KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

8.1 Introduction

A thorough understanding of several key elements is essential in anticipating the potential effects of a proposed power plant. Arguably, the most important of these factors is the pattern and magnitude of the cooling water flow because cooling water withdrawal, total flow, and intake velocity play a fundamental role in determining the number of organisms lost through entrainment and impingement. Additionally, cooling water discharge-coupled with the physical characteristics of the discharge structure-determines the spatial orientation of the thermal plume. This orientation, in turn, can affect aquatic species. It should be noted that the intake volume is not necessarily the same as the discharge volume. For example, the cooling water discharge from a wet closed-cycle cooling system is the intake volume less the amount lost to atmospheric evaporation.

A second set of factors critical to the determination of potential impact on aquatic organisms is the load carried by the generating unit and the characteristics of the pumping system. Generally, increased load requires increased cooling water flow. This increase, however, may not necessarily translate on a one-to-one basis because many generating units employ fixed speed pumps that are on whenever the unit is generating power, regardless of load.

A third set of considerations is the availability of power generated by other competing units. Under a deregulated market, a surplus of available power will limit the demand from uneconomical producers. This, in turn, limits intake flow and heat discharge from these units.

Finally, all of these factors must be estimated to reflect future conditions, including demand for power, because the analysis is intended to forecast future impacts, rather than reflect past performance. The following paragraphs present an overview of the proposed project and explain how each of these factors was considered in estimating the pattern and magnitude of cooling water flows.

8.1.1 No-Build Scenario

In assessing the potential biological impacts of the project, two general conditions were considered. First, the "No-Build" scenario describes the present Ravenswood facility without the proposed Cogeneration Facility. Second, the "Build" scenario describes the Ravenswood Facility with the proposed Cogeneration Facility.

The "No-Build" scenario describes operation under the existing three-unit configuration, i.e., without the proposed Cogeneration Facility and without any intake modification. A detailed description of the existing facility can be found in Section 3 of this Application. Briefly, the current Ravenswood Steam Electric Generating Facility consists of three gas/oil fired units (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) with a rated capacity of 385, 385 and 972 MWe, respectively. Each unit has once-

Case99-F-1625 Page ^ KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

through cooling with two circulating water system (CWS) pumps. Total rated pump flow through Units 1 and 2 is 214,000 gpm at each unit while flow through Unit 3 is 537,000 gpm. In addition to the CWS pumps, each Unit is equipped with two service water system (SWS) pumps, each rated at 16,000 gpm. At Unit 3 both SWS pumps are run during May through September when it is operating. During October through April, however, generally only a single SWS pump operates per Unit.

The Ravenswood Facility operates conventional traveling screens (four each at Units 1 and 2 and six at Unit 3) on an automated preset wash schedule of approximately one 30-minute wash cycle every 3 hours. During periods of high debris, the screens may be washed continuously. The screens are constructed with 0.375 x 0.375-inch mesh.

Cooling and service water is drawn from the East River into a protected embayment directly in front of each Unit's traveling screens. A bar rack in front of the traveling screens removes floating debris and large material before reaching the traveling screens. Fish, crabs, and debris removed from the water by the traveling screens are washed from the screens and into a screenwash sluiceway at each Unit. Since late 1994, each Unit has a polyethylene spiral-tube fish-return system to provide a smooth transfer offish through the debris basin into the discharge canal and back to the East River, via the discharge canal.

Cooling water passing through Units 1 and 2 is heated to a maximum delta T of 8.70C (15.70F) while water passing through Unit 3 is heated to a maximum differential of 10.4oC (18.80F). Water from all three Units exit through a common discharge canal at the south side of the plant. The average maximum discharge temperature differential in the common discharge is 9.550C (17.250F).

8.1.2 Build Scenarios

The "Build" scenario describes operation of the Ravenswood Facility with the proposed Cogeneration Facility. The proposed design for cooling the Cogeneration Facility is the Integrated Facility Cooling System. This is the most effective system, among all alternatives including the "no-build" option for minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impact. For comparison, several alternatives, including wet closed-cycle, dry closed-cycle, hybrid cooling towers and wedge-wire screens are explored. A summary of the different scenarios is presented in Table 8.1. Comparisons to flows at other stations is presented in Table 8.2.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-5 • • •

KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Tal jleS.l Su mmary of Water Use Scenarios

. • 1 Option Pumps Screens Cogen Unit 1 1 Unit 2 1 Unit 3 | Cogen Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 ... Total Total Total Total Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Type No Type No Type Type No (gpm) No (gpm) No (gpm) No (gpm) No Type No

Nn RnilH . . CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 537,000 - - Existing 4 conventional 4 conventional 6 conventional - - 3 Condition SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 - -

Build 1 2 Intakes combined CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 Variable 2 Variable 4 conventional 4 conventional IFCS 3 6 Ristroph screens SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 537,000 2 Variable ICS with 4 conventional 4 conventional 6 conventional wedgewire 3 Wedgewire SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 Intakes combined4 CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 537,000 - - Mechanical Draft 4 conventional 4 conventional 3 6 conventional screens (wet) SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 uses Unit 3's Intakes combined" CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 537,000 - • t conventional 4 conventional Hybrid (wet/dry) 3 6 conventional screens SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 uses Unit 3's CWS 2 214,000 2 214,000 2 537,000 - - 4 conventional 4 conventional 6 conventional Air-cooled (dry) 3 SWS 2 16,000 2 16,000 2 16,000 - - i • 1 • • 1537,000 gpm maximum 273,000 gpm maximum 316,000 gpm is a single pump volume; irom May thr ough Septcjmber two pumps run with a combined volume of 32,000 gpm. 4Units share SWS pumps

Page 8-6 Case 99-F-1625 KeySpan Energy- Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.2 Flow Rates at Other Stations in the Vicinity of Ravenswood

Pumps Generating Congeneration Total Vol. Station Unit Cooling Unit Type (gpm) Screens Option Arthur Kill' All 2 CWS 122,000 Vertical dual-flow SWS 16,000 3 CWS 105,000 Vertical dual- flow SWS 25,000 Astoria All 3 CWS 224,000 Vertical dual-flow SWS 16,000 4 CWS 244,000 Vertical dual-flow SWS 16,000 5 CWS 244,000 Vertical dual-flow SWS 16,000 East River All 6 CWS 113,400 Conventional SWS 5,000 Poletti All 1 CWS Var1 Conventional SWS Var2 World Trade All Conventional Center

253,000 gpm maximum 1200 gpm maximum

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-7 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

a. Integrated Facility Cooling System (IFCS)

The proposed Cogeneration Facility would be located north and adjacent to Ravenswood Unit 3. The proposed Cogeneration Unit incorporates a single gas turbine generator, a supplementary heat recovery steam generator, a single steam turbine generator with condenser, kettle boilers for steam cogeneration and a water treatment facility with associated storage tanks. A more detailed description of the proposed facility can be found in Section 3.

The proposed method for cooling, IFCS, will integrate the proposed unit into the existing Unit 3 screen intake chamber, obtaining cooling water through the existing Ravenswood Unit 3 screening/intake chamber. No new intake facility is required. The two existing Unit 3 CWS pumps would be replaced with two variable speed pumps. These pumps can reduce intake flow to the minimum capacity necessary to maintain efficient unit operation. Cooling water requirements for the new unit will be lower during periods when the cogeneration unit operates in steam export mode. All analyses performed in the application assumed no steam export. This is a conservative assumption in that actual flows and temperature differentials will be lower than those used in the analysis when steam is exported.

The conventional traveling screens at the common Unit 3/Cogen intake would be replaced as part of the IFCS with modified Ristroph traveling screens. These screens would include key fish- conserving components such as screen basket lip troughs designed to retain water and minimize vortex stress, a high pressure spray wash system for debris removal from the front side of the machine, and a low pressure spray wash system for fish removal from the rear side of the machine. The fish return system would also be improved under the IFCS by gently returning impinged fish to the East River without experiencing the elevated temperatures in the discharge canal. Units 1 and 2 would continue to use the existing pumps and conventional traveling screens.

Operation of the proposed Cogeneration Facility with the IFCS is forecast to reduce the volume of river water used for once-through cooling at Ravenswood Generating Station by about 20.18 billion gallons annually, or 55 million gallons per day. This reduction in volume is another factor that will contribute to reduced impingement and entrainment under the proposed scenario.

Figure 8-1 shows the forecast monthly total volume of river water used for cooling under the No- Build and the IFCS scenarios. The differences in monthly volumes between the two scenarios are due to two factors:

1. In the BFCS scenario, both Unit 3 and the proposed Cogeneration Facility use variable speed pumps, so cooling water flow is reduced whenever the forecast load is less than the capacity of the unit. The existing (No-Build) Unit 3 pumps are fixed speed, so they operate at maximum capacity whenever Unit 3 operates, regardless of load.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-8 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

2. Because the proposed Cogeneration Facility will be more efficient than other units, both at Ravenswood and at other generating stations in the region, it will be operated preferentially over those lower efficiency units. This means that Units 1, 2 and 3 may not operate under the IFCS scenario, when they would have operated under the No Build scenario, reducing total flow at Ravenswood. It also means that the proposed Cogeneration Facility may operate under the IFCS scenario, when units at other generating stations would have operated under the No Build scenario, increasing monthly total flow at Ravenswood. Thus, in some months, the relative efficiency of the proposed Cogeneration Facility will tend to increase total flow and, in other months, it will tend to decrease it, depending on relative efficiencies and overall demand for power.

In summary, while three months (January, March, and December) show slight increases in forecast river water usage, the remaining nine months, particularly the more biologically important months of April through October, show substantial reductions in forecast river water usage. Average daily flow reduction as a result of the IFCS is estimated to be at least 55 million gallons per day, over 20 billion gallons per year. Even during high load days, operation of the IFCS is not expected to result in any increase in total daily flow over what is capable of being discharged on a daily basis today.

Figure 8-1 Comparison of Monthly Flows for No-Build and IFCS Scenarios

Monthly Total Cooling Water Volume

Net annual reduction in river water usage is 20.18 billion gallons (55 MOD).

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-9 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

b. Independent Cooling System with Wedge-wire Screen Alternative

For the Independent Cooling System with Wedge-wire Screen alternative, the existing intake facilities on Units 1, 2 and 3 are unchanged. A separate intake structure would be constructed to withdraw water from the East River for use in cooling the proposed Cogeneration Facility. The new intake structure would incorporate an array of wedgewire screens with 2mm slots in the East River and variable speed pumps for the Cogeneration Facility. Service water for the proposed Cogeneration Facility would be derived from the existing Unit 3 service water pumps. c. Mechanical Draft (Wet) Cooling Tower Alternative

Under this scenario, cooling water for the proposed Cogeneration Facility would be supplied by a recirculation loop through the tower. The existing fixed speed cooling water and service water pumps would be retained at Units 1, 2 and 3 to supply cooling water for these units. Evaporative loss make-up water for the proposed Cogeneration Facility would be derived from the existing Unit 3 service water pumps. Existing intake facilities are unchanged with the pump configuration identical to the "No-Build" case, but the flows are reduced because of the changes in load carried by the existing units when the Cogeneration Facility is available. The Unit 1 and 2 service water pumps track the corresponding cooling water pumps. The Unit 3 service water pump will track Unit 3 cooling water pumps, except if the Cogeneration Facility requires make-up water when Unit 3 is off-line. d. Wet-Dry Hybrid Plume-Abated Closed-Cycle Alternative

This case is assumed to be identical to the Wet Closed-Cycle case, because it is not possible to forecast when dry plume-abatement operation will be required on an hourly basis this far in advance. As a conservative estimate, the closed-cycle system is assumed to operate in "wet" mode whenever it is used.

e. Air Cooled (Dry) Closed-Cycle Alternative

The existing intake facilities are unchanged under this alternative. The only difference between the water usage of the Wet Closed-Cycle system and the Dry Close-Cycle system is use of the Unit 3 service water pumps. In the Wet case, the Unit 3 service water pumps may be required to operate to supply make-up water to the Cogeneration Facility when the Unit 3 cooling water pumps are shutdown. In the Dry case, the Unit 3 service water pumps will track the Unit 3 cooling water pumps, just as they do under the "No-Build" and IFCS scenarios.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-10 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

8.2 Biological Setting

Assessment of potential biological impacts resulting from the proposed Cogeneration Facility must be viewed in the context of the existing biological community. This section describes biologically relevant aspects of the East River and describes the expected condition of mid- Atlantic estuarine systems.

8.2.1 Producers

Those species generally responsible for primary production in the estuarine environment are autotrophic species. Autotrophs absorb sunlight energy and through photosynthesis, transform inorganic mineral nutrients into organic material that is readily available to higher trophic levels in the community (Lerman 1986, Day et al. 1989). The rate at which organic material is produced is referred to as primary production. To produce organic material, autotrophs must use a portion of the energy produced via photosynthesis for life activities, therefore the amount of organic molecules actually available to higher trophic levels is somewhat less than the total produced (gross primary production) and is referred to as net primary production.

In the estuarine environment, primary producers include vascular plants, such as seaweeds and flowering plants, and phytoplankton. a. Vascular Plants

Underwater vascular plants are often referred to as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV is distributed along various gradients including geographic, vertical, seasonal, and longitudinal (Day et al. 1989). SAV performs many important ecological roles. SAV provides a habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrates. Dense SAV beds serve to attenuate wave energy, and slow water currents, thereby reducing resuspension of bottom sediments and shoreline erosion. SAV also contributes to primary production, nutrient absorption and oxygenation of the water column (Day et al. 1989, Hurley 1991).

Through photosynthesis, the contribution of SAV production to an ecosystem's carbon budget can range from negligible to as much as 50% of the total production (Kemp et al. 1984). SAV also contributes energy to an ecosystem through decomposition. As SAV dies and begins to decompose, nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon and other elements tied up in its biomass are released back to the environment in a dissolved form. In addition, energy is incorporated into microbial biomass and advances to higher trophic levels through the detrital food chain (Day et al. 1989). SAV have several water quality and structural habitat requirements. Water quality requirements include light, nutrients, temperature, and salinity. Structural habitat requirements include substrate, and current and wave action.

8 11 CaSe99-F-1625 P^ ' KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

In turbid systems, the availability of light appears to be crucial to the production and survival of seagrasses (Day et al. 1989). Light attenuation (reduction in light intensity) in the water column is a result of light absorption by water molecules and suspended particles.

Nutrients can affect SAV by indirectly contributing to light attenuation. An increase in nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorous, stimulates growth of phytoplankton within the water column and epiphytes on SAV leaves and stems (a process called eutrophication) (Hurley 1991). In the East River, nutrient loadings from wastewater treatment plants have contributed to high nutrient levels (See Section 7.2.2c), which may lead to algal/phytoplankton blooms. Algal biomass or phytoplankton productivity is measured in terms of chlorophyll a concentrations. During the winter of 1998, chlorophyll a concentrations in the vicinity of Roosevelt Island were between 10-20 ug/1. Chlorophyll a concentrations above 15 ug/1 exceed the maximum recommended for SAV growth in shallow waters (Batiuk et al. 1992, Orth et al. 1994, NYCDEP 1999).

Substrate provides mechanical support for SAV as well as nutrients. Typically, SAV is unable to grow in very coarse substrates (e.g., stones, gravel) and occur in more stable sediments composed of sand or mud. SAV generally does not grow in areas of continuous strong currents or tides, such as commonly found in the East River, due to excessive scouring of the bottom sediments.

NYSDEC tidal wetlands maps were reviewed for the presence of emergent and submergent wetlands growing in the East River. No vegetated areas were indicated. Water depth and shoreline development preclude vegetation of these types. No studies of SAV (e.g., eelgrass) have been identified for the East River. However, strong currents, coarse substrates, and periodic eutrophic conditions are likely to preclude the development of SAV in the East River.

b. Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are tiny, single-celled algae. Phytoplankton, like vascular plants, convert light energy to biological energy through photosynthesis. The species composition of a planktonic community is a function of various environmental factors including salinity, turbidity, nutrients, turbulence, and depth. Typically, diatoms and dinoflagellates are the dominant groups. Dinoflagellates tend to dominate in the summer, while diatoms dominate in the winter and spring. Other important phytoplankton groups include green and blue-green algae (Day et al. 1989). Green and blue-green algae are present throughout the year, but are more abundant during summer and fall months at which time they become major contributors to the total productivity of an estuary (Marshall 1995).

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-12 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Phytoplankton productivity is a major source of primary food-energy for most estuarine systems. Factors that regulate the magnitude and seasonal pattern of phytoplankton photosynthesis include light, nutrients, temperature, physical transport processes, and herbivory.

Like the vascular plants, phytoplankton depend on light in order to perform photosynthesis, therefore light is one of the most important factors affecting primary production in these autotrophic organisms. However unlike SAV, turbidity may not have an overall detrimental affect on production. Studies have suggested that phytoplankton can adapt to fluctuating light regimes, and that vertical mixing enhances phytoplankton production (Marra 1978a,b). Further, phytoplankton may acclimate their photosynthetic pigment composition and enzyme concentration to the prevailing light regime (Falkowksi 1980).

