and Communication). 2008. 2006 year class report for the Hudson River Estuary 

Program prepared for Dynegy Roseton LLC, on behalf of Dynegy Roseton LLC Entergy 

Nuclear Indian Point 2 LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 LLC, and Mirant Bowline LLC. 

Washingtonville NY. 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009. Atlantic Sturgeon. Pages 19-20 

in Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2009 Annual Report. 68 pp. 

ASSRT (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team). 2007. Status review of Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp. 

Bain, M. B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and 

Divergent Life History Attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358. 

Bain, M., K. Arend, N. Haley, S. Hayes, J. Knight, S. Nack, D. Peterson, and M. Walsh. 1998a. 

Sturgeon of the Hudson River: Final Report on 1993-1996 Research. Prepared for The 

Hudson River Foundation by the Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, New York. 

Bain, Mark B., D.L. Peterson, K. K. Arend. 1998b. Population status of shortnose sturgeon in 

the Hudson River: Final Report. Prepared for Habitat and Protected Resources Division 

National Marine Fisheries Service by New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 

Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K. Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sullivan. 2000. Annual 

meeting of American fisheries Society. EPRI-AFS Symposium: Biology, Management and 

Protection of Sturgeon. St. Louis, MO. 23-24 August 2000. 

Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sulivan. 2007. 

Recovery of a US Endangered Fish. PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000168 

Balazik, M.T., G.C. Garman, M.L. Fine, C.H. Hager, and S.P. McIninch. 2010. Changes in age 

composition and growth characteristics of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) over 400 years. Biology Letters Online, 17 March 2010. 3 pp. 

Bath, D.W., J.M. O'Conner, J.B. Albert and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and 

identification of larval Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A. 

brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981:711-717. 
142 

Beamesderfer, Raymond C.P. and Ruth A. Farr. 1997. Alternatives for the protection and 

restoration of sturgeons and their habitat. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 407-417. 

Berlin, W.H., R.J. Hesselberg, and M.J. Mac. 1981. Chlorinated hydrocarbons as a factor in the 

reproduction and survival of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in Lake Michigan. Technical 

Paper 105 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 42 pages. 

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 74(53). 577 pp. 

Boreman, J. 1997. Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing mortality. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:399-405. 

Borodin, N. 1925. Biological observations on the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser sturio. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 55:184-190.

Boysen, K. A. and Hoover, J. J. (2009), Swimming performance of juvenile white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus): training and the probability of entrainment due to dredging. 

Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25: 54–59. 

Brown, J.J., and G.W. Murphy. 2010. Atlantic Sturgeon Vessel-Strike Mortalities in the 

Delaware Estuary. Fisheries 35(2):72-83Buckley, J., and B. Kynard. 1981. Spawning and 

rearing of shortnose sturgeon from the Connecticut River. Progressive Fish Culturist 43:74-

76. 

Buckley, J.A. 1974. Acute toxicicy of residual chlorine in wastewater on coho salmon 

(Oncorhvnchus kisucch) and some resultant hemacologic changes. Jour. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. 33: 2854. 

Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Habitat use and behavior of pre-spawing and spawning 

shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Connecticut River. North American 

Sturgeons: 111-117. 

Bushnoe, T.M., J.A. Musick, and D.S. Ha. 2005. Essential spawning and nursery habitat of 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in Virginia. VIMS Special Scientific 

Report 145. 44 pp. 

Calvo, L., H.M. Brundage, D. Haivogel, D. Kreeger, R. Thomas, J.C. O’Herron, and E. Powell. 

2010. Effects of flow dynamics, salinity, and water quality on the Eastern oyster, the 

Atlantic sturgeon, and the shortnose sturgeon in the oligohaline zone of the Delaware 

Estuary. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 108 pp. 

Campbell, J. and Davidson T. 2007. Summary of Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies. 

 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, 

Washington 2007/2008. Available at: 

http://www.kootenai.org/documents/USFWSSummaryforKRProjects8.19.08.pdf
143 

Carlson, D.M., and K.W. Simpson. 1987. Gut contents of juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the 

upper Hudson estuary. Copeia 1987:796-802 

Caron, F., D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2002. Biological characteristics of adult Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the Saint Lawrence River estuary and the effectiveness of 

management rules. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:580-585. 

CHGE. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 

New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft environmental 

impact statement for State pollution discharge elimination system permits for Bowline 

Point1&2, Indian Point 1&2, and Roseton 1&2 Steam electric generating stations. 

Collins, M.R., and T.I.J. Smith. 1997. Distribution of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in South 

Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:995-1000. 

Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the Southern 

Atlantic Coast of the USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 24-29. 

Collins, M.R., S.G. Rogers, T.I.J. Smith, and M.L. Moser. 2000. Primary factors affecting 

sturgeon populations in the southeastern United States: fishing mortality and degradation of 

essential habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:917-928. 

