# HUDSON GENERATING STATION

316(b) STUDY REPORT

2009

- 2011

P repared f

or:

PSEG Fossil LLC

80 Park Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Prepared b y:

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

5 Fairlawn Drive, Suite 205

PO Box 57

Washingtonville, New York 10992

June 2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### i TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

1. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1

- 1

2. STATION DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

................................ ............................ 2

- 1

2.1 INTAKE STRUCTURE

................................ ................................ ............................ 2

- 1

2.2 STATION OPERATION

................................ ................................ .......................... 2

- 2

3. WATERBODY DESCRIPTIO N

................................ ................................ ...................... 3

- 1

3.1 PHYSICAL FEATURES

................................ ................................ .......................... 3

- 1

3.2 AQUATIC HABITAT

................................ ................................ ............................... 3

- 2

3.3 WATER AND SEDIMENT Q UALITY

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 3

3.3.1 Water Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 3

3.3.2 Sediment Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 5

4. FISH COMMUNITY

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 1

4.1 HISTORICAL COMMUNITY

................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 1

4.2 RECENT CHANGES

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

- 1

4.3 2009

- 2010 TRAWL AND ICHTH YOPLANKTON SURVEYS

............................ 4

- 4

4.3.1 Bottom Trawling Methods

................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 4

4.3.2 Bottom Trawling Results

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 5

4.3.3 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Methods

................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 5

4.3.4 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Results

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 6

5. ENTRAINMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 1

5.1 METHODS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5

- 1

5.1.1 Sampling Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 1

5.1.2 Sampling Gear and Methods

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 1

5.1.3 Sample Processing

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 2

5.1.4 QA/QC

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5

- 3

5.2 RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 3

5.2.1 Species and Life Stage Composition

................................ ................................ ....... 5

- 3

5.2.2 Temporal Patterns

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 4

5.2.3 Comparison to 1996

- 1997 Entrainment Study

................................ ........................ 5

- 5

6. IMPINGEMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6

- 1

6.1 METHODS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6

- 1

6.1.1 Sampling Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6

- 1

6.1.2 Sampling Gear and Methods

................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 1

6.1.3 Sample Processing

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6

- 2HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### ii 6.1.4 QA/QC

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 6

- 3

6.2 RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6

- 3

6.2.1 Species Composition

................................ ................................ ................................ 6

- 3

6.2.2 Seasonal Patterns

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

- 4

6.2.3 Comparison to 1996

- 1997 Impingement Study

................................ ....................... 6

- 5

7. IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL

................................ ................................ .......................... 7

- 1

7.1 METHODS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7

- 1

7.2 OVERALL IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL

................................ ............................. 7

- 2

7.3 FACTORS AFFECTING SU RVIVAL

................................ ................................ .... 7

- 2

8. ANNUAL DIRECT LOSSES

................................ ................................ ............................ 8

- 1

8.1 METHODS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8

- 1

8.2 RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 8

- 3

8.2.1 Entrainment

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8

- 3

8.2.2 Impingement

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8

- 3

8.3 COMPARISON OF 1996

- 1997 AND 2009

- 2011 RESULTS

................................ .. 8

- 4

9. HUDSON UNIT 1

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 9

- 1

9.1 LONG

- TERM VIABILITY OF UN IT 1

................................ ................................ . 9

- 1

9.2 PROPOSED 316( b ) RULE

................................ ................................ ........................ 9

- 1

9.3 CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9

- 2

10. LITERATURE CITED

................................ ................................ ............................... 10

- 1

APPENDIX A

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ A

- 1

APPENDIX B

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ B

- 1

APPENDIX C

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ C

- 1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### iii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2

- 1. Location Map for Hudson Generating Station

................................ ........................ 2

- 4

Figure 2

- 2. Aerial View of Hudson Generating Station

................................ ............................. 2

- 5

Figure 2

- 3. Intake Structure of Hudson Generating Station

................................ ....................... 2

- 6

Figure 2

- 4. Intake and Discharge Water Temperatures and Total Daily Cooling Water Flow for

Unit 1, January 2009

– January 2011

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 7

Figure 2

- 5. Intake and Discharge Water Temperatures and Total Daily Cooling Water Flow for

Unit 2, January 2009

– January 2011

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 8

Figure 4

- 1. Bottom Trawl and Ichthyoplankton Sampling Stations

................................ ........... 4

- 7

Figure 4

- 2. Total Annual Bottom Trawl Catch by Sampling Station, 2010 and 2011

............... 4

- 8

Figure 4

- 3. Total Monthly Bottom Trawl Catch by Sampling Station, 2009 and 2010

............. 4

- 9

Figure 4

- 4. Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density, 2009 and 2010

................................ . 4

- 10

Figure 4

- 5. Average Seasonal Ichthyoplankton Density at Five Sampling Stations, 2009 and

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4

- 11

Figure 5

- 1. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for All Species Combined

, 2009

- 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 6

Figure 5

- 2. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for All Species Combined,

2010

- 2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 7

Figure 5

- 3. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Bay Anchovy, 2009

- 2010 5

-

8

Figure 5

- 4. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Bay Anchovy, 2010

- 2011 5

-

9

Figu re 5

- 5. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Croaker, 2009

-

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 10

Figure 5

- 6. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Croaker, 2010

-

2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 11

Figure 5

- 7. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Tautog, 2009

- 2010

....... 5

- 12

Figure 5

- 8. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Tautog, 2010

- 2011

....... 5

- 13

Figure 5

- 9. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Menhaden, 2009

-

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 14

Figure 5

- 10. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Menhaden, 2010

-

2011

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 15

Figure 5

- 11. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Naked Goby, 2009

- 2010 5

-

16

Figure 5

- 12. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Naked Goby, 2010

- 2011 5

-

17

Figure 6

- 1. Weekly Impingement Rate for All Fish Species Combined by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ........................ 6

- 6

Figure 6

- 2 Weekly Impingement Rate for White Perch by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and

2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6

- 7

Figure 6

- 3. Length Frequency of Impinged White Perch, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011

(Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6

- 8

Figure 6

- 4. Weekly Impingement Rate for Bay Anchovy by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1)

and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 9HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### iv Figure 6

- 5. Length Frequency of Impinged Bay Anchovy, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011

(Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

- 10

Figure 6

- 6. Weekly Impingement Rate for Spotted Hake by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and

2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 11

Figure 6

- 7. Length Frequency of Imp inged Spotted Hake, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011

(Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

- 12

Figure 6

- 8. Weekly Impingement Rate for Atlantic Silverside by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year

1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 13

Figure 6

- 9. Length Frequency of Impinged Atlantic Silverside, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

- 14

Figure 6

- 10. Weekly Impingement Rate for Blue Crab, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011

(Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

- 15

Figure 6

- 11. Size Frequency (Carapace Width) of Impinged Blue Crab, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and

2010

- 2011 (Year 2)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 16

Figure 6

- 12. Mean Density of Impinged White Perch by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009 and

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

- 17

Figure 6

- 13. Mean Density of Impinged Bay Anchovy by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009 and

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

- 18

Figure 6

- 14. Mean Density of Impinged Spotted Hake by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009 and

2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

- 19

Figure 6

- 15. Mean Density of Impinged Atlantic Silverside by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009

and 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

- 20

Figure 6

- 16. Mean Density of Impinged Blue Crab by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009 and 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 21HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### v LIST OF TABLES

Table 2

- 1. Monthly Mean Cooling Water Flow Rate (MGD) and Percentage of Maximum

Design Generation and Flow Rate for Unit 1, 2007

- 2010

................................ ........................... 2

- 9

Table 2

- 2. Monthly Mean Cooling Water Flow Rate (MGD) and Percentage of Maximum

Design Generation and Flow Rate for Unit 2, 2007

- 2010

................................ ......................... 2

- 10

Table 4

- 1. Fish Species Collected From the Hackensack River (Sources: PSE&G 1998, Bragin

et al. 2005, and Present Study)

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

- 12

Table 4

- 2. Percent Composition of Bottom Trawl Catches in 1971

- 1973, 1986

- 1987, 1996

- 1997,

and 2009

- 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4

- 15

Table 4

- 3 Annual Presence of Ichthyoplankton by Life Stage in the Hackensack River Study

Area for 1972

- 1973, 1986

- 1987, 1996

- 1997, and 2009

- 2010

................................ ................... 4

- 17

Table 4

- 4. Species Composition of Impingement Collections during 1972

- 1973, 1978, 1987

- 1988, and 1996

- 1997

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 19

Table 4

- 5. Presence of Species by Life Stage in Entrainment Collections in 1987

- 1988 and

1996

- 1997

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4

- 22

Table 4

- 6. Gear Specifications for the Bottom Trawl and Ichthyoplankton Net

...................... 4

- 23

Table 4

- 7. Monthly Total Bottom Trawl Catch by Species, 2009

................................ ............ 4

- 24

Table 4

- 8. Monthly Total Bottom Trawl Catch by Species, 2010

................................ ............ 4

- 25

Table 4

- 9. Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) at Five Sampling Stations in

2009

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4

- 26

Table 4

- 10. Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) at Five Sampling Stations

in 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 26

Table 5

- 1. Number of Samples Collected in Entrainment Monitoring at Hudson Generating

Station, January 2009

– January 2011

................................ ................................ ....................... 5

- 18

Table 5

- 2. Overall Numerical Composition of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 26 January 2009

– 18 Januar y 2010

...................... 5

- 19

Table 5

- 3. Overall Numerical Composition of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 25 January 2010

– 17 January 2011

...................... 5

- 20

Table 5

- 4. Average Diel Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) of Selected Species Collected in Entra inment

Monitoring, 26 January 2009

– 18 January 2010

................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 21

Table 5

- 5. Average Diel Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) of Selected Species Collecte d in Entrainment

Monitoring, 25 January 2010

– 17 January 2011

................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 22

Table 6

- 1. Number of Samples Collected in Impingement Monitoring at Hudson Generating

Station, January 2009

– January 2011

................................ ................................ ....................... 6

- 22

Table 6

- 2. Overall Numerical Composition of Fish Species Collected in Impingement

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 26 January 2009

– 18 January 2010

...................... 6

- 23

Table 6

- 3. Overall Numeri cal Composition of Fish Species Collected in Impingement

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 25 January 2010

– 17 January 2011

...................... 6

- 25

Table 7

- 1 Overall Catch and Condition of Fish by Species in the Impingement Survival Study at

the Hudson Generating Station, 2010

- 2011

................................ ................................ ............... 7

- 5

Table 7

- 2 Estimates of Impingement Survival Through 48 hours for Selected Fish Species Based

on Sampling at the Hudson Generating Station, 2009

- 2010

................................ ...................... 7

- 7

Table 7

- 3 Model Parameters and Standard Errors to Predict Impingement Survival for Selected

Fish Species Based on Sampling at the Hudson Generating Station, 2009

- 2010

...................... 7

- 8HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### vi Table 8

- 1 Estimates of Percent Mortality from Mechanical Effects of Entrainment at the Hudson

Generating Station

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8

- 5

Table 8

- 2 Estimates of the Annual Loss by Fish Species Through Entrainment at the Hudson

Generating Station under Various Operating Modes, January 2009

- Januar y 2010

................... 8

- 6

Table 8

- 3 Estimates of the Annual Loss by Fish Species Through Entrainment at the Hudson

Generating Station under Variou s Operating Modes, January 2010

- January 2011

................... 8

- 7

Table 8

- 4 Estimates of the Annual Loss by Fish species Through Impingement at th e Hudson

Generating Station under Various Operating Modes, January 2009

- January 2010

................... 8

- 8

Table 8

- 5 Estimates of the Annual Loss b y Fish Species Through Impingement at the Hudson

Generating Station under Various Operating Modes, January 2010

- January 2011

................. 8

- 10

Table 8

- 6 Estimates of Annual Entrainment Loss at Hudson for Selected Species Under Actual

Operations With Entrainment Survival Based on Entrainment Monitoring in 1996

- 1997 and in

2009

- 2010.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8

- 12

Table 8

- 7 Estimates of Annual Impingement Loss at Hudson for Selected Species Using Actual

Opera tions Based on Impingement Monitoring in 1996

- 1997 and in 2009

- 2010.

.................... 8

- 13HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 1

- 1 1. INTRODUCTION

The Hudson Generating Station (Hudson or the Station) presently has a New Jersey Pollution

Discharge Elimination System ( NJPDES ) Permit (Number NJ0000647) that authorizes the intake

of water from the Hackensack River and di scharge of several wastestreams, including non

contact cooling water and process wastewater to the same waterbody . The majority of water

withdrawn through the facility’s intake is non

- contact water used for once

- through cooling of its

steam condensers. O n 12 January 2011 , the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) issue d the draft Surface Water Renewal Permit Action for renewal of the

existing NJPDES permit (Permit) in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A

- 1 et seq . by authority of

the Water P ollution Control Act at N.J.S.A. 58:10A

- 11 et seq

. To date, NJDEP has not finalized

t h e Renewal Permit Action. The current permit was first issued on 18 June 2003 and went into

effect on 1 August 2003

. This permit was subsequently modified several times with last

modification issued on 29 May 2008.

The renewal permit will incorporate NJDEP’s determination pursuant to §316(b) of the Federal

Clean Water Act (CWA) regarding the best technology available for cooling water structures in

accordance with best p rofessional judgment (BPJ). §316(b) requires that the location, design,

construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available

(BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The primary impacts of concern under

§316(b) are entrainment of smaller aquatic organisms into the cooling water system and

impingement of larger organisms onto traveling screens in the cooling water intake.

The Station’s June 2003 NJPDES Permit noted an improvement in water quality a nd marine

diversity and abundance in the Hackensack River and other regions of the New York/New Jersey

Harbor Estuary, of which it is a part, largely observed from the results of studies conducted by

the Station in 1996

- 1997 and earlier. After review of a lternative technologies, the NJDEP

selected new coarse

- mesh Ristroph

- type traveling screens as BTA for the Station. The screens

would have a dual nozzle wash system with high and low spray pressures, as well as separate

fish and debris collection troughs that would merge into a return trough leading to the river and

common to the facility’s two generating units. The traveling screen panels would have fish

lifting buckets to hold fish in water until washed from the screens by the low pressure spraywash

sys tem.

The permit modification issued 18 May 2007 and effective on 1 June 2007 directed the Station

to: (1) install the specified Ristroph traveling screens and other intake modifications on Unit 2 no

later than 31 December 2008; (2) submit a 316(b) work p lan for NJDEP approval at least 60 days

prior to commencement of the 316(b) study; and (3) submit the completed 361(b) study to

NJDEP within three years of completion of the installation and operation of the modified intake

structure

. As required, (1) the Ristroph traveling screen installation and other intake

modifications on Unit 2 were completed on 10 June 2008; (2) the 316(b) work plan consisting of

impingement monitoring was submitted for NJDEP approval on 25 S eptember 2008 ; and (3) this

316(b) Study Report is being submitted on 10 June 2011, within thre e years of completion of the

installation and operation of the modified intake structure.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 1

- 2 Unit 2 is the principle generating unit for the Station, and Unit 1 is only used for rare peaking

operations 1



### . This report presents the results of two years of entrainment and impingement

monitoring (January 2009 to January 2011) following installation of the permit

- required intake

modifications for Unit 2. This monitoring also included an evaluation of the surviv al of fish and

blue crabs impinged on the new Ristroph screens and sampled from the new fish return system.

With two years of additional monitoring data, interannual variability can be addressed and

comparisons can be made between impingement survival obs erved from the new Ristroph screen

and fish return system versus expected survival of fish impinged on the unmodified Unit 1

screens.

This report provides a brief description of the Station and its cooling water intake structure and

operation in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the source of cooling water, the Hackensack River

estuary, in terms of its physical features, the biological hab itat it provides, and the characteristics

of water quality and sediment quality as they presently occur in the estuary. Chapter 4 describes

the fish community of the Hackensack River from both a current and historical perspective. The

fish community has experienced a renaissance in the past few decades as pollution sources have

been mitigated and water quality has improved, all of which can influence the characteristics of

entrainment and impingement observed at the Station. Contributing to information o n the fish

community are the results of ichthyoplankton sampling and bottom trawling conducted in the

vicinity of the Station during the present (2009

- 2010) study.

Chapters 5 and 6 address the results of the current years of entrainment and impingement

m onitoring, respectively, in terms of species and life stage or age composition, temporal patterns,

and general comparisons to the results from the previous studies conducted in 1996

- 1997.

Chapter 7 fully describes the methodology and results of impingemen t survival testing conducted

at Unit 2 during the two

- year study, and their application for estimating impingement losses.

Chapter 8 combines the results reported in Chapters 5 through 7 to derive annual estimates of

entrainment and impingement losses bas ed on actual and full (design) cooling water flows.

These estimates are then compared to estimates that had been derived from the 1996

- 1997

studies at the Station.

1 Operation history for the two generating units is presented in Chapter 2 of this report.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 1 2. STATION DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

The Hudson Generating Station (Hudson or “the Station”) is an electric generating facility

owned by PSEG Power LLC and operated by PSEG Fossil LLC (PSEG) . The Station is located

in Hudson County uprive r of Newark Bay at River Mile (RM) 3.2 of the Hackensack River (the

River) in Jersey City, New Jersey (Figure 2

- 1 ). The Station consists of three fossil

- fired electric

generating units. Units 1 and 2 are steam electric generators that became operational in

December 1964 and December 1968

, respectively. Unit 3

, a combustion turbine that began

operation in December 1967, was retired in 2004 . The net summer ratings are 383 megawatts

(MW e ) for Unit 1 and 600 MW e for Unit 2

. This ch apter further describes the Station’s cooling

water intake structure and operation since 2007.

2.1 INTAKE STRUCTURE

Units 1 and 2 utilize a once

- through condenser cooling water system (CWS) . The shoreline

intake structure (Figure 2

- 2 ) is located directly in f ront of the Station , where t he Hackensack

River is approximately 550 ft wide. Units 1 and 2 each have two intake bays (Figure 2

- 3) , and

each unit is equipped with two circulating water pumps and two service water pumps. The

circulating water pumps withdr aw cooling water from the River through the common intake

structure and provide non

- contact cooling water to the turbine generator steam surface

condensers and condensate cooler heat exchangers. The rated capacity for each Unit 1circulating

pump is 135,00 0 gallons per minute (gpm) and the rated capacity for each Unit 2 circulating

pump is 175,000 gpm. When all four circulating water pumps operate at their rated capacities,

the total flow rate of the CWS is 620,000 gpm. The heated water is returned to the river through

a common discharge canal, designated as Discharge Serial Number (DSN) 361 in the NJPDES

Permit.

Each unit also has two service water pumps located in the Station’s common intake structure

next to the circulating water pumps, with which they share intake bays for water withdrawal.

The service water pumps provide auxiliary cooling water for other components. The rated

capacity for each of Unit 1’s service water pumps is approximately 4,600 gpm, and the rated

capacity for each of Unit 2’s serv ice water pumps is approximately 5,000 gpm. Unit 1’s service

water discharge is returned directly to the River via DSN 365 A and Unit 2’s service water flow

is returned via DSN 366 A . DSN 365 A and DSN 366 are located just downriver of the intake

structure

.

Water entering each intake bay is first strained by a steel bar trash rack that is approximately

even with the shoreline. The trash rack consists of fixed 3.0

- in ch by 0.5

- in ch by 2 4

- ft vertical

bars spaced at 3.5

- in ch centers with resultant 3.0

- in ch openings. Behind the trash bars are two

concrete skimmer walls that hang down below the water surface. The first ends about 7 in ch es

below lower low water (LLW) and about 23 ft above the bottom of the structure. The second

skimmer wall extends about 4 ft below LLW and about 20 ft off the bottom.

Each of the intake bays is fitted with a vertical traveling screen, recessed approximately 10 ft

behind the trash rack. The screens measure approximately 11 ft wide by 44 ft long. Unit 1

utilizes two conventio nal traveling screens of 0.080

- in diameter stainless steel mesh with 1⁄4 inch

by 1⁄2 inch openings

. Two new modified Ristroph

- type traveling screens were installed on Unit 2HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 2 in 2008 by placing them in the screen guides for the existing screens 2 

### . The new Uni t 2 screens

are equipped with 0.080

- in diameter stainless steel wire mesh with 1⁄4 inch by 1⁄2 inch openings.

The screens have fish baskets with a Fletcher

- design flow spoiler at the bottom of each screen

panel. Impinged fish are carried in the fish baskets until dropped into a trough on the top,

backside (descending side) of the screen, with the assistance of two low

- pressure (7 psi and 15

psi) water jets to wash them off the screen. Below the fish trough and after the fish have been

removed, there is a deb ris trough that carries debris washed from the screen by one high

- pressure

( 80 psi) water jet. Flow rate for the low

- pressure wash system is 256 gpm and 238 gpm for the

debris wash system.

The fish trough is extended both upstream and downstream at the edge of the intake structure.

The direction of the flow is controlled by motor

- controlled stainless steel slide gates at either end

of the two

- screen array . The trough extensions slope down to the river upstream and

downstream at a point beneath the catwalks connecting the mooring caissons. The trough

extensions are inclined less than a 45° angle to a pproximately mean high tide level , with

sufficient water depth in the sloped trough to assure the fish are transported in water for the

entire distance.

The traveling screens typically are rotated and washed on a continuous basis whenever the

associated circulating pump is operating. Screen rotation speed is 10 feet per minute ( fpm ) for

normal, constant operation for fish removal. This results in a ma ximum screen retention time of

approximately 4.5 minutes. When the water level differential across the screens is 2 ft or greater,

the screen rotation speed is increase d to 15 fpm.

Average through

- screen velocities range from 1.31 to 2.90 feet per second (fps), depending on

tide height. The average peak approach velocity to the screens is 1.67 fps. At Unit 1, the suction

bellmouth inlet of the pumps has a vertical alignment, whereas the Unit 2 pumps have a 90 °

concrete suction elbow resulting in horizont al alignment (Figure 2

- 3). Velocity through the

screens varies depending on location relative to the pump inlet. Generally, the highest velocities

occur near the bottom, with an eddy backflow near the surface.

2.2 STATION OPERATION

Units 1 and 2 originally w ere operated to meet base

- load demand, but now operate in response to

seasonal and daily changes in electrical demand, i.e., they are load

- following. Table s 2

- 1 and 2

-

2 present monthly data on the MW h generation and cooling water flows for the period 2007

-

2010 for Units 1 and 2, respectively

. Since 2007, the average annual generation capacity factor

for Unit 1 has been very low, ranging from 0.46 percent in 2009 to 3.01 percent in 2010 (Table

2

- 1). Unit 2 generation has been greater, but average annual c apacity factors were relatively low

(from 28 percent in 2009 to 43 percent in 2008), reflecting the load

- following operation of this

unit (Table 2

- 2).

The average annual cooling water flow rates at Unit 1 since 2007 have averaged 20 percent and

ranged fr om 17 percent to 25 percent of pumping rate capacity (Table 2

- 1), reflecting the limited

generation of this unit. Unit 2 withdraws cooling water at an annual average rate of 70 percent

2 The Unit 1 screens have not been replaced.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 3 of pumping capacity, with values for individual years ranging from 6 8 percent in 2007 to 74

percent in 2008 (Table 2

- 2). Cooling flow rates at Unit 1 generally are highest during summer

months, June

– August (Table 2

- 1). At Unit 2 (Table 2

- 2), cooling flow rates generally are

highest during both summer (June

– August) and mid

- winter (December

– January).