Phytoplankton incorporate dissolved nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, silicon) into their own cells through enzymatic processes. Many of these nutrients are required in trace amounts, however carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and silicon are of greater importance. These elements along with hydrogen and oxygen make up the largest portion of phytoplankton cells. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous are also necessary for phytoplankton primary production (i.e., photosynthesis).

Phytoplankton growth and productivity decline in temperatures outside their optima. Although temperature optima vary over a wide range (10oC - 40oC) depending on species (Eppley 1972), temperature tends to exert a selection pressure for populations whose optima coincide with local environmental conditions (Day et al. 1989). As a result, temperature acclimatization for a local population is limited.

Grazing by herbivores has been postulated to be an important influence on phytoplankton productivity. In early studies, some researchers have asserted that zooplankton and phytoplankton abundance is kept in a steady state by the limitations of other environmental conditions (i.e., light, nutrients, temperature) (Steeman-Nielsen 1958). Others have suggested that herbivory is explained by a simple predator-prey relationship (Gushing 1959). However, recent studies have indicated that while herbivory exerts a seasonal influence over phytoplankton populations in certain environments, it is unlikely to be a severe limitation overall (e.g. Martin 1970, Oviattetal. 1979).

Hazen and Sawyer (1981) conducted a biological survey for the Newtown Greek Water Pollution Gontrol Plant, concentrating their sampling stations near the plant outfall, as well as near the southern end of Roosevelt Island. The study was conducted from May through October 1981. A total of 56 taxa were identified during the survey (Table 8.3). The phytoplankton community was dominated by diatoms. The dominant species varied with season. The diatom Skeletonema costatum dominated in May, June, August, and September. Navicula sp. and Cyclotella sp. were dominant in June and October.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-13 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.3 Phytoplankton Species Collected in the Lower East River (May-October 1980)

Common Name: Phylum Species Present . * Diatoms: Bacillariophyta Achnanthes sp., Amphora sp., Asterionella formosa, Asterionella gracillima, Asterionellajaponica, Biddulphia aurita, Biddulphia sp., Cerataulina bergoni, Chaetoceros decipiens (*), Chaetoceros lorenzianum (*), Chaetoceros sp. (*), Cocconeis costatum, Cocconeis sp., Coscinodiscus centralis (*), Coscinodiscus rothii (*), Coscinodiscus sp., Cyclotella sp., Cymbella sp., Diploneis sp., Ditylum brightwelli, Eucampia zoodiacus, Fragilaria crotonensis, Fragilaria sp., Gyrosigmafaciola (*), Gyrosigma sp. (*), Leptocylindrus danicus, Licmophroa sp., Lithodesium undulatum, Melosira granulata (*), Melosira nummuloid (*), Melosira sp., Navicula spp. (*), Nitzschia closterium, Nitzschia sp., Paralia sulcata (*), Rhizosolenia setigera, Rhizosolenia hepetata, Rhizosolenia sp., Skeletonema costatum (*), Stauroneis sp., Surirella sp., Synedra sp., Tabellariaferestrata, Tabellaria flocculosa, Thalassionema gravida, Thalassionema nitzchoides, Thalassiosira sp., Thalassiothrix nitzchoides

Green Algae: Chlorophyta Ankistrodesmusfalactus, Nannochloris atomus, Scenedesmus quadricaudia, Stichococcus sp.

Blue-Green Algae: Cyanophyta Oscillatoria sp. Table modified from Hazen and Sawyer 1981. sp. - one species; spp. - more than one species. * - Dominant group; (*) - Dominant species

Because of the major exchange of water between the Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, and the East River, production in the East River is most likely from a combination of autochthonous (local) and allochthonous (external) sources. Although there are no quantitative data available, the contribution of phytoplankton production within the East River is believed to be very small. Conversely, the organic matter contributed by watershed runoff and in situ organic production in the Hudson River drainage and other drainages tributary to the tidal flow in the East River, represents a major source of production for the system (Parish and.Weiner 1989).

8.2.2 Consumers

Consumers are those species that cannot synthesize their own food. Instead, these species must rely on primary producers, or members of lower trophic levels as a source of energy.

CaSe99-F-1625 Page 8-14 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application a. Microbes

Traditionally, microbes are divided into several groups including bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. Bacteria are believed to dominate the microbial biomass in the water column, in sediments, and on SAV. Fungi most likely dominate microbial biomass in dying and decomposing SAV. Protozoan biomass may equal bacterial biomass in sediments (Day et al. 1989).

Microorganisms are involved at every trophic level of an ecosystem and dominate the processes of nutrient recycling and decomposition. They contribute to primary productivity (as blue-green algae, discussed in Phytoplankton), are instrumental in decomposition, and they prevent the loss of some energy from the ecosystem.

In their role as decomposers, microorganisms digest the structural matter of dead plants. Structural lignocellulose is not readily digested by most animals who lack the appropriate gastrointestinal enzymes to hydrolyze this tough material (Day et al. 1989). However, once the organic molecules have been transformed into microbial biomass, a larger portion of the associated energy is available to higher trophic levels. Dead animal tissues, feces, and pseudofeces are transformed into microbial biomass as well.

Microbes conserve the energy in a system through their uptake of dissolved organic matter from the water column. This organic matter (e.g., amino acids) is unavailable to the rest of the community and would otherwise be lost. It is made available through its incorporation into microbial biomass.

In addition to the above roles, microbes are involved in nitrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur cycling. Microbes therefore contribute to the maintenance of concentrations of what otherwise may be limiting nutrients.

During their 1981 survey, Hazen and Sawyer collected both planktonic and attached microbial species (Table 8.4). Protozoans were the dominant group among the species collected. b. Zooplankton

Zooplankton are typically divided into two categories: holoplankton and meroplankton. Holoplankton spend their entire life in the plankton community, while meroplankton spend only part of their lives in the plankton community as larval stages. Holoplankton spend their entire life in a variable environment. As a result they have evolved rapid growth rates, broad physiological tolerances, and behavioral patterns that allow them to survive the variability. Copepods are the most abundant and wide spread species of holoplankton. The remainder of the holoplankton is composed mainly of non-copepod crustaceans (e.g., mysids and carideans) and chaetognaths (i.e. arrow worms). Meroplankton spend a brief period of time in the plankton.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-15 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.4 Microbial Species Collected in the Lower East River (May-October 1980)

Common Name: Phylum Species Present Protozoan: Protozoa Ceratium hirundinella, Ceratium tripos, Dirobryon sp., Distenphanus speculum, Dynophysis acuta, Farella sp., Peridinum sp„ Tintinnidae sp., Acineta sp., Glaucoma scintillans, Lionofus sp., Platycola longicolis, Stylongchia sp., Vorticella sp., Zoothamnium sp.(*) Table modified from Hazen and Sawyer 1981. sp. - One species; spp. - More than one species. (*) - Dominant species.

often appear during certain periods of the year when productivity is high, or when conditions are appropriate for survival and growth. Meroplanktonic larvae are diverse, with representatives of many different phyla. Most common are immature forms of benthic invertebrates and chordates; eggs, larvae, and juveniles of natant invertebrates (e.g. shrimp and crabs), and fish (Day et al. 1989).

In estuaries, the temporal abundance of zooplankton is highly variable and depends on factors such as recruitment, variable food sources, and physical processes (such as hydrology) that may bring in or remove both larvae and adults. Even so, many groups show patterns that repeat year to year. Spatially, the distribution of zooplankton is patchy. This is due to factors such as water mass movements, vertical migrations, larval influx, and predation (Day et al. 1989).

Most zooplankton are thought to be herbivores, grazing on phytoplankton. However, it has been suggested that organic detritus is also an important food source for zooplankton (Heinle and Flemer 1975, Heinle et al. 1976). Studies indicate that suspended organic detritus may serve as a source of the carbon, nitrogen and calories needed to support zooplankton growth, while phytoplankton supply essential amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins (Heinle et al. 1976, Roman 1984). Zooplankton also feed on microorganisms.

Zooplankton serve as food for a variety of consumers. Some zooplankton are carnivorous, and may feed on smaller species. Completely or partially carnivorous zooplankton include some copepods, and meroplankton such as decapod and species such as decapod and fish larvae, and jellyfishes and ctenophores. Other species that feed directly on zooplankton include small forage fish (e.g. anchovies, silversides, and shad) and the young of many fishes (Day et al. 1989).

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-16 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Zooplankton play several important roles in trophodynamics. They serve as an important link between phytoplankton primary production and many important carnivores. They may help regulate phytoplankton populations through grazing, and because a large number of benthic and nektonic adults spend part of their life as zooplankton, the planktonic stage affects distribution and abundance of adult populations.

Hazen and Sawyer (1981) sampled zooplankton in the Lower East River from May to October 1980. Twenty-six species were identified, however a number of these were actually benthic organisms that had been swept up from the bottom. The species of meroplankton and holoplankton identified are listed in Table 8.5. Holoplankton were more abundant than meroplankton. The holoplankton species collected were dominated by Acartia clausi and A. tonsa. The meroplankton community was dominated by barnacle larvae. The species collected represent a zooplankton community considered typical of estuaries in the northeastern United States (Parish and Weiner 1989). The seasonal pattern observed in the collections indicated a two month delay between phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance. This may indicate that the zooplankton take advantage of the local phytoplankton standing stock as a food source. The mixing of waters of the Long Island Sound and the Upper Bay with those of the East River may influence the interaction of the phyto- and zooplankton populations (Parish and Weiner 1989).

c. Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic organisms consist of a broad assemblage of diverse forms that are related only by their distribution in space. The benthic community is broken into several subgroups: epifauna, infauna (macro and meio), and motile benthos (Lerman 1986, Day et al. 1989). Epifauna include species that live on or around structures. Whereas the densities of many organisms is limited by food supply, epifaunal organisms are limited by space. Members of the epifaunal community are preyed upon be mid-level consumers such as sheepshead and blue crabs (Day et al. 1989). Most members of the epibenthic community are suspension feeders, filtering large volumes of water to obtain food. Suspension feeders tend to be found in or on hard substrates (Lerman 1986).

The infauna (macro and meio) are typically found in fine sediments (Lerman 1986). Macroinfauna are the relatively large organisms that live buried beneath the sediment surface. Polychaete worms and bivalves typically dominate this community. The feeding method used by these species depends largely on sediment type. Those found in sandier sediments tend to be suspension feeders, while those found in siltier sediments tend to be deposit feeders. Deposit feeders ingest organic-rich materials, such as detritus and bacteria in the sediments. Some deposit feeders simply ingest whatever detrital material they encounter (nonselective), while others are selective (Lerman 1986). Meioinfauna are separated from macroinfauna primarily on the basis of size. Those species that will pass through a 0.5 mm mesh are considered meioinfauna. There are both permanent and temporary members of this community. Many juvenile macroinfauna are actually classified as meioinfauna until they grow out of this

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-17 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.5 Zooplankton Species Collected in the Lower East River (May-October 1980)

Zooplankton Group Common Name: Phylum, Class, Order Species Present Holoplankton Copepods: Arthropoda, Crustacea, Copepoda Acartia clausi (*), Acartia tonsa (*), Eurytemora americana, Paracalanus parvus, femora longicornis, Oithona nana, Alteutha deppressa, Ectinosoma sp., Harpaticus chelifer, Tachidus sp., Tisbe furcata, and larval Acartia spp.

Water fleas: Arthropoda, Crustacea, Cladocera Bosmina sp., Podon polyphemoides

Seed Shrimp: Arthropoda, Crustacea, Ostracoda Unidentified species

Meroplankton Barnacles: Arthropoda, Crustacea, Cirripedia Balanus improvisus

Mud crab: Arthropoda, Crustacea (Malacostraca), Decapoda Rhithropanopeus harrisii

Snails: Mollusca, Gastropoda Unidentified Species

Sandworm: Annelida, Polychaeta Polydora sp.. Unidentified species

Tunicates: Chordata, Urochordata Molgula manhattensis Table modified from Hazen and Sawyer 1981 Sp. - One species; spp. - More than one species. (*) - Dominant species.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-18 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application classification. Meioinfauna, like macroinfauna are strongly affected by sediment type, and as such two broad groups have been identified: burrowing mud-bottom forms, and interstitial sandy-bottom forms (Day et al. 1989).

Motile benthos are a heterogenous group of vertebrates and invertebrates. The ecological processes undertaken by these species include active burrowing predation on macrobenthos, deposit feeding, scavenging, serving as prey for demersal nekton and nutrient regeneration. Members of this group include crabs, shrimp, echinoderms, lancelets, and fish such as blennies and gobies (Day et al. 1989).

Benthic communities are dependent on the characteristics of the sediments in which they live. Important characteristics include: average grain size, percent composition of silt, sand, and clay, organic content, carbonate content, and bulk density. The physical influence of local current and wave regimes account for much of the observed differences in sediment characteristics (Day et al. 1989). Course sediments are found where currents scour the bottom. As a result, small particles are removed, leaving sand and gravel. This type of substrate tends to shift and can be abrasive. Species living in this type of environment cannot dig permanent burrows because to the shifting sediments. Amphipods, and clams are representative of the species in coarse sediments. Fine sediments such as mud, clay, and silt are deposited by weak currents. The relatively calm conditions of this type of habitat allows organic detritus to accumulate on the bottom. This type of sediment is highly stable, conducive to permanent burrows. Tube-dwelling polychaetes and amphipods (Ampelisca) are the dominant organisms of this habitat (Lerman 1986).

One of the most important ways the benthic community influences other components of the ecosystem is through community metabolism or respiration. During respiration organic matter is at least partially oxidized. Through respiration, inorganic carbon is released to the environment, and nitrogen and phosphorus are mineralized. These are the basic growth nutrients for primary production.

Several studies have indicated that benthic communities may affect phytoplankton biomass in overlying waters. In areas of abundant suspension-feeding bivalves, a large volume of water can be filtered thereby limiting phytoplankton growth (e.g., Cloem 1982, Officer et al. 1982, Nichols 1985). As secondary producers, benthic communities support higher trophic levels including many invertebrates and demersal nekton (Day et al. 1989). Benthic communities are also involved in nutrient regeneration. Nixon (1981) reported that the benthic community supplies nitrogen and phosphorous to the overlying water column, thereby supporting phytoplankton production.

In a biological survey conducted in 1981, Hazen and Sawyer used a Petersen dredge and a Van Veen dredge to sample the benthic community of the East River. Forty-four species were

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-19 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application collected during the survey (Table 8.6). Sand worms and tunicates were dominant on hard- bottom areas, while clams, mudworms, and burrowing organisms dominated soft sediment communities. Hazen and Sawyer concluded that the benthic community of the East River is not diverse because of the rocky bottom and strong currents.

In 1989, LMS conducted a benthic survey to characterize the benthic community near Hunts Point. Samples were collected at 6 stations along three transects (east, center, and west). Each location had a shallow and a deep station. Polychaetes were the dominant taxa at all but one station, the east-shallow station (located near a CSO), where nematodes were most abundant. The second most abundant group at deep stations was oligochaetes from the family Haplotaxida, while at the shallow stations the second most abundant group was polychaetes at the east-shallow station, and nematodes at the central-shallow station (LMS 1989).

From 1982 to 1984, LMS sampled the benthos in the East River for River Walk (Parish and Weiner 1989). Ponar dredge samples were taken during March and April 1982, and bottom trawl samples were taken in December 1983 and January and March 1984. Invertebrates collected during bottom trawls were also analyzed. Nine species of invertebrates were collected in the bottom trawls from November 1983 through April 1984. The species collected included: rock crabs (Cancer irroratus), lady crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), sand shrimp (Crangon sp.), horseshoe crab {Limulus polyphemus), marine mud crab (Neopanope sayi), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes sp.), green crab (Carcinus maenus), mud crab {Rithropanopeus harrisii) and the common spider crab {Libinia dubia). Sand shrimp were the most abundant invertebrate in the bottom trawl catch, with rock crabs and marine mud crabs the only other species occurring regularly in the study area. Grab samples collected in March and April 1982 indicated dominance by nematodes, polychaetes, oligochaetes, and amphipods. The polychaete Sabellaria vulgaris accounted for most of the large polychaete abundance. The 1984 sample data indicated that the same four groups dominant in 1982 (nematodes, polychaetes, oligochaetes, and amphipods) were also abundant in 1984.

From December 1984 to May 1985, LMS conducted an additional series of benthic community surveys (Parish and Weiner 1989). Monthly epibenthic sled surveys and Ponar/Petersen grab sample surveys were conducted on a monthly basis. The number of invertebrates collected in the fishery survey otter trawls was also analyzed. Analysis of the epibenthic sled data indicated that mysids, cumaceans, and gammarids were both the most abundant and most commonly collected crustaceans; polychaetes of the family Nereidae were also common (Table 8.7). Nematodes and decapod crustaceans were the most numerous species during colder months (January/February) and nereids, mysids, gammarids, and corophiids were more prevalent in warmer spring months (March/April). Data derived from the Ponar/Petersen grab samples indicated that polychaetes and oligochaetes dominated the benthos in numerical abundance. Benthic data collected during bottom trawls indicated that sand shrimp were the most abundant invertebrate collected in trawls. Rock crabs and mud crabs were the next most abundant species, and were widely distributed.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-20 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application while horseshoe crabs and green crabs showed lower abundances and were more patchily distributed (Parish and Weiner 1989).