Crance, J.H. 1987. Habitat suitability index curves for anadromous fishes. In: Common 

Strategies of Anadromous and Catadromous Fishes, M.J. Dadswell (ed.). Bethesda, 

Maryland, American Fisheries Society. Symposium 1:554. 

Dadswell, M. 2006. A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to 

populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries 31:218-229. 

Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon, 

Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River 

estuary, New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210. 

Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of 

biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur 1818. NOAA 

Technical Report, NMFS 14, National Marine Fisheries Service. October 1984 45 pp. 

Damon-Randall, K. 2012a. Composition of Atlantic Sturgeon in Rivers, Estuaries and Marine 

Waters. NMFS NERO Protected Resources Division. Unpublished report. 31 pp. 

Dees, L.T. 1961. Sturgeons. USFWS Fishery Leaflet 526. 8 pp. 

Deslauriers, D. and J.D. Kieffer (2012). Swimming performance and behaviour of young-of-the 

year shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) under fixed and increased velocity tests. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90: 345-351. 
144 

Deslauriers, D. and J.D. Kieffer (2012). The effects of temperature on swimming performance of 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). J. Applied Ichthyology 28: 176–181. 

DFO (Division of Fisheries and Oceans). 2011. Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon 

Maritimes Region Summary Report. U.S. Sturgeon Workshop. Alexandria, Virginia, 8-10 

February 2011. 11 pp. 

Dovel, W.J. 1978. The Biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons of the 

Hudson River. Performance report for the period April 1, to September 30, 1978. Submitted 

to N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Dovel, W.J. 1979. Biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson 

River. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, AFS9-R, Albany. 

Dovel, W.L. 1981. The Endangered shortnose sturgeon of the Hudson Estuary: Its life history 

and vulnerability to the activities of man. The Oceanic Society. FERC Contract No. DE-AC 

39-79 RC-10074. 

Dovel, W.L., and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River estuary, New 

York. New York Fish and Game Journal 30:140-172. 

Dovel, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch, and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur 1818) in the Hudson River estuary, New York. Pages 187-

216 in C.L. Smith (editor). Estuarine research in the 1980s. State University of New York 

Press, Albany, New York. 

Dunton, K.J., A. Jordaan, K.A. McKown, D.O. Conover, and M.J. Frisk. 2010. Abundance and 

distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) within the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean, determined from five fishery-independent surveys. Fishery Bulletin 

108:450-465. 

Dwyer, F. James, Douglas K. Hardesty, Christopher G. Ingersoll, James L. Kunz, and David W. 

Whites. 2000. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, and 

shortnose sturgeon. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey. Columbia Environmental 

Research Center, 4200 New Have Road, Columbia, Missouri. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. “Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License 

Renewal Application.” April 23, 2007. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. “Applicant’s Environment Report,

 Operating License Renewal Stage.” (Appendix E to “Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License 

Renewal Application”.) April 23, 2007. 

 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian Point 

 Energy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear 

Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3, 2007. 
145 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012. Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon 

impingement at IPEC Units 2 and 3: Review of Historical Data, Projections of Impingement, 

and Assessment of the Condition of Impinged Sturgeon Upon Arrival at IPEC. Prepared by 

AKRF, Inc., Normandeau Associates Inc., ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc., and 

LWB Environmental Services, Inc. July 23, 2012. 

ERC, Inc. (Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc.). 2002. Contaminant analysis of tissues 

from two shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) collected in the Delaware River. 

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

ERC, Inc. (Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc.). 2007. Preliminary acoustic tracking 

study of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River. May 2006 

through March 2007. Prepared for NOAA Fisheries. 9 pp. 

Erickson, D.L., A. Kahnle, M.J. Millard, E.A Mora, M. Bryja, A. Higgs, J. Mohler, M. DuFour, 

G. Kenney, J. Sweka, and E.K. Pikitch. 2011. Use of pop-up satellite archival tags to 

identify oceanic-migratory patterns for adult Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus Mitchell, 1815. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27:356-365. 

Eyler, Sheila M., Jorgen E. Skjeveland, Michael F. Mangold, and Stuart A. Welsh. 2000. 

Distribution of Sturgeons in Candidate Open Water Dredged Material Placement Sites in the 

Potomac River (1998-2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. 26 pp. 

Eyler, S., M. Mangold, and S. Minkkinen. 2004. Atlantic coast sturgeon tagging database. 

Summary Report prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maryland Fishery Resource 

Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 51 pp. 

Fernandes, S.J. 2008. Population demography, distribution, and movement patterns of Atlantic 

and shortnose sturgeons in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine. University of Maine. 

Masters thesis. 88 pp. 

Fernandes, S.J., G. Zydlewski, J.D. Zydlewski, G.S. Wippelhauser, and M.T. Kinnison. 2010. 

Seasonal distribution and movements of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the 

Penobscot River Estuary, Maine. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

139(5):1436-1449. 

Fisher, M. 2009. Atlantic Sturgeon Progress Report. State Wildlife Grant Project T-4-1. 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control. Smyrna, Delaware. 24 pp. 