Figures 2

- 4 and 2

- 5 present temperatures measured at the Station’s intake and discharge for the

period of study, January 2009

– January 2011 for Units 1 and 2, respectively

. Since the two

units share the same intake and di scharge canal, the temperature records are identical for the two

units. Also on these figures is the record of the hourly cooling water flow for the two units

during the study period. The stepped nature of the flow records shows the difference between

si ngle pump and two pump operation. Unit 1 flows are limited primarily to March through

October (Figure 2

- 4), whereas Unit 2 cooling water flows are more continuous except during

outages (Figure 2

- 5).HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 4 Figure 2

- 1 . Location Map for Hudson Generating StationHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 5 Figure 2

- 2 . Aerial View of Hudson Generating StationHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 6 Figure 2

- 3 . Intake Structure of

Hudson Generating StationHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 7 Figure 2

- 4

. Intake and D ischarge W ater T emperatures and T otal D aily C ooling W ater

F low for Unit 1

, January 2009

– January 20 11HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 8 Figure 2

- 5

. Intake and D ischarge W ater T emperatures and T otal D aily C ooling W ater

F low for Unit 2

, January 2009

– January 20 11HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 9 Table 2

- 1

. Monthly Mean Cooling Water Flow Rate (MGD) and Percentage of Maximum De sign Generation and Flow Rate

for Unit 1 , 200 7

- 20 10

Unit 1

Percentage of Maximum Generation (383 MW)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 0.06% 0.38% 1.77% 0.06% 0.06% 0.11% 8.18% 1.18% 0.07% 1.60% 0.07% 0.06% 1.13%

2008 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 7.23% 1.82% 0.73% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.87%

2009 0.07% 0.06% 1.71% 0.08% 0.08% 1.05% 0.08% 2.11% 0.08% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.46%

2010 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.06% 23.75% 3.57% 8.09% 0.10% 0.11% 0.09% 3.01%

Average 0.07% 0.14% 0.91% 0.07% 0.07% 2.11% 8.46% 1.90% 2.08% 0.46% 0.08% 0.07% 1.37%

Actual Plant Flow Rate (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 19 109 154 125 0 76 120 141 3 134 4 15 75

2008 23 9 4 0 0 177 181 234 114 0 11 36 66

2009 0 8 172 151 46 213 96 333 47 81 14 0 97

2010 0 0 116 58 0 13 245 146 198 170 20 0 80

Average 11 31 112 84 12 120 161 213 90 96 12 13 80

Percentage of Maximum Flow Rate (389 MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 5% 28% 40% 32% 0% 19% 31% 36% 1% 35% 1% 4% 19%

2008 6% 2% 1% 0% 0% 45% 47% 60% 29% 0% 3% 9% 17%

2009 0% 2% 44% 39% 12% 55% 25% 86% 12% 21% 4% 0% 25%

2010 0% 0% 30% 15% 0% 3% 63% 38% 51% 44% 5% 0% 21%

Average 3% 8% 29% 21% 3% 31% 41% 55% 23% 25% 3% 3% 20%HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 2

- 10 Table 2

- 2

. Monthly Mean Cooling Water Flow Rate (MGD) and Percentage of Maximum De sign Generation and Flow Rate

for Unit 2 , 200 7

- 20 10

Unit 2

Percentage of Maximum Generation (600 MW)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 41% 49% 27% 0% 14% 58% 45% 56% 34% 52% 41% 63% 40%

2008 73% 44% 48% 0% 0% 33% 24% 75% 72% 67% 22% 57% 43%

2009 36% 9% 55% 6% 2% 35% 23% 57% 16% 21% 13% 64% 28%

2010 51% 46% 33% 69% 33% 63% 75% 51% 32% 1% 0% 41% 41%

Average 50% 37% 41% 19% 12% 47% 42% 60% 38% 35% 19% 56% 38%

Actual Plant Flow Rate (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 382 356 164 0 218 465 423 445 393 421 400 431 342

2008 448 442 405 0 51 465 311 476 475 428 478 499 373

2009 436 319 491 56 374 375 348 424 299 302 309 465 350

2010 394 446 253 436 402 428 459 452 91 0 287 508 346

Average 415 391 328 123 261 433 385 450 314 288 368 476 353

Percentage of Maximum Flow Rate (504 MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2007 76% 71% 33% 0% 43% 92% 84% 88% 78% 84% 79% 86% 68%

2008 89% 88% 80% 0% 10% 92% 62% 95% 94% 85% 95% 99% 74%

2009 87% 63% 97% 11% 74% 74% 69% 84% 59% 60% 61% 92% 69%

2010 78% 88% 50% 87% 80% 85% 91% 90% 18% 0% 57% 101% 69%

Average 82% 77% 65% 24% 52% 86% 76% 89% 62% 57% 73% 94% 70%HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 1 3. WATERBODY DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the source waterbody for the Station’s cooling water, i.e., the Hackensack

River and its associated tidal estuary ; the aquatic habitat it provides for fish and shellfish ; and the

water quality and sediment quality feature s that influence the fish and shellfish community of the

river estuary.

3.1 PHYSICAL FEATURES

The Hackensack River (the River) originates in the Palisades near Haverstraw, New York and

flows southward over a distance of 50 miles to Newark Bay

. The River drain s a 197

- mi 2



### watershed that is bounded on the east by the crest of the Palisades ridge and on the west and

northwest by the crest of the Watchung and Ramapo mountains. The River is separated by

Oradell Dam into a non

- tidal freshwater reach and a tidal brac kish reach. Oradell Dam was

constructed in 1922 to supply potable water to various communities in northern New Jersey and

is located just above New Milford, New Jersey at RM 22.5 . The dam restricts the saline and

brackish waters to the lower one

- third of the River.

T he tidal segment of the River is part of the Newark Bay Complex, which includes Newark Bay,

Kill Van Kull, Elizabethport Reach of the Arthur Kill, Passaic River, and associated tributaries.

The Newark Bay Complex is part of the New York

- New Jersey Harbor E stuary (Harbor

Estuary) , which also includes the lower Hudson River, Raritan Bay

, Upper and Lower New York

b ay s, East River, and Jamaica Bay . The Hackensack and Passaic rivers discharge to the northern

region of Newark Bay. Newark Bay is connected to the remainder of the estuary by the Arthur

Kill and the Kill Van Kull. The Kill Van Kull connects Newark Bay to the Upper and Lower

New York Bays, and the Arthur Kill connects Newark Bay to Raritan Bay. The Upper New

York Bay joins the Hudso n River. Raritan Bay and the Lower Bay are directly connected to the

Atlantic Ocean.

The hydrodynamics of the River are normally dominated by the tides, which propagate into

Newark Bay through the Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull. The hydrodynamics of the A rthur Kill,

the Kill Van Kull, and Newark Bay are very complex and have a pronounced effect on these

water bodies. Tides in the Newark Bay Complex are semi

- diurnal, with two high waters and two

low waters per day. The mean tidal range of Newark Bay is 2. 8 ft, with flood and ebb tidal

currents averaging 1.2 ft/sec ( PSE&G 1988). Under normal conditions, the volume of water

entering and leaving Newark Bay over a tidal cycle (the tidal prism) is estimated to be 13,800

million gallons of water (Clinton Bogart Associates 1992). At the mouth of the Hackensack

River, the flood currents average about 1.5 ft/sec and the ebb currents average 1.3 ft/sec. At

times of spring tides, both the ebb and flood velocities are approximately 1.8 ft/sec (Kassner

1971, in Jack McCormick & Associates 1977).

Freshwater inflows to the River include releases from Oradell Dam, flows from tributaries below

Oradell Dam and anthropogenic sources. During dry weather, these inflows have a relatively

minor effect on the hydrodynamics of t he River in the vicinity of the Station. At its confluence

with Newark Bay, the River has an annual mean discharge of 95.8 cfs. Daily mean discharges

range from 0.4 cfs to 263 cfs (Bauersfeld et al. 1994).HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 2 3.2 A QUATIC HABITAT

The River has a dredged channel approximately 30 ft deep that begins in Newark Bay and ends

in a turning basin at RM 3.5, which is just offshore of the Station’s discharge canal. The River

becomes shallower (i.e., an average depth of approximately 20 ft) between RM 4 and RM 13,

althoug h this segment is full of deep holes. The river depth decreases from approximately 20 ft

to approximately 10 ft between RM 13 and RM 16.6, and is very shallow (<6 ft) between RM

16.6 and RM 22, just below Oradell Dam ( PSE&G 1988).

Longitudinally, the lower River can be thought of as a continuum divided into several zones:

freshwater streams

, the freshwater portion of the tidal estuary

, and a brackish zone, where tidal

fresh water mixes with the salt water. The seasonal salinity regime depends primaril y on the

amount of freshwater inflow to the system.

Tidal marshes are located primarily between RM 3.2 and RM 8.0. They provide significant

storage during times of high water. For example, approximately 40 percent of the tidal flow

entering the River is diverted to extensive tidal flats along the Sawmill Creek at about RM 5

(Clinton Bogart Associates 1992). The area around Sawmill Creek includes a large, open water

wetland that is inundated at high tide. The periodic flooding and draining of these marsh es

affects the magnitudes and phases of the flood and ebb currents in the main stem of the River.

Extensive low salt marsh areas support stands of salt marsh cordgrass, with common reed

growing at slightly higher elevations bordering most of the creek ed ges (HMDC 1984). Two

dominant plant species that occur in the high salt marsh are salt hay ( Spartina patens ) and salt

grass ( Distichlis spicata ). Interspersed among the vegetated portions of the high salt marsh are

pannes, which are shallow pools devoid of vegetation. Flood

- tide water becomes trapped in

these depressions and then evaporates, resulting in very high salt concentrations. Glasswort

( Salicornia europaea ) occasionally grows along the edges of the pannes (HMDC 1984).

Freshwater marsh occurs pr imarily in Kearny Marsh, the Penhorn Creek Basin, and North

Bergen where roads, railroads, dikes, tide gates and other barriers have isolated wetlands from

tidal flooding. These areas support a series of large freshwater wetlands that are inundated by

var ious depths of freshwater, depending on the origin, volume, and regularity of flow of the

freshwater source. The freshwater wetlands are interspersed by stands of common reed. Duck

weed ( Lemna minor ) is often associated with common reed, and marsh mallow ( Althaea

officinalis ) grows along some of the creek channels. Kearny Marsh contributes substantially to

the biological diversity of the River, although the best quality freshwater marshes in the River

system have been at the headwaters of Penhorn Creek ( HMDC 1984).

Shallow tidal bays and mudflats occur predominantly as part of the 1,186

- ac Sawmill Creek

Wildlife Management Area (WMA) located in the southwestern section of the River. This area

consists of exposed mudflats during low tide, which are transf ormed into shallow tidal bays as

the mudflats are inundated during high tide. The primary plants in this community are horned

pondweed ( Zannichellia palustris ) and algae. In some areas, salt marsh cordgrass is re

vegetating the mudflats (HMDC 1984).HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 3 3.3 WATE R AND SEDIMENT QUALI TY

Water quality and sediment quality in the Hackensack River ha ve been influenced by urban and

industrial activities that have occurred over the past two centuries and by tidal exchange with

adjacent waters ( Mattson and Vallario 1976). The River has limited freshwater inflow and only

indirect interaction with the Atlantic Ocean and, therefore, is not as well mixed longitudinally as

many estuaries (Clinton Bogart Associates 1992). These two factors affect the water quality of

the River

.

3.3.1 Water Quality

The water quality of the River and distribution of aquatic organisms are often determined by the

levels of several parameters such as salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and toxics.

The following summarizes the current knowledge a bout these factors in the Hackensack River.

Higher salinity water from Newark Bay is transported into the River at depth by tidal action, at

times undercutting the lower salinity water from upriver. This process results in a longitudinal

salinity gradient . Based on a 1986 survey, the River was generally mesohaline at 5

- 18 parts per

thousand (ppt) salinity from RM 0 to about RM 10

, oligohaline (0.5

- 5.0 ppt salinity) from RM

10 to about RM 16

, and tidal

- fresh water (0

- 0.5 ppt salinity) from RM 16 to the Ora dell Dam

(PSE&G 1988). However, the longitudinal salinity gradient changes with the seasons as the

amount of freshwater runoff from rainfall or snow melt changes. The freshwater segment is

longest (RMs 13

- 22) during winter and spring when freshwater flow is greatest, and shortest

(RMs 18

- 22) through the drier summer and fall seasons. As the size of the freshwater

compartment shrinks, the mesohaline and the oligohaline compartments expand upriver. During

dry periods of no freshwater flow over the dam, br ackish tidal water extends almost to Oradell

Dam (RM 22.5).

With regard to DO concentration and toxics, the NewYork/N ew J ersey Harbor Estuary Program

(HEP)

, a partnership of state, federal, and local agencies and other cooperating entities begun in

1987

, is in the process of implementing a comprehensive harbor

- wide program to assess and

improve water quality in the Harbor Estuary ( Steinberg et al. 2004)

. The HEP presently is

d eveloping total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs ) intended to meet surface water qua lity

standards for pathogens, DO demands (nutrients and organics), and toxics

(HEP/NJHDG/NYCDEP 2008, Pecchioli et al. 2007, HydroQual 2010 a )

.

According to New Jersey surface water quality standards, portions of the Hackensack River are

classified as SE3 Fishing/Fish Migration 3 

### (mouth to Routes 1&9 overpass, approximately RM 3 ),

SE2 Fishing/Fish Migration 4 

### (Routes 1&9 overpass upstream to Overpeck Creek confluence

3 Design ated best uses are secondary contact recreation; maintenance and migration of fish populations; migration

of diadromous fish; maintenance of wildlife; and other reasonable uses.

4 Designated best uses are maintenance, migration and propagation of natural a nd established biota; migration of

diadromous fish; maintenance of wildlife; secondary contact recreation; and other reasonable uses.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 4 with mainstem river), and SE1 Shellfish/Bathing 5 

### (confluence with Overpeck Creek upstream to

Oradell Dam). For DO, the water quality criteria are as follows:

 SE3 : >3 mg/L at any time

 SE2: > 4 mg/L at any time

 SE1: > 4 mg/L at any time and 24

- hour average >5 mg/L

As of 2006, the Hackensack River was identified as one of the areas in the Harbor Estuary with

the lowest DO concentrations ( HEP

- NJHDG

- NYCDEP 2008) . However, the harbor

- wide trend

is one of improving DO concentrations, with summer (June

- September) seasonal averages for

2004

- 2006 ranging from 6.43 mg/L to 6.77 mg/L at the surface and 5. 50 mg/L to 5.88 mg/L at

the bottom. In the Hackensack River, the summer seasonal average for 2006 for surface and

bottom was in the range of 4.00

- 4.79 mg/L at RM 3 and 3.00

- 3.99 mg/L at RM 7

.

The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC) monitors five sit es seasonally (fall, winter,

spring, and summer) in the mainstem Hackensack River and nine sites in tributaries to the river.

From the data collected, a trend of increasing DO was observed from 1993 through 2005, with a

predicted increase in the average D O concentration over the 12 years of 2.3 mg/L (HydroQual

2010b). However, the trend was not as obvious at individual sites with the exception of the most

downstream site (RM 3), where an increasing trend has been observed from 1998 to 2010.

Minimum site

- specific values ranged from 0.9 mg/L to 2.4 mg/L.

Water quality measurements were taken during monthly fishery surveys performed by the NJMC

from August 2001 through July 200 2 6 

### at 15 sampling sites in the Hackensack River , from

approximately RMs 3.0 to 12. 5, and at six sites in its tributaries (Bragin et al. 2005). A total of

330 surface measurements of DO were made during the study, of which 50 (15 percent) were

below the 4 mg/L criterion. DO concentrations at the surface ranged from 2.1 mg/L in

November at RM 7.4 to 13.6 mg/L in March at RM 12.5. The DO criterion of 4 mg/L was not

met at 23 percent of the bottom measurements (43 of 186), which ranged from 1.3 mg/L in

August at RM 12.2 to 10.5 mg/L in April at RM 7.5. Monthly average bottom DO

concentrations across all sites fell below the 4.0 mg/l criterion from June through August (3.66

mg/L in July to 3.94 mg/L in June), but not so for monthly surface averages (4.80

- 5.30 mg/L).

However, as many as 57 percent of the individual surface measure ments and 75 percent of the

individual bottom measurement in August were < 4 mg/L.

Surface temperatures during the NJMC fishery surveys of 2001

- 2002 (Bragen et al. 2005) ranged

from 1.8°C in January at RM 7.4 to 30.8°C in July at RM 3.5. Bottom temperatur es were similar

at each site and date (range of 1.7 °C in January to 30.4°C in August, both at RM 6.8), indicating

thermal mixing and the absence of strong thermal stratification.

5 Designated best uses are shellfish harvesting; maintenance, migration and propagation of natural and established

biota; primary and secondary contact recreation; and other reasonable uses.

6 Sampling continued seasonally thereafter, rather than monthly, from fall 2002 to summer 2003.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 5 The Hackensack River and Newark Bay Complex are contaminated with toxic chemi cals that

reduce water quality, resulting in fish and shellfish consumption advisories, potential

reproductive impairments, and adverse impacts to the ecosystems. In response, a New Jersey

Toxics Reduction Workplan was developed by the NJDEP to identify s ources of toxic chemicals

of concern and to prioritize the sources for appropriate action (Pecchioli et al. 2007)

.

A water quality monitoring program conducted from June 2000 to May 2002 collected water

samples from the Hackensack, Passaic, Elizabeth, Ra hway, and Raritan rivers as well as Newark

Bay, Arthur Kill, and Kill van Kull (Stevens Institute of Technology 2007). The samples were

analyzed to determine concentrations of metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and methyl

- mercury),

polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs ) , dioxins/furans, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons ( PAHs ) . Contaminants that were found to exceed either New Jersey Saline

Aquatic Chronic Water Quality Criteria or Human Health criteria included mercury, PCBs,

dioxins /furans, PAHs [ benzo(a)pyrene], DDT and metabolites, total chlordane, and total dieldrin

(Pecchioli et al. 2007, Stevens Institute of Technology 2007)

. While Hackensack River samples

exceeded criteria for all of these contaminants but DDT/metabolites, it was identified as the most

contaminated area in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary for mercury.

Laboratory experiments have shown that young

- of

- year bluefish fed prey from the Hackensack

River accumulate very high levels of PCBs, mercury, and chlorinated pesticides, resulting in

reduction in the fish’s appetite, swimming activity, and growth (Weis 2009). The study authors

hypothesized that these alterations could have detrimental effects on body condition, migratory

competence and overwinter ing , and ultimately recruitment of youn g fish to the fishery.

Blue crabs from the Hackensack River were found to have reduced ability to capture active prey

such as juvenile blue crabs and adult mummichogs (Reichmuth et al. 2009). The result might be

lower growth rates and reduced fitness. N evertheless, the abundance of blue crabs in the river

appears to be increasing, possibly because of a ban on harvesting and improved environmental

conditions (Bragin et al. 2005, Reichmuth et al. 2009). Other species for which there is a

specific consumpt ion advisory are striped bass, American eel, white perch, and white catfish.

A recent study on contaminant levels in the tissues of white perch from the Hackensack River

found that 32 percent of the sampled fish ha d concentrations exceeding the one meal pe r month

action level of 0.47 μg/g wet weight for mercury and 2 percent exceeded the no consumption at

all level of 1 μg/g (Weis 2005). Also, 40 percent of the sampled white perch exceeded the Food

and Drug Administration ( FDA ) action level ( 2,000 ng/g ) fo r PCBs

. A ll sampled white perch

exceeded the U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ) guideline of no more than one

meal per month for fish with a total PCB concentration of 52 ng/g or higher , with nearly all of

the sample concentrations exceeding th i s guideline level by a factor of 10.

3.3.2 Sediment Quality

The texture and chemical composition of the Hackensack River sediments were investigated by

the NJMC in 2003 (NJMC 2007, Konsevick and Bragin 2010). Sediment samples were collected

at 21 sites in the m ainstem river from RM 3 to RM 12.5, and at five sites in tributaries to the

river. The samples were analyzed for grain size distribution; total organic carbon (TOC) content;HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 3

- 6 the metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and z inc; pesticides;

and PCBs.

Sediments at the sampling sites consisted primarily (69 percent) of fine parti cles (silt and clay).

As would be expected based on hydrodynamics, the percentage of fines is greater in the

tributaries than in the mainstem river, but th e percentage in tributaries has declined 12 percent

since last surveyed in 1988 (NJMC 2007). Likewise, silt and clay sediments are greater in the

upper and middle segments of the river (approximately 70

- 80 percent) than in the lower segment

(approximately 40 percent) , indicating greater deposition than in the lower river. Fine sediments

with higher TOC and an anoxic environment have a higher affinity for metals.

Based on USEPA’s sediment assessment criteria for metals, the ecological conditi on of the

Hackensack River estuary sediments would be considered poor (NJMC 2007), since the Effects

Range Median (ERM) concentration 7 

### was exceeded for mercury by its average concentration

. However, this indicated improvement in sediment quality in that c admium, copper, and nickel

also exceeded their ERM values when tested in 1988. Effects Range Low values (ERL) 8 

### were

exceeded at some individual sites for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead,

nickel, and zinc; 60 percent of the sites exceeded ERL criteria for more than five of these metals

(NJMC 2007). Potential contamination sources include Newark Bay, Passaic River, historic

industrial sites, hazardous waste site, landfills, power plant emissions, and combined sewer

outfalls ( CSOs )

.

Organi c contaminants were analyzed only for a limited number of samples (NJMC 2007).

Nevertheless, the results showed organic pollution was present, but chlorinated hydrocarbon

pesticides such as endosulfan, aldrin, and dieldrin had low concentrations.

7 The ERM is the median concentration of a contaminant observed to have adverse biological effects in prior studies

(Long et al. 1995).

8 The ERL is the 10 th percentile concentration represented by studies demonstrating adverse biological effect (Long

et al. 1995)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 1 4. FISH COMMUNITY

The Hackensack River estuary has a diverse fish community consisting of marine, estuarine, and

freshwater species. Species composition changes spatially with the salinity levels. The species

can be grouped into use cate gories based on estuarine habitat utilization. Permanent residents,

such as killifish and white perch, are euryhaline species that inhabit the estuary all year.

Diadromous species utilize the Hackensack River only during specific life stages or periods.

This group includes anadromous species that spawn in freshwater or brackish water , such as

Atlantic tomcod, American shad, alewife, striped bass and blueback herring ; and the

catadromous species American eel, which spawns in the Sargasso Sea but matures in freshwater

. Additionally, estuarine species such as weakfish, winter flounder, bay anchovy, bluefish, and

Atlantic menhaden utilize the estuary as a juvenile nursery area. The estuari ne species often

dominate fish biomass and production, particularly during the summer. Many species are

transient and found only occasionally in the lower River, including both marine and freshwater

species. While these transient species have been collec ted, they do not play a large role in the

functioning of the food web. In all, at least 96 fish species have been identified in recent years in

the Hackensack River estuary ( Table 4

- 1 )

.

4.1 HISTORICAL COMMUNITY

The fish community in the Hackensack River and t he Newark Bay Complex (defined as

including the Hackensack River, Newark Bay, Passaic River, Kill Van Kull, Elizabethport Reach

of the Arthur Kill, and associated tributaries) has been subjected to decades of negative human

impact. The Newark Bay Complex is located in one of the most heavily industrialized and

densely populated metropolitan areas of the world (Crawford et al. 1994). This massive human

influence has not gone without impact on the associated environment. Since 1855, the size of

Newark Bay has been reduced by more than a third, and three quarters of the associated

marshland has been destroyed (Crawford et al. 1994).

The Hackensack R iver and Newark Bay ecosystem historically supported commercially and

recreationally important species, but l ost most of these species due to pollution, dam

construction, and overfishing. Historic commercial and recreational fisheries existed for

American eel, white suckers, Atlantic tomcod, common carp, rainbow smelt, striped bass, white

perch, various herring species , bullhead, blue crab, and American shad (Zeisel 1989). There was

an extensive commercial fishery in the early and mid

- 1800s for American shad which

disappeared by 1914 (Berg and Levinton 1985, Zeisel 1989, Crawford et al. 1994). Rainbow

smelt als o contributed to the commercial fishery, but the runs ceased by 1920 (Zeisel 1989). In

1926, the U.S. War Department surveyed the area and declared that “the fish life was destroyed”

(Crawford et al. 1994)

.

4.2 RECENT CHANGES

While the fish community historically has been severely impoverished, there are indications that

it is improving. Past surveys conducted by Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)

as part of §316 Demonstrations for its stations on the river

, provide the opportunity to tra ce

changes in the fish community since 1971 (IA 1974, 1978, 1979; PSE&G 1988, 199 8 ). Data areHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 2 available from bottom trawl and ichthyoplankton surveys in the river and adjoining water bodies

and from impingement and entrainment collections from the Station

.

In 1971

- 1973

, river survey s were characterized by relatively few species. T here were 11 fish

species collected in the bottom trawl (Table 4

- 2) and 12 fish species (unique taxa) collected in

the ichthyoplankton surveys (Table 4

- 3). Bottom trawl catches were dominated by mummichog,

which accounted for 78 percent of the catch. Impingement collections at the Station during 1972

and 1973 contained more species (a total of 20 species and 25 species, respectively; T able 4

- 4)

than were found in the bottom trawl or ichthyoplankton samples. However, like the bottom trawl

samples, the 1973 impingement collections were dominated by mummichog, which constituted

80 percent of the total.