Benthic invertebrates were also collected in trawl surveys conducted by LMS from July through September 1989 for the proposed Halleck Street project. During the surveys, six species of benthic invertebrates were collected: mud dog whelk {Ilynassa obsoleta), blue crab {Callinectes sapidus), horseshoe crab, hermit crab (Pagurus sp.), mud crab, and sand shrimp {Crangon septemspinosa). Of these species, blue crab was present in the highest abundance, followed by hermit crabs and mud crabs. The majority of species collected during these studies were those adapted to the hard-bottom conditions prevalent in the East River. These included filter feeders, such as sabellarid worms and blue mussels (Hazen and Sawyer 1981). In lesser numbers were the deposit feeders such as oligochaetes and the amphipod Corophium sp. which were found in the river's sandy bottomed areas (Hazen and Sawyer 1981, LMS 1989, Parish and Weiner 1989). A large population of oligochaetes was found in the vicinity of the Hunts Point Sewage Treatment Plant outfalls (LMS 1989). Sewage outfalls provide additional detritus and nutrients which are conducive to deposit feeders.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-21 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.6 Benthic Organisms Collected in the Lower East River (May - October 1980) Common Name: Phylum, Class, Order Species Identified Sea Anemones: Coelenterata, Anthozoa Haliplanella luciai, Diadumene leucolena

Flatworms: Platyhelminthes, Turbellaria, Polycladida Unidentified spp.

Proboscis Worms: Nemertea Cerabratulus lacteus

Roundworms: Nematoda Unidentified species

Moss Animals: Bryozoa, Membranipora Electro crustulenta

*Sandworms: Annelida, Polychaeta Capitella capitata, Eteone heteropoda, Eutalia sanquinea, Harmothoe extenuata, Glycera americana, lepidonotus squamatus. Nereis succinea, Nereis virens, Pectinaria gouldii, Polydora ligni, Sabellaria vulgaris (*), Scolecalepides viridis, Streblospio benedicti

Aquatic Earthworms: Annelida, Oligochaeta Limnodrilus sp., Pelascolex sp.

Barnacles: Arthropoda, Crustacea, Cirripedia Balanus improvisus

Sowbugs: Arthropoda, Crustacea (Malacostraca), Isopoda Cyathura polita, Edotea triloba, Jaera marina

Scuds: Arthropoda, Crustacea (Malacostraca), Amphipoda Ampithoe longimanus, Carella linearis, Corophium insidiosum, Crangonyx pseudogracilis, Microdeutopis gryllotalpa, Microdeutopis anomolus, Unicola irrorata, Unicola serrata

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-22 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.6 (cont'd) Benthic Organisms Collected in the Lower East River (May-Oct. 1980)

Common Name: Phylum, Class, Order Species Identified Crabs: Arthropoda, Crustacea (Malacostraca), DecapodaCancer irroratus, Eurypanopeus depressus, Neopanope sayi, Rhithropanopeus harrisii

Shrimp: Arthropoda, Crustacea (Malacostraca), Decapoda Crangon septemspinosa

Snails: Mollusca, Gastropoda Addisonia paradoxa, Nassarius obsoletus

*Clams/Mussels: Mollusca, Pelecypoda Mytilus edulis, Mya arenaria(*), Tellina agilis

+*Tunicates: Chordata, Urochordata Molgula manhattensis Table modified from Hazen and Sawyer 1981. sp. - One species; spp. - More than one species. * - Dominant group; (*) - Dominant species.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-23 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.7 Total Number of Individuals (per 1000 m3) per Monthly Epibenthic Sampling Intervala - All Stations Combined (River Walk 1984 - 1985) •

Sampling Date Taxon Dec 1984 Jan 1985 Feb 1985 Mar 1985 Apr 1985 Cnidaria 18.7 17.2 Sarsia tubulosab - - - - 4090.3 Nematoda 1039.1 63907.6 - 18.0 50.3 Annelida Oligochaeta 23.8 43.6 329.6 21.3 42.9 Polychaeta Polynoidae - - - - 15.8 Glyceridae - - - 34.4 Nereidae 796.1 1411.8 1547.5 927.8 7300.1 Sabellariidae - - 205.1 24.9 120.5 Sabellidae - - 19.9 - - Syllidae - - - 19.1 114.5 Hinmidae Myzobdella sp. - 759.1 274.7 499.6 150.8 Arthropoda Amphipoda Gammaridae 701.8 5619.3 1753.6 8073.9 6567.7 Caprellidae 321.3 408.2 222.0 360.5 252.2 Corophiidae 23.8 18.9 190.1 394.6 464.7 • Cumacea 395.0 3323.2 863.0 4495.4 5615.6 Isopoda Edotea sp. 188.4 359.2 99.7 1636.7 1468.4 Jaera marina - 68.3 23.6 - - Mysidacea Neomysis americana 1730.3 98776.0 45148.6 241942.0 24289.7 Decapoda Crangon septemspinosa - 1180.4 1472.3 541.9 194.5 Palaemonetes sp. - - 22.8 19.1 - Mollusca Gastropda Nassarius obsoletus - - 24.9 64.0 74.2 Nudibranchia 24.9 Sipuncula 114.7 - 65.1 82.2 298.4 Chordata Urochordata Molgula sp. 646.4 1177.6 1453.8 1947.4 724.9 Botryllus schlosserf 381.0 1553.9 410.3 6311.0 3502.8 Table modified from Parish and Weiner 1989.

a Sum of expected number of individuals per 1000 m3. b Colonial hydroid; value is number of zooids. • c Colonial tunicate; value is number of zooids.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-24 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Benthic invertebrates were also collected in trawl surveys conducted by LMS from July through September 1989 for the proposed Halleck Street project. During the surveys, six species of benthic invertebrates were collected: mud dog whelk (Ilynassa obsoleta), blue crab {Callinectes sapidus), horseshoe crab, hermit crab (Pagurus sp.), mud crab, and sand shrimp {Crangon septemspinosa). Of these species, blue crab was present in the highest abundance, followed by hermit crabs and mud crabs. The majority of species collected during these studies were those adapted to the hard-bottom conditions prevalent in the East River. These included filter feeders, such as sabellarid worms and blue mussels (Hazen and Sawyer 1981). In lesser numbers were the deposit feeders such as oligochaetes and the amphipod Corophium sp. which were found in the river's sandy bottomed areas (Hazen and Sawyer 1981, LMS 1989, Parish and Weiner 1989). A large population of oligochaetes was found in the vicinity of the Hunts Point Sewage Treatment Plant outfalls (LMS 1989). Sewage outfalls provide additional detritus and nutrients which are conducive to deposit feeders.

d. Nekton

The nekton is comprised of actively swimming, pelagic organisms. Composed mostly of fish, the nekton also a diverse group of invertebrates (e.g. squid, crabs). The biomass of nekton is typically among the greatest biomass of higher trophic levels. The exact species composition varies regionally, however dominant fish usually come from only a few taxonomic groups. For example, families in the Hudson River Estuary include Engraulidae (anchovies), Serranidae (basses), and Pleuronectidae (flounder). Crustacea are the most important invertebrate members of the nekton, and decapod Crustacea the most widespread (Day et al. 1989).

Fish may be classified according to the position in the water column that they inhabit. The three major groups recognized are: the shallow-water, the pelagic, and the demersal fishes (Day et al. 1989). Shallow-water fish are typically small, and remain in their habitat throughout their life. Species in this group feed primarily on copepods, amphipods, and other small animals. Pelagic species are those that swim freely throughout the water column. These species usually exhibit strong migratory behavior and tend to be either planktivores (e.g., menhaden) or higher carnivores (e.g., bluefish)(Day et al. 1989). Demersal fish live on or near the bottom, but frequently feed and swim in the water column close to the bottom. This is a diverse group of fish due to factors such as substrate preference, reproductive strategies, and migratory patterns, and food availability (e.g. Deegan and Day 1985). Members of this group include the flatfish, croakers, and cod.

There are several reasons for the variability in the nektonic community structure in estuaries. First, many species migrate in response to the seasons. In temperate estuaries, few species remain in winter and diversity peaks in the spring or summer. The interaction of a species' salinity and temperature tolerances (synergistic factors), produce a general pattern of estuarine use (Day et al. 1989). Second, many species utilize estuaries for feeding in response to seasonal

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-25 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application events such as river flooding. It has been suggested that heavy riverine input leads to an increase in primary production, leading to higher concentrations of species in lower trophic levels (Sutcliffe 1973). Third, many species use estuaries seasonally for spawning and nursery grounds. However, patterns of reproduction differ. For example, some species spawn in saltwater, then the larvae and juveniles move into the estuary, while some species spawn in the estuary where larvae and juveniles remain. (Day et al. 1989). Finally, abundance of any given species varies from year to year. Overall, the use of estuaries by different nekton species is dynamic and varies from estuary to estuary, species to species and year to year. Variations occur even among different individuals of the same species.

Several factors affect the distribution of the nekton in an estuary, two of the most important being salinity and temperature. The nekton can be divided into several groups based on their salinity tolerance and life-history characteristics: estuarine, freshwater, estuarine-marine (estuarine dependent), and marine (nonestuarine-dependent). A distinct pattern of abundance appears when the sequence of abundance for these groups is examined. Freshwater species typically remain in the upper, low-salinity portion of the estuary when freshwater runoff reduces salinity values. Estuarine and estuarine-dependent marine species are in abundance during the spring and summer seasons. Nonestuarine-dependent marine species are sometimes present in summer months, when salinity values in lower estuarine waters has increased. During the warmer months, juveniles of the estuarine-dependent marine species begin their migration to offshore waters to overwinter. They are followed in the fall by the remaining estuarine- dependent marine species (Day et al. 1989).

Temperature has a strong effect on nektonic distribution, especially in winter. Shallow salty water may cool below the lower temperature limits of most fish, therefore there appears to be a selective pressure against overwintering in shallow estuaries. Even so, some members of the nekton (such as winter flounder and blue crabs), do overwinter in estuaries. These species use the deeper portions of the estuary where the water is warmer (Day et al. 1989).

Food availability also affects nekton distribution. The seasonal cycle of occurrence and abundance is an important mechanism for resource partitioning. Food abundance is affected by seasonal changes in environmental conditions and predation. For many nekton species, the time for entering and exiting the estuary is very distinct. This has lead to speculation that the peak occurrence of different species is timed to avoid intense competition.

Nekton are the dominant top and midlevel carnivores, and often regulate through predatory pressure, lower trophic levels. Food preferences and sources change as fish grow, and although food preferences vary greatly, the nekton show a basic dependence on phytoplankton and detritus through both the pelagic and benthic pathways (discussed in Section 8.2.5, below).

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-26 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

In 1982-1983 LMS (1983) collected bottom trawl samples at an interpier site on the Brooklyn side of the East River as part of their sampling for the Westway Study. Based on the total number of species collected, winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, striped bass and grubby were the dominant species.

LMS conducted fishery sampling in the Lower East River from March to October 1982, and from November 1983 to April 1984 (Parish and Weiner 1989). Collections were made using bottom trawls (primary sampling program) and midwater trawls, gill nets and trap nets (secondary sampling program). Thirty-six species offish were collected during the two sampling programs (Table 8.8). The four most abundant species collected were winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, grubby, and striped bass. All other species, with exception of bay anchovy comprised less than 1% of the total number of individuals collected.

Winter flounder was frequently the most abundant species. Present throughout the year, winter flounder abundance was highest from December through April. Winter flounder showed an apparent preference for shoreline stations. Atlantic tomcod were also collected frequently, but with less regularity than winter flounder. Tomcod abundance levels were similar at all of the study stations. Total striped bass abundance data were influenced by one very large catch in December 1983. Striped bass was most common during December and April with a decrease in abundance occurring from May through September. This species showed a strong preference for shoreline stations over channel stations. Grubby occurred at all stations sampled, but showed a preference for channel stations over shoreline stations. This species exhibited a strong seasonal pattern, with numbers lowest between May and November (Parish and Weiner 1989).

Abundance patterns from the secondary sampling survey were similar to those of the primary sampling survey, however fewer species were captured. This difference may be a reflection of gear selectivity, habitat differences, and the lack of sampling during late spring, summer, and fall when additional marine species are present in the East River. Even so, the secondary sampling captured five species not collected during primary sampling.

Based on the combined results of the two sampling programs. Parish and Weiner concluded that there is persistent fish movement through the East River, and that major fish species do not appear to restrict their activities to localized areas for long periods of time.

LMS also conducted a fishery sampling program in the East River from December 1984 through May 1985 (Parish and Weiner 1989). During this sampling program a 16 ft. otter trawl (primary sampling) was used in the sampling program. Trap net, gill nets and a 30 ft. trawl (secondary sampling) were also employed. Thirty-two species of fish were collected during the bottom trawl and secondary gear sampling surveys in the East River. Table 8.9 shows the species collected, percent composition in primary trawls, and their occurrence in secondary samples.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-27 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.8 Results of Fisheries Surveys for the River Walk Project (Mar. 1982 -- Apr. 1984)

• 30-ft Bottom Trawls Occurrence in Other Gear Total # % 16 ft. Common Name Collected Composition Bottom Trawl Gill Net Trap Net Winter flounder 1845 55.6 X X X Atlantic tomcod 526 15.9 X X X Grubby 369 11.1 X X Striped bass 324 9.8 X X X Bay anchovy 71 2.1 Red hake 29 0.9 White perch 28 0.8 X X Northern pipefish 25 0.8 X X Alewife 14 0.4 X American shad 11 0.3 Scup 7 0.2 Striped sea robin 7 0.2 Windowpane flounder 7 0.2 X Bluefish 6 0.2 Cunner 6 0.2 X Smallmouth flounder 6 0.2 Silver hake 5 0.2 American eel 4 0.1 X Black sea bass 4 0.1 • Blueback herring 4 0.1 X Butterfish 3 0.1 Rainbow smelt 3 0.1 Weakfish 3 0.1 Northern sea robin 2 0.1 Rock gunnel 2 0.1 Spot 2 0.1 Atlantic herring 1 <0.1 Fourspot flounder 1 <0.1 Lined seahorse 1 <0.1 X Pollock 1 <0.1 X Tidewater silverside 1 <0.1 Striped mullet X X Atlantic menhaden X Longhom sculpin X Conger eel X Hickory shad X Table modified from Parish and Weiner 1989.

•

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-28 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.9 Fish Species Collected During Surveys for River Walk (Dec. 1984 - -May 1985) Bottom Trawls Occurrence in Other Gear • Total # % Large Common Name Collected Compositio Bottom Gill Net Trap Net n Trawl Winter flounder 1213 52.74 X X X Striped bass 604 26.26 X X X Grubby 159 6.91 X X X Atlantic tomcod 121 5.26 X X X White perch 90 3.91 X X X American shad 20 0.87 X Altantic silverside 17 0.74 X Blueback herring 14 0.61 X X X Alewife 13 0.57 X X Red hake 9 0.39 X X Northern pipefish 8 0.35 X X X Windowpane 8 0.35 flounder Bay anchovy 5 0.22 X X Smallmouth 5 0.22 flounder • Silver hake 3 0.13 X X Naked goby 2 0.09 X American eel 1 0.04 X Atlantic menhaden 1 0.04 X Black sea bass 1 0.04 X X Cunner 1 0.04 X X Fourbeard rockling 1 0.04 Pollock 1 0.04 X Scup 1 0.04 X Sheepshead 1 0.04 Spotted hake 1 0.04 X Butterfish X Striped mullet X Threespine X stickleback Hickory shad X Blackfish X Summer flounder X Lined seahorse X X • Table modified from Parish and Weiner 1989.

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-29 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

The five most abundant species during primary sampling were winter flounder, striped bass, grubby, Atlantic tomcod, and white perch. After comparing the number of fish caught with water quality parameters (e.g., temperature). Parish and Weiner found that the number of winter flounder, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod and white perch declined with a decrease in water temperature. These species then showed erratic rises in number when temperatures increased in Spring. Grubby had a tendency toward higher numbers in the mid-winter than in the early and late winter. The results of the secondary sampling program affirmed the results of the primary sampling program (Parish and Weiner 1989).

From January 1984 through April 1984, Malcolm Pimie Inc. conducted an East River fishery survey for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Results from that study were similar to the LMS 1983 study in that winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, striped bass and grubby were the dominant species collected.

During the one year period from October 1985 through November 1986, trawl surveys were conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1985-1986) in the East and Harlem Rivers to assess the impacts of rehabilitating FDR Drive between 79th and 90,h Streets. Over the coarse of the trawling surveys, 1359 fish representing 27 taxa were collected (Table 8.10). Winter flounder was the overall dominant species. The hogchoker and Atlantic tomcod were the next most abundant. Blueback herring, grubby, striped bass, white perch, American eel, northern pipefish, bay anchovy, and black sea bass followed in abundance representing 1% or more of the total number collected.