Fisher, M. 2011. Atlantic Sturgeon Final Report. State Wildlife Grant Project T-4-1. Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 

Smyrna, Delaware. 44 pp. 

Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: water intake systems. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 393-415. 
146 

Flournoy, P.H., S.G. Rogers, and P.S. Crawford. 1992. Restoration of shortnose sturgeon in the 

Altamaha River, Georgia. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, 

Georgia. 

Geoghegan, P., M.T. Mattson and R.G Keppel. 1992. Distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the 

Hudson River, 1984-1988. IN Estuarine Research in the 1980s, C. Lavett Smith, Editor. 

Hudson River Environmental Society, Seventh symposium on Hudson River ecology. State 

University of New York Press, Albany NY, USA. 

Giesy, J.P., J. Newsted, and D.L. Garling. 1986. Relationships between chlorinated hydrocarbon 

concentrations and rearing mortality of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) eggs 

from Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12(1):82-98. 

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. United States Department of Interior 

Biological Report 82, 28 pages. 

Greene CH, Pershing AJ, Cronin TM and Ceci N. 2008. Arctic climate change and its impacts on 

the ecology of the North Atlantic. Ecology 89:S24-S38. 

Grunwald, C., J. Stabile, J.R. Waldman, R. Gross, and I. Wirgin. 2002. Population genetics of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) based on mitochondrial DNA control region 

sequences. Molecular Ecology 11: 000-000. 

Guilbard, F., J. Munro, P. Dumont, D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2007. Feeding ecology of Atlantic 

sturgeon and lake sturgeon co-occurring in the St. Lawrence Estuarine Transition Zone. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:85-104. 

Hansen, P.D. 1985. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and hatching success in Baltic herring spring 

spawners. Marine Environmental Research 15:59-76. 

Haley, N. 1996. Juvenile sturgeon use in the Hudson River Estuary. Master’s thesis. University 

of Massachusetts, Amhearst, MA, USA. 

Haley, N.J. 1999. Habitat characteristics and resource use patterns of sympatric sturgeons in the 

Hudson River estuary. Master’s thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

Hall, W.J., T.I.J. Smith, and S.D. Lamprecht. 1991. Movements and habitats of shortnose 

sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum in the Savannah River. Copeia (3):695-702. 

Hastings, R.W. 1983. A study of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) population in 

the upper tidal Delaware River: Assessment of impacts of maintenance dredging. Final 

Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 129 pp. 

Hatin, D., R. Fortin, and F. Caron. 2002. Movements and aggregation areas of adult Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the Saint Lawrence River estuary, Quebec, Canada. 

Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:586-594. 
147 

Heidt, A.R., and R.J. Gilbert. 1978. The shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River drainage, 

Georgia. Pages 54-60 in R.R. Odum and L. Landers, editors. Proceedings of the rare and 

endangered wildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish 

Division, Technical Bulletin WL 4, Athens, Georgia. 

Hildebrand, S.F., and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institute Press. 

Holland, B.F., Jr. and G.F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous 

fishes offshore North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic 

Resources, Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries, Morehead City. Special Scientific 

Report 24:1-132. 

Holton, J.W., Jr., and J.B. Walsh. 1995. Long-Term Dredged Material Management Plan for the 

Upper James River, Virginia. Virginia Beach, Waterway Surveys and Engineering, Limited. 

94 pp. 

Hoover, J. J., Boysen, K. A., Beard, J. A. and Smith, H. (2011), Assessing the risk of 

entrainment by cutterhead dredges to juvenile lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and 

juvenile pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 27: 369–

375. 

Hulme, P.E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in 

the face of global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 617-627.IPCC (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Valencia, Spain. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In S. 

Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. 

Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, 

New York, USA. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the IPCC. IPCC, Geneva. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Climate Change 2007 - The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the IPCC. IPCC, Geneva. 

Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose 

sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations. Proceedings of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

Johnson, J.H., D.S. Dropkin, B.E. Warkentine, J.W. Rachlin, and W.D. Andres. 1997. Food 
148 

habits of Atlantic sturgeon off the New Jersey coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 126:166-170. 

Kahnle, A.W., K.A. Hattala, and K.A. McKown. 2007. Status of Atlantic sturgeon of the 

Hudson River Estuary, New York, USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:347-

363. 

Kieffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in 

the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1221: 

1088-1103. 

Kieffer, M., and B. Kynard. 1996. Spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the Merrimack River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:179-186. 

Kocan, R.M., M.B. Matta, and S. Salazar. 1993. A laboratory evaluation of Connecticut River 

coal tar toxicity to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) embryos and larvae. Final 

Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington. 

Kynard, B. 1996. Twenty-one years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on the 

Connecticut River: what has been learned? Draft report by National Biological Service, Conte 

Anadromous Fish Research Center, Turners Falls, MA. 19 pp. 

Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, 

Acipenser brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:319–334. 

Kynard, B., and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic sturgeon 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on 

social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63:137-150. 