In 1978, PSE&G conducted impingeme nt collections (IA 1979), but no river surveys. By 1978

there already was a marked increase in the number of species ( to 4 1 ) appearing in the

impingement collections (Table 4

- 4). Mummichogs were still dominant (58.4 percent ), but

somewhat less so . River herring (blueback herring and alewife) continued to be secondarily

dominant, comprising 12.2 and 10.7 percent of the 1978 collections, respectively

.

The apparent addition of fish species to the r iver community continued into the 1980s. There

was an incre ase in the number of species in both the bottom trawl and ichthyoplankton surveys,

roughly doubling the totals from the 1971

- 1973 surveys (Tables 4

- 2 and 4

- 3). Twenty

- seven

species were caught in bottom trawls during 1986

- 1987 compared to 11 in 1971

- 1973, and 21

species (or unique taxa) of ichthyoplankton were identified compared to 12 species in 1972

- 1973. The percent composition changed substantially as well. The percentage of the bottom

trawl catch made up of mummichogs declined to 49.6 percent in 198 6

- 1987

, compared to 1971

- 1973 (Table 4

- 2)

. T he numbers of Atlantic tomcod, striped killifish, bay anchovy and spotted

hake also increased. The increasing diversity of the fish community by 1987

- 1988 was evident

in impingement collections. The number of species had increased by 10 since 1978 to a total of

51 (Table 4

- 4). All of the additional species were relatively uncommon visitors to the River.

In 1996

- 1997 , t he number of species in the bottom trawl catch declined from 27 to 21(Table 4

- 2), probably du e to the decreased number of bottom trawl tows made in 1996

- 1997 between RM

0 and RM 10 (60 tows) compared to 1986

- 1987 (209 tows). Fewer tows in 1996

- 1997 resulted

in less chance to capture uncommon species; each of the species missing in the 1996

- 1997

b ottom trawl collections comprised a relatively small percentage of the 1986

- 1987 catch (i.e.,

<0.42 percent ). There also was a notable reduction in the mummichog catch since 1971

- 1973;

mummichog s were 78 percent of the total bottom trawl catch in 1971

- 197 3 and nearly zero (0.23

percent ) in the 1996

- 1997 study.

From 1986

- 1987 to 1996

- 1997, t he ichthyoplankton survey had a near doubling of the number of

species from 21 to 38 ( Table 4

- 3). In addition to the increase in number of species present, there

was also a progressive increase in the number of ichthyoplankton life stages from 1972

- 1973 to

1996

- 1997 (Table 4

- 3).

Impingement collections in 1996

- 1997 yielded 54 species (unique taxa), which was three more

than occurred in the 1986

- 1987 impingement collec tions (Table 4

- 4). In particular, the relative

abundance of impinged bay anchovy and weakfish increased while Atlantic menhaden, bluebackHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 3 herring, and mummichog decreased. Entrainment collections in 1996

- 1997 showed an increase

in the number of unique taxa and number of life stages compared to entrainment collections from

1986

- 1987 (Table 4

- 5), similar to the ichthyoplankton samples from the r iver discussed above.

The NJMC similarly has been tracking changes in the Hackensack River fish community over

t he past few decades. In 1987, the NJMC initiated a two

- year inventory of the fish community in

the lower Hackensack River ( Bragin et al 2005). This inventory was repeated in 2001

- 2003

using the same sampling gear and the same 21 sampling locations from R M 3 to RM 12.5. The

sampling gear consisted of a 16

- ft otter trawl, a 60

- ft x 6

- ft seine, 200

- ft experimental sinking

gill nets, and 3

- ft x 6

- ft Indiana trap nets. Each sampling location was sampled monthly from

August 2001 through July 2002, and seasona l ly (four times) in the fall of 2002 through the

summer of 2003.

Hudsonia (2007), in reviewing the NJMC study results, suggested that it might be difficult to sort

out changes in the fish community due to environmental improvements in the Hackensack River

(e.g., water quality and wetland restoration) from those due to changes in habitat quality and

species abundances in the overall NY/NJ Harbor Estuary system outside the river. Of the three

species that increased in abundance by two orders of magnitude (gi zzard shad, striped bass, and

white perch), gizzard shad and striped bass also dramatically increased in abundance in the

Hudson River during this time period. Another species, Atlantic silverside, while not increasing

as dramatically in the Hackensack Ri ver, has also increased in the overall Harbor Estuary (Hurst

et al. 2004). Of the three species that decreased in abundance in the NJMC survey by two orders

of magnitude (Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, and pumpkinseed), Atlantic tomcod has reached its

lowe st levels of abundance in 27 years within the Hudson River estuary (Daniels et al. 2005).

NJMC collected 36 fish species during the 1987

- 1988 survey and 39 species during the 2001

- 2003 survey and concluded that the community structure had changed during the intervening 15

years (Bragin et al. 2005). In their 1987

- 1988 samples, mummichog was overwhelming

dominant (85 percent of the total catch), somewhat similar to the results of PSE&G’s earliest

studies (1971

- 1973 and 1986

- 1987). Mummichog s likel y were more abundant in the NJMC

samples than in PSE&G samples because NJMC sampled intertidal and shallow subtidal areas

with seines and trapnets while PSE&G did not. Mummichog remained the dominant species in

the 2001

- 2003 NJMC survey, but had decreased in rel ative abundance to approximately 40

percent of the total catch. Another important observation was the great increase in relative

abundance of white perch (from 1 percent to 28 percent of the total catch), Atlantic silverside

(from 3 to 16 percent), and st riped bass (0.1 to 3 percent). NJMC concluded that the species

composition in the community became more balanced, with a decrease in the pollution tolerant

mummichog and an increase in more desirable game species.

In summary, there has been a progressive diversification in the fish community in the River since

the early 1970s, probably as the result of improving water quality. The results of river sampling

and entrainment and impingement sampling at the Station during the present study (2009

- 2011)

further shed light on the possible transitions occurring in the Hackensack River fish community.

River sampling is discussed in the following section (Section 4.3). Entrainment monitoring is

discussed in Section 5, and impingement monitoring is discussed in Sec tion 6.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 4 4.3 2009

- 2010 TRAWL AND ICHTH YOPLANKTON SURVEYS

The fish community was sampled during the present study to determine the species and their age

and size structure of the community potentially vulnerable to entrainment and impingement at

the Station. The two components of the community that were sampled were demersal fish and

blue crabs and early pelagic life stages (ichthyoplankton). Demersal fish and blue crabs were

sampled by bottom trawling, and early life stages of fish were sampled by towing a plankton net.

Both types of sampling were conducted once per month during March

- November 2009 9 

### and

February

- November , weather permitting, at five fixed sampling locations (Figure 4

- 1) . The

sampling locations were as follows:

 Hackensack River near RM 2

 Hackensack River near RM 3.2

 Hackensack River near RM 4

 Middle of Newark Bay

 Arthur Kill in vicinity of the Sewaren Generating Station

All gear tows were made in the center of the navigation channel at each location.

The following sections describe the sampling gear and methods, and present and interpret the

results by survey type.

4.3.1 Bottom Trawling Methods

A 30

- ft bottom trawl (specifications in Table 4

- 6) was towed for 5 minutes against the prevailing

current during daylight at each sampling location at a speed of 4.9 ft/sec (150 cm/sec). Tow

speed was monitored using a GO flowmeter Model 2031 and deck readout Model 2035. A

minimum ratio of 3:1 tow cable length to maximum station water depth was maintained to

ensure the trawl was in contact with the bo ttom. With each sample, the following parameters

were recorded: weather condition, surface salinity, bottom salinity, surface temperature, bottom

temperature, air temperature, surface dissolved oxygen (DO) , bottom DO

, S ecchi depth, and tide

stage

.

All fis h and blue crab s were removed from the retrieved sample

. The fish were identified to

species , enumerated, and measured to the nearest millimeter for total length. In cases of large

sample size

, a sub

- sample of up to 50 fish per species was processed

. Ev idence of disease,

tumors, fin damage, and/or skeletal anomalies was recorded. Fish age groups were determined

based on species

- specific growth data (length ranges for various age classes) presented in the

scientific literature or previous PSEG filings. Representative specimens for each species were

retained in a voucher fish collection. Fish that could not be identified in the f ield were returned

to the laboratory for identification. L ive organisms were returned to the river.

9 Ice cover and inclement weather prevented sampling in February 2009



### .HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 5 4.3.2 Bottom Trawlin g Results

A total of 2,01 4 fish were caught by bottom trawling from March through November 2009, and

1,8 7 9 fish were caught from February t hrough November 2010. In 2009, the total catch at each

sampling station increased in a downstream direction from Station 1, which is 0.8 miles upstream

from the Station, to Station 4 in the midsection of Newark Bay, then declined at Station 5 in the

Arthu r Kill (Figures 4

- 1 and 4

- 2). However, this pattern was not repeated in 2010, when

Stations 1 and 5 had the highest catch, followed closely by Station 3 (Figure 4

- 2).

The monthly breakdown by sampling station is shown in Figure 4

- 3. In 2009, the greater catches

at Station 4 occurred sporadically (March, May, and September); white perch and striped bass

dominated the March catch , spotted hake dominated the May catch, and bay anchovy dominated

the September catch ( Appendix Table A

- 1 ). The peak cat ch at Station 5 in June (Figure 4

- 3 ) also

consisted primarily of bay anchovy.

In 2010, elevated catches at Station 5 (Figure 4

- 3 ) consisted primarily of white perch in February

and blue crab and spotted hake in June. The peak catch at Station 1 in April was dominated by

blue crab, spotted hake, American eel, and Atlantic tomcod. Peak total catches at Station 3 in

April and May 2010 were dominated by spotted hake and Atlantic tomcod in April and by

spotted hake in May. Appendix Table A

- 2 presents the mo nthly catch totals by station and

species.

For all five sampling stations combined, the most frequently caught species in 2009 (in declining

order) were bay anchovy, spotted hake, white perch, Atlantic tomcod ,and blue crab (Table 4

- 7),

which together accounted for 86 percent of the total annual catch. Bay anchovy were caught

from May through November. Spotted hake were caught during March

- June and November.

White perch and blue crab were caught in most months, reflecting their year

- round residency

(Table 4

- 7). Atlantic tomcod were most abundant during May

- July, but were caught in limited

numbers in October

- November. In 2010, the same five species dominated the trawl catch,

comprising 82 percent of the total annual catch. In declining order they were spotted hake, blue

crab, white perch, Atlantic tomcod, and bay anchovy, in declining order (Table 4

- 8). The

seasonal occurrence of these species was similar to that in 2009 except that Atlantic tomcod

appeared earlier (April

- June rather than May

- July) and spotted hake first appeared in April rather

than March.

4.3.3 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Methods

Ichthyoplankton samples were collected at night, defined as 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before

sunrise, with a 1.0

- m 2 

### Tucker trawl an d a 333

- μm mesh net (specifications in Table 4

- 6). Tows

were made in depths of water greater than 20 ft. Each sample was taken as an oblique tow

stepwise at approximately 1

- minute intervals from near the bottom to near the surface at five

equal depth int ervals. In depths of water less than 20 ft, each sample was taken as a mid

- depth

tow. Tow duration was 5 minutes unless adjusted to account for obstructions, limited transect

distances, commercial traffic, etc. Tows were against the prevailing current a t a through

- water

speed of 90 to 110 cm/sec (2.95

- to 3.6 ft/sec). Tow velocities were monitored using a General

Oceanics flowmeter Model 2031 and General Oceanics deck readout Model 2035.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 6 The Tucker trawl was equipped with a double

- trip release mechani sm (DTRM) to permit

opening and closing the net during sampling. A calibrated digital flowmeter (General Oceanics

Model 2030) was mounted in the net mouth and was used in the calculation of sample volume.

Target net depth was set and monitored using a tow cable length

- to

- wire angle relationship.

Following retrieval of the gear, the contents of the net were washed in to a labeled container, and

the sample was preserved with a 10 percent formalin solution. With each sample, the following

parameters were reco rded: weather condition, surface salinity, bottom salinity, surface

temperature, bottom temperature, air temperature, surface and bottom DO

, S ecchi depth, and tide

stage. Upon completion of sampling, a Chain of Custody sheet was filled out identifying all

samples to be transported to a laboratory for processing. Lab processing methods were identical

to those used for entrainment samples, as described in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4.

4.3.4 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Results

The ichthyoplankton sampling effort captured planktonic life stages of 24 species in 2009 and 26

species in 2010 ( Table 4

- 3)

. While the species count was relatively high, ichthyoplankton in the

study area consisted almost entirely of a single species, bay anchovy, which had monthly

densities up to approximately 50,000

- 125,000 / 1,00 0 m 3 

### and several orders of magnitude greater

than other species (Appendix Table s B

- 1 and B

- 2 ). The only other species of note in terms of

relative abundance were naked goby ( post yolk

- sac larvae ) a nd fourbeard rockling ( eggs ) , the

former only in 2009.

The average monthly density of ichthyoplankton in both sampling years (Figure 4

- 4) reflected

the abundance of bay anchovies. Peak densities occurred in June and July when bay anchovy

eggs were most a bundant. Eggs first appeared in abundance in June and by July bay anchovy

larvae densities were highest in both years. Outside of June and July, the monthly density of all

species combined averaged across the five sampling stations was 1,565 individuals/ 1,000 m 3 

### or

less.

Average seasonal ichthyoplankton densities at the three Hackensack River sampling stations (1,

2 and 3) for all species and life stages combined were several orders of magnitude less than at the

sampling stations in Newark Bay and the Arthur Kill (Tables 4

- 9 and 4

- 10). In both 2009 and

2010, the highest densities occurred at station 5 in the Arthur Kill (Figure 4

- 5) , but in 2009

densities at station 4 in Newark Bay also were high in comparis on to the Hackensack River

stations ( Table 4

- 9 and Figure 4

- 5) when collections consisted primarily of bay anchovy eggs

.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 7 Figure 4

- 1 . Bottom Trawl and Ichthyoplankton Sampling StationsHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 8 Figure 4

- 2 . Total Annual Bottom Trawl Catch by Sampling Station, 2010 and 2011 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Total Catch 

## Bottom Trawl Total Catch 2009

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Total Catch 

## Bottom Trawl Total Catch 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 9 Figure 4

- 3

. Total Monthly Bottom Trawl Catch by Sampling Station, 2009 and 2010

0 50 100 150 200 250

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Catch per tow

Month



## Bottom Trawl Catch 2009

Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Catch per tow

Month



## Bottom Trawl Catch 2010

Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 10 Figure 4

- 4 . Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density, 2009 and 2010

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov #/1,000 cubic meters

Month 

## Ichthyoplankton Density 2009

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov #/1,000 cubic meters

Month 

## Ichthyoplankton Density 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 11 Figure 4

- 5 . Average Seasonal Ichthyoplankton Density at Five Sampling Stations, 2009

and 2010 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 #/1,000 cubic meters 

## Average Ichthyoplankton Density 2009

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 #/1,000 cubic meters 

## Average Ichthyoplankton Density 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 12 Table 4

- 1 . Fish Species Collected From the Hackensack River (Sources: PSE&G 199 8

, Bragin et al. 2005, and Present S tudy )

Family Species Common name

Petromyzontidae Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey

Rajidae Raja erinacea little skate

Lepisostidae Atractosteus spatula alligator gar

Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel

Congridae Conger oceanicus conger eel

Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus striped anchovy

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy

Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis blueback herring

Alosa mediocris hickory shad

Alosa pseudoharengus alewife

Alosa sapidissima American shad

Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden

Clupea harengus Atlantic herring

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad

Cyprinidae Carassuis auratus goldfish

Cyprinus carpio common carp

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner

Ictaluridae Ameirus nebulosus brown bullhead

Ictalurus catus white catfish

Umbridae Umbra pygmaea eastern mudminnow

Osmeridae Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt

Synodontidae Synodus foetens inshore lizardfish

Ophidiidae Ophidion marginatum striped cuskeel

Phycidae Urophycis chuss red hake

Urophycis regia spotted hake

Merluccuius bilinearis silver hake

Enchelyopus cimbrius fourbeard rockling

Gadidae Microgadus tomcod Atlantic tomcod

Pollachius virens pollock

Batrachoididae Opsanus tau oyster toadfish

Mugilidae Mugil cephalus striped mullet

Mugil curema white mulletHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 13 Table 4

- 1 Continued

Family Species Common name

Atherinopsidae Membras martinica rough silverside

Menidia beryllina inland silverside

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside

Menidia peninsulae tidewater silverside

Fundulidae Fundulus diaphanus banded killifish

Fundulus heteroclitus mummichog

Fundulus majalis striped killifish

Gasterosteidae Apeltes quadracus fourspine stickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback

Syngnathidae Hippocampus erectus lined seahorse

Syngnathus fuscus northern pipefish

Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria bluespotted cornetfish

Triglidae Prionotus carolinus northern searobin

Prionotus evolans striped searobin

Cottidae Myoxocephalus aenaeus grubby

Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus longhorn sculpin

Moronidae Morone americana white perch

Morone saxatilis striped bass

Serranidae Centropristis striata black sea bass

Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed

Lepomis gulosus warmouth

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

Percidae Perca flavescens yellow perch

Priacanthidae Pristigenys alta short bigeye

Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltatrix bluefish

Carangidae Catanx hippos crevalle jack

Selene setapinnis Atlantic moonfish

Selene vomer lookdownHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 14 Table 4

- 1 Continued

Family Species Common name

Lutjanidae Lutjanus grieseus gray snapper

Sparidae Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead

Stenotomus chrysops scup

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum

Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch

Cynoscion regalis weakfish

Leiostomus xanthurus spot

Menticirrhus saxitilis northern kingfish

Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker

Labridae Tautoga onitis tautog

Tautogolabrus adspersus cunner

Pholidae Pholis gunnellus rock gunnel

Ammodytidae Ammodytes americanus American sand lance

Uranoscopidae Astroscopus guttatus northern stargazer

Blennidae Hypsoblennius hentz feather blenny

Gobiesocidae Gobiesox strumosus skilletfish

Gobiidae Gobionellus oceanicus highfin goby

Gobiosoma bosc naked goby

Gobiosoma ginsburgi seaboard goby

Scombridae Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel

Stromateidae Peprilus triacanthus butterfish

Scopthalmidae Scophthalmus aquosus windowpane

Paralichthyidae Citharichthys articfrons Gulf Stream flounder

Etropus microstomus smallmouth flounder

Paralichthys dentatus summer flounder

Paralichthys oblongus fourspot flounder

Pleuronectidae Pseudopleuronectes americanus winter flounder

Achiridae Trinectes maculatus hogchoker

Ostraciidae Lactophrys triqueter smooth trunkfish

Tetradontidae Chilomycterus schoepfi striped burrfish

Sphoeroides maculatus northern pufferHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 15 Table 4

- 2 . Percent Composition of Bottom Trawl Catches in 1971

- 197 3 , 1986

- 1987, 1996

- 1997, and 2009

- 2010

Percent Composition

Species 1971

-

1973 1986

-

1987 1996

-

1997 2009 2010

Alewife 4.86 0.23 1.44 0.09

American eel 1.34 0.48 0.89 2.96 9.36

American shad 1.78 0.56 0.08 0.61 0.09

Atlantic croaker 0.30 0.09

Atlantic menhaden 0.42 0.15 0.62

Atlantic moonfish 0.23 1.94

Atlantic silverside 0.04

Atlantic tomcod 7.27 21.78 1.87 10.77 14.84

Bay anchovy 0.67 3.85 0.10 30.27 10.51

Black seabass 0.08

Blueback herring 2.28 0.08 0.15

Bluefish 0.24 0.08 0.08

Brown bullhead 0.23

Butterfish 0.68 0.71

Conger eel 0.19

Cunner 0.23

Gizzard shad 6.74 0.08 0.18

Grubby 0.09 0.08

Hogchoker 0.38 0.23 1.75 6.01

Inland silverside 0.21

Mummichog 77.89 49.63 0.23

Naked goby 0.15 0.27

Northern pipefish 0.71 0.12 <0.01

Northern puffer 0.09

Northern searobin 0.18

Oyster toadfish 0.38 2.74

Red hake 0.10 0.23 1.33

Scup 0.08

Seaboard goby 0.08

Sheepshead 0.08

Silver hake 0.44

Smallmouth flounder 0.24

Spot 0.44 0.15 56.86

Spotted hake 1.87 10.43 0.08 18.06 28.53

Striped bass 0.13 5.85 5.69 1.68HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 16 Table 4

- 2 Continued

Species 1971

-

1973 1986

-

1987 1996

-

1997 2009 2010

Striped cusk

- eel 0.23

Striped killifish 6.43 0.08

Striped searobin 0.38

Summer flounder 0.17 0.08 0.83 0.71

Tautog 0.15

Threespine stickleback 0.30 0.08 0.09

Weakfish 1.26 0.65 1.06 1.59

White perch 0.89 0.66 24.57 19.88 16.87

Windowpane 0.12 0.38 0.27

Winter flounder 1.70 0.87 2.96 0.8

Number of species 11 27 21 28 25



### Sources: IA 1974, PSE&G 1988 and 199 8 , present studyHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 17 Table 4

- 3 Annual Presence of Ichthyoplankton by Life Stage in the Hackensack River

Study Area for 1972

- 1973, 1986

- 1987, 1996

- 1997, and 2009

- 2010

Species 1972

- 1973 a 

### 1986

- 1987 b 

### 1996

- 1997 2009 2010

Alewife J,A J

American eel J J,A A P P

American sandlance L P

Atherinid unidentified U

Atlantic croaker P,J P,J P,J

Atlantic herring P P,J P,J

Atlantic menhaden L P,J P,J E,P,J

Atlantic moonfish J

Atlantic silverside P Y,P,J,A,U Y,P

Atlantic tomcod L,J J Y,P,U P P,J

Banded killifish P

Bay anchovy E,L,J E,Y,P,P,J,A E,Y,P,J,A,U E,Y,P,J,A E,P,J,A

Blueback herring A E,J J

Bluefish J J

Butterfish J J J

Carp L

Centrarchid unidentified P

Conger eel P J

Cottidae family P

Cunner E,Y E

Cyprinid unidentified Y

Fourbeard rockling E E E

Fundulus sp. (killfish) L P Y,P,U P

Gizzard shad Y,P,A

Gobiid unid. L P,J P,J

Grubby L E,Y,P,U Y,P,J Y,P

Highfin goby P,J,A

Hogchoker E E P

Inland silverside E

Labridae E

Menidia sp. E,Y,P P P

Mummichog E,J J,A P,J

Naked goby J J P,J P,J,A

Northern pipefish Y,P,L,J,A Y,P,J,A P,J,A P,J

Northern puffer P PHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 18 Table 4

- 3 Continued

Species 1972

- 1973 a 1986

- 1987 b 1996

- 1997 2009 2010

Prionotus sp. (searobin) E

River herring E E,P P

Rock gunnel Y,P P P

Rough silverside Y

Sand lances P

Sciaenidae family P

Spot P

Spotted hake J

Striped anchovy A

Striped bass Y,P,A

Striped killifish Y

Summer flounder P,J P,J P,J

Tautog E,P E E

Threespine stickleback J,A J E

Weakfish P,L P,J,A P,J

White perch L P Y,P P,J J

Windowpane E,Y,P E,J P,J

Winter flounder L P,J E,Y,P,U P,J P,J

Yellow perch Y,P P

Unidentified E,P E,P,U E

Number of unique taxa 12 21 38 24 2 6

Key:

E = egg, Y = Yolk

- sac larvae, P = Post

- yolk

- sac larvae, L = Larvae, J= Juvenile, A = Adult, U = Unidentified

Sources : IA 1974, PSE&G 1988 and 199 8 , present studyHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 19 Table 4

- 4 . Species Composition of Impingement Collections during 1972

- 1973, 1978, 1987

- 1988, and 199 6

- 199 7

Species 1972 1973 1978 1987

- 1988 1996

- 1997

Alewife 30.6 1.7 10.7 2.0 0.2

American eel 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2

American shad 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.7 0.1

Atlantic croaker <0.1

Atlantic herring 1.7 2.9

Atlantic mackerel <0.1

Atlantic menhaden 0.1 0.1 <0.1 16.3 2.2

Atlantic moonfish <0.1 <0.1

Atlantic silverside <0.1 0.5 0.1 6.0 0.6

Atlantic tomcod 0.2 0.4 0.2 6.4 1.6

Banded killifish <0.1

Bay anchovy <0.1 0.7 0.3 2.2 27.2

Black crappie 0.1 0.1 0.1

Black sea bass 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Blueback herring 36.5 9.6 12.2 17.0 1.7