LMS conducted an aquatic study subsequent to the River Walk surveys in the area of Hunters Point, north of Newtown Creek (LMS 1986). Fish were collected at eight stations using primarily a 16-ft bottom trawl in addition to a 30-ft trawl, gill nets, trap nets, and 50-ft beach seine. Forty-five species of fish were collected (Table 8.11). Winter flounder were consistently the most abundant species collected at all stations except one, seasonally abundant from March to early April and relatively scarce from July through November 1985. Striped bass were second in overall abundance but were captured less regularly than winter flounder. Striped bass were seasonally abundant during March, April, and December 1985, but were rarely collected during other months. Atlantic tomcod were common from March through June 1985 after which few individuals were collected. Grubby was the most abundant in early March 1985 and were rare during the rest of the year (LMS 1986).

From July through September 1989, LMS conducted a series of trawl surveys in the East River near Hunts Point (LMS 1989). Only six species of fish were collected during this effort. The data from the three trawls combined indicated that Bay anchovy {Anchoa mitchilli) was the most abundant species, with striped bass the second highest in abundance.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-30 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogen eration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.10 Results o f Trawl Surveys in the East and Harlem Rivers (Oct. 1985 - Nov. 1986) •

Common Name Total # Collected % Composition Winter flounder 658 48.4 Hogchoker 280 20.6 Atlantic tomcod 132 9.7 Blueback herring 98 7.2 Grubby 38 2.8 Striped bass 25 1.8 White perch 25 1.8 American eel 22 1.6 Northern pipefish 20 1.5 Bay anchovy 13 1.0 Black sea bass 13 1.0 Herring (larvae) 7 0.5 Pinfish 4 0.3 Spotted Hake 4 0.3 Windowpane flounder 4 0.3 Lined seahorse 3 0.2 Alewife 2 0.2 • White hake 2 0.2 Atlantic moonfish 1 0.1 Bluefish 1 0.1 Hake 1 0.1 Naked goby 1 0.1 Planehead filefish 1 0.1 Striped anchovy 1 0.1 Summer flounder 1 0.1 Tautog 1 0.1 Weakfish 1 0.1 Table modified from Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1986.

•

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-31 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.11 Results of Fishery Surveys for Hunters Point Project (Mar .1985-Feb. 1986)

• 16 ft. Bottom Trawl Occurrence in Other Gear Total # % 30 ft. Common Name Collected Compositi Bottom Gill Net Trap Net 50 ft. on Trawl Seine Winter flounder 3047 63.9 X X X X Striped bass 598 12.5 X X X X Atlantic tomcod 598 12.4 X X X X Grubby 107 2.2 X X X Bay anchovy 98 2.0 X American shad 78 1.6 X X Northern pipefish 68 1.4 X X X X Atlantic silverside 29 0.6 X X Alewife 24 0.5 X X X Striped sea robin 18 0.4 X X American eel 14 0.3 X X X Windowpane 11 0.2 X X flounder Blueback herring 11 0.2 X X Spot 10 0.2 X X Butterfish 8 0.2 X Red hake 7 0.2 X X Bluefish 6 0.1 X X X Mummichog 6 0.1 X White perch 6 0.1 X X X Scup 4 <0.1 X X • Smallmouth 4 <0.1 flounder Summer flounder 3 <0.1 X X Planehead filefish 3 <0.1 Striped mullet 3 <0.1 Atlantic croaker 2 <0.1 X Atlantic moonfish 2 <0.1 Gunner 2 <0.1 X Pollock 2 <0.1 X Weakfish 2 <0.1 X X Gonger eel <0.1 X Flying gurnard <0.1 Hogchoker <0.1 Lined seahorse O.l X X Northern sea robin <0.1 Spotfin mojarra O.l Rainbow smelt O.l Rock gunnel O.l White mullet X Striped killifish X Atlantic menhaden X X Tautog X X Black sea bass X X Naked goby X Grevallejack X Spotted hake X • Table Modified from LMS 1986.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-32 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

An impingement and entrainment study was conducted at Astoria Generating Station from January through December 1993. During the impingement study, a combined total of 349,674 fish were collected at Astoria Units 10, 20,. 30, 40, and 50. The five most abundant species included Atlantic herring, bay anchovy, conger eel, winter flounder, and Atlantic tomcod.

During the entrainment study, a combined total of 19,342 fish eggs and larvae, 135 young-of- year (YOY) and 363 yearling or older were collected. These numbers are scaled to operating volume and used to determine the estimated number of each life-stage collected. The estimates for the combined total collected, indicated that fourbeard rockling, winter flounder and grubby eggs were present in highest numbers in the collection. Of the post-yolk sac larvae collected, grubby larvae were present in the highest number, while bay anchovy was second highest. Of the YOY entrained, grubby and northern pipefish were present in highest numbers. In the yearling class, atlantic herring represented the highest number collected. Finally, of the fish collected which were older than yearling, American eel were most numerous followed by grubby and rock gunnel (LMS 1994).

LMS (1993) carried out an impingement and entrainment study at Ravenswood Generating Station from September 1991 through September 1992. During the impingement study, a total of 83,311 fish were collected at Ravenswood Units 1, 2 and 3 combined. A total of 51 species were collected; 42 were marine species, 3 were estuarine, one was catadromous, and five were anadromous. The five most abundant species, in descending order of abundance, included blueback herring, bay anchovy, silver hake, Atlantic silverside, and the sea horse. Hippocampus erectus. It should be noted that silver hake and the sea horse were included amongst the five most abundant species due to unusually high concentrations during a one month periods. In November 1991, 7,327 silver hake were collected. This accounts for 85.3% of the total number of silver hake collected during the course of the study. In April 1992, 2,632 sea horses were collected. This represents 73.3% of the total number of sea horses collected during the one year period. It is probable that the abundance of these species would have been considerably lower were it not for the isolated events. This is supported by subsequent studies at Ravenswood Generating Station conducted in 1993 -1994, and 2000 and discussed below.

Thirty-two entrainment surveys were conducted at Ravenswood Generating Station from October 1991 through September 1992. A combined total of 11,179 fish eggs and larvae and 132 juveniles were collected during the study period. Estimated entrainment rates of fish eggs were highest in April and May as a result of a large concentration of fourbeard rockling eggs. Fourbeard rockling eggs accounted for 89.5 percent of the total estimated number of eggs entrained. Bay anchovy, silver hake, and Atlantic menhaden eggs were the next most abundant representing 3.5, 3.3, and 2.9% of the estimated total number of eggs entrained, respectively. Yolk-sac larvae were found only in February and March. Grubby and American sand lance were

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-33 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application the only species represented by this life stage. Grubby accounted for 96.9% of the yolk-sac larvae collected. The post yolk-sac larvae of 20 species were entrained during the study period.

Of these, the most abundant species were winter flounder (36.4%), grubby (14%), bay anchovy (13.5%), gobies (12.9%) and summer flounder (3.1%). Post yolk-sac larvae were found in entrainment collections throughout the year. YOY were present in samples from May through January; 13 species were identified. Bay anchovies accounted for 68.3% of the estimated YOY entrainment, followed by gobies (8.9%), winter flounder (4.4%), and striped cusk-eel (2.1%) (LMS 1993).

An impingement and entrainment study was conducted at Ravenswood Generating Station from February 1993 through January 1994 (Normandeau Assoc, Inc. 1994a). During that time fifty- two weekly impingement surveys were conducted. A combined total of only 9,710 fish were collected at Ravenswood Units 1, 2, and 3 during the course of the year. These fish actually comprised 61 species combined. Most of these species were marine species tolerant of only minimal freshwater influences, seven were euryhaline species tolerant of lower salinity conditions, seven were anadromous, one was catadromous, and two could be considered primarily freshwater. The five most abundant species at all three units combined were winter flounder, grubby, northern pipefish, Atlantic silverside and Atlantic herring (Normandeau 1994a).

Thirty-three entrainment surveys were conducted at Ravenswood Station as part of the combined study. During the entrainment study, a combined total of 25,363 fish eggs and larvae and 288 young-of-year (YOY) were collected. Fourbeard rockling eggs were the most abundant egg entrained in April and May. Winter flounder eggs were estimated as higher than any other species in February and March. Grubby were by far the most abundant of the yolk-sac. larvae entrainment estimate. Other yolk-sac larvae collected included American sand lance (March), winter flounder (April), and goby and bay anchovy in August. Grubby and bay anchovy made up the estimated majority of post yolk-sac larvae entrained at Ravenswood. YOY of 15 species were present in entrainment samples from May through December. Of these, northern pipefish was the most abundant followed by smallmouth flounder, bay anchovy and gobies. The highest rates of YOY entrainment occurred in the summer when several species of fish were present Normandeau 1994a).

An impingement and entrainment study is currently underway at Ravenswood Generating Station Unit 30 (See Appendix 8F for details). The study began in March 2000 and will continue through September 2000. During the period from March through May a combined total of 1,137 fish representing 26 species were collected. Of the species collected 22 were marine, two were euryhaline, and two were anadromous. The five most abundant fish species collected were spotted hake, smallmouth flounder, sea horse, cunner, and Northern pipefish.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-34 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

During the entrainment study, a combined total of 18,697 fish eggs and larvae and 14 YOY were collected. Fourbeard rockling eggs were the most abundant egg entrained, accounting for 89.3% of the total. The majority were collected in March and April. Winter flounder eggs were the next most abundant, comprising 8.4% of the total; these were also collected in March and April. Atlantic menhaden eggs were the third most abundant egg collected but only accounted for 1.21% of the total . The yolk-sac larvae of only one species was collected, those of the grubby. Collections were concentrated in March and April with very few collected in May. Winter flounder and grubby post yolk-sac larvae accounted for 91% of the post yolk-sac larvae entrained from March through May. Atlantic tomcod, striped cusk-eel, and American sand lance were relatively abundant, but only accounted for 7.38% of the total entrained. YOY of only four species were present in entrainment samples. Of these the striped cusk-eel was the most abundant, followed by Atlantic tomcod, winter flounder, and Atlantic herring which were present in equal numbers.

In summary, the dominant fish species found in the east River and expected to occur at the Ravenswood site throughout the year are winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, grubby, striped bass, and bay anchovy. While these species are likely to be most abundant overall, their numbers will vary widely on a seasonal basis as they move among the East River, Long Island Sound, and Hudson River. The life histories of these fish, as well as Atlantic silverside, fourbeard rockling, and blue crab, are discussed in Appendix 8A. There appear to be few, if any, permanent resident species in the East River near the proposed Cogeneration Facility. Species such as American shad, alewife, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, striped bass and white perch are seasonal in occurrence. These species are generally migrating through the East River to over-wintering areas offshore or spawning grounds further upriver. Early life stages of some species, such as winter flounder, bay anchovy, grubby, four-beard rockling, windowpane, and bluefish are found in the East River. Their occurrence, however, likely results from the strong tidal currents in the area. Spawning of these species generally occurs in the high salinity waters of the Atlantic Ocean, New York Harbor or Long Island Sound region. The only two relative common species found in the East River over most life stages are Atlantic silverside and Northern pipefish. Both of these species are abundant in the shallow, highly vegetated nearshore waters of Long Island Sound. Both are small, weak swimmers that could be easily transported by tidal currents.

8.2.3 Community Ecology

In an estuarine system, of which the East River is a part, energy flows among the trophic (or feeding) levels in myriad ways. This intricate relationship is the basis for the concept of trophodynamics. Also referred to as a food web, trophodynamics involves overlapping relationships as energy flows from primary producers to consumers.

Primary production is the first level of a trophodynamic association. Primary producers include photosynthetic phytoplankton and in some areas submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Although

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-35 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application much of this material is readily available to herbivorous consumers, a large percentage is only available after conversion by bacterial decomposition into organic detritus. Organic detritus may serve as the major food source of the majority of consumers living the estuarine ecosystems. It is believed by many researchers that detritus feeders derive a large amount of energy not only from the ingested detrital material, but also from the microorganisms living in association with the detrital material (Mann 1972, Day et al. 1989).

Primary consumers are those species that are specialized to feed on plankton (e.g., menhaden and bay anchovy) or organic detritus (e.g., benthic copepods) (Lerman 1986). The primary consumers are an important group linking secondary consumers with the energy available from phytoplankton and detritus. The trophic hierarchy involved in the transfer of this energy has led to the description of two pathways: benthic and pelagic (Sibert et al. 1978, Day et al. 1989). The pelagic pathway begins with phytoplankton and moves on through copepods, decapods, and mysids, to small fish such as anchovies and herring, and then on to the secondary consumers (e.g. striped bass). The benthic pathway begins with detritus and organic matter then to detritivores such as benthic copepods, polychaetes and some filter feeders. The detritivores are consumed by small fish, which are in turn consumed by secondary consumers, These pathways are closely linked because many secondary consumers feed from both pathways (Sibert et al. 1978).

Secondary consumers are the carnivorous members of the ecosystem. Their life cycles are intricately related to those of lower trophic levels. Secondary consumers are often responsible for exporting energy to other environments. Although many secondary consumers are permanent residents, some species are transient, moving on to other locations for important activities such as reproduction and spawning, therefore contributing a portion of the energy they've consumed to the other environment.

8.3 Human Usage

Much of the East River's shorelines have been developed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. A wide spectrum of land uses or activities such as housing, transportation, commerce, parks, public works, and manufacturing are accommodated along the shore. The waterway itself is used heavily as a receiving water body for sewage treatment plants (STP) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), for cooling water flow at power plants, as a waterway for recreational and commercial boat traffic. Following is a discussion of many of these uses.

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-36 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

8.3.1 Recreational Uses a. Marinas & Boating

Flushing Bay

Flushing Bay is a deep water bay on the south side of the East River. Located in the borough of Queens, Flushing Bay is situated between LaGuardia Airport on the west and College Point on the east. Flushing Creek, located on the east side of the head of Flushing Bay, extends 0.8 miles to the I.R.T. Roosevelt Avenue railroad bridge. The commercial center of Flushing is on the east side of Flushing Creek. There are two small craft anchorages located in Flushing Creek: one near a turning basin, the other south of College Point. Several small craft facilities are located at the head of Flushing Bay at College Point, including one of the largest floating docks on the east coast. These facilities offer boaters a base from which to visit New York City (NYNEX 1993).

Little Neck Bay

Little Neck Bay has some of the best anchorages in the New York City area. Located at the southeast end of the East River, the bay lies between Willets Point, Queens, and Kings Point in Great Neck, Long Island. Landings for transient boats are limited here. Most of the shoreline is taken up by the Merchant Marine Academy's sailing fleet, and several private boat landings. Several landmarks of interest are located in the vicinity, including the granite walls of the closed Fort Totten, making Little Neck Bay attractive to boaters (NYNEX 1993).

East River

The East River connects New York Harbor with the Long Island Sound. Stretching 14 miles between the Battery and the western end of Long Island, the East River is a tidal strait with strong currents that can be treacherous for small boats, especially in the vicinity of Hell Gate. The channel takes boaters past numerous New York landmarks, including the Brooklyn Bridge, and the United Nations building. Transient slips are available at South Street Seaport's Piers 15 and 16 (NYNEX 1993).

The Marina at Battery Park provides ferry service to the Statue of Liberty. Both South Street Seaport and Battery Park offer a 40-minute Lunch Boat Cruise to the Statue of Liberty and back. In addition. South Street Seaport offers a daily 90-minute New York Harbor Cruise.

b. Waterfront Public Access

Policy Eight of New York City Department of City Planning's Waterfront Revitalization Program requires public access to and along New York City's coastal water (NYCDCP 1997).

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-37 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

To this end, plans have been developed to increase public access through the preservation of existing access and the inclusion of public access as a component of future waterfront development. Waterfront Public Access plans have been developed for all of the boroughs bordering the East River. Through the development of these plans, the NYCDCP hopes to encourage water-dependent recreational uses including boating, swimming and fishing (NYCDCP 1992).

Manhattan

Limited waterfront public access is provided by Highbridge Park on the northeastern end of Manhattan. The East River Esplanade, which extends from East 60th Street to East 125th Street, and in smaller sections farther south, also provides some access. Waterfront Access is also provided by many streets with access to the water's edge. An open space plan for Roosevelt Island will provide considerable waterfront open space, an esplanade, and water views from the developed northern section. Although access to the island is limited, Randalls/Ward Island also provides waterfront access.

Kips Bay (Manhattan)

Kips Bay is located on the west bank of the East River from 23 Street to 42 Street. The coastal zone portion of the area extends from First Avenue to U.S. Pierhead line. Most of the waterfront in the Kips Bay area is separated from inland areas by the Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Drive. The waterfront esplanade is fragmented by several parking lots and other non-water related functions. Two large hospitals are also located along this stretch. A new waterfront esplanade was constructed from 34 Street to 36 Street in 1994.

Queens/Brooklyn

On the northwestern side of Queens, Astoria Park, Rainey Park, and Queensbridge Park provide public access to the East River. Brooklyn has very limited access to the East River, due to major roadways and industrial areas. Empire/Fulton Ferry State Park is the only park directly on the waterfront. The Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian walk and the Brooklyn Heights Promenade (visual access only) provide additional opportunities for access.

8.3.2 Transportation

The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), and the New York City Parks and Recreation Department (NYCPRD) are proposing the expansion and upgrade of ferry landings along the East and Harlem Rivers. Seven locations are included in the proposed plan: Battery Maritime Building, East 23rd Street, East 34th Street, East 62nd Street, East 75th Street, East 90th Street, and

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-38 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Yankee Stadium. The project would include structural rehabilitation, upgrading/addition of docking facilities, provision for passenger/public amenities, and integration of measures to increase public accessibility and enjoyment of the waterfront.