Kynard, B., D. Pugh and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for 

shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, 

MA. 

Kynard, B., P. Bronzi and H. Rosenthal, eds. Life History and Behaviour of Connecticut River 

Shortnose and Other Sturgeons. Special Publication 4 of the World Sturgeon Conservation 

Society. Chapter 3, Kieffer, M. C., and B. Kynard. Spawning and non-spawning spring 

migrations, spawning, and effects of hydroelectric dam operation and river regulation on 

spawning of Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon. 

Laney, R.W., J.E. Hightower, B.R. Versak, M. F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr., and S.E. Winslow. 

2007. Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during cooperative 

winter tagging cruise, 1988-2006. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:167-182. 

Leland, J.G., III. 1968. A survey of the sturgeon fishery of South Carolina. Bears Bluff Labs, 

No. 47. 27 pp. 
149 

Lichter, J., H. Caron, T.S. Pasakarnis, S.L. Rodgers, T.S. Squiers Jr., and C.S. Todd. 2006. The 

ecological collapse and partial recovery of a freshwater tidal ecosystem. Northeastern 

Naturalist 13:153-178. 

Longwell, A.C., S. Chang, A. Hebert, J. Hughes and D. Perry. 1992. Pollution and 

developmental abnormalities of Atlantic fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 35:1- 21. 

Mac, M.J., and C.C. Edsall. 1991. Environmental contaminants and the reproductive success of 

lake trout in the Great Lakes: An epidemiological approach. Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health 33:375-394. 

Mangin, E. 1964. Croissance en Longueur de Trois Esturgeons d'Amerique du Nord: Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus, Mitchill, Acipenser fulvescens, Rafinesque, et Acipenser brevirostris LeSueur. 

Verh. Int. Ver. Limnology 15:968-974. 

Mayfield RB, Cech JJ Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green sturgeon bioenergetics. Trans Am 

Fish Soc 133:961–970

McCord, J.W., M.R. Collins, W.C. Post, and T.I.J. Smith. 2007. Attempts to Develop an Index 

of Abundance for Age-1 Atlantic Sturgeon in South Carolina, USA. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 56:397-403. 

Mohler, J.W. 2003. Culture Manual for the Atlantic sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Hadley, Massachusetts. 70 pp. 

Morgan, R.P., V.J. Rasin and L.A. Noe. 1973. Effects of Suspended Sediments on the 

Development of Eggs and Larvae of Striped Bass and White Perch. Natural resources 

Institute, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, U of Maryland, Center for Environmental and 

Estuarine Studies. 20 pp. 

Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 124:225-234. 

Munro, J, R.E. Edwards, and A.W. Kahnle. 2007. Summary and synthesis. Pages 1-15 in J. 

Munro, D. Hatin, J.E. Hightower, K. McKown, K.J. Sulak, A.W. Kahnle, and F. Caron, eds. 

Anadromous sturgeons: habitats, threats, and management. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 56. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Murawski, S.A., and A.L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Series 

Report 10:1-69. 

Murdoch, P. S., J. S. Baron, and T. L. Miller. 2000. Potential effects of climate change on 

surface-water quality in North America. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 36: 347–366. 
150 

Musick, J.A., R.E. Jenkins, and N.B. Burkhead. 1994. Sturgeons, family Acipenseridae. Pages 

183-190 in R.E. Jenkins and N.B. Burkhead, eds. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. Bethesda, 

Maryland: American Fisheries Society. 

NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team). 2000. Climate Change Impacts on the United 

States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/1IntroA.pdf

Niklitschek, J. E. 2001. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum) in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, College Park. 

Niklitschek E.J., and D.H. Secor. 2005. Modeling spatial and temporal variation of suitable 

nursery habitats for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science 64:135-148. 

Niklitschek, E.J., and D.H. Secor. 2010. Experimental and field evidence of behavioural habitat 

selection by juvenile Atlantic Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus and shortnose Acipenser 

brevirostrum sturgeons. Journal of Fish Biology 77(6):1293-1308. 

NMFS, 1996. Status Review of shortnose sturgeon in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers. 

Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished report. 26 pp. 

NMFS. 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by 

the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, Maryland 104 pp. 

NMFS NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2011a. Summary of Discard Estimates for 

Atlantic Sturgeon. Draft working paper prepared by T. Miller and G. Shepard, Population 

Dynamics Branch. August 19, 2011. 

NOAA. 1979. Testimony of Dr. Dadswell. May 14, 1979. Docket C/II-WP-77-01. 

NRC 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. 

Supplement 38 – Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

NRC 2009. Biological Assessment to NMFS for Indian Point relicensing. Unpublished report 

transmitted to NMFS. 

NRC 2010b. Revised Biological Assessment to NMFS for Indian Point relicensing. December 

2010. 

NRC 2011. Supplement to Biological Assessment to NMFS for Indian Point relicensing. 

NYHS (New York Historical Society as cited by Dovel as Mitchell. S. 1811). 1809. Volume1. 