Bluefish 0.1 0.3 7.0 3.1

Bluegill 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

Brown bullhead < 0.1 0.1

Butterfish 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

Common carp <0.1

Conger eel <0.1

Crevalle jack 0.1 <0.1 1.3 0.1

Cunner <0.1 0.1 0.1

Cyprinodontidae ** <0.1

Fourspot flounder 0.0

Fundulus sp.** <0.1

Gizzard shad 0.3 1.8 3.3

Golden shiner <0.1

Goldfish 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Grubby <0.1 <0.1 0.3

Hickory shad <0.1 <0.1

Hogchoker <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Inland silverside 0.4

Lined seahorse <0.1 0.1

Little skate <0.1

Longhorn sculpin <0.1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 20 Table 4

- 4 Continued

Species 1972 1973 1978 1987

- 1988 1996

- 1997

Lookdown <0.1

Menidia spp.** 0.1

Morone sp.** <0.1

Mummichog 27.7 80.0 58.4 11.7 0.2

Naked goby 0.1

Northern pipefish <0.1 0.2

Northern puffer <0.1

Northern searobin <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Pumpkinseed 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1

Rainbow smelt 0.2 0.3 <0.1

Red hake <0.1 0.1 0.4 1.6 1.5

Scup <0.1

Seaboard goby <0.1

Silver hake 0.2 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.1

Silver perch 0.1

Smallmouth flounder <0.1 0.2 0.2

Smooth trunkfish <0.1

Spot 1.6 <0.1 0.1 2.6

Spotted hake 0.1 2.0

Striped anchovy <0.1

Striped bass 0.8 0.5 5.1 1.7 2.1

Striped burrfish <0.1

Striped cuskeel <0.1

Striped killifish 2.8 0.4

Striped mullet <0.1

Striped searobin 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1

Summer flounder <0.1 0.2 0.2

Tautog <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Threespine stickleback <0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 9.6

Warmouth <0.1

Weakfish 0.2 5.7 7.2 21.2

White catfish <0.1 <0.1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 21 Table 4

- 4 Continued

Species 1972 1973 1978 1987

- 1988 1996

- 1997

White mullet 2.8 2.3 0.2 <0.1

White perch 4.5 3.8 7.8

Windowpane 0.2 0.2

Winter flounder 0.2 0.1 3.7 6.6

Yellow perch <0.1



### Total Taxa Count 54 20 25 42 51

** not counted as unique taxa

Sources: IA 1974, 1979; PSEG 1988, 199 8HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 22 Table 4

- 5

. Presence of Species by Life Stage in Entrainment Collections in 1987

- 1988 and

1996

- 1997

Species Collected in 1987

- 1988 Collected in 1996

- 1997

American eel JUV JUV AD

American sand lance EGG YSL PYSL

Atlantic croaker EGG PYSL JUV

Atlantic herring PYSL JUV PYSL

Atlantic menhaden EGG PYSL PYSL JUV

Atlantic silverside EGG PYSL YSL PYSL JUV

Atlantic tomcod EGG YSL PYSL JUV EGG YSL PYSL JUV

Bay anchovy EGG PYSL JUV EGG PYSL JUV AD

Blueback herring PYSL** EGG PYSL JUV

Bluefish JUV JUV

Centrarchidae family

. YSL PYSL

Conger eel PYSL

Cunner EGG YSL

Cyprinidae spp. EGG

Fourbeard rockling EGG

Gobiidae unid. PYSL JUV YSL PYSL JUV

Grubby YSL PYSL YSL PYSL JUV

Hogchoker EGG EGG

Inland silverside EGG PYSL

Labridae spp. EGG

Mummichog JUV YSL PYSL

Naked goby AD

Northern pipefish PYSL JUV PYSL JUV AD

Pollock JUV

Rock gunnel YSL PYSL YSL PYSL

Scianidae family

. PYSL

Seaboard goby AD

Smallmouth flounder JUV

Spot JUV

Summer flounder PYSL JUV

Tautog

Threespine stickleback PYSL

Tidewater silverside JUV

Weakfish PYSL PYSL JUV

White perch YSL PYSL

Windowpane PYSL EGG PYSL JUV

Winter flounder YSL PYSL JUV YSL PYSL JUV

Yellow perch PYSL

YSL = Yolk

- sac larvae; PYSL = post

- yolk

- sac larvae; JUV = Juvenile; AD= adult

Source: PSEG 199 8HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 23 Table 4

- 6 . Gear Specifications for the Bottom Trawl and Ichthyoplankton Net

30

- Ft Semi

- balloon Bottom trawl

 Headrope 25.9 ft (7.9

- m)

 Footrope 27.9 ft (8.5

- m)

 Wing height 3.6 ft (1.1

- m)

 Total length 35.1 ft (10.7

- m)

 Wing mesh (square) 2.0

- in (5.1

- cm)

 Body mesh (square) 2.0

- in (5.1

- cm)

 Cod end mesh (square) 0.75

- in (1.9

- cm)

 Cod end liner mesh (square) 0.25

- in (0.6

- cm)

 Trawl doors (oak) 32.0 x 17.0 x 1.0

- in (81.3 x 43.2 x 2.5

- cm)

 Tow Bridle 100

- ft (30.5

- m) Galvanized wire rope

 Tow line length Min 3 times maximum station water depth

1.0

- m 2 

### Tucker Trawl with 333

- μm Mesh Net

 Vertical Dimension (open) 1.4

- m (1.0

- m when under tow)

 Horizontal Dimension (open) 1.0

- m

 Total length 8.0

- m

 Net Mesh 333

- μ (micron)

 Cod

- End Bucket 4

- in dia. x 12

- in (10.5

- cm x 30.5

- cm)

 Cod

- End Bucket Mesh 333

- μ (micron)

 Weight (nominal) 250

- lbs (113.4

- kg)

 Tow line length Based on wire length & angle chartsHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 24 Table 4

- 7 . Monthly Total Bottom Trawl Catch by Species, 2009

Species Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Alewife 13 5 1 19

American eel 1 35 2 1 39

American shad 8 8

Atlantic menhaden 1 1 2

Atlantic moonfish 2 1 3

Atlantic tomcod 30 67 53 2 2 154

Bay anchovy 21 208 99 86 303 29 2 748

Black seabass 1 1

Blue crab 1 17 26 14 4 26 32 120

Blueback herring 2 2

Bluefish 1 1

Butterfish 8 1 9

Cunner 1 1 1 3

Gizzard shad 1 1

Grubby 1 1

Hogchoker 7 13 2 1 23

Naked goby 2 2

Oyster toadfish 2 1 1 1 5

Red hake 2 1 3

Scup 1 1

Spotted hake 12 19 326 52 7 416

Striped bass 47 16 4 8 75

Striped cusk

- eel 3 3

Striped searobin 3 2 5

Summer flounder 1 2 8 11

Tautog 2 2

Weakfish 2 2 10 14

White perch 132 51 17 6 6 13 74 299

Windowpane 3 2 5

Winter flounder 6 1 1 13 7 2 9 39

Total 221 102 471 419 177 87 330 75 132 2014HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 25 Table 4

- 8 . Monthly Total Bottom Trawl Catch by Species, 2010

Species Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Alewife 1 1

American eel 2 65 5 20 2 7 4 1 106

American shad 1 1

Atlantic croaker 1 1

Atlantic menhaden 7 7

Atlantic moonfish 1 21 22

Atlantic tomcod 130 9 33 1 1 174

Bay anchovy 9 17 36 2 31 17 7 119

Blue crab 4 185 29 135 27 44 31 5 9 469

Butterfish 1 5 1 1 8

Gizzard shad 2 2

Hogchoker 1 15 41 2 8 1 68

Naked goby 1 1 1 3

Northern puffer 1 1

Northern searobin 1 1 2

Oyster toadfish 1 3 9 1 9 7 1 31

Red hake 1 12 1 1 15

Silver hake 5 5

Spotted hake 265 127 86 4 482

Striped bass 3 1 1 7 4 3 19

Summer flounder 2 3 3 8

Threespine stickleback 1 1

Weakfish 4 7 3 4 18

White perch 182 29 12 1 2 12 30 21 16 305

Windowpane 1 2 3

Winter flounder 1 1 1 1 1 3 8

Total 168 37 681 193 326 124 83 122 83 42 1879HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 4

- 26 Table 4

- 9 . Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) at Five Sampling

Stations in 2009

Month Station

1 Station

2 Station

3 Station

4 Station

5 All Station Avg

Mar 131 112 153 443 75 183

Apr 95 102 239 327 177 188

May 170 29 75 1,971 581 565

Jun 376 693 9,724 138,514 1,455 30,153

Jul 1,853 4,212 5,944 9,902 327,809 69,944

Aug 2,830 467 1,254 656 1,022 1,246

Sep 90 230 502 348 180 270

Oct 3,070 326 748 401 459 1,001

Nov 131 34 352 346 134 199

Average 972 689 2,110 16,990 36,877 11,528



### Table 4

- 10 . Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) at Five Sampling

Stations in 2010

Month Station

1 Station

2 Station

3 Station

4 Station

5 All Station Avg

Feb 0 17 14 4 18 11

Mar 24 35 39 175 70 69

Apr 56 103 340 181 260 188

May 81 74 71 52 39 63

Jun 16,615 7,795 7,117 21,204 184,055 47,357

Jul 1,513 1,455 1,267 2,224 632,236 127,739

Aug 400 604 718 2,499 3,607 1,565

Sep 299 223 37 86 47 139

Oct 55 64 53 252 676 220

Nov 7 49 34 118 50 51

Average 1,905 1,042 969 2,679 82,106 17,740HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 1 5. ENTRAINMENT

This chapter presents the 2009

- 2011 sampling program for entrainment at Hudson Generating

Station. Entrainment is the passage of small organisms through the Station’s cooling water

system resulting from withdrawing water for cooling purposes. Passage through the cooling

water system can subject entrained organisms to mec hanical, thermal, and chemical stresses.

The ability of entrained organisms to withstand these stresses varies widely among taxa.

Entrained organisms typically are weak swimming or younger planktonic or semi

- planktonic life

stages of fish and invertebrat es that are small enough to pass through the 3/8

- in ch mesh vertical

traveling screens that are used at the Station. Fish life stages entrained at the Station include d

eggs, yolk

- sac larvae (YSL), post

- yolk

- sac larvae (PYSL), juveniles, and smaller adults.

Chapter 5.1 describes the entrainment sampling schedule, sampling gear, sampling methods, and

sample processing including Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC ) procedures.

Chapter 5.2 presents the collection results of the two

- year sampling program, including species

composition, temporal patterns, and comparisons to previous years. Estimates of annual direct

losses of fish to entrainment are presented in Chapter 8, along with a comparison with results

from a similar program conducted at the Station in 199 6

- 199 7

.

5.1 METHODS

Entrain ment sampling involved the collection and preservation of samples at the intake ;

recording of water quality variables at the tim e of sampling ; and laboratory processing of

samples for taxonomic and life stage identification, counts, and measurements.

5.1.1 Sampling Schedule

E ntrainment sampling was conducted once per week starting on 26 January 2009 and continuing

through 17 January 2011 for a total of 104 weeks. A sample of at least 100 m 3 

### volume was taken

during each 6

- hour interval on each sampling day for a total of four samples per sampling event.

The sampling intervals were 0001

- 0600, 0601

- 1200, 1201

- 1800, and 1801

- 2400 hours

.

5.1.2 Sam pling Gear and Methods

Sampling was conducted using a pumped entrainment sampler consisting of a 4

- inch gasoline

powered trash pump attached to a 4

- inch flexible intake line that could be raised and lowered to

specified depths , and a circular tank equipped with a 75

- cm diameter plankton net with 333

- μm

mesh netting

. Samples were collected from the center of the common intake for both Units 1 and

2 at a location immediately in front of or behind the skimmer wall . Each sample consisted of a

composite of app roximately equal samples drawn from near surface, mid

- depth, and near

bottom. Samples were collected regardless of whether cooling water pumps were operating at

the time of sampling.

At the completion of each collection, the tank was drained and the net was carefully washed to

concentrate all materials collected into the collection cup. After a thorough wash

- down, the

collected materials (plankton and detritus) were removed from the cup, placed in a glass jar and

preserved with 10 percent f ormalin containing r ose b engal dye. Each jar was then labeled and

transported to the laboratory for subsequent processing.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 2 Water quality and environmental parameter s were recorded every 6 hours during a sampling

event at mid

- depth in the intake using an i n

- situ multi

- parameter water quality meter and

turbidity meter . The parameters were consisted of:

 Water temperature ( to 0.1 °C)

 Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration ( to 0.1 mg/l)

 Turbidity (NTU units)

 Tidal stage and height (ft)

 Salinity (ppt)

 Conductivity (μS /cm )

 Air temperature (to 0.1°C)

 Weather conditions

The water quality and turbidity meters were calibrated according to the manufacturer’s

specification s for the meters prior to and after each sampling event.

5.1.3 Sample Processing

In the laboratory, all fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles were carefully sorted from sample detritus

and invertebrates. When numbers of ichthyoplankters was high, samples were randomly split

using a Motoda plankton

- splitter and a sufficient number of splits were analyzed such that a

minimum of 200 fish eggs or larvae/juveniles had been sorted. All specimens removed from

each sample were identified to the lowest practical taxon and separated into the following life

stages:

Egg

– The embryonic developmental stages from spawning to hatc hing.

Yolk

- sac larvae (YSL)

– The transition stage from hatching through the development of

a complete, functional digestive system (regardless of the degree of yolk and/or oil

globule retention).

Post yolk

- sac larvae (PYSL)

– The transition stage from the yolk

- sac larval stage to

transformation to the juvenile stage, including the leptocephalus stage of eels.

Juvenile

– The stage following completion of a full complement of fin rays up to 12

months of age.

Adult

– Determined as 1 year old or older based on literature values.

Specimens up to 15 mm in length were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm (TL) and to the nearest 1

mm for specimens over 15 mm.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 3 5.1.4 QA/QC

The results of laboratory processing, including counts and lengths, were r ecorded on project

specific data sheets. All laboratory processing was subject to a statistically

- based quality control

process based on a continuous sampling plan (derived from military

- standard MIL

- STD 1235B),

which guarantees an Average Outgoing Qualit y Level (AOQL) of 95 percent or more. That is,

samples selected based on the continuous sampling plan are re

- inspected to assure that more than

95 percent of organisms have been removed during sorting and that an accuracy of at least 95

percent is achieve d in identifying, assigning a life stage, or counting any species. Samples not

achieving these acceptance limits are rejected and reprocessed.

5.2 RESULTS

A total 192 entrainment samples were collected from 26 January 2009 through 18 January 2010

(Year 1)

, and 20 7 samples from 25 January 2010 through 17 January 2011 (Year 2 ) (Table 5

- 1).

Occasionally samples were unavoidably missed due to cold weather

- related problems like a

frozen pump sampler or to a broken pump or blocked access to the sampling equipment

. A total

of 16 samples corresponding to four sampling dates were not collected in Year 1

, and one sample

was not collected in Year 2 because of blocked access to the sampling equipment

.

5.2.1 Species and Life Stage Composition

In Year 1, a total of 3,7 79 organ isms comprising 24 unique taxa were found in entrainment

collections (Table 5

- 2). In Year 2, the total collection consisted of 13,394 organisms and 28

unique taxa (Table 5

- 3). Bay anchovy was the most abundant species during both years,

comprising 64. 1 p ercent of the collections in Year 1 and 91. 8 percent in Year 2. Bay anchovy

life stages included eggs, PYSL, juveniles, and adults.

Atlantic croaker was the only other species that made up more than 10 percent of an annual

entrainment collection, and th at happened only in Year 1 (470 individuals or 12.4 percent, Table

5

- 2). In Year 2, Atlantic croaker had decreased in abundance to 36 individuals, representing

only 0.3 percent of the collections. Atlantic croaker life stages entrained included PSYL and

juvenile. Atlantic croaker in the Middle Atlantic Bight is almost totally restricted to continental

shelf waters (Able and Fahay 2010), so it is likely that the larvae and juveniles found in the study

area moved from offshore to use the estuary as a nurse ry area rather than spawning there

.

Two species, tautog and naked goby, ranked among the most frequently collected species (>2

percent of total collected) in both sampling years. Tautog eggs ranked third in abundance in both

years with 4.4 percent of th e Year 1 collections and 2.7 percent of the Year 2 collections (Table

5

- 2 and 5

- 3). Naked goby was the second

- most frequently entrained species in Year 2 with 2.8

percent of the total collection, and was seventh

- most frequently entrained in Year 1 with 2. 7

percent of the total collection.

One other species, Atlantic menhaden, was notable in terms of the consistency that it appeared in

the two years of entrainment collections (Tables 5

- 2 and 5

- 3). It ranked among the seven most

frequently collected species and included eggs, PYSL, and juven iles.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 4 Together, these five species comprised 87 percent of the Year 1 collections and 98 percent of the

Year 2 collections. In addition to all species combined, t hese five species were selected as

individual species to examine temporal patterns of entrain ment collections by life stage in the

following section.

Larval and juvenile l ength frequency data for each species and sampling year are provided in

Appendix C

.

5.2.2 Temporal Patterns

Overall, while entrainment at the Station occurred in nearly every month, t here was variation

between the two sampling years in the seasonal occurrence and abundance of life stages for all

species combined (Figures 5

- 1 and 5

- 2) . In both years, eggs were entrained in greatest densities

from May to early July, reflecting the relat ive abundance of bay anchovy and tautog eggs, two

species that are late spring and early summer spawners. YSL were never abundant in

entrainment ( < 20 larvae/ 1,000 m 3 

### ); in Year 1 they occurred from mid

- February to early April

(Figure 5

- 1) but in Year 2 the y were most abundant in late May (Figure 5

- 2). In Year 1, most

YSL were grubby (Table 5

- 2), a late winter

- early spring spawn er, and in Year 2 most YSL were

identified as genus Menidia , silversides (Table 5

- 3), which are spring or summer spawners (Able

and Fahay 2010). PYSL was the most frequently entrained life stage collected and was entrained

throughout the year, but in greatest densities in both sampling years from June through August

due to the dominance of bay anchovies. J uvenile s were entrained only at reduced densities, but

there were differences between Y ears 1 and 2. In Year 1, peak entrainment occurred in late

November and early December (Figure 5

- 1), dominated by Atlantic croaker and Atlantic

menhaden juveniles (Table 5

- 2). In Year 2, entrainment of juveniles was reduced, and peak rates

occurred in March and April, reflecting the relative abundance of juvenile Atlantic herring,

which at northern latitudes spawns in the fall (Able and Fahay 2010).

Bay anchovy entrainment almos t exclusively involved eggs and PYSL. In both sampling years,

eggs were entrained during May and July, and PYSL were entrained primarily during June

through August (Figures 5

- 3 and 5

- 4). As larval bay anchovies transformed to juveniles,

entrainment of th e juvenile stage was delayed until August in Year 1 and July in Year 2 and

continued at low levels into late fall and early winter (November and December).

Entrainment of Atlantic croaker was restricted of fall and early winter months, September

December ( Figure 5

- 5 and 5

- 6), reflecting available literature information that spawning for this

species in this region begins in September, peaks in October, and ends in December (Able and

Fahay 2010). The occurrence of PYSL in September, particularly in Year 2, may indicate that

spawning along the coastline in this region begins earlier in some years. No eggs or YSL were

entrained.

Tautog eggs were entrained during May and June of both sampling years (Figures 5

- 7 and 5

- 8).

With the exception of a single juvenil e tautog collected in early November 2009, no other life

stages were entrained.

Entrainment levels for Atlantic menhaden were relatively low; densities for each life stage were

<25 individuals/1,000 m 3 

### except for juveniles in Year 2 (Figures 5

- 9 and 5

- 10). Eggs wereHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 5 collected in May of both years, but most PYSL were not entrained until October

- December.

Able and Fahay (2010) state that Atlantic menhaden in the Middle Atlantic Bight spawn mostly

in the fall and early winter over the inner continental shelf , but there may be limited spawning in

coastal waters in the spring. This observation may explain why some eggs were entrained during

May and a very limited number of PYSL were entrained in April or July (Figures 5

- 9 and 5

- 10).

The only life stages of nak ed goby that were entrained at the Station were PYSL and juveniles.

PYSL were entrained from mid

- May until early October, and juvenile entrainment was very

limited (<2.5 individuals/1,000 m 3 

### ) and only occurred in Year 2 during September (Figures 5

- 11

and 5

- 12). Naked gobies can spawn from April or May through August or September (Able and

Fahay 2010), coinciding with the months of entrainment for PYSL at the Station. Eggs or YSL

would not be expected to be entrained since the eggs are deposited and guard ed in nests by the

parent fish.

The average density of entrained fish that occurred in each of the four 6

- hour collections was

examined for the five species and their life stages to determine whether there was a diel

periodicity to their entrainment, i.e., what time of day were they most likely to be entrained. The

results are presented in Tables 5

- 4 and 5

- 5. There were no strong or consistent diel entrainment

patterns apparent for any of the five species or their life stages across both years of sampling.

5.2.3 Comparison to 1996

- 1997 Entrainment Stud y

When entrainment was monitored at the Station during 1996

- 1997, bay anchovy dominated

entrainment collections, constituting 64.3 percent of the total entrained fish collected (PSE&G

199 8 ). This value is nearly identical to the Year 1 value in the present study (64.5 percent, Table

5

- 2), but less than the Year 2 value (91.7 percent). Nevertheless, it is apparent that bay anchovy

is and has been the predominantly entrained species in recent years at the Station, and likely will

continue to be in the near future.

In 1996

- 1997, Atlantic tomcod was the second

- most abundant species in entrainment collections,

comprising 29.9 percent of all entrained fishes (PSE&G 199 8 ). In Year 1 of the present study,

only four entrained Atlantic tomcod were collected, and Atlantic tomcod did not appear at all in

the Year 2 collections (Tables 5

- 2 and 5

- 3). As discussed in Chapter 4

- 2, Atlantic tomcod has

reached its lowest levels of abu ndance in 27 or more years within the Hudson River estuary

(Daniels et al. 2005), which may account for the near elimination of the species from

entrainment at the Station since the 1996

- 1997 study was conducted.

Since no other species have been dominant, or even relatively abundant, in entrainment

collections, species

- specific trends would be difficult to detect for entrainment. S easonal

entrainment in the prior study (1996

- 1997) for all species and life stages combined was similar to

the present study, i n that peak entrainment was during summer, June

- August (PSE&G 199 8 ).