The Battery Maritime Building (BMB) is located at the southern tip of Manhattan adjacent to the Whitehall Ferry Terminal. Built over 90 years ago, the BMB has served as ferry terminal has served as ferry terminal for the U.S. Coast Guard and private ferries as well as office space for personnel from NYCDOT. The BMB houses three ferry slips, Slip 5, 6, and 7. Slip 7 is currently used by the Coast Guard for ferry operations to Governor's Island. Slips 5 and 6 are used for small to medium ferry service operations.

A ferry landing is proposed for East 23rd Street. Formerly the site of a 4000 square foot pier, the Under their Master Plan, the NYCEDC is proposing to develop the adjacent waterfront area (Stuyvesant Cove) to include a large park, a community-based Environmental Center, a reconfigured roadway (to maximize parkland) and, as mentioned above, a ferry dock.

The East 34th Street Ferry Landing is located between East 34th and East 36th Streets in Midtown Manhattan. This facility has been in service since the late IQSO's. The East 34th Street landing is currently used by the LaGuardia Airport, Yankee and Shea Stadiums, Hunters Point, Queens and several New Jersey ferry routes. It is also a Queens restaurant shuttle. The existing landing utilizes a 108 ft. x 35 ft. barge as a floating dock. The northern end of the site includes the East 35' Street Pier. Formerly the property of ConEd, the pier is now owned by the City of New York. It is to be incorporated in the expansion of this ferry landing.

The East 62nd Street Ferry Landing is located off the East River Esplanade between East 62nd Street and East 63rd Street. The site is owned by the City of New York and is used by New York Waterway, which provides Delta Shuttle service to LaGuardia Airport. The existing landing uses a 30 ft. x 60 ft. barge as a floating dock. The barge can accommodate two vessels at one time. NYCEDC is planning a structural rehabilitation of the adjacent relieving platform from approximately East 62nd Street to East 59th Street.

A new ferry landing area is proposed for East 75th Street. The waterfront area is owned by the City of New York, and leased to ConEd (East 73rd to East 75th). A ConEd facility currently occupies the wharf within these limits. The northernmost section of this wharf was recently returned to the City of New York, and is the proposed site for the ferry landing.

The East 90th Street Pier is owned by the City of New York and under the jurisdiction of the NYCDPR. NYCDPR has assigned limited jurisdiction to the NYSDOT for a ferry landing. Built almost 70 years ago, the landing recently experienced a fire, losing 100 ft. of pier structure and the two story Fireboat Station Building. The current layout accommodates only one ferry at a time. Plans for this landing include improvements for current and future ferry docking

Case 99-F-1625 Page 3.39 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application arrangements, and the possible addition of a floating dock. Plans also include community amenities such as a landscaped waterfront access area.

The Yankee Stadium Ferry Landing is located on the Harlem River. During baseball season, two ferry service operators provide service from points of origin in Manhattan, Staten Island, and New Jersey. The ferry landing consists of a floating spud barge measuring 100 ft x 30 ft adjacent to the Oak Point Link rail trestle. Plans for the landing include the improvement and expansion of current and future ferry operations.

8.3.3 Commercial, Industrial, and Municipal Uses

The locations of the facilities listed below are shown in Figure 8-2. a. Waste Water Treatment Facilities

ATC - Newtorvn Creek STP

Located in Kings County, New York, the Newtown Creek STP was built in 1967. Newtown Creek STP uses the East River as its receiving water body. The facility has a design flow capacity of 310 MGD, and serves a population of 1,024,728 (NYSDEC 1999). Collection at the facility is through combined sewer systems. Wastewater is mechanically screened with a bar rack/screen and/or a comminutor/bar minutor. Grit is removed using an aerated grit chamber. The screened material is then biologically treated using high rate activated sludge. Activated sludge treatment is a process by which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated. The activated sludge is then separated from the treated wastewater by sedimentation and wasted or returned to the process as needed (NYSDEC 1999). At Newtown Creek STP the treated wastewater is then processed further using hypochlorite disinfection. The sludge is treated through several steps including anaerobic sludge digestion, gravity thickening, lime treatment, and nitrogen removal. The treated sludge is stored in tanks until it is used for composting, as fertilizer, for landspreading, or land reclamation.

NYC - 26"'Ward STP

The 26th Ward STP is located in South Brooklyn (Kings County). Last upgraded in 1990, the 26th Ward facility uses Hendrix Creek as its receiving waterbody. The facility has a design flow capacity of 85 MGD and serves a population of approximately 274,259 (NYSDEC 1999). 26' Ward collects wastewater through combined sewer systems. Wastewater is mechanically screened with a bar rack/screen and/or a comminutor/bar minutor. Any grit present in the wastewater is removed with a grit classifier or cyclone degritter. Primary settling takes place in a mechanically cleaned clarified; settled material is biologically treated through step aeration with activated sludge. The wastewater is disinfected in a hypochlorite-contact tank. Sludge is

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-40 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application digested using anaerobic methods, thickened by gravity, and conditioned using lime and elutriation. The treated sludge is stored in covered tanks until disposal. Sludge disposal methods used at 26th Ward include composting and landspreading. The treated sludge is also used for fertilizer and land reclamation.

ATC - Red Hook Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)

Red Hook WPCP was built in 1987 and updated in 1989. Located in Kings County, the plant serves a population of 201,141, with a design flow of 60 MOD into the receiving waters of the East River (NYSDEC 1999). Collection for this facility is through combined sewage systems. Wastewater is mechanically screened with a bar rack/screen and/or a comminutor/bar minutor. Grit is removed from the wastewater through a grit classifier or cyclone degritter. After screening and grit removal, the wastewater goes through primary settling using a mechanically cleaned clarifier. The wastewater is then biologically treated with high rate activated sludge, and disinfected in a hypochlorite contact tank. The resulting sludge is treated with anaerobic sludge digestion, and gravity thickened. Dewatering is achieved through coil vacuum filtering. The sludge is then conditioned with lime before being placed in covered storage tanks. It may also be treated chemically/biologically to remove nitrogen. Sludge treated at the Red Hook WPCP can be used for composting, landspreading, fertilizer or land reclamation (NYSDEC 1999).

ATC- Tallman Island STP

The Tallman Island STP is located in Queens County, New York. The plant was built in 1939 at which point it attained both primary and secondary treatment; it was upgraded in 1976. Tallman Island has a design flow of 80 MOD and discharges into the East River. The population served by this facility numbers approximately 402,658 (NYCDEC 1999). Wastewater for the plant is collected through combined sewer systems and a separate tributary collection system. Large debris is removed by bar rack/screen arrays and/or comminutor/bar minutor. Grit is removed via grit classifier or cyclone degritter. Wastewater is then placed in mechanically cleaned clarifiers for primary settling. Biological treatment is carried out by step aeration activated sludge; disinfection by hypochlorite-contact tank. Sludge treatment is by single stage anaerobic sludge digestion followed by gravity thickening. Thickened sludge is treated with lime and stored in covered storage tanks. Additional treatment may also include chemical/biological nitrogen removal. Treated sludge is used as fertilizer, in composting, landspeading and land reclamation.

NYC- Bowery Bay STP

Built in 1939, the Bowery Bay STP is located in Queens County. Upgraded in 1973, Bowery Bay STP serves approximately 723,589 with a design flow of 150 MGD. The receiving waterbody for this plant is the East River. Wastewater is collected through combined sewer systems and screened by mechanically cleaned bar racks and/or communitor/bar minutor. Grit is

Case 99-F-1625 Page ^ KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application removed by a grit classifier or cyclone degritter. A mechanically cleaned clarifier is used for primary settling. After settling takes place, the water is biologically treated with step aeration activated sludge; disinfection in by hypochlorite-contact tank. Additional treatment includes biological/chemical nitrogen removal. Single stage anaerobic sludge digestion is the mode of sludge digestion utilized, followed by gravity thickening. Sludge is then conditioned with lime and placed in open storage tanks. Sludge disposal methods include composting, fertilizer production, landspreading, and land reclamation.

NYC-Wards Island STP

Located in New York County (Manhattan), New York, the Wards Island STP was built in 1937 and updated in 1999. With a design flow of 250 MOD, Wards Island serves a population of 1,013,783 (NYSDEC 1999). The receiving waterbody for the facility is the East River. Wards Island STP collects wastewater through a combined sewer system. Large debris is initially removed with bar racks or comminutor/bar minutors. Solid waste is removed from the wastewater through mechanical screening with a bar rack/screen and/or a comminutor/bar minutor. Grit is removed through gravity separation, a grit classifier, or cyclone degritter. Newtown Creek STP uses primary settlement through a mechanically cleaned clarifier. Afterwards the wastewater is biologically treated using high rate activated sludge. Disinfection is affected through a hypochlorite contact tank. The sludge is treated using several steps. First it is digested using two-stage anaerobic sludge digestion. The sludge is then gravity thickened and dewatered with a coil vacuum filter. It is then conditioned with lime before being placed in covered storage tanks. Nitrogen removal may also take place through chemical/biological processes. The treated sludge is used for composting, fertilizer or landspreading (NYSDEC 1999).

b. Cooling and Process Water Intakes

World Trade Center

The World Trade Center (The Center) was built by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for use as a headquarters for the development of international business. The complex consists of two 110-story office towers, a 47-story office building, two 9-story office buildings, an 8-story U.S. Customhouse, and the 22-story New York Marriott World Trade Center Hotel. The Center is located on a 16 acre site in lower Manhattan that stretches from Church Street on the East to West Street on the west, and from Liberty Street on the south to Barclay and Vesey Streets on the north. The Center holds a NYS DEC permit to discharge 25 MGD into the Hudson River.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-43 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

One New York Plaza

One New York Plaza, owned by TrizecHahn Corporation, was built in 1970 in lower Manhattan where it overlooks New York Harbor. Fifty-stories high, the building is one of many office properties held by TrizecHahn worldwide. The building is currently 99% occupied. One New York Plaza is permitted to discharge a total of 26 MGD into the lower East River.

One Liberty Plaza

One Liberty Plaza is located in lower Manhattan's financial district, adjacent to the World Trade Center. The 53-storey building was completed in 1971 when it was the world headquarters for U.S. Steel and Merrill Lynch. The building had undergone substantial renovation since 1987. Currently 100% occupied, tenants include the Bank of Nova Scotia, Royal Bank of Canada, and New York Life Health Care. One Liberty Plaza holds a NYS DEC permit to discharge 19.2 MGD into the receiving waters of the Hudson River.

Brooklyn Cane Sugar Refinery

Brooklyn Cane Sugar Refinery is owned and operated by Tate & Lyle North American Sugars Incorporated, an American subsidiary of Tate & Lyle PLC. Tate & Lyle PLC is a global producer of sugar, cereal sweeteners and starches. Tate & Lyle North American Sugars Inc. accounts for more than 20% of the US sugar market. The refinery has a design flow of 15 MGD; its receiving waterbody is the East River.

Arthur Kill Generating Station

The Arthur Kill Generating Station, owned by NRG Energy Inc., is located on Staten Island along the east bank of the Arthur Kill waterway. The station consists of two oil/gas fired steam- electric generating units (Units 20 and 30) and a once-through cooling system. Each generating unit is equipped with two circulating water pumps (CWP) and two service water pumps (SWP). During operation, both CWP and one SWP are operated per unit. Unit 20 CWP are rated at 122,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each, while those at Unit 30 are rated at 105,000 gpm each; Unit 20 SWP are rated at 16,000 gpm each, while those at Unit 30 are rated at 25,000 gpm each. Arthur Kill Generating Station holds a NYS DEC permit to discharge a total of 660.1 MGD into the receiving waters of the Arthur Kill.

The intake bays are equipped with eight vertical dual-flow traveling water screens, six of which (three per unit) are outfitted with 0.125-in. square mesh. Screen Nos. 24 and 31 serving Unit 20 and 30, respectively, were modified for testing purposes to include Ristroph type fish saving features and features to improve hydraulic conditions at the screen face. The fish saving features include screen baskets with water retaining fish collection rails (e.g., lip troughs), flap seals

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-44 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application mounted between the collection sluice and the screen baskets, smooth-surface mesh (0.125-in. by 0.50-in. on Screen No. 24 and 0.25-in. by 0.50-in. on Screen No. 31), and internal and external low-pressure (± 5 psi) spray headers. In addition, a hydraulic fairing was incorporated on the headwall to more evenly distribute the flow across the ascending and descending screen faces.

Astoria Generating Station

The Astoria Generating Station is located on the East River, just east of Wards Island and west of Rikers Island. The station consists of five oil- or gas-fired electric generating units with a total rated capacity of 1500 megawatts (MW). Astoria Units 10 and 20 have a rated capacity of 180 MW each, and began operation in 1953 and 1954, respectively. Units 10 and 20 were permanently retired in December 1993. Unit 30 came on line in 1958 with rated capacity of 335 MW, while Units 40 and 50 began operating in 1961 and 1962, respective, each with a rated capacity of 380 MW. Once-through cooling water flows are 137,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at Units 10 and 20, 224,000 gpm at Unit 30, and 244,000 gpm at Units 40 and 50. Maximum service water volumes are as follows: 8000 gpm each at Units 10 and 20 and 16,000 gpm each at Units 30,40, and 50. Total condenser and service water flow at the Astoria Station (without Unit 10 and 20 operating) is 672,000 and 48,000 respectively. All of the intake bays are equipped with vertical dual-flow traveling water screens that are outfitted with 0.125-in. square mesh in order to screen smaller debris from the cooling water.

Astoria Energy, LLC

SCS Energy, LLC of Concord, Massachusetts is in the process of developing a 1000 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle natural gas fired generating station with the ability to operate with No. 2 distillate as a back up fuel. The proposed project (Astoria Energy LLC) is planned for a 26.1 acre site in Astoria, Queens, New York, currently being used as a fuel oil terminal facility.

The major components of the plant will include four combustion turbine generators, four heat recovery steam generators, two steam turbine generators with air cooled vacuum condensers, four exhaust stacks, and a water treatment facility with associated storage tanks. The No. 2 distillate will be stored on the site in existing tanks.

The site is located approximately one half mile northeast of a Consolidated Edison Co. (ConEd) Substation which provides load support to the 138 kV system serving the Queens Load Pocket. Astoria Energy LLC is in the process of developing details to interconnect to the substation.

Charles Poletti Power Project/NYPA Combined-Cycle Facility

Located on approximately 47 acres in Astoria, Queens, the Poletti Project came on line in 1977. It was added to the existing Astoria station as a new electrical generating unit designated as

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-45 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Astoria Generating Unit No. 6. The Poletti Project is an 825 MW generating facility with duel fuel capability. Natural gas is used as the facility's primary fuel with low sulfur oil as a back up.

The station's once-through cooling water flow rate is 431,667 gpm. Average flows vary between about 90,000 to 253,000 gpm through circulating pumps, and 700 to 1200 gpm through service water pumps. The intake bays are equipped with conventional vertical traveling screens surfaced with 0.375-in. square wire mesh.

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is proposing to build a 500 MW combined-cycle, combustion turbine electric generating facility. The proposed site is on a four-acre parcel of land at the existing Charles Poletti Power Project in Queens, New York. If built, the power plant would be natural gas fired with low sulfur distillate as a backup fuel. The plant would be comprised of two combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators (HRSG), one steam turbine generator with condenser, and a cooling system with a mechanical draft cooling tower and a water treatment facility with associated storage tanks. Natural gas will be supplied through an existing natural gas pipeline. Distillate will be stored on-site in existing storage tanks.

To minimize the facility's total water demand on the East River, HRSG blowdown, neutralized regenerant waste water, ultrafiltration reject water, and evaporative condenser steam cooling system blowdown will be recycled and reused in the cooling water system for the steam turbine condenser. The main cooling water system will be designed as a circulating type system using wet cooling towers with plume abatement. The East River will be both source and sink for cooling water.

East River Generating Station

The Con Edison East River Generating Station is located on Manhattan on the Lower East River. The generating station consists of three oil or gas fired units with a combined capacity of 450 MW. Once-through cooling water flow is 113,400 gpm at Units 5 and 6, and 133,000 gpm at Unit 7. The maximum service water flow is 5,000 gpm for each unit. Cooling water is withdrawn from the East River through a trash rack into a forebay in front of four dual flow traveling screens, each with 0.125-in. square mesh. The facility is permitted to discharge a total of 540.6 million gallons per day (MGD) into the East River.

East River Repowering Project

Con Edison is proposing a repowering project at the East River Generating Station to replace the steam supply from the Waterside Generating Station. The East River Repowering Project will be a combined-cycling system consisting of two dual-fuel combustion turbines, two HRSGs, and an extracting/condensing steam turbine within the existing East River Generating Station. The

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-46 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Repowering Project is being designed to replace the 2,350,000 Ib/hr of steam presently being supplied by the Waterside Station. The present design for the Repowering Project requires no additional cooling water be withdrawn from the East River.

Waterside Generating Station

Waterside Generating Station is a Con Edison owned steam generating station rated at 2,350,000 lb/hour of steam and 163 MW of electricity. The station is permitted to discharge 156.6 MGD into the receiving waters of the East River. The facility, which is located on First Avenue in Manhattan, is scheduled to be retired when the proposed East River Repowering Project (above) commences operations. Upon retirement, the Waterside facility will be dismantled, permitting residential and commercial redevelopment on Manhattan's East Side.