Collections of the New-York Historical Society for the year 1809. 
151 

NYDEC. 1982. State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Final Permit for Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Station. 

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2003. "Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 and 2 Bowline 1 

and 2 and IP2 and IP3 2 and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and 

Westchester Counties" (Hudson River Power Plants FEIS). June 25, 2003. 

NYDEC. 2010. Letter from W. Adriance to D. Grey, Entergy. Denial of 401 WQC. April 2, 

2010. 

Niklitschek, J. E. 2001. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum) in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, College Park. 

Oakley, N.C. 2003. Status of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Neuse River, 

North Carolina. Master’s thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

O’Herron, J.C., K.W. Able, and R.W. Hastings. 1993. Movements of shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Delaware River. Estuaries 16:235-240. 

Palmer M.A., C.A. Reidy, C. Nilsson, M. Florke, J. Alcamo, P.S. Lake, and N. Bond. 2008. 

Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 6:81-89. 

Parker E. 2007. Ontogeny and life history of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum 

lesueur 1818): effects of latitudinal variation and water temperature. Ph.D. Dissertation. 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 62 pp. 

Pekovitch, A.W. 1979. Distribution and some life history aspects of shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) in the upper Hudson River Estuary. Hazleton Environmental 

Sciences Corporation. 67 pp. 

Pikitch, E.K., P. Doukakis, L. Lauck, P. Chakrabarty and D.L. Erickson. 2005. Status, trends 

and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6:233-265. 

Pisces Conservation Ltd. 2008. The status of fish populations and ecology of the Hudson River. 

Prepared by R.M. Seaby and P.A. Henderson. http://www.riverkeeper.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/Status-of-Fish-in-the-Hudson-Pisces.pdf 

Pyzik, L., J. Caddick, and P. Marx. 2004. Chesapeake Bay: introduction to an ecosystem. 

Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA Publication 903-R-04-003. Annapolis, Maryland. 

Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1994. Occurrence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) in the Ogeechee-Canoochee river system, Georgia during the summer of 1993. 
152 

Final Report of the United States Army to the Nature Conservancy of Georgia. 

Rogers, S.G., and W. Weber. 1995a. Movements of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River 

system, Georgia. Contributions Series #57. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources, Brunswick, Georgia. 

Rogers, S.G., and W. Weber. 1995b. Status and restoration of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons 

in Georgia. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional 

Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

Ruelle, R., and K.D. Keenlyne. 1993. Contaminants in Missouri River pallid sturgeon. Bull. 

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 50: 898-906. 

Ruelle, R. and C. Henry. 1994. Life history observations and contaminant evaluation of pallid 

sturgeon. Final Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, 

South Dakota Field Office, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, South Dakota 

57501-5408. 

Savoy, T. 2007. Prey eaten by Atlantic sturgeon in Connecticut waters. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 56:157-165. 

Savoy, T., and D. Pacileo. 2003. Movements and habitats of subadult Atlantic sturgeon in 

Connecticut waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:1-8. 

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board 

of Canada Bulletin 184. 966 pp. 

Scott, W.B., and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. University of Toronto Press, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Secor, D.H., and J.R. Waldman. 1999. Historical abundance of Delaware Bay Atlantic sturgeon 

and potential rate of recovery. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23:203-216. 

Secor, D.H. 2002. Atlantic sturgeon fisheries and stock abundances during the late nineteenth 

century. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28:89-98. 

Sherk, J.A. J.M. O’Connor and D.A. Neumann. 1975. Effects of suspended and deposited 

sediments on estuarine environments. In: Estuarine Research Vol. II. Geology and 

Engineering. L.E. Cronin (editor). New York: Academic Press, Inc. 

Shirey, C.A., C.C. Martin, and E.J. Stetzar. 1999. Atlantic sturgeon abundance and movement 

in the lower Delaware River. Final Report. NOAA Project No. AGC-9N, Grant No. 

A86FAO315. Dover: Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Skjeveland, Jorgen E., Stuart A. Welsh, Michael F. Mangold, Sheila M. Eyler, and Seaberry 
153 

Nachbar. 2000. A Report of Investigations and Research on Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon 

in Maryland Waters of the Chesapeake bay (1996-2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Annapolis, MD. 44 pp. 

Smith, Hugh M. and Barton A. Bean. 1899. List of fishes known to inhabit the waters of the 

District of Columbia and vicinity. Prepared for the United States Fish Commission. 

Washington Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1):61-72. 

Smith, T.I.J., and J.P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:335-346. 

Smith, T.I.J., E.K. Dingley, and E.E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of 

Atlantic sturgeon. Progressive Fish Culturist 42:147-151. 

Smith, T.I.J., D.E. Marchette, and R.A. Smiley. 1982. Life history, ecology, culture and 

management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus, Mitchill, in South 

Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department. Final Report to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Project AFS-9. 75 pp. 

Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and identification of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon larvae. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 5:7-30. 