Bay anchovy eggs and PYSL had dominated the June

- October collections, like in the present

study. Unlike the present study, entrainment levels were elevated in December 1996

- January

1997 by collections of Atlantic tomcod eggs, thought to have been extruded by impinged ripe

females.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 6 Figure 5

- 1

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for All Species Combined,

2009

- 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 7 Figure 5

- 2

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for All Species Combined,

2010

- 2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 8 Figure 5

- 3

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Bay Anchovy , 2009

-

2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 9 Figure 5

- 4

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Bay Anchovy, 2010

-

2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 10 Figure 5

- 5

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Croaker

, 2009

- 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 11 Figure 5

- 6

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Croaker

, 20 10

- 2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 12 Figure 5

- 7

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Tautog , 20 09

- 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 13 Figure 5

- 8

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Tautog

, 20 10

- 2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 14 Figure 5

- 9

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Menhaden

, 2009

- 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 15 Figure 5

- 10

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Atlantic Menhaden

, 20 10

- 201 1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 16 Figure 5

- 11

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Naked Goby , 2009

-

2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 17 Figure 5

- 12

. Temporal Distribution of Entrainment by Life Stage for Nake d Goby , 20 10

-

2011HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 18 Table 5

- 1

. Number of Samples Collected in Entrainment Monitoring at Hudson

Generating Station, January 2009

– January 2011

Study Year 2009 Study Year 2010

Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples

26

- Jan

- 09 4 27

- Jul

- 09 

### 4 25

- Jan

- 10 4 26

- Jul

- 10 4

2

- Feb

- 09 4 3

- Aug

- 09 NS 2 

### 1

- Feb

- 10 4 2

- Aug

- 10 4

9

- Feb

- 09 4 10

- Aug

- 09 4 8

- Feb

- 10 4 10

- Aug

- 10 4

16

- Feb

- 09 NS 1 

### 17

- Aug

- 09 4 15

- Feb

- 10 4 17

- Aug

- 10 4

23

- Feb

- 09 4 24

- Aug

- 09 4 22

- Feb

- 10 3 4 

### 23

- Aug

- 10 4

2

- Mar

- 09 4 31

- Aug

- 09 4 1

- Mar

- 10 4 30

- Aug

- 10 4

9

- Mar

- 09 4 7

- Sep

- 09 4 8

- Mar

- 10 4 6

- Sep

- 10 4

16

- Mar

- 09 4 14

- Sep

- 09 4 15

- Mar

- 10 4 13

- Sep

- 10 4

23

- Mar

- 09 4 21

- Sep

- 09 NS 2 

### 22

- Mar

- 10 4 20

- Sep

- 10 4

30

- Mar

- 09 4 28

- Sep

- 09 4 29

- Mar

- 10 4 27

- Sep

- 10 4

6

- Apr

- 09 4 5

- Oct

- 09 4 5

- Apr

- 10 4 5

- Oct

- 10 4

13

- Apr

- 09 4 12

- Oct

- 09 4 12

- Apr

- 10 4 12

- Oct

- 10 4

20

- Apr

- 09 4 19

- Oct

- 09 4 19

- Apr

- 10 4 18

- Oct

- 10 4

27

- Apr

- 09 4 26

- Oct

- 09 4 26

- Apr

- 10 4 28

- Oct

- 10 4

4

- May

- 09 4 2

- Nov

- 09 4 3

- May

- 10 4 1

- Nov

- 10 4

11

- May

- 09 4 9

- Nov

- 09 4 10

- May

- 10 4 8

- Nov

- 10 4

18

- May

- 09 4 16

- Nov

- 09 4 17

- May

- 10 4 15

- Nov

- 10 4

25

- May

- 09 4 23

- Nov

- 09 4 24

- May

- 10 4 22

- Nov

- 10 4

1

- Jun

- 09 4 30

- Nov

- 09 4 31

- May

- 10 4 29

- Nov

- 10 4

8

- Jun

- 09 4 7

- Dec

- 09 4 7

- Jun

- 10 4 6

- Dec

- 10 4

15

- Jun

- 09 4 14

- Dec

- 09 4 14

- Jun

- 10 4 13

- Dec

- 10 4

22

- Jun

- 09 4 21

- Dec

- 09 NS 3 

### 21

- Jun

- 10 4 20

- Dec

- 10 4

29

- Jun

- 09 4 28

- Dec

- 09 4 28

- Jun

- 10 4 27

- Dec

- 10 4

6

- Jul

- 09 4 4

- Jan

- 10 4 5

- Jul

- 10 4 3

- Jan

- 11 4

13

- Jul

- 09 4 11

- Jan

- 10 4 12

- Jul

- 10 4 10

- Jan

- 11 4

20

- Jul

- 09 4 18

- Jan

- 10 4 19

- Jul

- 10 4 17

- Jan

- 11 4

Total 192 Total 20 7

1 Sampling canceled due to plant maintenance of screen and unable to access sampling device

. 2 Sampling pump broken.

3 Hoses and pipes were frozen on entrainment sampler.

4 One sample was not collected due to blocked access to sampling equipment.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 19 Table 5

- 2

. Overall Numerical Composition of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 26 January 2009

– 18 January 2010

Taxon Total Count 1

Percent

Egg YSL PYSL Juvenile Adult Total

Bay a nchovy 873 1516 26 9 2424 64.14

Atlantic c roaker 201 269 470 12.44

Tautog 165 1 166 4.39

Cunner 154 154 4.08

Grubby 14 135 5 154 4.08

Atlantic m enhaden 2 27 105 134 3.55

Naked g oby 103 103 2.73

Northern p ipefish 2 36 1 39 1.03

Summer f lounder 9 23 32 0.85

Winter f lounder 22 22 0.58

American e el 20 20 0.53

Atlantic h erring 4 8 12 0.32

Rock g unnel 11 1 12 0.32

Unidentifiable fish 2 5 2 2 11 0.29

Atlantic s ilverside 6 6 0.16

Highfin g oby 4 4 0.11

Threespine s tickleback 3 3 0.08

Weakfish 3 3 0.08

White p erch 2 2 0.05

Butterfish 1 1 0.03

Crevalle j ack 1 1 0.03

Fundulus sp. 1 1 0.03

Northern p uffer 1 1 0.03

Red h ake 1 1 0.03

Spotted h ake 1 1 0.03

Striped k illifish 1 1 0.03

Urophycis sp. 1 1 0.03

Total 1196 14 2069 486 13 3779 100.00HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 20 Table 5

- 3

. Overall Numerical Composition of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 25 January 2010

– 17 January 2011

Taxon Total Count 1

Percent

Egg YSL PYSL Juvenile Adult Total

Bay Anchovy 9569 2712 6 5 12292 91.77

Naked goby 1 358 1 8 368 2.75

Tautog 364 364 2.72

Atlantic herring 12 95 107 0.80

Grubby 3 37 40 0.30

Atlantic croaker 21 15 36 0.27

Atlantic menhaden 6 23 1 30 0.22

American eel 23 23 0.17

Menidia sp. 15 6 21 0.16

Northern pipefish 2 15 17 0.13

Winter flounder 10 6 16 0.12

Unidentifiable fish 12 1 13 0.10

Cunner 10 10 0.07

Threespine stickleback 8 1 9 0.07

Fundulus sp. 8 8 0.06

Striped bass 8 8 0.06

Summer flounder 8 8 0.06

Atlantic silverside 5 5 0.04

Atlantic tomcod 3 1 4 0.03

Conger eel 2 2 0.01

Highfin goby 2 2 0.01

White perch 2 2 0.01

Blueback herring 1 1 0.01

Bluegill 1 1 0.01

Butterfish 1 1 0.01

Feather blenny 1 1 0.01

Inshore lizardfish 1 1 0.01

Oyster toadfish 1 1 0.01

Rock gunnel 1 1 0.01

Skilletfish 1 1 0.01

Smallmouth flounder 1 1 0.01

Total 9978 20 3220 157 19 13394 100.00HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 21 Table 5

- 4 . Average Diel Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) of Selected Species Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring, 26 January 2009

– 18 January 2010

Taxa Life

Stage Beginning of 6

- Hour Sampling Period

0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

Atlantic croaker PYSL 

### 4.53 2.54 12.73 18.08

JUV 

### 5.62 13.46 15.40 17.61

Atlantic herring P YSL 

### 0.38 0.00 0.20 0.20

JUV 

### 0.19 0.39 0.00 1.01

Atlantic menhaden PYSL 

### 0.80 0.20 1.02 3.13

JUV 

### 20.96 0.00 0.21 0.20

Bay anchovy Egg s 

### 19.83 46.88 70.45 39.32

PYSL 

### 49.81 68.80 110.23 74.22

JUV 

### 1.22 1.41 1.04 1.20

Adult 

### 0.20 0.40 0.21 1.01

Naked goby PYSL 

### 2.18 2.40 12.24 3.82

Tautog Egg s 

### 12.18 6.62 7.20 7.47

JUV 

### 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00

YSL = Yolk

- sac larvae

PYSL = Post yolk

- sac larvae

JUV = JuvenileHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 5

- 22 Table 5

- 5 . Average Diel Density (#/1,000 m 3 

### ) of Selected Species Collected in Entrainment

Monitoring, 2 5 January 2010

– 1 7 January 2011

Taxa Life

Stage Beginning of 6

- Hour Sampling Period

0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

Atlantic croaker PYSL 

### 0.94 1.13 0.74 0.94

JUV 

### 0.93 0.76 0.37 1.72

Atlantic herring P YSL 

### 0.18 0.18 0.36 1.37

JUV 

### 4.63 2.33 0.00 9.73

Atlantic menhaden Egg s 

### 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.36

PYSL 

### 0.54 0.96 0.93 1.12

JUV 

### 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00

Bay anchovy Egg s 

### 556.54 292.41 186.86 581.57

PYSL 

### 54.42 40.91 69.45 179.45

JUV 

### 0.00 0.57 0.37 0.19

Adult 

### 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00

Naked goby PYSL 

### 18.71 9.37 9.59 16.73

JUV 

### 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00

Adult 

### 0.19 0.17 0.54 0.50

Tautog Egg s 

### 7.49 8.88 31.33 19.87

YSL = Yolk

- sac larvae

PYSL = Post yolk

- sac larvae

JUV = JuvenileHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 1 6. IMPINGEMENT

This chapter presents the 2009

- 2011 sampling program for impingement at Hudson Generating

Station. Impingement is the entrapment of organisms too large to pass through the mesh of the

traveling screens. Chapter 6.1 describes the impingement sampling schedule, sampling gear,

sampling methods, and sample processing including Quality Assurance and Quality Control

(QA/QC ) procedures. Chapter 6.2 presents the collection results of the two

- year sampl ing

program, including species composition, temporal patterns, and comparisons to previous years.

The results of impingement survival testing on the recently installed Ristroph traveling screens in

Unit 2 are presented in Chapter 7. Estimates of annual d irect losses of fish to impingement are

presented in Chapter 8, along with a comparison with results from a similar program conducted

at the Station in 199 6

- 199 7

.

6.1 METHODS

Impingement sampling involved the collection of samples of impinged fish and blue crabs at the

intake ; identification to species, counting, and recording lengths for age group determination and

size frequency determination; and recording of water quality variables at the time of sampling.

6.1.1 Sampling Schedule

Impingement sampling was condu cted on the same days as entrainment sampling, i.e., once per

week starting on 26 January 2009 and continuing through 17 January 2011 for a total of 104

weeks. The sampling intervals were 0 0 01

- 0600

, 060 1

- 1200 , 1 2 01

- 1800, and 180 1

- 2400 hours.

Altogether, there were six collections made during each sampling event. One sample was taken

over approximately 1 hour during each 6

- hour interval on each sampling day. In addition to the

regular 1

- hour samples, a second 1

- hour sample was taken during th e first two sampling

intervals, 0001

- 0600 and 0601

- 1200 hours. The second collection during these two sampling

intervals was intended to increase the number of fish available for impingement survival testing,

described in Chapter 7. Data on fish collecte d during the extra 1

- hour collections in the first two

sampling intervals were combined with data from the first collections, and estimates of total

impingement during each sampling interval were derived by extrapolating from 1 or 2 hour

collections to the full 6

- hour interval.

6.1.2 Sampling Gear and Methods

Sampling was conducted from the fish collection pool attached to the washwater sluice for Unit

2

. 10 

### The collection pool was located behind and between the traveling screens of Units 1 and 2.

The traveling s creen housings and sluice were cleaned prior to initiation of sampling. Water was

directed to the collection pool using the south tide gate, a board in the middle of the sluice, and

the gate on the collection pool. To begin the collection, the start time was recorded, the

collection pool gate was opened

, and the gates at both ends of the washwater sluice were closed.

Thereafter, the collection pool was checked regularly to ensure that the contents did not

overflow.

10 All sampling was conducted at Unit 2

. Unit 1 was not sampled due to the lack of access to its washwater sluice

because of the modified screenhouse configuration after installation of the modified Ristroph

- type screens and

screen washwater system for Unit 2.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 2 At the conclusion of the sample colle ction, the gate to the fish collection pool was closed and the

gates in the fish return sluice were opened. A screen was used to concentrate the impingement

sample, and all fish and blue crabs were removed from the pool. If present, any threatened or

end angered species were collected, identified, and measured with as little handling stress as

possible, before being released alive. Any encounter with threatened or endangered species was

reported to the onsite PSEG supervisor.

Water quality and environment al parameters were recorded every 6 hours during a sampling

event at mid

- depth in the intake using an in

- situ multi

- parameter water quality meter and

turbidity meter. The parameters were consisted of:

 Water temperature (to 0.1°C)

 Dissolved oxygen (DO) con centration (to 0.1 mg/ L )

 Turbidity (NTU units)

 Tidal stage and height (ft)

 Salinity (ppt)

 Conductivity (μS /cm )

 Air temperature (to 0.1°C)

 Weather conditions

The water quality and turbidity meters were calibrated according to the manufacturer’s

specificatio ns for the meters prior to and after each sampling event.

6.1.3 Sample Processing

Co llected fish and blue crabs specimens were identified to species, and their condition was

classified as being a live, stunned, or dead. Based on available regional size at age in formation,

each specimen was assigned to one of three age/length groups: age

- 0 (young

- of

- year) , age

- 1 or

older (yearling and older) , and unknown. Counts were made on the basis of species, age/length

group, and condition , defined as follows:

 Live : Actively swimming and oriented in upright position, with no visible external

physical damage.

 Stunned : Swimming abnormally, struggling, swimming on side, or upside down, or

nonmotile except when gently probed; with visible external physical damage such as

missing scales, torn fins, hemorrhaging, or gouges.

 Dead : No vital life signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing;

or severely damaged or mutilated with slight opercular movement.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 3 If counts were particularly high, total counts were derived using a subsampling procedure based

on the weight of 100 individuals.

Up to 50 intact individuals from each sample, taxon, and age/length group were measured to the

nearest millimeter and weighed to the nearest gram. Fish were measured for total length (TL)

and blue crabs were measured for carapace width.

6.1.4 QA/QC

R eferences and taxonomic keys were maintained in the fish processing lab for use in the

identification process. The field crew supervisor check ed all identifications before the sample is

released or discarded. Any discrepancies were resolved before being recorded; any fish

unidentified were preserved for further study. All length/weight measurements were checked by

the data recorder before being recorded, any discrepancies were resolved before being recorded.

6.2 RESULTS

A total 242 impingement samples were collected from 26 January 2009 through 18 January 2010

(Year 1), and 239 samples from 25 January 2010 through 17 January 2011 (Year 2) (Table 6

- 1)

. Impingement sampling could not occur on 10 dates during Year 1 and on 12 dates during Year 2,

usually because of Unit 2 outage and inoperative circulating pumps (explanations are provided

by date in Table 6

- 1). On occasion, one or two of the four daily samples could not be collected

on other dates because of temporary inaccessibility of the sampling ge ar due to screen or pump

maintenance, gear malfunction, or lack of washwater flow.

6.2.1 Species Composition

In Year 1, a total of 7,966 organisms comprising 5 1 fish species plus blue crab were found in

impingement collections (Table 6

- 2). In Year 2, the total collection consisted of 22,958

individuals and 50 unique fish species plus blue crab (Table 6

- 3 ). Blue crab was the most

abundant species during both yea rs, comprising 60.9 percent of the collections in Year 1 and

80.2 percent in Year 2. The four most frequently collected fish species were consistent for both

sampling years: white perch followed in order by bay anchovy, spotted hake, and Atlantic

silverside (Tables 6

- 2 and 6

- 3).

White perch comprised 13.8 percent of the total collections in Year 1 and 5.5 percent in Year 2.

Over one half ( 61.1 and 65.8 percent, respectively) of the white perch were yearling or older fish

(Tables 6

- 2 and 6

- 3). Bay anchovy comprised 7.3 percent of the total collections in Year 1 and

4.0 percent in Year 2, and over 90 percent were adult fi sh of age 1 or older. Spotted hake and

Atlantic silverside were nearly as abundant as bay anchovy, but nearly all spotted hake were

yearling or older fish while approximately 60 percent of the impinged Atlantic silversides were

age 0 (young

- of

- year or YOY ) fish (Tables 6

- 2 and 6

- 3).

Although the total number of impinged fish species was relatively high, the on ly species with

total collections greater than 100 fish, other than those discussed above, were threespine

stickleback in Year 1 and red hake and o yster toadfish in Year 2 (Tables 6

- 2 and 6

- 3). Thus, 90

percent of the fish species impinged in Year 1 and 8 8 percent of the fish species in Year 2 were

represented by relatively few (<100) total fish in the annual impingement collections, andHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 4 approximate ly 50 to 60 percent of all the species were represented by fewer than 10 fish

collected.

6.2.2 Seasonal Patterns

With all fish species combined, impingement rates were less variable seasonally during Year 1

than Year 2 (Figure 6

- 1). In Year 2, there were distin ct peaks in impingement rates (>6,000

fish/million m 3 

### ) in late April

- early May and in late June. In Year 1, peak rates remained below

6,000 fish/million m 3 

### and occurred in early May, early November, and December. In both years,

young

- of

- year fish did n ot appear in impingement collections until late May or June, and usually

were dominant after August in Year 1 and after June in Year 2 (Figure 6

- 1).

White perch were impinged nearly year

- round, reflecting the fact that they are a resident species

in the Ha ckensack River system. However, impingement rates generally were higher from

November through early May (Figure 6

- 2). Young

- of

- year first appeared in impingement

collection s from late June to July and thereafter typically were the dominant age group. Th e

length frequency distribution for impinged white perch was bimodal, with modes occurring at

80

- 100 mm TL and 160

- 200 mm TL (Figure 6

- 3).

The majority of bay anchovies were impinged from May through August (Figure 6

- 4). The

length frequency distributio n (Figure 6

- 5) was unimodal (mode of 60

- 80 mm TL), reflecting the

relatively short life span and lack of multiple age groups for this species.

Impingement of spotted hake was restricted primarily to November through July, with peak rates

in May (Figure 6

- 6). Total lengths ranged from approximately 50 to 300 mm , but most fish were

<200 mm TL (Figure 6

- 7). Able and Fahay (2010) found that in the Middle Atlantic Bight there

were two modes of spawning activity: August

- October and February

- April. The predo minance

of spotted hake impingement in the spring, given the observed length range, could have

originated from a fall spawning and subsequent migration of young fish from coastal waters to

the estuary in the spring.

Most impingement of Atlantic silversides occurred in the fall and involved YOY fish. In Year 1,

impingement rates began to increase in September and peaked in early November (Figure 6

- 8,

Year 1). Impingement of this 2009 year class carried over through early April of Year 2 as

yearling and old er fish (Figure 6

- 8, Year 2). In Year 2, most impingement again occurred in the

fall but appeared to begin later, in November, although there was a reduced level of impingement

in the summer, June

- August. The length frequency distributions for impinged A tlantic

silversides in both sampling years were similar and unimodal, with lengths ranging from

approximately 60 to 130 mm TL (Figure 6

- 9).

Blue crabs were impinged during warmer months when they are most active. In Year 1,

impingement occurred primarily from May through early November (Figure 6

- 10). In Year 2,

impingement began earlier (late March) and nearly ceased altogether in mid to late August, but

peak impingement rates were over four times greater than in Year 1 (Figure 6

- 10). The size

frequency distributions for the two sampling years also differed greatly. In Year 1, small crabs

(<60 mm carapace width) dominated impingement collections (Figure 6

- 11). In Year 2, size

frequency was more normally distributed with peak widths of 100

- 120 mm.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 5 Figure s 6

- 12 through 6

- 16 depict the diel impingement rates for the five dominant species,

presented as monthly mean density (#/million m 3 

### of water withdrawn) during the four collection

periods within a sampling day. There did not appear to be any consistency i n the diel

impingement rates on a monthly basis for white perch (Figure 6

- 12) or Atlantic silverside (Figure

6

- 15). Impingement rates for bay anchovy appeared to be somewhat greater during darkness

(1800

- 0600 hours) than daylight (0600

- 1800 hours) from Ju ne or July into August , and were

especially elevated during evening hours (1800

- 0000 hours) in June 2010 (Figure 6

- 13).

Impingement of spotted hake also appeared to be greater during darkness, as shown by Figure 6

- 14, particularly during May peak impingem ent rates. During some months, impingement of blue

crabs was greater during darkness (1800

- 0600 hours) , particularly in 2010, but this pattern was

not consistent (Figure 6

- 16).

6.2.3 Comparison to 1996

- 1997 Impingement Study

Blue crab was the most frequently impinged species in both the 1996

- 1997 study and the present

study at the Station . In the 1996

- 1997 study, estimated impingement totals for blue crab were

nearly 20 times the total for the second

- most frequently impinged species, bay anchovy (PSE&G

199 8 ). In the 1996

- 1997 study, white perch were not as abundant in impingement collections as

they are now relative to other species, reflecting the recent population increase for this species

(Chapter 4.2). Weakfish and winter flounder were relatively more ab undant in the 1996

- 1997

impingement study at the Station than they are now. Further comparisons of study results are

made in Chapter 8.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 6 Figure 6

- 1

. Weekly Impingement Rate for All Fish Species Combined b y Age Group , 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 7 Figure 6

- 2 Weekly Impingement Rate for White Perch by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1)

and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 8 Figure 6

- 3

. Length Frequency of Impinged White Perch, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 9 Figure 6

- 4

. Weekly Impingement Rate for Bay Anchovy by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1)

an d 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 10 Figure 6

- 5

. Length Frequency of Impinged Bay Anchovy, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 11 Figure 6

- 6

. Weekly Impingement Rate for Spotted Hake by Age Group, 2009

- 2010 (Year

1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 12 Figure 6

- 7

. Length Frequency of Impinged Spotted Hake, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 13 Figure 6

- 8

. Weekly Impingement Rate for Atlantic Silverside by Age Group, 2009

- 2010

(Year 1) and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 14 Figure 6

- 9

. Length Frequency of Impinged Atlantic Silverside, 2009

- 2 010 (Year 1) and

2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 15 Figure 6

- 10

. Weekly Impingement Rate for Blue Crab , 2009

- 2010 (Year 1) and 2010

- 2011

(Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 16 Figure 6

- 11

. Size Frequency (Carapace Width) of Impinged Blue Crab, 2009

- 2010 (Year 1)

and 2010

- 2011 (Year 2)HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 17 Figure 6