7/* Street Generating Station

The 74th Street Generating Station is located on the east side of Manhattan, across from Roosevelt Island. Owned by Con Edison, the station generated both electricity and steam until 1999 when electric generation was retired. The 74th Street Generating station supplies 1.4 million pounds/hour of steam capacity. It is part of the uptown district grid which supplies power to the concentration of large building in the midtown area. The 74th Street Generating Station is permitted to discharge 317.5 MGD into the East River.

59"' Street Generating Station

Owned by Con Edison, the 59-.th Street Generating Station is on Manhattan's upper west side. The station provides electricity to the uptown grid through steam generation. It has an installed station capacity of 1.0 million pounds/hour. The 59th Street Generating Station has a NYS DEC permit to discharge 70.04 MGD into the receiving waters of the Hudson River.

Hudson Avenue Generating Station

Hudson Avenue Generating Station, a Con Edison owned steam generating station, contributes to the downtown district grid. The downtown grid is the area at the southern end of Manhattan. The station is located in Kings County, New York. Hudson Avenue Generating Station has an installed station capacity of 1.6 million pounds/hour and holds a NYS DEC permit to discharge 881 MGD into the lower East River.

8.4 Biological Impact Assessment Methods

Article X regulations do not explicitly describe the types of biological assessments required. This section of the Application describes the approach taken to determine whether or not the best

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-47 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application intake and discharge technology for the situation was incorporated into the design of the proposed Cogeneration Facility. First the overall analytic framework is described. Next, a brief description of analytic methods is presented. (A more detailed description is presented in Appendices 8B and 8C). Finally, procedures for determining forecast flow scenarios are described.

8.4.1 Assessment Approach

Under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), two sections address biological issues. Section 316(a) of the Act provides relief from thermal discharge limitations that are too stringent. If the discharge exceeds established limitations, a variance may be granted provided that the applicant demonstrates that such an effluent limitation is "more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made." Section 316(b) of the Act requires that "the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact."

Federal authority under the CWA may be delegated to the individual states. In New York, Federal authority under Sections 316(a) and 316(b) has been delegated and is embodied in 6 NYCRR 704.4 and 704.5, respectively. For both Sections, no formal reporting guidelines have ever been issued. Through unpromulgated draft guidelines, case law and common usage, a relatively standard approach to both Sections has developed over the years. It is assumed that these approaches are applicable to Article X. a. Section 316(a)

There are several ways to demonstrate that specific discharge limitations are more restrictive than necessary to protect the balanced indigenous population. In general, biothermal assessments attempt to demonstrate the lack of impact in the following six areas: • no adverse population impact due to habitat exclusion

• no barrier to migratory pathways

• no adverse population impact on reproduction, growth, and survival

• no adverse population impact due to cold shock

• no adverse population impact on threatened and endangered species

• no adverse population impact due to interaction of the plume with other pollutants.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-48 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Demonstration of compliance with these six areas is presented in Sections 8.6 and 8.8 and the supporting analyses are presented in Appendix C. If it is successfully demonstrated that the thermal plume satisfies each of these six criteria, then the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife is assured. Information on threatened and endangered species is provided in Section 8.8.

Species to be addressed in the biothermal assessment were selected by examination of entrainment and impingement records for several East River power plants. In general, the species list (referred to as Primary Species) encompasses the most abundant species in entrainment or impingement samples or are species of commercial or recreational importance. This list includes winter flounder, bay anchovy, Atlantic tomcod, Atlantic silverside, fourbeard rockling, grubby, striped bass, American shad, and blue crab. Life history, habitat, and biothermal tolerance data are presented in Appendices 8 A and 8C.

b. Section 316(b)

Section 316(b) and 6 NYCRR 704.5 do not define the term "adverse environmental impact". USEPA draft guidelines and legal decisions under the CWA make it clear that the term is intended to address only impacts at the level of the population or above, and that determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. Impacts to individual organisms are not "adverse" unless they affect the abundance, structure or function of the population, taking into account the type, intensity, and scale of the effect as well as the potential for recovery, given natural variability. Frequently, three benchmarks are used to address the issue of no "adverse environmental impact." First, will the operation of the facility result in an imbalance in the indigenous community of fish and shellfish in the East River ecosystem. Second, will the operation of the facility result in a decline in the abundance of a species population (other than nuisance species). Third, will the operation of the facility result in population reductions that would place the long- term sustainability of the stock in jeopardy.

The first benchmark, that of community balance, is typically addressed by examination of species richness, community diversity (e.g., Shannon-Wiener Index) or evenness measures over time. Because long term community composition data for the East River does not exist, this analysis cannot be conducted. Even if such an analysis were possible, it is likely that changes in community structure resulting from improvements in water quality associated with wastewater treatment would overshadow any power plant effects.

The second benchmark, that of decline in abundance, is based on the premise that long-term power plant operation may result in increased mortality of aquatic organisms, which in turn, may cause a continuing decline in population abundance. The approach to evaluating populations trends relies on empirical data for each species of interest. Field surveys can be used for this purpose provided that standard methods are used over many years, sample times and locations

Case99-F-1625 Page ^ KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application are consistent over time, sample locations are inhabited by the species, and data are standardized for sampling effort. Data useful for this analysis is summarized under "Population Trends" in Section 8.3.

The final benchmark, jeopardy to long-term stock sustainability, is a benchmark drawn from fisheries management, and uses models and fishery management reference points to evaluate potential current and future effects of the facility. Given the limited amount of data available for the East River, this analysis will be relatively limited.. Using such biological information as age at maturity, longevity, survival rates, and commercial and recreational landing statistics, entrainment and impingement losses can be placed into perspective relative to other sources of mortality. The information for this approach is given in Section 8.5 and Appendix B while the analytical methods are described in Section 8.4.

Species to be addressed in the intake assessment were selected by examination of entrainment and impingement records for several East River power plants. In general, the species list (referred to as Primary Species) encompasses the most abundant species or species of commercial or recreational importance. A more abbreviated list was used for the biothermal assessment on the basis that Representative Important Species (RIS) could be used to assess effects due to the thermal discharge. This is consistent with the approach set forth in the Section 316(a) guidance. The species studied for discharge effects were winter flounder, bay anchovy, Atlantic tomcod, Atlantic silverside, fourbeard rockling, grubby, striped bass, American shad, and blue crab. Life history, habitat, and biothermal tolerance data are presented in Appendices 8A and 8C.

c. Essential Fish Habitat

In 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act strengthened the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Marine Fisheries Councils to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish, molluscs, and crustaceans. This habitat, termed "essential fish habitat" (EFH), is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Act requires the Councils to describe and identify the essential habitat for the managed species, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.

If there were any Federal involvement in the Ravenswood project, then NMFS would be required to coordinate with other federal agencies to conserve and enhance EFH, and federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. In tum NMFS would have to provide recommendations to federal and state agencies on such activities to conserve EFH. However, the

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-50 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Ravenswood project is proceeding without federal involvement, and consequently NMFS is not authorized to exercise any federal coordinating or advisory role.

To facilitate the EFH consultation process, NMFS has prepared a list of expected species for selected 10' x 10' squares of latitude and longitude. These species lists were based on information based primarily on Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) data along with some trawl survey data. Brief life history and habitat data for the EFH species in Grid 43 is provided in Appendix 8D. Species included in the EFH assessment (herein referred to as Secondary Species) include: Atlantic herring, bluefish, butterfish, Atlantic mackerel, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, pollock, red hake, and windowpane.

8.4.2 Description of Analytical Methods a. Entrainment Loss Calculation

Annual entrainment loss estimates for Ravenswood Generating Station (Ravenswood) are based on data obtained from monitoring studies conducted at the Station during September 1991 to September 1992 (LMS 1993) and during February 1993 through January 1994 (NAI 1994a). For each primary species, by life stage, the number of organisms collected per month was divided by the monthly sample volume to compute monthly entrainment densities. Monthly mean densities (computed over all years) were multiplied by the projected monthly plant flows for each operating alternative. Cumulative impacts due to entrainment were evaluated by adding the total entrainment losses for the following generating stations located on the East River to those computed for Ravenswood for each operating alternative: the Astoria Generating Station (Astoria) located in Queens County along the east bank of the Upper East River, the Poletti Generating Station (Poletti) located in Queens County just north of Astoria, the East River Generating Station (East River) located on Manhattan Island on the Lower East River, the Arthur Kill Generating Station located on Staten Island and the World Trade Center located on Manhattan Island near the Battery. Astoria entrainment densities for Units 2, 3, 4, and 5 combined (LMS 2000) and East River entrainment densities for Units 5, 6, and 7 combined (NAI 1994b) were used. Since entrainment data were not available for Poletti, Astoria entrainment densities (LMS 2000) were applied to monthly flow rates for Poletti. Flow rates for these stations are based on the economic analysis of projected operations for all generating stations in the electrical distribution grid.

b. Impingement Loss Calculation

Annual impingement loss estimates for Ravenswood are based on data obtained from monitoring studies conducted at the Station during September 1991 to September 1992 (LMS 1993) and during February 1993 through January 1994 (NAI 1994a). For each primary species, the number

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-51 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

of organisms collected1 per month and per unit was divided by the monthly sample volume per unit and then averaged over all units (1, 2, and 3) to compute monthly impingement densities. Monthly mean densities (computed over all years) were multiplied by the projected monthly plant flows for each operating alternative.

For the proposed EFCS alternative, 24-hour (hr) post-impingement survival values obtained from the study conducted at the Arthur Kill Generating Station (Con Edison 1996) and reported in LMS (2000) were applied to impingement loss estimates for Units 3 and 4. These survival values are based on 0.125 x 0.5-in. mesh, Ristroph-type modified, dual-flow traveling screens. Cumulative impacts due to impingement were evaluated by adding the total impingement losses for Astoria, Poletti, East River, Arthur Kill and World Trade Center to those computed for Ravenswood for each operating alternative, as described above for entrainment. Poletti and World Trade Center impingement losses assumed no impingement survival, and Astoria and East River impingement losses assumed 24-hr post-impingement survival values based on 0.125-in. square mesh dual-flow traveling screens (without Ristroph-type modifications) reported in Con Edison (1996) and LMS (2000). At Arthur Kill an average screen survival was used to reflect the fact that three different types of screens are in place at this unit. Impingement collection efficiencies were applied to Astoria (and Poletti) losses as described in LMS (1994); an overall mean impingement collection efficiency (quarters 2, 3, and 4) of 1.24 was applied to East River losses (NAI1994b). c. Equivalent Adult Loss Calculation

Impacts to aquatic resources due to entrainment and impingement at Ravenswood was were evaluated by estimating the equivalent adults and biomass lost annually for each primary species and each operating alternative. The equivalent adult method utilizes life stage-specific survival rates to convert estimates of loss for each life stage to an equivalent number lost at some later life stage according to the following equation;

N^ZfrxN,) where

The number of organisms collected was adjusted for collection efficiency by using an overall mean value of 1.862 that was computed from results of the monitoring studies (LMS 1993 and NAI 1994a).

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-52 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Nk = Equivalent number of organisms at age (k) Si = Total survival from life stage (/) to age {k) Ni = Number of life stage (0 lost to entrainment/impingement.

The equivalent adult method requires estimates of life stage-specific total mortality rate for each life stage potentially entrained and for all subsequent life stages up to age (k) to estimate total survival. It is assumed that the fish population is at replacement level, such that the number of recruits just offsets adult mortality and the population neither increases nor decreases. The life stage survival values for age 0+ impinged fish were partitioned over a twelve month period such that the equivalent adult estimates were weighed by monthly occurrence.

d. Economic Evaluation

For comparison to commercial and recreational fisheries, and to compute economic values, equivalent juvenile and adult losses were expressed as pounds of biomass. This was done by multiplying the number of equivalents by the expected weight of the individuals lost by the predicted weight. The predicted weight was estimated from the species specific length-weight relationship; these length-weight relationships are described in Appendix 8B.

The economic value of the loss was obtained by multiplying the lost biomass by the recreational/commercial wholesale value. The following prices were used:

Price per pound used in Estimation of Economic Value of Entrainment and Impingement Losses Common Name $/lb Source American shad 0.69 NMFS 1998 Atlantic herring 0.07 AFS 1991 Atlantic menhaden 0.07 NMFS 1998 Atlantic silverside 0.26 = Bay anchovy Atlantic tomcod 0.25 = Silver hake Bay anchovy 0.26 AFS 1991 Blueback herring 0.19 NMFS 1998 Blue crab 0.98 NMFS 1998 Cunner 0.39 AFS 1991; other marine finfish Fourbeard rockling 0.39 AFS 1991; other marine finfish Grubby 0.39 AFS 1991; other marine finfish Northern pipefish 0.39 AFS 1991; other marine finfish Silver hake 0.25 AFS 1991; average hake Striped bass 3.05 NMFS 1998 Tautog 3.52 NMFS 1998; recreational value Winter flounder 1.44 AFS 1991

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-53 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Prices indicated as NMFS (1998) were derived from monthly averages of daily prices at the Fulton Fish Market in New York for the period 1990 through 1997. Prices indicated as AFS 1991 were from the American Fisheries Society "A Handbook of Monetary Values of Fishes and Fish-Kill Counting Guidelines". Table 5 of that publication gives ex-vessel values for U.S. commercial landings for some marine species during the period 1986-1988. To make these numbers comparable to the NMFS numbers, the AFS values were adjusted for five years of inflation at 4% per year. For species not listed by NMFS or AFS, a similar species was selected or, in some cases, an average of several similar species was used. e. Methodology for Discharge Effects

For the heat shock/avoidance and cold shock analyses, since the overall temperature and flows of the discharge from the Ravenswood plant are not expected to be substantially different between the once-through, the no-build, and the cooling tower scenarios, only the proposed once-through scenario (IFCS) was evaluated for thermal effects.

For the heat shock/avoidance analysis, thermal avoidance data was obtained from the literature, and the acclimation temperature for each data point was matched to the day(s) of the year in which that acclimation (ambient) temperature occurs in the East River. If the resulting day(s) corresponded to the peak abundance period for the species under evaluation, the avoidance temperature was compared to the maximum temperature to which an organism could be exposed on that day. For pelagic organisms, this maximum temperature is the maximum temperature in the plume, or 17.50F (9.720C) above the ambient. For benthic or demersal organisms, this maximum temperature is the maximum temperature that will contact the bottom of the east channel, or 5.760F (3.20C) above ambient. For some species, no thermal response data were available. In these cases, a generalized temperature relationship that predicts avoidance temperatures at any acclimation temperature was developed from data presented in Meldrim et al. (1974) and was used to estimate avoidance temperatures. If an avoidance temperature was below the maximum temperature to which an organism could be exposed, then the maximum percentage of the cross-sectional area of the east channel that would be occupied by temperatures at or above the avoidance temperature was calculated using the CORMIX3 model. The result provided an indication of the degree of blockage of migratory movements or habitat exclusion.

Eggs and larvae were evaluated separately since these early life stages are non-motile or weakly motile and are, therefore, unable to avoid the plume. The CORMIX3 model results were used to determine the maximum duration of time an egg or larva could be entrapped in the plume at different temperatures. Bay anchovy was the only species for which data was available on thermal effects to early life stages during their peak abundance period. A comparison of the results of these studies with the temperature exposure duration profiles provided the evaluation for this species. For the remaining species, thermal response data were compiled for the early life stages of seven other species, and regression equations were developed to predict the TL50s

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-54 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application for each early life stage from the exposure duration and acclimation temperature. For durations as long as 10 minutes, the resulting TL50s were above even the highest temperatures in the plume. The maximum duration of time an egg or larva could be entrapped in the plume at the Upper Incipient Lethal Temperature (UILT) was then determined using the temperature exposure duration profiles described above. This, together with the TL50s described above, were used to determine whether early life stages will be adversely affected by the plume.

For the cold shock evaluation, it was first determined whether each species would be attracted to the warmer plume temperatures during the winter. Data on preference temperatures were obtained from the literature; if these temperatures were above their corresponding acclimation temperatures, the species would be attracted to the plume. Since true acclimation requires days to weeks, the maximum temperature to which an organism could be continuously exposed for such a duration was then determined. Based on swimming velocities and East River currents, it was determined that the maximum plume temperature to which an organism could become acclimated is 1.46 0F (0.81 0C) above ambient. This temperature was used as the acclimation temperature for the cold shock analysis and was matched to the day(s) of the year in which that acclimation (ambient) temperature occurs in the East River. If the cold shock temperature was above the ambient temperature, then cold shock was determined to be a potential problem for that organism.

A more complete description of the methods used to perform the heat shock/avoidance and cold shock analyses is provided in Appendix 8C.

8.4.3 Development of Forecast Scenarios

To estimate the fish losses expected when a generating station unit is in operation, it is necessary to have a forecast of the cooling water and service water flows through the unit, and a description of the mitigation techniques to be employed. The flows, in turn, are a function of the load supplied by the unit and the characteristics of the pumps used to provide cooling and service water to the unit. The following paragraphs describe the methods for computing loads and intake flows for the Ravenswood Generating Station and other generating stations that influence power demand. These stations are Arthur Kill, Astoria, East River and Poletti. For this analysis, it was assumed that Ravenswood would be the first of the proposed new units to come on line and that only an additional 2250 megawatts of new generation would come on-line during the study period (2003-2005) in New York City.