Spells, A. 1998. Atlantic sturgeon population evaluation utilizing a fishery dependent reward 

program in Virginia’s major western shore tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Charles City, Virginia. 

Squiers, T. 2004. State of Maine 2004 Atlantic sturgeon compliance report to the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, D.C. December 22, 2004. 

Squiers, T.S., and M. Smith. 1979. Distribution and abundance of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Kennebec River estuary. Maine Department of Marine Resources, 

Completion Report, Project AFC-19. Augusta, Maine. 

Squiers, T., L. Flagg, and M. Smith. 1982. American shad enhancement and status of sturgeon 

stocks in selected Maine waters. Completion report, Project AFC-20. 

Squiers, T. And M. Robillard. 1997. Preliminary report on the location of overwintering sites 

for shortnose sturgeon in the estuarial complex of the Kennebec River during the winter of 

1996/1997. Unpublished report, submitted to the Maine Department of Transportation. 

Stein, A.B., K.D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004. Atlantic sturgeon marine bycatch and 

mortality on the continental shelf of the Northeast United States. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 24:171-183. 
154 

Stevenson, J.T., and D.H. Secor. 1999. Age determination and growth of Hudson River Atlantic 

sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus. Fishery Bulletin 97:153-166. 

Swanson, C., D. Crowley, Y. Kim, N. Cohn, and D. Mendelsohn. 2011a. Part 2 of Response to 

the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analyis of the Cooling 

Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy 

Center, Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML 11189A026. Available URL: 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html. 

Swanson, C., D. Mendelsohn, N. Cohn, D. Crowley, Y. Kim, L Decker, and L Miller. 2011 b. 

Final Report: 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge 

from the Indian Point Entergy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, 

New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML 11189A026. Available URL: 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html. 

Sweka, J.A., J. Mohler, M.J. Millard, T. Kehler, A. Kahnle, K. Hattala, G. Kenney, and A. 

Higgs. 2007. Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon habitat use in Newburgh and Haverstraw bays of 

the Hudson River: Implications for population monitoring. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 27:1058-1067. 

Taub, S.H. 1990. Interstate fishery management plan for Atlantic sturgeon. Fisheries 

Management Report No. 17. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, 

D.C. 73 pp. 

Taubert, B.D. 1980b. Biology of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Holyoke 

Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, 136 p. 

Taubert, B.D., and M.J. Dadswell. 1980. Description of some larval shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) from the Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA, 

and the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 58:1125-

1128. 

Uhler, P.R. and O. Lugger. 1876. List of fishes of Maryland. Rept. Comm. Fish. MD. 1876: 67-

176. 

USDOI (United States Department of Interior). 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. 

Shortnose sturgeon. Office of Endangered Species and International Activities, Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. Resource Publication 114 (Revised 

Resource Publication 34). 

Van den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of 

coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Atlantic): Atlantic sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS 82(11.25). 17 pp. 
155 

Van Eenennaam, J.P., and S.I. Doroshov. 1998. Effects of age and body size on gonadal 

development of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Fish Biology 53:624-637. 

Van Eenennaam, J.P., S.I. Doroshov, G.P. Moberg, J.G. Watson, D.S. Moore, and J. Linares. 

1996. Reproductive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) in the 

Hudson River. Estuaries 19:769-777. 

Varanasi, U. 1992. Chemical contaminants and their effects on living marine resources. pp. 59- 

71. in: R. H. Stroud (ed.) Stemming the Tide of Coastqal Fish Habitat Loss. Proceedings of 

the Symposium on Conservation of Fish Habitat, Baltimore, Maryland. Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Number 14. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah Georgia. 

Vinyard, L. and W.J. O’Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845-2849. 

Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidea. Pages 24-60 in Fishes of the 

Western North Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1(Part III). xxi + 

630 pp. 

Von Westernhagen, H., H. Rosenthal, V. Dethlefsen, W. Ernst, U. Harms, and P.D. Hansen. 

1981. Bioaccumulating substances and reproductive success in Baltic flounder Platichthys 

flesus. Aquatic Toxicology 1:85-99. 

Wehrell, S. 2005. A survey of the groundfish caught by the summer trawl fishery in Minas 

Basin and Scots Bay. Honours Thesis. Acadia University, Wolfville, Canada. 

Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Rangewide population structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence 

analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21. 

Waldman, J.R., J.T. Hart, and I.I. Wirgin. 1996. Stock composition of the New York Bight 

Atlantic sturgeon fishery based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 125:364-371. 

Waldman JR, Grunwald C, Stabile J, Wirgin I. 2002. Impacts of life history and biogeography on 

genetic stock structure in Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon 

A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon, A.brevirostrum. J Appl Ichthyol 18:509-518 

Walsh, M.G., M.B. Bain, T. Squires, J.R. Walman, and Isaac Wirgin. 2001. Morphological and 

genetic variation among shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum from adjacent and 

distant rivers. Estuaries Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 41-48. February 2001. 

Waters, Thomas F. 1995. Sediment in Streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pages 95-96. 

Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 
156 

brevirostrum, in the Ogeechee River sytem, Georgia. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, 

Athens, Georgia. 

Welsh, Stuart A., Michael F. Mangold, Jorgen E. Skjeveland, and Albert J. Spells. 2002. 

Distribution and Movement of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Vol. 25 No. 1: 101-104. 

Wilber, Dara H. and Douglas C. Clarke. 2001. Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A 

review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging 

activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Woodland, R. J. 2005. Age, 

growth, and recruitment of Hudson River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). 

Master’s thesis. University of Maryland, College Park.

Wirgin, I., and T. King. 2011. Mixed stock analysis of Atlantic sturgeon from coastal locales 

and a non-spawning river. Presented at February 2011 Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon 

workshop. 

Wirgin, I., J. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and J. Waldman. 2007. Genetic evidence for relict Atlantic 

sturgeon stocks along the Mid-Atlantic coast of the USA. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 27:1214-1229. 

Wirgin, I., L. Maceda, J.R. Waldman, S. Wehrell, M. Dadswell, and T. King. In Prep. Stock 

origin of migratory Atlantic sturgeon in the Minas Basin, Inner Bay of Fundy, Canada, 

determined by microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA analyses. 

Woodland, R.J. and D. H. Secor. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered 

shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transaction of the American Fisheries 

Society 136:72-81. 

Young, J.R., T.B. Hoff, W.P. Dey, and J.G. Hoff. 1988. Management recommendations for a 

Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon fishery based on an age-structured population model. Pages 

353-365 in C.L. Smith, ed. Fisheries Research in the Hudson River. Albany: State 

University of New York Press. 

Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, and D.L. Peterson. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile 

shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3: 

299-307. 

Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, D.L. Peterson and M.C. Black. 2008b. Effects of salinity, 

temperature, and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 137:1490-1499. 
Figure 1
l?i

--d

i?'

L-l

I

I

l+¡rlrbrd'

I

I

I

North Atlantic

Oce an

Figure 2

Location of Indian Point, View 2 
$ 

d,R

lõ IhIõ

+¡oq

r $'

\o

Ei 4þs

É¡oo&64

r{l6i

ê6

à,'

a_-

4&ÉoèÉÈotË

¡{

fir ¡

lc

¡þ I

rb&s!tIF

!l

t¿

bt a

4Jã

êë

(r)E3

ùr ghüû

å

13& I 4AGc

¡h

$h

r{ño

?lT

ftü

ln I

l¿hq

¡d

Ët ô

t¡l

,È

Figure 

3
APPENDIX II 

Incident Report Sturgeon Take – Indian Point

Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all sturgeon (alive 

and dead) found in association with the Indian Point intakes. Please submit all necropsy results 

(including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt. 

Observer's full name:_______________________________________________________ 

Reporter’s full name:_______________________________________________________

Species Identification :__________________________________________ 

Site of Impingement (Unit 2 or 3, CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):_________________________________ 

Date animal observed:________________ Time animal observed: ________________________ 

Date animal collected:________________ Time animal collected:_________________________ 

Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather): 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Date and time of last inspection of intakes:_____________________________________ 

Water temperature (°C) at site and time of observation:_________________________ 

Number of pumps operating at time of observation:____________________________________ 

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:________ 

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours previous to 

observation:___________________________________________________________________ 

Sturgeon Information: 

Species _________________________________ 

 Fork length (or total length) _____________________ Weight ______________________ 

Condition of specimen/description of animal 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Fish Decomposed: NO SLIGHTLY MODERATELY SEVERELY 

Fish tagged: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers. Tag # ________________ 

Photograph attached: YES / NO 

(please label species, date, geographic site and vessel name on back of photograph) 
Appendix II, continued 

Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and briefly describe below 

Description of fish condition: 
STURGEON SALVAGE FORM 

For use in documenting dead sturgeon in the wild under ESA permit no. 1614 (version 05-16-2012) 

Comments: 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LOCATION FOUND: Offshore (Atlantic or Gulf beach) Inshore (bay, river, sound, inlet, etc)

River/Body of Water_________________ City_________________________ State ____ 

Descriptive location (be specific)_______________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Latitude _______________N (Dec. Degrees) Longitude _______________ W (Dec. Degrees)

SPECIES: (check one) 

 shortnose sturgeon 

 Atlantic sturgeon 

 Unidentified Acipenser species 

Check “Unidentified” if uncertain . 

See reverse side of this form for 

aid in identification.

TAGS PRESENT? Examined for external tags including fin clips? Yes No Scanned for PIT tags? Yes No 

Tag # Tag Type Location of tag on carcass 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________ 

SEX: 

 Undetermined 

 Female Male 

How was sex determined? 