- 12

. Mean Density of Impinged White Perch by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009

and 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 18 Figure 6

- 13

. Mean Density of Impinged Bay Anchovy by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009

and 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 19 Figure 6

- 14

. Mean Density of Impinged Spotted Hake by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009

and 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 20 Figure 6

- 15

. Mean Density of Impinged Atlantic Silverside by 6

- Hour Collection Period,

2009 and 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 21 Figure 6

- 16

. Mean Density of Impinged Blue Crab by 6

- Hour Collection Period, 2009 and

2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 22 Table 6

- 1

. Number of Samples Collected in Impingement Monitoring at Hudson

Generating Station, January 2009

– January 2011

Study Year 2009 Study Year 2010

Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples Sample

Date No. of

Samples

26

- Jan

- 09 6 27

- Jul

- 09 6 25

- Jan

- 10 6 26

- Jul

- 10 6

2

- Feb

- 09 6 3

- Aug

- 09 6 1

- Feb

- 10 6 2

- Aug

- 10 6

9

- Feb

- 09 6 10

- Aug

- 09 5 5 

### 8

- Feb

- 10 6 10

- Aug

- 10 6

16

- Feb

- 09 NS 1 

### 17

- Aug

- 09 6 15

- Feb

- 10 6 17

- Aug

- 10 6

23

- Feb

- 09 6 24

- Aug

- 09 NS 5 

### 22

- Feb

- 10 6 23

- Aug

- 10 6

2

- Mar

- 09 6 31

- Aug

- 09 6 1

- Mar

- 10 6 30

- Aug

- 10 6

9

- Mar

- 09 6 7

- Sep

- 09 NS 5 

### 8

- Mar

- 10 6 6

- Sep

- 10 NS 3



### 16

- Mar

- 09 6 14

- Sep

- 09 NS 5 

### 15

- Mar

- 10 6 13

- Sep

- 10 NS 3



### 23

- Mar

- 09 6 21

- Sep

- 09 6 22

- Mar

- 10 NS 3 

### 20

- Sep

- 10 NS 3



### 30

- Mar

- 09 NS 2 

### 28

- Sep

- 09 1 5 

### 29

- Mar

- 10 NS 3 

### 27

- Sep

- 10 NS 3



### 6

- Apr

- 09 NS 3 

### 5

- Oct

- 09 6 5

- Apr

- 10 6 5

- Oct

- 10 NS 3



### 13

- Apr

- 09 NS 3 

### 12

- Oct

- 09 6 12

- Apr

- 10 6 12

- Oct

- 10 NS 3



### 20

- Apr

- 09 NS 3 

### 19

- Oct

- 09 6 19

- Apr

- 10 6 18

- Oct

- 10 NS 3



### 27

- Apr

- 09 NS 3 

### 26

- Oct

- 09 6 26

- Apr

- 10 NS 7 

### 28

- Oct

- 10 NS 3



### 4

- May

- 09 6 2

- Nov

- 09 6 3

- May

- 10 6 1

- Nov

- 10 NS 3



### 11

- May

- 09 6 9

- Nov

- 09 5 5 

### 10

- May

- 10 6 8

- Nov

- 10 6

18

- May

- 09 6 16

- Nov

- 09 6 17

- May

- 10 6 15

- Nov

- 10 6

25

- May

- 09 4 4 

### 23

- Nov

- 09 5 6 

### 24

- May

- 10 6 22

- Nov

- 10 6

1

- Jun

- 09 6 30

- Nov

- 09 6 31

- May

- 10 6 29

- Nov

- 10 6

8

- Jun

- 09 6 7

- Dec

- 09 6 7

- Jun

- 10 6 6

- Dec

- 10 6

15

- Jun

- 09 6 14

- Dec

- 09 6 14

- Jun

- 10 6 13

- Dec

- 10 6

22

- Jun

- 09 6 21

- Dec

- 09 6 21

- Jun

- 10 6 20

- Dec

- 10 6

29

- Jun

- 09 6 28

- Dec

- 09 6 28

- Jun

- 10 6 27

- Dec

- 10 5 5



### 6

- Jul

- 09 NS 3 

### 4

- Jan

- 10 6 5

- Jul

- 10 6 3

- Jan

- 11 6

13

- Jul

- 09 6 11

- Jan

- 10 6 12

- Jul

- 10 6 10

- Jan

- 11 6

20

- Jul

- 09 6 18

- Jan

- 10 6 19

- Jul

- 10 6 17

- Jan

- 11 6

Total 24 2 Total 2 39

1 Sampling canceled due to screen maintenance.

2 Tide gate stuck open and unable to use impingement sampler.

3 Outage at Unit 2.

4 Two samples not collected due to pump and screen maintenance.

5 Samples not collected due to lack of water in screenwash sluice.

6 One sample not collected because circulatin g pumps not operating.

7 Sampling canceled because south gate unable to close.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 23 Table 6

- 2

. Overall Numerical Composition of Fish Species Collected in Impingement

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 26 January 2009

– 18 January 2010

Species Young of Year Yearling and Older Total

Count Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total

Blue crab 1 4,854

White perch 429 38.93 673 61.07 1,102

Bay anchovy 10 1.72 571 98.28 581

Spotted hake 2 1.01 196 98.99 198

Atlantic silverside 117 60.00 78 40.00 195

Threespine stickleback 0 0.00 163 100.00 163

Gizzard shad 78 82.11 17 17.89 95

Winter flounder 53 59.55 36 40.45 89

Blueback herring 0 0.00 81 100.00 81

Oyster toadfish 0 0.00 71 100.00 71

Alewife 40 61.54 25 38.46 65

Red hake 0 0.00 64 100.00 64

Atlantic tomcod 26 50.98 25 49.02 51

Silver hake 25 50.00 25 50.00 50

Bluefish 40 95.24 2 4.76 42

Atlantic menhaden 29 70.73 12 29.27 41

Striped searobin 22 95.65 1 4.35 23

Striped bass 0 0.00 22 100.00 22

American eel 0 0.00 20 100.00 20

Hogchoker 7 38.89 11 61.11 18

Windowpane 0 0.00 18 100.00 18

Northern pipefish 1 7.14 13 92.86 14

Weakfish 6 42.86 8 57.14 14

Black s ea bass 8 66.67 4 33.33 12

Mummichog 0 0.00 10 100.00 10

Butterfish 6 66.67 3 33.33 9

Bluegill 2 25.00 6 75.00 8

Atlantic croaker 0 0.00 5 100.00 5

Lined seahorse 0 0.00 5 100.00 5

Striped cusk eel 0 0.00 4 100.00 4

Striped killifish 0 0.00 4 100.00 4

Tautog 0 0.00 4 100.00 4

Conger eel 0 0.00 3 100.00 3

Gulf Stream flounder 0 0.00 3 100.00 3

Lookdown 0 0.00 3 100.00 3

Naked goby 0 0.00 3 100.00 3

Black crappie 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

Cunner 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

Grubby 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

Northern searobin 2 100.00 0 0.00 2

Sea lamprey 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

Summer flounder 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

American shad 0 0.00 1 100.00 1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 24 Table 6

- 2 C ontinued

Species Young of Year Yearling and Older Total

Count Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total

Bluespotted cometfish 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Crevalle jack 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Golden shiner 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Goldfish 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Hickory shad 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Moonfish 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Northern stargazer 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Pumpkinseed 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Seaboard goby 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Total 907 11.39 7,059 88.61 7,966

1 Blue crab age classifications not made.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 25 Table 6

- 3

. Overall Numerical Composition of Fish Species Collected in Impingement

Monitoring at Hudson Generating Station, 25 January 2010

– 17 January 2011

Species Young of Year Yearling and Older Total

Count Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total

Blue c rab 1 18,405

White p erch 428 34.19 824 65.81 1,252

Bay a nchovy 75 8.07 854 91.93 929

Spotted h ake 2 0.23 878 99.77 880

Atlantic s ilverside 281 59.28 193 40.72 474

Red h ake 0 0.00 154 100.00 154

Oyster t oadfish 15 13.27 98 86.73 113

Silver h ake 50 66.67 25 33.33 75

Alewife 46 63.01 27 36.99 73

Lookdown 73 100.00 0 0.00 73

Threespine s tickleback 0 0.00 65 100.00 65

Winter f lounder 35 55.56 28 44.44 63

Blueback h erring 21 43.75 27 56.25 48

American e el 0 0.00 38 100.00 38

Striped b ass 11 30.56 25 69.44 36

Hochoker 0 0.00 34 100.00 34

Bluefish 19 63.33 11 36.67 30

Gizzard s had 9 30.00 21 70.00 30

Butterfish 21 75.00 7 25.00 28

Atlantic t omcod 2 9.52 19 90.48 21

Bluegill 3 18.75 13 81.25 16

Weakfish 13 86.67 2 13.33 15

Striped k illifish 1 7.69 12 92.31 13

Mummichog 0 0.00 9 100.00 9

Windowpane 0 0.00 9 100.00 9

Gray s napper 0 0.00 8 100.00 8

Atlantic m enhaden 3 42.86 4 57.14 7

Northern s earobin 1 14.29 6 85.71 7

Striped s earobin 5 71.43 2 28.57 7

Northern p ipefish 0 0.00 5 100.00 5

Pumpkinseed 1 20.00 4 80.00 5

Seaboard g oby 0 0.00 5 100.00 5

Summer f lounder 2 40.00 3 60.00 5

American s had 3 100.00 0 0.00 3

Spottail s hiner 3 100.00 0 0.00 3

Atlantic c roaker 1 50.00 1 50.00 2

Northern k ingfish 2 100.00 0 0.00 2

Striped c usk e el 0 0.00 2 100.00 2

Banded k illifish 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Black c rappie 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Brown b ullhead 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Conger e el 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Crevalle j ack 1 100.00 0 0.00 1HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 6

- 26 Table 6

- 3 C ontinued

Species Young of Year Yearling and Older Total

Count Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total

Eastern m

udminnow 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Fourspine s tickleback 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Freshwater d rum 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Inshore l izardfish 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Lined s eahorse 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Northern p uffer 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Short b igeye 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Tautog 0 0.00 1 100.00 1

Unid entified Morone 1 100.00 0 0.00 1

Total 1,131 4.93 21,827 95.07 22,958

1 Blue crab age classifications not made.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 1 7. IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL

In addition to the impingement monitoring study described above, a special impingement

survival study was conducted at Hudson Unit 2. The purpose of this special study was to

estimate the survival of fish impinged on the modified

- Ristroph screens newly installed at the

Unit 2 cooling water intake structure for up to 48 hours after impingement. In addition, t he

factors potentially affecting these survival rates were evaluated.

7.1 METHODS

Fish for this study were obtained from the routine impingement monitoring study conducted

during the first two 6

- hour sampling periods on each sample date. A total of t wo 1

- hour

collections (one regular and one additional) were made during each of the first two sampling

periods as described for impingement monitoring above. At the completion of each 1

- hour

collection, all fish were removed from the sampling tank and categorized as to condition using to

the following criteria:

Live : Actively swimming and oriented in upright position, with no visible external

physical damage.

Stunned : Swimming abnormally, struggling, swimming on side, or upside down, or

nonmotile except when gently probed; with visible external physical damage such as

missing scales, torn fins, hemorrhaging, or gouges.

Dead : No vital life signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing;

or severely damaged or mutilated with slight opercular movem ent.

When sufficient numbers warranted, all live and stunned fish were in 5

- gal holding containers,

separately by collection interval and in a manner to minimize predation. A maximum of 100 fish

per species were held on each sampling date. These holding containers were placed in a latent

effects holding facility. This holding facility was located next to the Hudson cooling water

intake and it was provided ambient water on a flow

- through basis. Each holding container was

labeled with a unique number iden tifying the day, month, year and collection period. All dead

fish from each collection were identified to species, measured and weighed. All data were

recorded on study

- specific data sheets.

The fish retained in the latent

- effects holding facility were c hecked again approximately 24

hours after collection and all dead fish were removed, identified to species, measured and

weighed. At 48 hours after collection, all remaining fish were classified as to condition

according to the criteria described above, i dentified to species, measured and weighed. At this

time, the holding was terminated and all live or stunned fish were released to the Hackensack

River. In addition to the fish checks, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and

ammonia in the water trough were measured and recorded to ensure adequate water conditions

for long

- term holding at the time of each check. All sampling was conducted according to

Standard Operating Procedures and all data collected as part of this study were recorded on

study

- specific data sheets.

Using these data, three measures of percent survival were calculated for each species:HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 2 Initial survival = ( Number alive at collection/Total number collected )*100 ;

Extended survival = (Number alive at 48 hours/ Number alive at collection *100 ; and,

Total 48

- hr survival = ( Number alive at 48 hours/Total number collected )*100

.

For all analysis, any fish categorized as stunned were considered to be non

- viable and treated as

dead.

7.2 OVERALL IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL

A total of 5,079 ind ividuals from 56 species and one genus ( Morone ) were collected in this study

and held for latent effects evaluation. Overall initial survival was just over 92 percent and

extended (0 to 48 hours) survival was almost 62 percent yielding an overall impingem ent

survival rate through 48 hours of more than 56 percent across all species combined (Table 7

- 1).

All of the species collected are common inhabitants of brackish water areas in the Northeast.

Sufficient data to warrant calculation of impingement surviva l ( > 20 fish collected) existed for 22

of the 56 species collected (39 percent). These 22 species accounted for more than 97 percent of

the fish evaluated in this survival study. Estimates of survival for each of these species and for

the remaining indiv iduals combined are provided in Table 7

- 2. Initial survival was relatively

high (>90 percent) for most of the individual species. However, extend ed (0 to 48 hour) survival

was highly variable depending on species. Overall impingement survival at 48 hour s post

impingement ranged from more 98 percent for threespine stickleback to only 5 percent for

butterfish. Half of the individual species addressed in this analysis had impingement survival

rates greater than 70 percent.

7.3 FACTORS AFFECTING SU RVIVAL

Seve ral factors, independent of the design and operation of the intake screens, have the potential

to affect the survival of impinged fish (EPRI 2003). These include the size and age of the

individuals affected as well as the temperature and salinity of the s ource waterbody. To evaluate

the potential effects of these factors on estimates of impingement survival at Hudson, data

collected in this study were subject to detailed statistical analysis.

In this analysis, survival was estimated by fitting the gene ral logistic equation:

S(t) =1

- 1/[1+ exp{

- [M 0 

### + M L 

### (e  t



### - 1)/  + M Len 

### (Length) + M temp 

### (T) + M sal 

### (Sal) + M

age 

### (Age) +

M

season 

### ]}]

where:

S(t) = fraction surviving at time t (days) from collection;

M 0 

### = intercept term ;

M L 

### = latent instantaneous mortality rate (reflect deaths occurring over 48

- hr monitoring

period);

 = parameter describing change in latent mortality rate through time;HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 3 M Len 

### = mortality coefficient for length (mm);

M temp 

### = mortality coefficient for temperature (C);

M sal 

### = mortality coe fficient for salinity (ppt);

M

age 

### = mortality coefficient for age (years); and,

M

season 

### = mortality coefficient for season (spring, summer, fall, winter).

This statistical model has the advantage of being able to utilize information from the entire time

course of mortality over this study to predict impingement survival.

Species for which at least 100 fish were collected were modeled as separate taxa. Species that

had less than 100 fish collected were combined into "All other species". This model was fitted in

sequence by maximum likelihood methods using the NLIN procedure in SAS, with some terms

being set to zero for particular models:

All models that added one additional factor to the estimates of impingement survival (Model 2a

through Model 2f) reduced the combined loglikelihood 11 

### an amount ranging from 66 (Model 2d:

M sal 

### ) to 261 (Model 2b:  ). However these improvements in fit by inclusion of additional

parameters need to be compared to the appropriate Chi

- squared statistic  

α ,n df 

### ) to determine if

improvement are greater than those expected due to random chance alone. For Models 2a

throug h 2e, one additional parameter was added for each of the 12 tax onomic groups . Therefore,

the improvements in these models need be compared to  

  df 

### = 21. The seasonal model

(Model 2f) contained 36 additional parameters ( three for each taxon). Hence, the appropriate

value for this comparison is  

  df 

### = 51. Based on these comparisons, all of the stage 2 models

were significantly better than Model 1.

In the next step, parameters for temperature, length, and salinity were added individua lly to

Model 2b which include the  parameter for temporal change in the latent mortality rate. This

model was selected as the base as it yielded the greatest improvement among the stage 2 models.

11 

### The combined loglikelihood is ana logous to combined error SS in the more traditional least

squares analysis.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 4 In this step, while each of the models also provided a si gnificant improvement over the base

model (Model 2b), the inclusion of temperature (Model 3a) exhibited the most improvement,

followed by the models with salinity, then length.

In final step, length (Model 4a) and length and salinity (Model 4b) were separately added to

Model 3a, the model exhibiting the greatest improvement in the prior step. Significant

improvement over Model 3a occurred both with both Model 4a and Model 4b. Although further

improvement in fit to the data set could have been achiev ed by adding more independent

variables or interactions among the variables, additional terms in the model increase the variance

of the predicted survival and the risk of tailoring the model too closely to the current data set at

the expense of poor predic tion ability for other data sets to which the model could be applied.

Therefore, Model 4b was selected as the appropriate model for predicting impingement survival

at Hudson. This model includes effects of length, temperature and salinity on impingement

s urvival. Parameter estimates and associated standard errors for each of the individual species

included in this analysis are provided in Table 7

- 3. These parameter estimates can then be used

to determine the impingement mortality for each species based o n the length of the individual

and the water temperature and salinity at the time of impingement.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 5 Table 7

- 1 Overall C atch and C ondition of F ish by S pecies in the I mpingement S urvival

S tudy at the Hudson Generating Station, 2010

- 2011

Common

Name Initial

Dead 24 Hr

Dead 48 Hr Total

Number Dead Stunned Live

White perch 57 90 82 13 1,046 1,288

Bay anchovy 163 764 156 1 142 1,226

Spotted hake 103 52 87 1 415 658

Atlantic silverside 3 25 52 2 324 406

Red hake 2 8 10 0 168 188

Threespine stickleback 1 0 1 0 147 149

Oyster toadfish 2 7 6 1 112 128

Winter flounder 7 12 16 0 90 125

Alewife 11 26 23 7 50 117

Silver hake 5 19 42 5 36 107

Blueback herring 2 45 17 7 29 100

Lookdown 5 31 12 0 22 70

Gizzard shad 3 19 17 2 23 64

Bluefish 15 25 3 1 12 56

Atlantic tomcod 0 7 5 0 41 53

American eel 1 5 7 0 39 52

Hogchoker 3 1 3 0 30 37

Atlantic menhaden 4 10 9 0 9 32

Striped bass 0 1 3 0 20 24

Weakfish 1 4 5 0 13 23

Bluegill 2 0 1 0 17 20

Butterfish 1 9 8 1 1 20

Windowpane 1 0 6 0 9 16

Striped searobin 1 2 2 0 10 15

Northern pipefish 1 1 2 0 9 13

Mummichog 0 1 1 0 10 12

Striped killifish 0 0 0 0 12 12

Black sea bass 2 0 0 0 8 10

Striped cusk

- eel 0 1 2 0 3 6

Tautog 0 1 0 0 4 5

Summer flounder 0 0 2 0 2 4

Northern searobin 0 0 0 0 4 4

American shad 0 1 0 1 1 3

Pumpkinseed 0 0 0 0 3 3

Spottail shiner 0 2 0 0 1 3

Lined seahorse 0 0 2 0 1 3HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 6 Common

Name Initial

Dead 24 Hr

Dead 48 Hr Total

Number Dead Stunned Live

Atlantic croaker 2 1 0 0 0 3

Northern kingfish 0 0 0 0 2 2

Conger eel 0 0 0 0 2 2

Seaboard goby 0 0 1 0 1 2

Gulf Stream flounder 0 0 0 0 2 2

Black crappie 0 0 1 0 0 1

Golden shiner 0 1 0 0 0 1

Banded killifish 0 0 0 0 1 1

Fourspine stickleback 0 0 0 0 1 1

Crevalle jack 0 0 1 0 0 1

Unid. Morone 0 0 1 0 0 1

Sea lamprey 0 0 1 0 0 1

Northern puffer 0 0 0 0 1 1

Grubby 0 0 1 0 0 1

Eastern mudminnow 0 0 0 0 1 1

Naked goby 0 0 0 0 1 1

Northern stargazer 0 0 0 0 1 1

Inshore lizardfish 0 0 0 0 1 1

Cunner 0 0 0 0 1 1

Bluespotted cornetfish 1 0 0 0 0 1

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 399 1,171 588 42 2,879 5,079HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 7 Table 7

- 2 Estimates of I mpingement S urvival T hrough 48 hours for S elected F ish S pecies

B ased on S ampling at the Hudson Generating Station, 2009

- 2010

Common

Name Total

Number

Collected Percent Survival

Initial Extended Total

48 hr Total 48 hr

Confidence

Interval 12

Threespine stickleback 149 99.3 99.3 98.7 95.2

- 99.8

Red hake 188 98.9 90.3 89.4 84.1

- 93.4

Oyster toadfish 128 98.4 88.9 87.5 80.5

- 92.7

Bluegill 20 90.0 94.4 85.0 62.1

- 96.8

Striped bass 24 100.0 83.3 83.3 62.6

- 95.3

White perch 1,288 95.6 85.0 81.2 79.0

- 83.3

Hogchoker 37 91.9 88.2 81.1 64.9

- 92.0

Atlantic silverside 406 99.3 80.4 79.8 75.6

- 83.6

Atlantic tomcod 53 100.0 77.4 77.4 63.8

- 87.7

American eel 52 98.1 76.5 75.0 61.1

- 86.0

Winter flounder 125 94.4 76.3 72.0 63.3

- 79.7

Spotted hake 658 84.3 74.8 63.1 59.3

- 66.8

Weakfish 23 95.7 59.1 56.5 34.5

- 76.8

Alewife 117 90.6 47.2 42.7 33.6

- 52.2

Gizzard shad 64 95.3 37.7 35.9 24.3

- 48.9

Silver hake 107 95.3 35.3 33.6 24.8

- 43.4

Lookdown 70 92.9 33.8 31.4 20.9

- 43.6

Blueback herring 100 98.0 29.6 29.0 20.4

- 38.9

Atlantic menhaden 32 87.5 32.1 28.1 13.8

- 46.8

Bluefish 56 73.2 29.3 21.4 11.6

- 34.4

Bay anchovy 1,226 86.7 13.4 11.6 9.8

- 13.5

Butterfish 20 95.0 5.3 5.0 0.1

- 24.5

All other species 136 94.1 72.7 68.4 59.9

- 76.1

All fish combined 5,079 92.1 61. 5 56.7 55.3

- 58.1

12 95 percent exact binomial confidence intervals. Source: http://statpages.org/confint.html (5/5/2011).HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 7

- 8 Table 7

- 3 Model P arameters and S tandard E rrors to P redict I mpingement S urvival for S elected F ish S pecies B ased on

S ampling at the Hudson Generating Station, 2009

- 2010

Species N Likeli

hood M 0 se(M 0 ) M L se(M L ) 

###  se( 

###  ) M Len se(M Len ) M Temp se(M Temp ) M Sal se(M Sal )

Alewife 117 288 1.822 1.633 1.886 0.510

- 0.491 0.270

- 0.052 0.015 0.040 0.027

- 0.011 0.062

Atlantic silverside 406 546

- 4.913 1.267 2.632 0.832

- 0.620 0.257 0.009 0.011

- 0.008 0.025

- 0.016 0.042

Bay anchov y 1

, 110 13 2515

- 3.329 0.517 4.387 0.263

- 1.022 0.085 0.004 0.003 0.027 0.017 0.051 0.014

Blueback herring 100 237

- 5.751 1.373 4.611 1.041

- 1.223 0.276 0.024 0.009

- 0.028 0.025 0.111 0.045

Oyster toadfish 128 122

- 5.297 2.218 2.351 1.392

- 0.746 0.533

- 0.008 0.007 0.143 0.085

- 0.124 0.059

Red hake 188 1 37

- 7.420 1.401 1.717 1.122

- 0.354 0.529 0.021 0.007 0.119 0.040

- 0.110 0.065

Silver hake 107 262

- 0.023 1.942 1.244 0.429 0.256 0.264

- 0.012 0.014 0.024 0.033

- 0.118 0.072

Spotted hake 6 2 2 13 1114

- 4.436 0.612 2.262 0.488

- 0.091 0.161 0.000 0.002

- 0.032 0.022 0.063 0.029

Threespine stickleback 149 20 18.711 17.703 0.008 0.000 2.768 0.592

- 0.453 0.277

- 0.444 1.005 0.246 0.692

White perch 1

, 288 1633

- 2.329 0.372 1.382 0.221

- 0.746 0.159

- 0.008 0.002 0.048 0.011

- 0.025 0.020

Winter flounder 125 186

- 5.699 1.843 1.457 0.629

- 0.227 0.376

- 0.007 0.007 0.216 0.066

- 0.109 0.040

All o ther spec ies 587 1314

- 3.868 0.361 2.047 0.282

- 0.620 0.133

- 0.002 0.001 0.054 0.013 0.045 0.018

13 Number included in analysis less than that listed in Table 7

- 2 since not all individuals were measured.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 1 8. ANNUAL DIRECT LOSSES

The results of the entrainment and impingement monitoring program described in Chapters 5 and

6 were used to calculate the total annual lo ss of fish and shellfish at the Hudson Generating

Station for each of the two study years. These estimates were calculated under two operating

conditions; using full design cooling water flow all year (Design Operation) and using actual

cooling water flow s along with actual intake and discharge temperatures observed at the station

(Actual Operation)

. In addition, estimates of direct loss under the Actual Operation case were

calculated both with and with out survival.

8.1 METHODS

Estimates of annual direct loss for both entrainment and impingement were calculated for each

species and each unit at Hudson as follows:

where:

D i 

### = Mean density of species entrained or impinged during week (i);

V i 

### = Total cooling water flow at the unit during week (i); and,

S i 

### = Mean survival rate of species entrained or impinged during week (i).

Mean densities were calculated using data collected during the entrainment and impingement

monitoring programs described in Ch apters 5 and 6. The mean density of each species was

assumed to be the same at both Unit 1 and Unit 2. For the Design Operation case and for the

Actual Operation with no survival case, all organisms entrained or impinged were assumed to die

(i.e., 100 pe rcent mortality). For the Actual Operation with survival case, entrainment and

impingement survival at Hudson was determined as described below.

As a result of passage th r ough a cooling water system, entrained organisms are exposed to both

mechanical (ph ysical) and thermal stresses. Each of these sources of stress can contribute to

mortality. Overall, the probability of an organism surviving entrainment (P

e 

### ) is equivalent to the

joint probability of surviving mechanical stresses (P

m 

### ) and thermal stress (P

t 

### ):

.

Estimates of the probability of surviving mechanical stresses were made using Best Professional

Judgment (BPJ) and the results of entrainment survival studies conducted at other facilities . In

some cases, data from surrogate species were used. BPJ estimates of the probability of surviving

mechanical stresses at Hudson are provided in Table 8

- 1

.