As described in Section 8.1, two primary cases are considered: the No-Build scenario and the Build scenario. In addition to the direct change in Ravenswood Generating Station flows, the availability of the proposed facility affects the use of competing generating stations, which, in turn, affects the volume of water passing through those units.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-55 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application a. Estimation of Load

The load expected to be generated by each unit in the analysis was forecast using the MAPS program. MAPS produces an hour-by-hour forecast of load for each generating unit in the electrical distribution grid. The forecast period was 01 January 2003 through 31 December 2005. Two MAPS runs were created, one for the "No-Build" case and the other for the "Build" case. Because the proposed facility is a low cost unit relative to existing and to some proposed East River generating units, the proposed facility causes some older units to be used less frequently and for shorter periods of time. b. Estimation of Intake Flows

Load was translated into withdrawal flow on an hourly basis, then summed by month for each of the 36 months in the period 2003 through 2005. Finally, averaging the monthly values over the three-year period generated a typical annual flow pattern. The method used to translate hourly load to hourly flow depends on several factors, including number of pumps, type of pumps, and rated pump capacity for each unit. This information for the Ravenswood project was presented in Section 8.1. The relevant information for the other plants is presented below and in Table 8.12. The estimated monthly plant flows for each facility are given in Table 8.13.

Table 8.12 Ravenswood Monthly Plant Flow (106m3) for Each Operating Alternative1

Alternative Unit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

No Build All Units 27.14 27.98 19.94 69.93 139.61 162.94 154.24 155.27 166.15 119.59 31.89 19.77 1094.45

IFCS Total2 29.19 24.49 27.72 65.80 126.83 141.61 ' 154.00 149.48 149.64 100.21 28.55 20.53 1018.05

Wedge Wire Total3 33.57 27.23 34.01 78.77 149.75 170.54 166.09 166.15 170.88 124.09 30.56 20.53 1172.16

Wet Closed- All Units 25.82 18.21 21.90 67.67 139.09 161.55 154.24 153.43 160.38 111.88 19.07 9.44 1042.67

Cycle

Dry Closed- All Units 24.07 16.87 19.73 66.79 139.09 161.55 154.24 153.43 160.38 111.88 17.21 7.40 1032.63

Cycle 1 Estimates based on generation forecast models (MAPS) for period 1/1/2003 through 12/31/2005.

2 Monthly flow Unit 1,2 10.59 10.80 1.48 23.21 63.96 68.50 77.73 75.89 67.34 18.48 12.22 7.40 437.59

for individual Unit 3,4 18.60 13.70 26.24 42.59 62.87 73.11 76.27 73.59 82.30 81.73 16.33 13.13 580.47

units

'Monthly flow Unit 1,2,3 25.83 18.79 21.91 68.19 139.78 161.55 155.34 154.47 160.38 111.88 19.68 9.96 1047.76

for individual Unit 4 7.74 8.44 12.10 10.58 9.97 8.99 10.75 11.67 10.49 12.21 10.88 10.58 124.40

units

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-56 Key Span Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.13 Monthly Plant Flow (106m3) for Each Operating Alternative for Astoria, Poletti, East River, Arthur Kill & World Trade Center1

Unit Oct Nov Dec Total Plant Alternative Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

No Build 31.89 19.77 1094.45 Ravenswood All 27.14 27.98 19.94 69.93 139.61 162.94 154.24 155.27 166.15 119.59

Units

1018.05 Build (IFCS) All 29.19 24.49 27.72 65.80 126.83 141.61 154.00 149.48 149.64 100.21 28.55 20.53

Units

75.29 74.39 74.68 968.83 Astoria No Build Unit 3, 82.31 67.32 71.45 97.35 72.03 85.26 114.11 85.01 69.65

4,5

657.35 Build (IFCS) Unit 3, 79.95 56.56 42.73 63.99 48.34 57.81 76.10 56.02 45.13 35.47 47.68 47.57

4,5

64.33 Poletti No Build UnitO& 2.79 5.23 0.59 2.04 0.94 0.57 30.84 16.24 0.57 3.35 0.57 0.59

1

Build (IFCS) Unit 0 & 0.59 0.46 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.38 20.81 8.02 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.39 32.99

1

0.67 19.91 173.88 East River No Build Unit6 18.89 14.37 19.94 21.08 15.58 18.01 19.94 19.94 5.55 0.00

124.14 Build (IFCS) Unit6 18.47 11.78 13.29 13.76 9.83 12.86 13.29 13.29 3.84 0.00 0.45 13.28

569.67 Arthur Kill No Build Unit 2,3 59.65 29.78 28.31 76.93 31.79 44.83 74.40 40.88 39.85 79.73 26.40 37.13

Build (IFCS) Unit 2, 3 46.76 31.01 24.40 73.89 19.64 35.71 74.81 46.79 29.59 79.73 21.48 45.49 529.30

3.57 54.29 World Trade No Build Unit 2.33 1.66 2.32 3.72 5.57 6.72 6.91 7.94 6.34 3.73 3.48

Center Build (IFCS) Unit 2.33 1.66 2.32 3.72 5.57 6.72 6.91 7.94 6.34 3.73 3.48 3.57 54.29 Estimates based on generation forecast model (MAPS) for period 1/1/2003 through 12/31/2005.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-57 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

For analysis purposes, fixed speed pumps were considered "on" whenever the corresponding unit was generating. They remained on for at least 24 hours after the unit ceased generating. If the unit was to be off-line for at least 7 days, the pumps were shut down at the end of the 24-hour period; otherwise they were left "on". This procedure is representative of operations at Ravenswood and is considered "typical" of the other generating stations on the river. These procedures were dictated by limitations on pump cycling; large capacity pumps and pump motors may be damaged by being turned on and off frequently. When running, the flow for each pump is the rated capacity of the pump.

Variable speed cooling water pumps are turned on whenever the corresponding unit is generating. The pump flow is estimated based on the unit capacity factor, the thermodynamic characteristics of the heat exchangers, and seasonal river water temperatures. At higher generating loads, the flow is typically directly proportional to load. For example, at 90% load, the variable speed pumps are assumed to run at 90% of their rated capacity. As the load approaches 60%, depending on river water temperature, the thermodynamic characteristics of the heat exchangers begin to limit further reductions in flow, establishing a "floor" for the cooling water flows. Table 8.14 shows representative pump flows (as a percentage of rated pump flow) for the Ravenswood units proposed to have variable speed pumps under the IFCS (Unit 3 and the proposed Cogeneration Facility). In the absence of detailed information on the performance of the existing Poletti Generating Station, its heat exchangers were assumed to have the same characteristics as the Ravenswood units, so the same relationships were used for those variable speed pumps. The cooling water pumps continue to pump at the last non-zero flow for at least 24-hours after the unit ceases generating. If the unit will be off-line for at least 7 days, the pumps are shut down at the end of the 24-hour period; otherwise they are left on at the last non- zero flow. The corresponding service water pumps are fixed speed, and are switched on and off with the cooling water pumps. When the pumps are left on and the unit resumes generation, the pump speed is reset according to load, as described above.

Table 8.14 Representative Variable Speed Pump Flows as a Function of River Water Temperature and Unit Load

Unit Load River Water Temperature ("F) (% maximum) <;55 55-60 60-65 65-70 >70 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 60 60% 60% 65% 70% 70% 50 50% 60% 65% 65% 70% . 40 50% 60% 60% 60% 70%

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-58 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Arthur Kill Station

The MAPS runs provided the individual hourly loads for the existing Units 2 and 3 at the Arthur Kill Generating Station. It was assumed that the existing, fixed-speed pumps would operate according to the same "24-hour delay/7-day look-ahead" shutdown policies followed at Ravenswood. Based on available information on the existing units, the cooling water pump capacities were taken to be 244,000 gpm and 210,000 gpm at Units 2 and 3, respectively. The corresponding service water pump capacities were taken to be 16,000 gpm and 25,300 gpm, respectively, with the service water pumping tracking the cooling water pumping.

Astoria Generating Station

The MAPS runs provided the individual hourly loads carried by Astoria Units 3, 4, and 5. It was assumed that the existing fixed speed pumps would operate according to the same "24-hour delay/7-day look-ahead" shutdown policies followed at Ravenswood. Based on available data, the cooling water pump capacities were taken to be: 244,000 gpm at Unit 3, 214,000 gpm at Unit 4, and 214,000 gpm at Unit 5. Service water pump capacities at all three units were taken to be 16,000 gpm, and the service water pumps tracked the cooling water pumps.

East River Generating Station

The MAPS runs provided the individual hourly loads for the existing Unit 6 at the East River Generating Station. Based on available information, the proposed new combined cycle unit at East River was assumed to require no river water for cooling and negligible service water. It was also assumed that the pumps would operate according to the same "24-hour delay/7-day look- ahead" shutdown policies followed at Ravenswood. Based on available information on the existing unit, the cooling water pump capacity was taken to be 113,000 gpm and the service water pump capacity as 5000 gpm, with the service water tracking the cooling water.

Poletti Generating Station

The MAPS runs provided the individual hourly loads for the existing Poletti unit (formerly Astoria Unit 6) and for the proposed Poletti combined cycle unit. Because NYPA declined to provide information about its plans for heat exchange at the proposed Poletti combined cycle unit, it was assumed that new, fixed speed service water pumps would be used to supply make- up water to a wet-dry hybrid, plume-abated closed-cycle cooling system at the new unit. Based on available information, the cooling water pumps at the existing Poletti unit were taken to be variable speed. It was also assumed that all pumps would operate according to the same "24- hour delay/7-day look-ahead" shutdown policies followed at Ravenswood. Based on available information on the existing Poletti unit, the cooling water pump capacity was taken as 526,000 gpm and the service water pump capacity as 16,000 gpm. The required make-up water pumping

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-59 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

for the new Poletti unit was taken as 3500 gpm, based on the Article X Pre-Apphcation Report for the facility.

c. Estimation of Discharge Flow

Unlike intake flows, which are intended to represent a typical month flow pattern over an annual cycle at each of the five East River stations, discharge flows are intended to represent worst-case conditions at Ravenswood alone, because they are used to estimate such biological effects as exclusion zones. The localized effects of discharges from the other generating stations on the East River are not considered in the evaluation of discharge effects. As discussed in Section 7, the discharge flows are one input to the CORMIX modeling. CORMIX modeling results form the basis for evaluation of Ravenswood discharge impacts on aquatic biota. As discussed in Section 7, the maximum flow discharge conditions used in this part of the analysis are never expected to occur during the three-year forecast period used in the impingement/entrainment analysis.

Under the maximum flow scenario, all discharge flows represent the maximum rated flow of the pumps corresponding to each case, assuming all Ravenswood units are generating simul- taneously. There are three representative cases: (1) the "No-Build" case, (2) the Integrated Facility Cooling System (IFCS) case, and (3) the Hybrid, Plume-Abated Closed-Cycle alternative. Sections 7.1.4.b and 7.5.3.d describe the resulting flows, and Table 7.1 details the "No-Build" and IFCS cases. The "Wet Closed-Cycle" alternative is identical to the "Wet-Dry Hybrid" alternative, while the "Dry Closed-Cycle" alternative is identical to the "No-Build" case because the corresponding pump configurations are identical and all pumps are operated at maximum capacity in all cases. Similarly, the Independent Cooling System with Wedgewire Screens alternative is identical to the IFCS case from the viewpoint of cooling system discharge. The forecast load patterns used in estimation of intake flows do not affect the discharge flows, because the worst-case condition is simultaneous operation of all units.

8.5 Intake Effects

This section first presents a species-by-species summary of the entrainment and impingement loss calculations. The detailed assessments are found in Appendix 8B. Based on the results presented later in this Section, it is concluded that: . Overall entrainment and impingement losses at Ravenswood, regardless of alternative, are relatively small. This stems largely from the naturally low productivity of this portion of the East River coupled with the high level of anthropogenic habitat degradation. . Ravenswood has the lowest entrainment and impingement rate per unit flow of any of the East River power plants.

Page 8-60 Case 99-F-1625 8 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

. Entrainment and impingement losses from Ravenswood, as well as from other East River power plants, do not jeopardize the continued propagation of local fish stocks. • The cost of the practical alternatives is wholly disproportionate to the biological savings. • Entrainment and impingement losses at Ravenswood are minimized under the proposed IFCS configuration and is the best technology available for the situation.

In this section, losses are described, primarily, in terms of biomass. The immediate losses entrained or impinged at Ravenswood are presented in Tables 8.15a and 8.15b. The estimated biomass entrained or impinged at Ravenswood is presented Table 8.16 and Figure 8-3. These numbers represent the weight of the organism at the time of death, regardless of life stage.

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-61 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Applicatior m Table 8.15a Actual Numbers Entrained at Ravenswood Species Life Stage Alternatives No Build IFCS Wedge Wire Wet Closed- Hybrid Closed- Dry Closed- Cycle Cooling Cycle Cooling Cycle Cooling 0 0 0 American Shad Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Herring Egg 0 0 4,035,692 3,705,775 3,705,775 3,705,429 Atlantic Menhaden Egg 3,858.554 3,310.455 19.064 19,064 19,064 Atlantic Silverside Egg 19,228 16,711 20,124 0 0 0 Atlantic Tomcod Egg 0 0 0 10.113,135 10,113,135 10,113,135 Bay Anchovy Egg 10,158,518 9.524,952 10,795,471 0 0 0 Blue Crab Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blueback Herring Egg 0 0 0 1.016.803 1,016,803 1,016,803 Dunner Egg 1,019,066 1,010,696 1,096,090 82.147.564 82,147,564 81,272,087 Fourbeard Rockling Egg 84,144,464 78,914,769 94,182,117 877,593 877,593 870,756 Grubby Egg 903,912 833,478 984,581 0 0 0 Northern Pipefish Egg 0 0 0 6,449,374 6,449,374 6,449,374 Silver Hake Egg 6,484,401 5,946,329 6,859,723 0 0 0 Striped Bass Egg 0 0 0 2,955,443 2.955,443 2,955,443 Tautog Egg 2,975,387 2,664,260 3.135,048 3,627,122 3.627,122 3,415,266 Winter Flounder Ego 3,789,302 4,166,759 4,993,401 110,911,874 110,911,874 109,817.358 TOTAL Egg 113,352,830 106.388,408 126,102,247 0 0 0 American Shad Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Herring Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 o o Atlantic Menhaden Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Silverside Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Tomcod Yolk sac larvae 0 ,* o n n r* n 138,868 138.868 138,868 Bay Anchovy Yolk sac larvae 140,539 135,292 150,383 0 Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Crab 0 0 Blueback Herring Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gunner Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fourbeard Rockling Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 3,320,282 3.320.282 3,226,089 Grubby Yolk sac larvae 3,508,887 3,445,620 4.105,909 0 0 Northern Pipefish Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silver Hake Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Striped Bass Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tautog Yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 7.121 7,029 Winter Flounder Yolk sac larvae 7,359 6.925 8,290 7,121 3,466,271 3,371,987 • TOTAL Yolk sac larvae 3,656,785 3,587,838 4,264,582 3,466,271 0 0 American Shad Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 7,397 7.397 6.322 Atlantic Herring Post-yolk sac larvae 13.630 13.101 13,565 27.859 27.637 Atlantic Menhaden Post-yolk sac larvae 29.880 26,737 31.794 27,859 20,310 20,310 Atlantic Silverside Post-yolk sac larvae 20.338 19,634 21,870 20.310 377.777 377,777 373,324 Atlantic Tomcod Post-yolk sac larvae 388.277 365,046 436,255 25,244,557 25,243,553 Bay Anchovy Post-yolk sac larvae 25,768,382 24,256.912 27,088.365 25.244,557 0 0 0 Blue Crab Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 Blueback Herring Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 9,609 9,609 • 9,609 Gunner Post-yolk sac larvae 9,609 9,594 10,347 0 0 Fourbeard Rockling Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 8,488,267 8.488.267 8,319,474 Grubby Post-yolk sac larvae 8,857,357 8,497,576 10,110,039 96,825 96,825 Northern Pipefish Post-yolk sac larvae 98,110 94,415 104,478 96,825 0 0 0 Silver Hake Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Striped Bass Post-yolk sac larvae 0 0 0 40,614 40,614 40,505 Tautog Post-yolk sac larvae 40,896 40,332 44,472 4,557,123 4,552,961 Winter Flounder Post-yolk sac larvae 4,586,831 4,153,726 4,921,844 4,557,123 38,870,339 38,870,339 38,690,520 TOTAL Post-yolk sac larvae 39,813,310 37,477,073 42,783,030 0 0 0 American Shad Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Herring Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Menhaden Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Silverside Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 48,628 48,628 48,628 Atlantic Tomcod Young-of-Year 48,811 44,342 48,872 33,858 33,858 31,963 Bay Anchovy Young-of-Year 44,207 43,392 34,470 0 0 0 Blue Crab Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 Blueback Herring Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gunner Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 Fourbeard Rockling Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 3,786 3,786 3,786 Grubby Young-of-Year 3,801 3.453 3,805 1,317,455 1,317.234 Northern Pipefish Young-of-Year 1,339,776 1,274,471 1.323,715 1,317,455 0 0 0 Silver Hake Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 Striped Bass Young-of-Year 0 0 0 0 0 Tautog Young-of-Year 0 0 C ! o 31,786 31,786 Winter Flounder Younq-of-Year 31,982 28,961 31,850 31.786 1,435,513 1,435,513 1,433,397 TOTAL Young-of-Year 1,468,577 1,394,618 1,442,713