 Necropsy 

 Eggs/milt present when pressed 

 Borescope 

MEASUREMENTS: circle unit 

Fork length _________ cm / in 

Total length _________ cm / in 

Length actual estimate 

Mouth width (inside lips, see reverse side) _________ cm / in 

Interorbital width (see reverse side) _________ cm / in 

Weight actual estimate _________ kg / lb 

CARCASS CONDITION at 

time examined: (check one) 

 1 = Fresh dead 

 2 = Moderately decomposed 

 3 = Severely decomposed 

 4 = Dried carcass 

 5 = Skeletal, scutes & cartilage 

Carcass Necropsied? 

Yes No 

Date Necropsied:_____________ 

Necropsy Lead: 

________________________ 

CARCASS DISPOSITION: (check one or more) 

1 = Left where found 

2 = Buried 

3 = Collected for necropsy/salvage 

4 = Frozen for later examination 

5 = Other (describe) ___________________________ 

SAMPLES COLLECTED? Yes No 

Sample How preserved Disposition (person, affiliation, use) 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

________________________ ____________________________ _________________________________________ 

UNIQUE IDENTIFIER (Assigned by NMFS) 

DATE REPORTED: 

Month Day Year 20

DATE EXAMINED: 

Month Day Year 20

INVESTIGATORS’S CONTACT INFORMATION 

Name: First _________________ Last _________________________ 

Agency Affiliation _________________ Email________________________ 

Address _______________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

Area code/Phone number __________________________________________ 

PHOTODOCUMENTATION: 

Photos/vide taken? Yes No 

Disposition of Photos/Video:___________ 

_____________________________ 

_____________________________
Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon (version 07-20-2009)

Characteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum

Maximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm 4 feet/ 122 cm 

Mouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of 

bony interorbital width 

Wide and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% of 

bony interorbital width 

*Pre-anal plates Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 

anal fin. 

1-3 pre-anal plates almost always occurring as median 

structures (occurring singly) 

Plates along the 

anal fin 

Rhombic, bony plates found along the lateral base of 

the anal fin (see diagram below) 

No plates along the base of anal fin 

Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a 

marine existence 

Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in fresh 

water but does make some coastal migrations 

Describe any wounds / abnormalities (note tar or oil, gear or debris entanglement, propeller damage, etc.). Please note if no 

wounds / abnormalities are found.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Submit completed forms (within 30 days of date of investigation) to: Northeast Region Contacts – Shortnose 

Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator (Jessica Pruden, Jessica.Pruden@noaa.gov, 978-282-8482) or Atlantic Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator 

(Lynn Lankshear, Lynn.Lankshear@noaa.gov, 978-282-8473); Southeast Region Contacts- Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator 

(Stephania Bolden, Stephania.Bolden@noaa.gov, 727-824-5312) or Atlantic Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator (Kelly Shotts, 

Kelly.Shotts@noaa.gov, 727-551-5603). 

* From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004 

Data Access Policy: Upon written request, information submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) on this form 

will be released to the requestor provided that the requestor credit the collector of the information and NOAA Fisheries. NOAA

Fisheries will notify the collector that these data have been requested and the intent of their use. 
APPENDIX IV 

Procedure for obtaining fin clips from sturgeon for genetic analysis 

Obtaining Sample 

1. Wash hands and use disposable gloves. Ensure that any knife, scalpel or scissors 

used for sampling has been thoroughly cleaned and wiped with alcohol to minimize 

the risk of contamination. 

2. For any sturgeon, after the specimen has been measured and photographed, take a 

one-cm square clip from the pelvic fin. 

3. Each fin clip should be placed into a vial of 95% non-denatured ethanol and the vial 

should be labeled with the species name, date, name of project and the fork length 

and total length of the fish along with a note identifying the fish to the appropriate 

observer report. All vials should be sealed with a lid and further secured with tape 

Please use permanent marker and cover any markings with tape to minimize the 

chance of smearing or erasure. 

Storage of Sample 

1. If possible, place the vial on ice for the first 24 hours. If ice is not available, please 

refrigerate the vial. Send as soon as possible as instructed below. 

Sending of Sample 

1. Vials should be placed into Ziploc or similar resealable plastic bags. Vials should be 

then wrapped in bubble wrap or newspaper (to prevent breakage) and sent to: 

Julie Carter 

NOAA/NOS – Marine Forensics 

219 Fort Johnson Road 

Charleston, SC 29412-9110 

Phone: 843-762-8547 

a. Prior to sending the sample, contact Russ Bohl at NMFS Northeast Regional 

Office (978-282-8493) to report that a sample is being sent and to discuss 

proper shipping procedures. 
APPENDIX V 

Identification Key for Sturgeon Found in Northeast U.S. Waters 

Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon 

Characteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum

Maximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm 4 feet/ 122 cm

Mouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of 

bony interorbital width

Wide and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% of 

bony interorbital width

*Pre-anal plates Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 

anal fin. 

1-3 pre-anal plates almost always occurring as median 

structures (occurring singly) 

Plates along the 

anal fin

Rhombic, bony plates found along the lateral base of 

the anal fin (see diagram below)

No plates along the base of anal fin

Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a 

marine existence

Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in fresh 

water but does make some coastal migrations

* From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004