The probability of surviving thermal stresses during entrainment is a function of the water

te mperature to which the organisms are acclimated and the temperature that they are exposed to

during cooling water system passage. To estimate the probability of surviving thermal stresses,HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 2 thermal effects data collected in other studies to develop linear regressions that predict median

mortality rates (TL50) from acclimation and discharge temperatures was used. The thermal

effects data used were collected for two groups of species, those that spawn in the winter and

very early spring (e.g., winter flounde r and Atlantic tomcod ) and those that spawn in the later

spring and summer (i.e., all other species). Next, we assumed that the probability of thermal

mortality ranged from 0 percent at 3.6°F less than the TL50 temperature to 100 percent at 3.6°F

greater than the TL50 temperature. 14 

### The resulting functions that predict probability of

entrainment survival from thermal stresses are listed below.

Winter Spawning Species:

Spring

- Summer Spawning Species:

.

In this assessment, acclimation temperature was assumed to be represented by the intake

temperature (IT) at Hudson while the discharge temperature (DT) was obtained from Hudson

hourly operating records for the period January 2009 to Januar y 2011

.

Impingement survival was calculated based on the results of studies conducted at Hudson and

described in Chapter 7 and only applied to Unit 2

. At Unit 1, no impingement survival was

assumed. For this study, survival after a 48

- hour holding period was judged to be the best

measure of impingement survival at Hudson Unit 2 . For the 11 individual species subject to

detailed statistical analysis (Section 7 .3), impingement survival was estimated using the logistic

equations based on length, water temperature, and sali nity at the time of impingement with the

species

- specific parameters listed on Table 7

- 3. For the remaining 11 individual species for

which there was sufficient catch to estimate ove rall survival (Table 7

- 2) , values from Table 7

- 2

were used. For any other species, the average survival for all other species reported on Table 7

- 2

was used.

No data on the impingement survival of blue crabs were available for Hudson. However, this

species is known to be very hardy and studies conducted elsewhere demonstrate very high

impingement survival. For this assessment, survival of blue crabs following impingement at

Hudson was assumed to be 9 5 percent at Hudson Unit 2 based on the high impingement survival

reported in EPRI (2003)

.

14 It has been shown that a 3.6  F safety factor is sufficient to adjust TL50 temperatures to temperatures at which

essentially no mortality would occur (NAS/NAE 1973).HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 3 8.2 RESULTS

8.2.1 Entrainment

Estimates of the annual direct losses from entrainment at Hudson for each study year are

provided for t hree cases: Design Operation, Actual Operation with no survival and Actual

Operation with Survival in Table 8

- 2 and Table 8

- 3

. In both years, entrainment at Hudson was

dominated by bay anchovy which accounted for almost 80 percent of the overall entrainme nt

under actual operations with survival in Year 1 and more than 90 percent in Year 2. At Unit 1,

overall entrainment based on actual operations with survival was 7 6 percent lower in Year 1 and

92 percent lower in Year 2 than it was under design operation s in each year, respectively. At

Unit 2, the reductions were 58 percent in Years 1 and 2, respectively. When both units are

combined together, the reductions from design operations were 65 percent and 73 percent for the

two years.

8.2.2 Impingement

Estimates o f the annual direct losses from impinge ment at Hudson for each study year are

provided for both Design and Actual o peration s. in Table s 8

- 4 and Table 8

- 5

. In addition,

estimates for Unit 2 are provided assuming 100 percent mortality as well as using the estimate

impingement mortality for the new intake screens. In both years, impinge ment at Hudson was

dominated by b lue crabs which accounted for more than 46 percent of the overall impinge ment

under actual operations with survival in Year 1 and more than 7 5 percent in Year 2. Actual

i mpingement mortality of fish was dominated by four species, bay anchovy, white perch, spotted

hake, and Atlantic silverside. These four species accounted for more than 68 percent of actual

fish impingement mortality in Year 1 and almost 79 percent in Year 2.

At Unit 1, overall impinge ment mortality based on actual operations was 76 percent lower in

Year 1 and 55 percent lower in Year 2 than it was under design operations in each year,

respectively. At Unit 2, the reductions in impingement were 87 percent in Year 1 and 90 percent

in Year 2, respectively . When both units are combined together, the reductions from design

operat ions were 82 percent and more than 74 percent for the two years. For fish alone,

impingement at Unit 1 under actual operations was 82 percent lower in Year 1 and in Year 2

than it was under design operations in each year, respectively. At Unit 2, the re ductions in fish

impingement with survival were 72 percent under design operations in both years. When both

units are combined together, the reductions in fish impingement from design operations were

more than 76 percent in both years.

Finally, installa tion of the new screens at Hudson Unit 2 under actual operations reduced fish

impingement mortality at Unit 2 6 2 percent in Year 1 and 6 0 percent in Year 2 while total

impingement mortality at Unit 2 was reduced by 8 1 percent and 8 7 percent in Years 1 and 2,

respectively. These reductions in impingement mortality at Unit 2 translate to an overall

reduction in impingement mortality of fish for Hudson of 52 percent in Year 1 and 49 percent in

Year 2 and in total impingement mortality of 6 4 percent and 6 1 per cent in Years 1 and 2

, respectively.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 4 8.3 COMPARISON OF 199 6

- 199 7 A N D 2009

- 2011 RESULTS

Estimates of direct loss to impingement were available for the following 1 1 selected species

based on entrain ment monitoring conducted at Hudson in 1996 and 1997 (PSEG 1998):

 Atlantic menhaden  Bluefish

 Atlantic silverside  Striped bass

 Bay anchovy  Weakfish

 Blueback herring  White perch

 Mummichog  Winter flounder

 Atlantic tomcod

.

The se estimates can then be compared to those generated for this report based on the most recent

sampling. In addition to the species listed above, impingement estimates for three other species,

gizzard shad, American shad, and blue crab, were available for comparison.

Total entrainment across all 11 species was lower in both 2009 and in 2010 than reported for

1996

- 1997 (Table 8

- 6). Significant reduction s in entrainment were evident in Atlantic tomcod,

weakfish and winter flounder

. As previously noted, entrainment levels of Atlantic tomcod were

elevated in December 1996

- January 1997 by colle ctions of Atlantic tomcod eggs, thought to

have been extruded by impinged ripe females and, hence, non

- viable. Increase s in entrainment

were evident in both Atlantic menhaden and striped bass.

Total impingement across all 14 species was substantially lowe r in both 2009 and in 2010 than

reported for 1996

- 1997 (Table 8

- 7 ). Similar levels of reduction were evident across most ( nine )

of the species included. Greater impingement was in the current study evident for only one

species, Atlantic silverside.

Rea sons for these differences in entrainment and impingement between the two study years is

unclear . However, th e s e differences are well within the range expected based on natural

fluctuations in overall population sizes as well as to potential seasonal sali nity patterns in the

lower Hackensack River. These difference s are also well within the range of year

- to

- year

variation in entrainment and impingement observed at other facilities.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 5 Table 8

- 1 Estimates of Percent Mortality from Mechanical Effects of Entrainment at the

Hudson Generating Station

Species Life Stage

Egg Yolk

- sac

larvae Post yolk

sac larvae Early

Juveniles

Bay anchovy 39 86 86

American eel 

### 0

Atlantic menhaden 90 90 80 80

Northern pipefish 49 49

Weakfish 42 37

Tautog 42 22 15

Winter flounder 42 26

Gobies 7 7

Cunner 42 22 15

All Other Taxa 48 63 45 40HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 6 Table 8

- 2 Estimates of the A nnual L oss by F ish S pecies T hrough E ntrainment at the

Hudson Generating Station under V arious O perating M odes, January 2009

- January 201 0

Species Unit 1 Unit 2 Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival

American Eel 480,281 211,441 0 622,586 514,872 0 1,102,867 726,313 0

Atlantic Croaker 13,046,099 460,073 170,227 16,911,610 14,130,292 5,228,208 29,957,709 14,590,365 5,398,435

Atlantic Herring 293,039 47,868 38,295 379,866 277,167 221,733 672,905 325,035 260,028

Atlantic Menhaden 4,721,159 97,032 77,915 6,120,021 5,277,881 4,225,864 10,841,180 5,374,913 4,303,779

Atlantic Silverside 148,821 67,558 30,401 192,917 139,604 62,844 341,738 207,162 93,245

Atlantic Tomcod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bay Anchovy 63,623,099 31,044,244 22,367,337 82,474,388 56,418,892 40,892,992 146,097,487 87,463,136 63,260,329

Blueback Herring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cunner 3,832,280 1,126,441 473,105 4,967,771 2,497,686 1,049,081 8,800,051 3,624,127 1,522,186

Grubby 3,775,045 1,031,233 267,480 4,893,577 3,304,968 861,666 8,668,622 4,336,201 1,129,146

Naked Goby 2,578,886 866,954 65,900 3,343,001 1,891,940 144,238 5,921,887 2,758,894 210,138

Northern Pipefish 947,868 461,148 227,220 1,228,718 868,135 428,248 2,176,586 1,329,283 655,468

Striped bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Summer Flounder 916,624 195,649 50,869 1,188,216 945,453 245,818 2,104,840 1,141,102 296,687

Tautog 4,139,750 1,041,868 437,402 5,366,343 2,472,550 1,035,524 9,506,093 3,514,418 1,472,926

Weakfish 87,260 38,867 17,782 113,115 97,375 45,151 200,375 136,242 62,933

White Perch 49,539 0 0 64,218 58,552 23,421 113,757 58,552 23,421

Winter Flounder 543,491 189,501 49,270 704,525 165,660 43,072 1,248,016 355,161 92,342

Other Taxa 840,788 256,371 109,726 1,089,911 553,537 242,490 1,930,699 809,908 352,216

Total 100,024,029 37,136,248 24,382,929 129,660,783 89,614,564 54,750,350 229,684,812 126,750,812 79,133,279HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 7 Table 8

- 3 Estimates of the Annual Loss by Fish Species Through Entrainment at the

Hudson Generating Station under Various Operating Modes, January 20 10

- January 2011

Species Unit 1 Unit 2 Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival

American Eel 536,224 55,794 0 695,105 512,316 0 1,231,329 568,110 0

Atlantic Croaker 1,015,658 316,784 117,210 1,316,593 558,571 206,671 2,332,251 875,355 323,881

Atlantic Herring 2,510,231 415,805 332,644 3,254,003 2,227,464 1,781,972 5,764,234 2,643,269 2,114,616

Atlantic Menhaden 675,612 67,501 55,353 875,793 730,097 601,842 1,551,405 797,598 657,195

Atlantic Silverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atlantic Tomcod 89,308 27,308 12,289 115,769 51,390 21,941 205,077 78,698 34,230

Bay Anchovy 281,594,495 38,972,886 22,686,093 365,029,901 317,934,259 156,179,437 646,624,396 356,907,145 178,865,530

Blueback Herring 24,159 2,420 1,162 31,317 27,703 15,065 55,476 30,123 16,227

Cunner 246,544 10,885 4,572 319,594 285,923 127,682 566,138 296,808 132,254

Grubby 921,552 100,097 25,114 1,194,605 964,562 243,783 2,116,157 1,064,659 268,897

Naked Goby 7,259,899 1,991,909 342,107 9,410,980 8,158,011 1,343,386 16,670,879 10,149,920 1,685,493

Northern Pipefish 339,755 82,904 42,622 440,423 340,745 177,645 780,178 423,649 220,267

Striped bass 201,120 0 0 260,711 202,931 97,437 461,831 202,931 97,437

Summer Flounder 193,741 2,504 651 251,145 245,084 63,722 444,886 247,588 64,373

Tautog 9,025,654 419,531 176,473 11,699,922 10,225,961 4,450,881 20,725,576 10,645,492 4,627,354

Weakfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White Perch 48,809 0 0 63,271 56,015 22,406 112,080 56,015 22,406

Winter Flounder 356,921 19,338 5,047 462,675 376,583 126,945 819,596 395,921 131,992

Other Taxa 1,516,160 288,836 163,313 1,965,393 1,563,255 839,376 3,481,553 1,852,091 1,002,689

Total 306,555,842 42,774,502 23,964,650 397,387,200 344,460,870 166,300,191 703,943,042 387,235,372 190,264,841HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 8 Table 8

- 4 Estimates of the A nnual L oss by F ish species T hrough I mpingement at the

Hudson Generating Station under V arious O perating M odes, January 2009

- January 2010

Species Unit 1 Unit 2 Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation 15

Alewife 2,367 319 3,069 1,909 1,058 5,436 1,377

American eel 485 134 628 439 110 1,113 244

American shad 16 15 21 21 7 37 22

Atlantic croaker 97 0 125 110 35 222 35

Atlantic menhaden 1,451 308 1,880 1,434 1,031 3,331 1,339

Atlantic moonfish 50 6 65 53 17 115 23

Atlantic silverside 7,538 862 9,772 6,572 1,343 17,310 2,205

Atlantic tomcod 1,095 189 1,419 1,236 279 2,514 468

Banded killifish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bay anchovy 15,796 7,612 20,476 16,087 14,115 36,272 21,727

Black crappie 39 0 51 43 13 90 13

Black sea bass 289 9 374 250 79 663 88

Blueback herring 2,865 777 3,714 2,340 1,663 6,579 2,440

Bluefish 1,128 621 1,462 1,280 1,006 2,590 1,627

Bluegill 185 20 240 192 29 425 49

Bluespotted cornetfish 15 2 19 16 5 34 7

Brown bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Butterfish 819 45 1,062 725 363 1,881 408

Conger eel 42 0 55 42 13 97 13

Crevalle jack 15 2 20 17 5 35 7

Cunner 37 7 48 38 12 85 19

Eastern mudminnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fourspine stickleback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 3,631 109 4,707 3,913 2,508 8,338 2,617

Golden shiner 16 1 21 21 7 37 8

Goldfish 35 0 45 42 13 80 13

Gray snapper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grubby 35 0 45 40 13 80 13

Gulf Stream flounder 118 18 154 110 35 272 53

Hickory shad 54 12 70 28 9 124 21

Hogchoker 603 88 782 567 107 1,385 195

Inshore lizardfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Actual operation results for Unit 1 plus actual operation with survival results for Unit 2.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 9 Species Unit 1 Unit 2

Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

Lined seahorse 317 115 410 142 45 727 160

Lookdown 57 24 74 60 41 131 65

Morone species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mummichog 199 62 259 232 73 458 135

Naked goby 160 12 207 102 32 367 44

Northern kingfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern pipefish 494 140 641 402 127 1,135 267

Northern puffer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern searobin 100 54 130 113 36 230 90

Northern stargazer 17 9 22 9 3 39 12

Oyster toadfish 2,123 559 2,752 1,823 213 4,875 772

Pumpkinseed 33 20 43 42 13 76 33

Red hake 909 0 1,179 1,024 112 2,088 112

Sea lamprey 126 23 163 94 30 289 53

Seaboard goby 115 46 149 40 13 264 59

Short bigeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Silver hake 1,099 5 1,424 1,147 779 2,523 784

Spottail shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spotted hake 6,282 1,355 8,143 4,743 2,307 14,425 3,662

Striped bass 682 150 884 749 125 1,566 275

Striped cusk

- eel 145 51 188 91 29 333 80

Striped killifish 97 0 126 105 33 223 33

Striped searobin 1,238 109 1,605 946 299 2,843 408

Summer flounder 132 23 172 125 40 304 63

Tautog 82 6 106 88 28 188 34

Threespine stickleback 4,805 209 6,229 4,451 55 11,034 264

Weakfish 648 115 840 588 256 1,488 371

White perch 36,547 2,516 47,376 36,855 6,481 83,923 8,997

Windowpane 848 189 1,100 513 162 1,948 351

Winter flounder 2,829 630 3,667 2,754 765 6,496 1,395

Total fish 98,905 17,578 128,213 94,763 35,972 227,118 53,550

Blue crab 144,840 41,134 187,756 124,205 6,210 332,596 47,344

Total organisms 243,745 58,712 315,969 218,968 42,182 559,714 100,894HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 10 Table 8

- 5 Estimates of the A nnual L oss by F ish S pecies T hrough I mpingement at the

Hudson Generating Station under V arious O perating M odes, January 20 10

- January 201 1

Species Unit 1 Unit 2 Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation 16

Alewife 1,676 632 2,172 1,533 850 3,848 1,482

American eel 1,432 546 1,857 874 218 3,289 764

American shad 65 0 85 74 23 150 23

Atlantic croaker 139 0 180 137 43 319 43

Atlantic menhaden 204 88 265 215 154 469 242

Atlantic moonfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atlantic silverside 21,271 5,697 27,573 13,681 2,795 48,844 8,492

Atlantic tomcod 593 57 769 566 128 1,362 185

Banded killifish 16 0 21 21 7 37 7

Bay anchovy 23,401 2,371 30,334 26,271 23,051 53,735 25,422

Black crappie 33 0 43 38 12 76 12

Black sea bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Blueback herring 1,785 508 2,314 1,223 869 4,099 1,377

Bluefish 690 337 895 719 565 1,585 902

Bluegill 489 74 634 417 63 1,123 137

Bluespotted cornetfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brown bullhead 35 0 46 42 13 81 13

Butterfish 664 263 861 771 386 1,525 649

Conger eel 25 1 32 29 9 57 10

Crevalle jack 96 48 125 27 9 221 57

Cunner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern mudminnow 41 0 53 45 14 94 14

Fourspine stickleback 34 7 45 24 8 79 15

Freshwater drum 10 7 13 10 3 23 10

Gizzard shad 989 260 1,282 772 495 2,271 755

Golden shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Goldfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gray snapper 179 0 232 179 57 411 57

Grubby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gulf Stream flounder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hogchoker 1,094 383 1,418 970 183 2,512 566

Inshore lizardfish 140 64 181 21 7 321 71

16 Actual operation results for Unit 1 plus actual operation with survival results for Unit 2.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 11 Species Unit 1 Unit 2 Total

Design

Operation Actual

Operation Design

Operation Actual

Operation

No

Survival Actual

Operation

With

Survival Design

Operation Actual

Operation

Lined seahorse 19 0 25 21 7 44 7

Lookdown 2,409 987 3,123 1,415 971 5,532 1,958

Morone species 16 2 21 18 6 37 8

Mummichog 251 133 325 297 94 576 227

Naked goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern kingfish 32 3 41 35 11 73 14

Northern pipefish 189 2 246 206 65 435 67

Northern puffer 27 13 35 30 10 62 23

Northern searobin 162 0 210 181 57 372 57

Northern stargazer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oyster toadfish 4,157 1,050 5,388 3,012 352 9,545 1,402

Pumpkinseed 231 68 299 151 48 530 116

Red hake 4,615 629 5,983 3,933 430 10,598 1,059

Sea lamprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seaboard goby 141 6 183 148 47 324 53

Short bigeye 16 2 21 20 6 37 8

Silver hake 2,573 759 3,336 1,824 1,239 5,909 1,998

Spottail shiner 309 130 400 72 23 709 153

Spotted hake 21,800 1,173 28,259 22,453 10,920 50,059 12,093

Striped bass 1,461 398 1,894 1,318 220 3,355 618

Striped cusk

- eel 44 2 57 48 15 101 17

Striped killifish 393 59 510 361 114 903 173

Striped searobin 305 73 396 217 69 701 142

Summer flounder 123 18 160 134 42 283 60

Tautog 12 0 15 15 5 27 5

Threespine stickleback 1,955 5 2,534 2,065 25 4,489 30

Weakfish 414 153 537 340 148 951 301

White perch 46,049 9,029 59,693 41,604 7,316 105,742 16,345

Windowpane 228 16 296 214 68 524 84

Winter flounder 2,292 644 2,971 1,429 397 5,263 1,041

Total fish 145,324 26,697 188,388 130,220 52,667 333,712 79,364

Blue crab 407,941 220,626 528,812 439,563 21,978 936,753 242,604

Total organisms 553,265 247,323 717,200 569,783 74,645 1,270,465 321,968HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 12 Table 8

- 6 Estimates of Annual Entrainment Loss at Hudson for Selected Species Under

Actual Operations With Entrainment Survival Based on Entrainment Monitoring in 1996

-

1997 and in 2009

- 2010

Species 1996

- 1997 2009 2010

Atlantic menhaden 208,795 4,303,779 657,195

Atlantic silverside 811,932 92,245 0

Bay anchovy 385,422,807 63,260,329 178,865,530

Blueback herring 80,999 0 16,227

Mummichog 31,046 0 0

Atlantic tomcod 51,612,351 0 34,230

Bluefish 22,027 0 0

Striped bass 0 0 97,437

Weakfish 782,390 62,933 0

White perch 86,937 58,552 22,406

Winter flounder 614,815 92,342 131,992

Total of selected species 439,674,099 67,870,180 179,825,017HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 8

- 13 Table 8

- 7 Estimates of Annual Impingement Loss at Hudson for Selected Species Using

Actual Operations Based on Impingement Monitoring in 1996

- 1997 and in 2009

- 2010

Species 1996

- 1997 2009 2010

Atlantic menhaden 3,902 1,339 242

Atlantic silverside 2,390 2,205 8,792

Bay anchovy 86,094 20,794 25,132

Blueback herring 3,127 2,440 1,377

Gizzard shad 9,015 2,617 755

Mummichog 570 135 227

American shad 246 22 23

Atlantic tomcod 7,532 468 185

Bluefish 6,367 1,627 902

Striped bass 5,847 275 618

Weakfish 49,093 371 301

White perch 27,179 8,997 16,345

Winter flounder 15,574 1,395 1,041

Blue crab 1,695,019 47,344 242,604

Total of selected species 1,911,955 100,894 321,968HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 9

- 1 9. HUDSON UNIT 1

Notwithstanding the result of this r eport, installation of the modified

- Ristroph screens on Unit 1

is premature and should be delayed for several reasons. First, PSEG is still evaluating the long

term viability of Unit 1. A decision on the viability of Unit 1 is likely within the next one or two

years. If PSEG decides to retire Uni t 1, it does not make sense to install screens on this peaking

unit. Second, but related, is that the USEPA is currently undergoing a rulemaking to implement

§ 316(b). That rulemaking may have a significant impact on the type of technology that may be

req uired at Unit 1. Thus, it would be premature to require the installation of screens at Hudson

pending the final outcome of USEPA’s proposed 316(b) rule.

9.1 LONG

- TERM VIABILITY OF UN IT 1

As stated in Section 2.2, Unit 1 has operated as a peaking unit, operati ng very infrequently. The

generation capacity factor for Unit 1 has ranged from 0.46 percent in 2009 and 3.01 percent in

2010. This unit recently was designated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

as a Reliability, Must Run (RMR) unit. Th e RMR designation essentially means that a particular

unit has been designated by FERC as being essential to meet certain system reliability

requirements. Without such designation, and the appropriate payment made by the system

operator, Unit 1 would be u neconomic and would be retired.

In addition to receiving approval for designating Unit 1 as RMR, PSEG has applied to FERC to

approve costs associated with the operation of the unit. It is unknown at this time whether FERC

will approve any request to include costs for intake structure up grades as part of its approval.

The RMR designation is not long

- term. FERC’s designation of Unit 1 as a RMR unit expires 1

September 2012. If Unit 1 is to continue to operate, FERC must continue the RMR designation

and continue to make payments to make the unit economic.

Even if FERC were to approve certain operation payments in the short term, PSEG also will

have to make a decision whether to retire Unit 1 based upon the Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rules for emissions of n itrogen o xides (NOx), including the High Electric

Demand Day (HEDD) provisions of that rule. P ursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27

- 19.4, electric

generating units

, including Unit 1, must begin to meet more stringent RACT requirements

, which

decline to a final emissions rate o n 1 May 2015. Hudson Unit 1 cannot meet this rate without

installing NOx control technologies

, which may make the unit uneconomic. It would make no

sense to install modified

- Ristroph screens in 2011 or 2012 if it is decided that the unit cannot

operate a fter 1 May 2015

.

9.2 PROPOSED 316( b ) RULE

As NJDEP is aware, on 20 April 2011, USEPA proposed a rule that would implement § 316(b) of

the CWA entitled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

– Cooling Water Intake

Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities

– Proposed Rule” (the Proposed 316(b)

Rule). Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the USEPA and certain environmental

groups, USEPA agreed to issue a final rule by 27 July 2012. Until that time, § 316(b) continues

to be implement ed on a case

- by

- case basis.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 9

- 2 The Proposed 316(b) Rule sets limits for the reduction of impingement mortality (IM) at electric

generating stations such as Hudson, including Unit 1. Those standards are based upon the

construction of modified traveling scre ens similar to the modified

- Ristroph screens installed at

Unit 2. However, the Proposed 316(b) Rule’s limits for IM reduction may lead to a result that

the modified Ristroph screens will not meet the proposed IM standard. Thus, PSEG is concerned

that Hud son’s NJPDES permit requires NJDEP to make a conclusion that the intake structure at

Unit 2 meets § 316(b) under today’s case

- by

- case best professional judgment analysis, and yet

may not meet new standards imposed under a final 316(b) rule. Thus, it is pre mature. In order

to analyze each electric generating unit ’s ability to comply with the IM standards, USEPA has

proposed that an owner or operator conduct certain studies that must be submitted within six

months after the effective date of the final rule. Those studies will include a proposed

impingement mortality reduction plan.

Until PSEG is able to determine the final requirements of the Proposed 316(b) Rule, it is

premature to require any technologies at Unit 1. Although there is a proposed IM standa rd, that

standard could be modified or changed by the time USEPA issues a final rule. Once the final

rule is issued, USEPA will likely require studies submitted during the times established under the

Proposed 316(b) Rule, or under another time period. In either case, PSEG will need to evaluate

whether a technology, including the modified

- Ristroph screens, can meet any standard issued

under a final rule.

9.3 CONCLUSION

Any upgrade to intake structure screens at Unit 1 is premature until USEPA takes final act ion on

the Proposed 316(b) Rule. PSEG notes that the deadline for USEPA to take final action is very

close in time to when the current RMR designation for Unit 1 expires. At that point PSEG

, and

consequently NJDEP

, will have better facts as to whether th e installation of the technology

makes sense at Unit 1. Accordingly, the current condition in the NJPDES application to install

modified

- Ristroph screens at Unit 1 should be suspended until the Proposed 316(b) Rule is either

adopted or modified

, and only after all studies required pursuant to the final rule are completed

and NJDEP issues a final NJPDES decision pursuant to that rule. In addition, installation of

modified

- Ristroph screens should not occur until PSEG makes a determination that Unit 1 will

continue to operate for at least another RMR period.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 10

- 1 10. LITERATURE CITED

Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 2010. Ecology of Temperate Waters of the Western North Atlantic

Estuarine Fishes. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, M aryland. 566 pp.

Bauersfeld, W.R, E. Moshinsky, E. Pustay, and W. Jones. 1994. Water

- Resources Data for New

Jersey Water Year 1993, Volume 1. Surface Water Data. U.S. Geological Survey.

Berg, D. L. and J. S. Levinton. 1985. The Biology of the Hudson

- Rari tan Estuary, With

Emphasis on Fishes. NOAA, Rockville, MD. 170 pp.

Bragin, A.B., J. Musuik, C.A. Woolcott, K.R. Barrett, and R. Jusino

- Atresino. 2005. A fishery

resource inventory of the lower Hackensack River within the Hackensack Meadowlands

Distr ict: a comparative study, 2001

- 2003 vs. 1987

- 1988. New Jersey Meadowlands

Commission, Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute. May 2005.

Clinton Bogart Associates. 1992. Impact Analysis of Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges on the

Water Quality of the Lower Hackensack River Volume I. Summary Report. Bergen County

Utilities Authority.

Crawford, D.W., N.L. Bonnevie, C.A. Gillis, and R.J. Wenning. 1994. Historical chan ges in the

ecological health of the Newark Bay Estuary, New Jersey. Ecotoxicity & Environmental

Safety 29:276

- 303.

Daniels, R.A. K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, D.L. Strayer, and R.C. Chambers. 2005. Changes in

fish assemblages in the tidal Hudson River, New York. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 45: 471

- 503.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2003. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant

Operations on Aquatic Communities: Summary of Impingement Survival Studies. EPRI

Report 1007821

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC). 1984. Wetland Bio

- Zones of the

Hackensack Meadowlands. An Inventory. Hackensack Meadowlands Development

Commission, Lyndhurst, NJ.

Hudsonia. 2007. Monitoring biological diversity in the Hackensack Meadowlands: monitoring

fishes in the Meadowlands. Report to the Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute of

the New Jersey Meadownlands Commission. Revised 18 August 2007 . Pages 50

- 55.

Hurst, T.P., K.A. McKown, and D.O. Conover. 2004. Interannual and long

- term variation in the

nearshore community of the mesohaline Hudson River estuary. Estuaries 27(4):659

- 669.

HydroQual. 2010a. Evaluation of ammonia toxicity in the NY/NJ Harbor within the context of

nitrogen and carbon TMDL planning for attainment of dissolv ed oxygen standards. USEPA

National Watershed Protection Program, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program, USEPA Region 2,

New York, NY. USEPA Contract EP

- C

- 08

- 003. September 20, 2010.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 10

- 2 HydroQual. 2010b. Narrative description of historical dissolved oxygen improvem ents in

NY/NJ Harbor related to previous nutrient reduction activities. USEPA Region 2, NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary Program. September 2010. HRFO.001.030, NEIW.006.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. (IA). 1974. An ecological study of the Hackensack River in the

vi cinity of the Hudson Generating Station, Jersey City, New Jersey. In: Demonstration of

Absence of Prior Appreciable Harm Respecting Application for Imposition of Alternative

Thermal Effluent Limitations Hudson Steam Electric Generating Station Units No. 1 and No.

2. Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. (IA). 1978. Predictive Biological Information to Demonstrate the

Passage and Maintenance of Representative Important Species. Demonstration Type III,

Section 316(a) of FWPC Act Amendments of 1972, PL92500 for Hudson and Kearny

Generating Stations. Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1979. Effects of the cooling water intake structure

- entrainment

and impingement of fishes. In: Hudson Generating Station NPDES Permit No. NJ0000647.

Demonstration for Sect ion 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

of 1972, PL 92

- 500. Public Service Electric and Gas Company. 49 pp.

Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1977. Draft Assessment of the Potential Impact of the

Construction and Operation of a New Jersey Sports and Exposition Complex at a Site in East

Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey. Prepared for the New Jersey Sports and Exposition

Authority, Berwyn, PA.

Konsevick E. and A.B. Bragin. 2010. Chemical characteristics of sediment of the l ower

Hackensack River, New Jersey. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on

Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy. Vol. 15, Article 25.

Long, E.R., D.D. Mac Donald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse

biological effects wit hin ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine

sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81

- 97.

Mattson, C.P. and N.C. Vallario. 1976. Water quality in a recovering ecosystem: A report on

water quality research and monitoring in the Hacken sack Meadowlands, 1971

- 1975. HMDC,

Lyndhurst, NJ.

NAS/NAE (1973) Water Quality Criteria 1972. In: A Report of the Committee on Water Quality

of the Environmental Studies Board. Report EPA.R3.73.033. U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group, and

New York City Department of Environmental Protection ( HEP/NJHDG/NYCDEP ) 2008

. Harbor

- wide water quality monitoring report for the New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

39 pp.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### 10

- 3 New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC). 2007. Chemical characteristics of sediment

collected as part of the fishery resource inventory of the lower Hackensack River within the

Hackensack Meadowlands District; a comparative study, 2001

- 2003 vs. 198 7

- 1988.

Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute. 35 pp.

Pecchioli, J.A., T. Wilson, K.N. Dimou, and J. Bonin. 2007. The New Jersey Toxics Reduction

Workplan for New York

– New Jersey Harbor: phase one ambient water quality studies.

Research project summary. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of

Science, Research & Technology. Trenton, NJ. 11 pp.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company ( PS E&G). 1988. Hudson Generating Station Units 1

and 2 and Kearny Generating Station Units 7 and 8 Supplemental 316(b) Demonstration.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). 1998. Hudson Generating Station 316(b)

Supplemental Demonstration. Newark, NJ.

Reichmuth, J.M., R. Roudez, T. Glover, and J.S. Weis. 2009. Differences in prey capture

behavior in populations of blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) form contaminated and

clean estuaries in New Jersey. Estuaries and Coasts 32:298

- 308.

Steinb erg, N., D.J. Suskowski, L. Clark, and J. Way. 2004. Health of the harbor: the first

comprehensive look at the state of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Report to the New York/New

Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY. 82 pp.

S tevens Institute of Technology. 2007. The New Jersey Toxics Reduction Workplan for NY

- NJ

Harbor. Ambient monitoring of water quality within major tributaries & the estuary. Studies

I

- D and I

- E. Final report

– April 2007. 197 pp. plus appendices.

Weis, J .S. 2005. White perch (Morone a mericana): diet and food web support in the

Hackensack Meadowlands. Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute, New Jersey

Meadowlands Commission. January 2005. 15 pp.

Weis, J.S. 2009. Trophic transfer of contaminants and mechanisms of behavioral effects on

juvenile bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix from the Hackensack River. New Jersey

Meadowlands Commission. http://merilibrary.njmeadowlands.g ov/dbtw

- wpd/FullText/ML

09

- 4.pdf

Zeisel, W. 1989. History of the tidal Hackensack River Fisheries. Fairleigh Dickinson

University. Proceedings of the Third Annual Hackensack River Symposium. 24 pp.HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 1 

# APPENDIX A

2009

- 2010 BOTTOM TRAWL CATCHHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 2 Appendix Table A

- 1 Monthly Total Catch by Species and Sampling Station in the Bottom

Trawl, March

– November 2009

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Alewife 13 5 1 19

Station 1 1 1

Station 2 1 1

Station 4 4 5 9

Station 5 7 1 8

American Eel 1 35 2 1 39

Station 1 1 15 1 17

Station 2 14 14

Station 3 3 1 4

Station 4 3 1 4

American Shad 8 8

Station 2 1 1

Station 4 3 3

Station 5 4 4

Atlantic

Menhaden 1 1 2

Station 2 1 1

Station 3 1 1

Atlantic

Moonfish 2 1 3

Station 2 2 2

Station 5 1 1

Atlantic Tomcod 30 67 53 2 2 154

Station 1 1 1 1 3

Station 2 1 60 1 1 63

Station 3 22 5 52 2 81

Station 4 6 1 7

Bay Anchovy 21 208 99 86 303 29 2 748

Station 1 7 7 1 15

Station 2 4 2 1 17 3 27

Station 3 9 1 5 21 36

Station 4 4 2 24 6 199 26 261

Station 5 8 202 65 67 65 2 409

Black Seabass 1 1

Station 5 1 1

Blue Crab 1 17 26 14 4 26 32 120

Station 1 3 2 1 3 4 24 37

Station 2 7 9 1 6 2 25

Station 3 6 3 13 16 38

Station 4 1 1 7 4 13

Station 5 5 2 7HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 3 Appendix Table A

- 1 continued

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Blueback

Herring 2 2

Station 4 2 2

Bluefish 1 1

Station 1 1 1

Butterfish 8 1 9

Station 4 1 1

Station 5 8 8

Cunner 1 1 1 3

Station 4 1 1 2

Station 5 1 1

Gizzard Shad 1 1

Station 3 1 1

Grubby 1 1

Station 4 1 1

Hogchoker 7 13 2 1 23

Station 2 2 12 14

Station 3 5 1 2 8

Station 4 1 1

Naked Goby 2 2

Station 1 2 2

Oyster Toadfish 2 1 1 1 5

Station 3 1 1

Station 4 2 1 1 4

Red Hake 2 1 3

Station 3 1 1

Station 4 1 1 2

Scup 1 1

Station 4 1 1

Spotted Hake 12 19 326 52 7 416

Station 1 1 2 1 4

Station 2 10 46 19 75

Station 3 3 73 14 90

Station 4 3 4 205 18 7 237

Station 5 9 1 10HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 4 Appendix Table A

- 1 continued

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Striped Bass 47 16 4 8 75

Station 2 1 3 4

Station 3 3 3 4 10

Station 4 44 16 1 61

Striped Cusk

- eel 3 3

Station 3 3 3

Striped Searobin 3 2 5

Station 2 1 1

Station 4 3 1 4

Summer

Flounder 1 2 8 11

Station 2 1 1

Station 3 1 1 2

Station 4 1 5 6

Station 5 2 2

Tautog 2 2

Station 4 2 2

Weakfish 2 2 10 14

Station 2 3 3

Station 3 2 1 3

Station 4 2 6 8

White Perch 132 51 17 6 6 13 74 299

Station 1 5 8 3 6 6 19 47

Station 2 5 6 1 12

Station 3 29 24 3 2 7 65

Station 4 87 16 53 156

Station 5 16 1 2 19

Windowpane 3 2 5

Station 2 1 1

Station 3 3 3

Station 4 1 1

Winter Flounder 6 1 1 13 7 2 9 39

Station 2 12 12

Station 3 1 1 7 2 11

Station 4 5 1 9 15

Station 5 1 1

Total 221 102 471 419 177 87 330 75 132 2014HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 5 Appendix Table A

- 2 Monthly Total Catch by Species and Sampling Station in the Bottom

Trawl, February

– November 2010

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Alewife 1 1

Station 4 1 1

American Eel 2 65 5 20 2 7 4 1 106

Station 1 2 50 5 20 6 3 1 87

Station 2 2 2 1 1 6

Station 3 13 13

American Shad 1 1

Station 5 1 1

Atlantic Croaker 1 1

Station 5 1 1

Atlantic

Menhaden 7 7

Station 5 7 7

Atlantic Moonfish 1 21 22

Station 3 1 1

Station 4 18 18

Station 5 3 3

Atlantic Tomcod 130 9 33 1 1 174

Station 1 31 3 6 40

Station 2 8 16 1 1 26

Station 3 58 6 5 69

Station 4 33 1 34

Station 5 5 5

Bay Anchovy 9 17 36 2 31 17 7 119

Station 1 1 1

Station 2 15 1 1 17

Station 3 4 5 1 5 15

Station 4 2 3 1 10 1 17

Station 5 5 15 13 29 1 6 69

Blue Crab 4 185 29 135 27 44 31 5 9 469

Station 1 115 7 14 4 16 11 2 4 173

Station 2 1 41 1 3 16 4 17 1 2 86

Station 3 3 25 20 2 4 2 3 3 62

Station 4 4 1 2 2 9

Station 5 1 116 2 20 139

Butterfish 1 5 1 1 8

Station 3 1 1

Station 4 1 1

Station 5 1 4 1 6HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 6 Appendix Table A

- 2 continued

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Gizzard Shad 2 2

Station 2 1 1

Station 4 1 1

Hogchoker 1 15 41 2 8 1 68

Station 1 2 1 3

Station 2 3 39 1 1 44

Station 3 5 7 12

Station 5 1 7 1 9

Naked Goby 1 1 1 3

Station 1 1 1

Station 2 1 1

Station 5 1 1

Northern Puffer 1 1

Station 2 1 1

Northern Searobin 1 1 2

Station 3 1 1 2

Oyster Toadfish 1 3 9 1 9 7 1 31

Station 1 1 1 2 5 9

Station 2 1 1 1 1 4

Station 3 2 1 3

Station 4 1 1 2

Station 5 8 5 13

Red Hake 1 12 1 1 15

Station 2 1 1

Station 4 12 1 13

Station 5 1 1

Silver Hake 5 5

Station 4 5 5

Spotted Hake 265 127 86 4 482

Station 1 59 19 2 80

Station 2 14 7 3 24

Station 3 114 79 1 194

Station 4 78 1 4 83

Station 5 22 79 101HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### A

- 7 Appendix Table A

- 2 continued

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

Striped Bass 3 1 1 7 4 3 19

S tation 1 1 2 1 4

Station 2 1 4 5

S tation 3 1 4 1 6

S tation 4 1 1 2

Station 5 2 2

S ummer Flounder 2 3 3 8

Station 3 2 2 4

S tation 5 1 3 4

Threespine Stickleback 1 1

Station 2 1 1

W eakfish 4 7 3 4 18

S tation 2 4 1 5

Station 3 1 1 2

S tation 4 2 3 5

Station 5 5 1 6

W hite Perch 182 29 12 1 2 12 30 21 16 305

Station 1 17 19 11 2 9 18 14 7 97

S tation 2 1 3 1 11 1 17

Station 3 5 1 3 1 7 8 25

S tation 4 1 1

Station 5 164 1 165

W indowpane 1 2 3

S tation 3 1 1

Station 5 2 2

W inter Flounder 1 1 1 1 1 3 8

Station 2 1 2 3

S tation 3 1 1

Station 4 1 1

S tation 5 1 1 1 3

Total 188 37 681 193 326 124 83 122 83 42 1879HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### B

- 1 APPENDIX B

RIVER ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITY DATAHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### B

- 2 Appendix Table B

- 1 Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Densities (#/1,000m 3 

### ) from Five

Sampling S tations, 2009HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### B

- 3 Appendix Table B

- 1 continuedHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### B

- 4 Appendix Table B

- 2 Average Monthly Ichthyoplankton Densities (#/1,000m 3 

### ) from Five

Sampling S tations , 2010HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### B

- 5 Appendix Table B

- 2 continuedHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 1 APPENDIX C

ENTRAINMENT LENGTH FREQUENCY DATAHUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 2 Appendix Table C

- 1. Length Distribution of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment Monitoring at the Hudson Station, 26

January 2009

– 18 January 20 1 0

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

American eel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic croaker

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic herring

- - - - 3 20 36 45 48 56 55 54 57 38 16 8 3 3 1 1

- - -

Atlantic

menhaden - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic

silverside - - - - - - - - -

4 13 22 28 21 9 4 4 1 2 3 3 4 2

Bay anchovy

- - 2 1 3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B utterfish 6 23 46 64 120 177 137 157 103 71 59 43 41 17 19 5 1 3 4 6 1 1

Crevalle jack

- - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Fundulus sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grubby

- - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Highfin goby

- - - 4 33 45 30 22 8 6 3

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Naked goby

- - - - - - - - - 1 1 1

- 1

- - - - - - - - -

Northern

pipefish -

28 26 17 7 2 4 7 5 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern puffer

- - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - 1

Rock gunnel

- - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spotted hake

- - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - 2 1 1 1

- 2

-

Striped killifish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summer

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tautog

- - - - - - - - - - - 2 5 8 4 5 6 1

- - - - - Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable

Fish - - - - -

1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Urophycis sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Weakfish

- - - - 1

- 1 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Winter flounder

- - - - 3 12 6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 3 Appendix Table C

- 1 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

American eel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic croaker

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Atlantic herring

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - -

Atlantic

menhaden - - - -

1 -

1 2 - -

1 1 -

2 1 - -

1 -

1 - - -

Atlantic

silverside 3 1 1 1 1 - - -

1 - -

1 - -

1 - - - - - - - -

Bay anchovy

- - - - - - - -

B utterfish 3 1 1

- - 1

- 1

- - - - - - 2

- - - - - - - - Crevalle jack

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fundulus sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grubby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Highfin goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naked goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern

pipefish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern puffer

- - - - 2

- 1

- - - 2 2 4 4 1 3 1

- 3

- 2 1 2

Rock gunnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Spotted hake

- - - - - 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Striped killifish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summer

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tautog

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable

Fish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Urophycis sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Weakfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Winter flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 4 Appendix Table C

- 1 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 66 67 68 71 72 76 77 78 81

American eel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic

croaker - -

1 1 2 2 1 -

6 1 -

2 - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic

herring - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic

menhaden - - -

1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic

silverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bay anchovy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B utterfish

- - - 2

- - - 1

- - - - 1

- 1 1

- 1

- - - - - Crevalle jack

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fundulus sp.

- - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grubby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Highfin goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naked goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern

pipefish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern

puffer 2 - -

1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rock gunnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Spotted hake

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Striped

killifish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1

Summer

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tautog

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - - -

Unidentifiable

Fish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Urophycis sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Weakfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

### 1

- - - - - 

### 1

-

Winter

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 5 Appendix Table C

- 1 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 93 108 127

American eel

- - -

Atlantic

croaker - - -

Atlantic

herring - - -

Atlantic

menhaden - - -

Atlantic

silverside - - -

Bay anchovy

- - -

B utterfish

- - - Crevalle jack

- - - Fundulus sp.

- - - Grubby

- - - Highfin goby

- - - Naked goby

- - -

Northern

pipefish - - -

Northern

puffer - - -

Rock gunnel

- - - Spotted hake

- - - Striped

killifish - - -

Summer

flounder

- 1

- Tautog

- - - Threespine

stickleback - - -

Unidentifiable

Fish - - -

Urophycis sp.

- - 

### 1

Weakfish

- - -

White perch

- - -

Winter

flounder - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 6 Appendix Table C

- 2. Length Distribution of Ichthyoplankton Collected in Entrainment Monitoring at the Hudson Station, 25

January 2010

– 17 Januar y 20 11

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

American eel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic croaker

- - - - 2 3 5 5 5 4 2 2 3 1 2 1 1

Atlantic herring

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic menhaden

- - - - - - - - 1

- - 1 1

- 2 3

- - 1 1

- 2 3

Atlantic silverside

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic tomcod

- - - - - - - 1 1

- - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - Bay anchovy 2 6 23 88 148 227 265 216 194 133 99 59 44 26 14 10 5 7 1

- 1

- - Bluegill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Butterfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Feather blenny

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fundulus sp.

- - - - 1 7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grubby

- - - 1 8 20 9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Highfin goby

- - - - - - - - - 1 1

- - - - - - - - - - -

Inshore lizardfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Menidia sp.

- - 2 11 6 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naked goby 7 79 86 43 30 24 23 21 19 6 4

- - 1

- - - - - - - - - Northern pipefish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

- - - - 1

- Oyster toadfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - Rock gunnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - -

Skilletfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Smallmouth

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - - - - - - - -

Summer flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

- 3

- 1

- - - - - Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - - -

White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Winter flounder

- - 1 1

- 2 9 3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 7 Appendix Table C

- 2 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

American eel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

-

Atlantic croaker

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Atlantic herring

- - - - - 1 1

- 7 3 4 6 16 16 16 8 7 5 6 4

- - -

Atlantic

menhaden 1 2 2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - - - -

Atlantic

silverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - - - - -

Atlantic tomcod

- - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bay anchovy

- - - - 1

- - - 1

- - - 1

- - - 1

- - - - - - Bluegill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - -

Butterfish

- - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Feather blenny

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Fundulus sp.

- - - - - - - - - Grubby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Highfin goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Inshore

lizardfish 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Menidia sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Naked goby

- - 1

- 2

- - 1

- - - - - 2 1

- - - - - 1

- -

Northern

pipefish - - - -

3 -

1 -

2 1 1 1 -

1 -

1 - -

1 1 - - -

Oyster toadfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rock gunnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Skilletfish

- - - - - - - - - - 1

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Smallmouth

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summer

flounder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Winter flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 8 Appendix Table C

- 2 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 66 67 68 71 72 76 77 78 81

American eel

- 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1

- - - - - - - - -

Atlantic croaker

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic herring

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic menhaden

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic silverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 - -

1 - - - -

Atlantic tomcod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bay anchovy

- - - - - - - - 1

- 1

- - - - 1 1

- - - 1

- -

Bluegill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Butterfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Feather blenny

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fundulus sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grubby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Highfin goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Inshore lizardfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Menidia sp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Naked goby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northern pipefish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Oyster toadfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rock gunnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Skilletfish

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - -

Smallmouth flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summer flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Threespine

stickleback - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

White perch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Winter flounder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -HUDSON GENERATING STATION 316(b) STUDY REPORT



### C

- 9 Appendix Table C

- 2 continued

Midpoint of Length Interval (mm)

Taxa 93 108 127

American eel

- - -

Atlantic croaker

- - -

Atlantic herring

- - -

Atlantic menhaden

- - -

Atlantic silverside - - -

Atlantic tomcod

- - -

Bay anchovy

- - -

Bluegill

- - -

Butterfish

- - -

Feather blenny

- - -

Fundulus sp.

- - -

Grubby

- - -

Highfin goby

- - -

Inshore lizardfish

- - -

Menidia sp.

- - -

Naked goby

- - -

Northern pipefish

- - -

Oyster toadfish

- -

- Rock gunnel

- - -

Skilletfish

- - -

Smallmouth

flounder - - -

Summer flounder

- - - Threespine

stickleback - - -

White perch 1

- -

Winter flounder

- - -