•

Case 99-F-162 5 Page 8-6.2 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Table 8.15b Actual Numbers Impinged at Ravenswood

Alternatives Dry Closed- Life Stage No Build IFCS Wedge Wire Wet Closed- Hybrid Closed- Cycle Cooling Species Cycle Cooling Cycle Cooling 50 49 49 46 American Shad Young-of-Year 66 36 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Herring Young-of-Year 0 0 69 67 67 61 Atlantic Menhaden Young-of-Year 99 52 573 568 568 553 Atlantic Sllverslde Young-of-Year 675 260 466 464 464 454 Atlantic Tomcod Young-of-Year 470 215 1.026 1,022 1,022 1.019 Bay Anchovy Young-of-Year 1.066 772 640 1,548 1.540 1,540 1.532 Blue Crab Young-of-Year 1,637 998 964 964 840 Blueback Herring Young-of-Year 1.656 818 1 1 1 1 Gunner Young-of-Year 2 1 0 0 0 0 Fourbeard Rockling Young-of-Year 0 0 46 45 45 45 Grubby Young-of-Year 47 21 178 177 177 174 Northern Pipefish Young-of-Year 206 51 1,467 1.430 1,430 1,316 Silver Hake Young-of-Year 2,224 998 52 89 88 88 85 Striped Bass Young-of-Year 103 4 4 4 4 Tautog Young-of-Year 4 2 891 888 888 887 Winter Flounder Young-of-Year 905 420 7,406 7,308 7,308 7,028 TOTAL Young-of-Year 9,160 4,339 38 38 38 36 American Shad Yearling or older 41 17 1,713 1,703 1,703 1.688 Atlantic Herring Yearling or older 1.745 1,407 18 18 18 17 Atlantic Menhaden Yearling or older 21 12 1,430 1.416 1,416 1,341 Atlantic Silverside Yearling or older 1,665 592 21 20 20 20 Atlantic Tomcod Yearling or older 21 10 14.097 14,047 14,047 14.001 Bay Anchovy Yearling or older 14,580 10,357 8,519 8,477 8,477 8,449 Blue Crab Yearling or older 8,767 3,839 3,387 3.364 3,364 3,188 Blueback Herring Yearling or older 3,702 1,864 561 557 557 540 Cunner Yearling or older 585 210 39 39 39 38 Fourbeard Rockling Yearling or older 40 16 2,884 2.858 2,858 2,759 Grubby Yearling or older 3,134 1,099 2,596 2,596 2,555 Northern Pipefish Yearling or older 2,640 1,038 2,609 252 249 249 238 Silver Hake Yearling or older 290 143 325 325 309 Striped Bass Yearling or older 342 148 326 116 116 114 Tautog Yearling or older 117 45 116 6,067 6,067 5.911 Winter Flounder Yearling or older 6,371 2,317 6,110 41,890 41,890 41.202 TOTAL Yearling or older 44,061 23,115 42.119

Page 8-63 Case 99-F-1625 • KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X~Application

Table 8.16 Actual Entrainment (E), Impingement (T )andl otal Biomass Loss (in pounds i at Ravenswood Generating Station Under "No Build' ' and "Build" Scenaric )S Species No Build IFCS W adge-W re Wet Hybrid Dry E 1 Total E 1 Total E 1 Total E I Total E 1 Total E I Total American 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 shad 1.5 1.5 Atlantic 11.6 14.3 25.9 23.9 11.6 13.2 24.7 6.3 herring 11.2 12.8 13.0 19.3 6.3 13.0 19.3 5.4 12.4 17.8 Atlantic 25.3 6.6 31.9 25.9 26.6 6.1 32.7 24.1 menhaden 22.0 3.9 6.1 30.1 24.1 6.1 30.1 24.0 5.9 30.0 Atlantic 0.3 27.3 27.6 0.3 10.0 10.3 0.4 23.0 23.4 0.3 silverside 22.8 23.1 0.3 22.8 23.1 0.3 21.6 22.0 Atlantic 964.1 8.3 972.4 877.2 3.6 880.9 970.7 8.0 978.7 959.5 967.4 tomcod 7.9 959.5 7.9 967.4 959.0 7.9 966.9 Bay anchovy 710.0 79.0 789.0 670.7 55.0 725.7 730.8 75.0 805.8 683.4 75.0 758.4 683.4 75.0 758.4 680.9 75.0 755.9 Blueback 0.0 53.0 53.0 0.0 26.0 26.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 0.0 herring 42.0 42.0 0.0 42.0 42.0 0.0 39.0 39.0 Blue crab 0.0 842.5 842.5 0.0 391.8 391.8 0.0 825.7 825.7 0.0 811.9 811.9 0.0 811.9 811.9 0.0 800.7 800.7 Gunner 0.8 8.3 9.1 0.8 3.1 3.8 0.8 8.0 8.8 0.8 8.0 8.7 0.8 8.0 8.7 0.8 7.8 8.5 Fourbeard 57.1 0.1 57/.3 53.6 0.1 53.6 64.0 0.1 64.1 55.8 rockling 0.1 55.9 55.8 0.1 55.9 55.2 0.1 55.3 Grubby 274.4 55.0 329.4 261.1 19.5 280.5 306.4 50.9 357.3 264.6 50.4 315.0 264.6 50.4 315.0 260.2 48.8 309.0 Northern 1320.2 7.2 1327.3 1255.8 2.8 1258.6 1304.3 7.1 1298.2 7.1 pipefish 1311.4 1305.2 1298.2 7.1 1305.2 1298.0 7.0 1304.9 Silver hake 5.1 16.3 21.4 4.7 7.5 12.2 5.4 11.1 16.5 5.1 10.8 15.9 5.1 10.8 15.9 5.1 10.0 15.0 Striped bass 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.0 4.6 4.6 0.0 9.2 9.2 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.0 8.8 8.8 Tautog 30.2 15.5 45.7 29.5 6.0 35.5 32.7 15.4 48.1 30.0 15.4 45.4 30.0 15.4 45.4 29.9 15.1 45.1 Winter 1121.7 133.6 1255.3 1016.2 48.7 1064.8 1119.5 126.0 125.1 flounder 1245.5 1114.7 1239.8 1114.7 125.1 1239.8 1114.6 120.2 1234.8

TOTAL 4520.8 1278.3 5799.1 4202.9 596.1 4799.0 4573.2 1222.2 5795.4 4442.6 1206.2 5648.8 4442.6 1206.2 5648.8 4433.2 1181.7 5615.0

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-64 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Figure 8-3 Actual Biomass Loss at Ravenswood Generating Station Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

Biomass Lost

7,000 • Winter flounder El Grubby • Fourbeard rockling D Northern pipefish 6,000 • Bay anchovy • Atlantic tomcod U Others

5,000

Hybrid No Build IFCS Wedge-Wire Wet Alternative

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-65 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Many aquatic organisms (e.g., bay anchovy, blue crab, cunner, tautog, pipefish, silverside, winter flounder) use inshore regions, such as the East River, as summer nursery grounds. When water temperatures drop in the fall, these species move offshore. Table 8.17 presents the equivalent juvenile losses in terms of the number of juveniles that would have been exported to offshore regions. Table 8.18 and Figure 8-4 present the lost biomass that would have been exported to these offshore regions. All eggs, larvae, and juveniles (prior to 1 October) are converted to equivalent juveniles on 1 October.

To estimate the loss to overall reproduction, entrainment and impingement losses were also converted to equivalent adult biomass. This was done by converting all entrainment and impingement losses of immature fish to the number that would have survived to the age at which sexual maturity begins. These losses are summarized in terms of numbers in Table 8.19 and in terms of biomass in Table 8.20 and Figure 8-5.

The economic values associated with these losses are presented in Table 8.21. Comparisons of Ravenswood losses to other East River intake facilities are presented in Tables 8.22 and 8.23 and Figures 8-6 and 8-7.

8.5.1 Assessment Results

a. American shad

The American shad is a pelagic species and is expected to utilize the East River primarily as a migratory pathway. Eggs and larvae are not expected to be present in the East River, but young- of-year (YOY) are found from July through December, with peak abundance in November and December. Yearlings and adults are present from January through April.

The direct biomass loss at Ravenswood through impingement ranges from a low of 1.0 lbs under the proposed IFCS scenario to a high of 2.0 lbs under the "NoBuild" scenario; Estimates of losses of age 0+ for the "No-Build" case are 92 equivalent fall juveniles or 9 equivalent age 4+ adults. Expressed as equivalent adults, the impingement losses under the "No Build" scenario equate to a biomass of 36 lbs. The implementation of the proposed IFCS, compared to the "No- build" case at Ravenswood, would save an estimated 51% of equivalent age 4+ American shad annually, that would otherwise be lost due to impingement. Under the "Wedge-Wire Screen" alternative, 13% would be saved. If the "Wet Closed-Cycle Cooling" or "Wet-Dry Hybrid Plume-Abated Closed-Cycle" alternative were implemented at Ravenswood, an estimated 15% would be saved. Dry closed cycle cooling would reduce losses by 20%. Cumulatively, losses under the "No-Build" scenario attributable to the five additional facilities (e.g., Astoria, Poletti, East River, Arthur Kill, and World Trade Center) are 4525 lbs (98% from Arthur Kill). The cumulative losses are 4369 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario, a reduction of 192 lbs.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-66 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article:^Ar AApplication

Table 8.17 Equivalent Juvenile Losses

No Build IFCS Wedge Wire Wet Ciosed-Cycie Hybrid Ciosed-Cycie Dry Ciosed-Cycie Cooling Species Cooling Cooling E i TOTAL E i TOTAL E i TOTAL E 1 TOTAL E i TOTAL E i TOTAL American Shad 0 92 92 0 45 45 0 73 73 0 72 72 0 72 72 0 68 68 Atlantic Herring 665 856 1,521 639 690 1,330 662 839 1,501 361 834 1.195 361 834 1.195 308 827 1,135 Atlantic Menhaden 401 118 519 347 63 410 421 85 506 383 83 466 383 83 466 382 76 459 Atlantic Silverside 236 2,250 2.486 230 822 1,052 254 1,941 2.195 236 1,922 2.158 236 1.922 2.158 236 1,833 2.069 Atlantic Tomcod 4.048 62 4,110 3,764 20 3,784 4.469 57 4.526 3.961 57 4.018 3.961 57 4.018 3.928 57 3.985 Bay Anchovy 203,206 15,463 218,670 182.106 10,994 193,100 199.111 14,943 214.053 178.897 14,889 193.786 178.897 14.889 193.786 175.998 14.841 190.838 Blue Crab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blueback Herring 0 5,460 5,460 0 2,638 2.638 0 4,306 4,306 0 4,249 4.249 0 4.249 4.249 0 3,950 3.950 Cunner 1,011 587 1,598 1.004 211 1.214 1,088 562 1,650 1.009 558 1.568 1.009 558 1.568 1.009 540 1.550 Fourbeard Rockling 51,702 34 51,735 48,298 13 48.311 57,587 33 57,620 50.544 33 50.577 50.544 33 50,577 50.065 31 50.097 Grubby 297,747 3,166 300,913 285,366 1,113 286.479 339,791 2,915 342,705 288,413 2,889 291.302 288,413 2.889 291,302 283.312 2.789 286.101 Northern Pipefish 223,835 2.838 226,674 213.018 1,085 214.102 221,796 2,780 224.576 220,136 2.766 222.902 220,136 2.766 222,902 220,100 2.722 222,822 Silver Hake 1,148 1,222 2,370 1,054 554 1.608 1,215 830 2.045 1,142 811 1,953 1,142 811 1,953 1,142 750 1,892 Striped Bass 0 395 395 0 180 180 0 378 378 0 376 376 0 376 376 0 356 356 Tautog 222 119 341 220 46 267 240 118 358 221 118 339 221 118 339 221 116 337 Winter Flounder 91,166 6,790 97,956 82,595 2,508 85.103 97.141 6,518 103,659 90,598 6.474 97,072 90.598 6.474 97.072 90.502 6,316 96,819

Note: E = Entrainment

I = impingment

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-67 KeySpan wRgy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility • Article^^ \pplicati( )n

Table 8.18 Fall Juvenile Equivalent Entrainment (E), Impingement (I) and Total Biomass I >oss (in pounds) at Rave nswood Station Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

Species neage-wire wet Hybrid Dry E I Total E I Total 1 E I 1 I Total E I Total E 1 Total -P- j Total American shad 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.3

Atlantic herring 5.0 4.7 9.7 5.0 5.1 10.1 5.0 6.2 11.2 3.0 6.2 9.2 3.0 6.2 9.2 2.0 6.2 8.2 Atlantic 42.0 12.3 54.3 36.0 menhaden 6.5 42.5 44.0 8.8 52.8 40.0 8.6 48.6 40.0 8.6 48.6 40.0 7.9 47.9 Atlantic 1.1 15.9 17.0 1.1 silverside 5.8 6.9 1.2 13.7 14.9 1.1 13.6 14.7 1.1 13.6 14.7 1.1 12.9 14.1

Atlantic tomcod 150.0 2.3 152.3 139.0 0.7 139.7 165.0 2.1 167.1 147.0 2.1 149.1 147.0 2.1 149.1 145.0 2.1 147.1

Bay anchovy 162.0 12.3 174.3 145.0 8.8 153.8 159.0 11.9 170.9 143.0 11.9 154.9 143.0 11.9 154.9 140.0 11.8 151.8 Blueback 0.0 27.0 27.0 0.0 13.1 herring 13.1 0.0 21.3 21.3 0.0 21.0 21.0 0.0 21.0 21.0 0.0 19.6 19.6

Blue crab 0.0 604.1 604.1 0.0 281.6 281.6 0.0 593.1 593.1 0.0 583.5 583.5 0.0 583.5 583.5 0.0 575.8 575.8 Gunner 1.4 0.8 2.2 1.4 0.3 1.7 1.5 0.8 2.3 1.4 0.8 2.2 1.4 0.8 2.2 1.4 0.8 2.2 Fourbeard 1150.0 0.8 1150.8 1075.0 rockling 0.3 1075.3 1281.0 0.7 1281.7 1125.0 0.7 1125.7 1125.0 0.7 1125.7 1114.0 0,7 1114.7

Grubby 8088.0 86.0 8174.0 7751.0 30.2 7781.2 9230.0 79.2 9309.2 7834.0 78.5 7912.5 7834.0 78.5 7912.5 7696.0 75.8 7771.8 Northem 328.0 4.2 332.2 312.0 pipefish 1.6 313.6 325.0 4.1 329.1 323.0 4.1 327.1 323.0 4.1 327.1 322.0 4.0 326.0

Silver hake 11.0 12.0 23.0 10.0 5.4 15.4 12.0 8.2 20.2 11.0 8.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 19.0 11.0 7.4 18.4 Striped bass 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 9.5 9.5 0.0 9.5 9.5 0.0 9.5 9.5 0.0 9.0 9.0 Tautog 8.0 4.1 12.1 8.0 1.6 9.6 8.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 Winter flounder 3650.0 271.8 3921.8 3307.0 100.4 3407.4 3889.0 260.9 4149.9 3627.0 259.2 3886.2 3627.0 259.2 3886.2 3623.0 252.9 3875.9

TOTAL 13596.5 1070.0 14666.5 12790.5 466.8 13257.3 15120.7 1026.0 16146.7 13263.S 1012.9 14276.4 13263.5 1012.9 14276.4 13103.5 991.9 14095.5

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-68 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Figure 8-4 Fall Juvenile Equivalent Biomass Loss at Ravenswood Generating Station Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

Fall Equivalents 18,000 I DWinter flounder | D Grubby 16,000 i •Fourbeard rockling i BOthers

14,000

12.000

10,000 o Q.

I 8,000 o D

6,000

4,000

2,000

No Build IFCS Wedge-Wire Wet Hybrid Dry Alternative

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-69 Article X Application KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility

Table 8.19 Equivalent Adult Losses

Hybrid Closed-Cycle Dry Closed-Cycle No Build IFCS Wedge Wire Wet Closed-Cycle Cooling Cooling Cooling TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 1 TOTAL Species TOTAL TOTAL 0 8 8 0 7 7 9 0 5 5 0 8 8 0 8 8 American Shad 0 9 623 524 754 126 521 646 126 521 646 107 516 Atlantic Herring 231 535 767 222 431 654 230 17 326 281 17 297 281 17 297 280 16 296 Atlantic Menhaden 294 24 318 254 13 267 308 216 77 139 216 77 131 207 77 180 258 74 65 140 83 141 224 77 139 Atlantic Silverside 67 56 12 67 55 11 67 12 69 53 6 59 63 12 75 56 12 Atlantic Tomcod 57 24,368 19.548 4,37 23,927 3,258 24,824 21,012 4,419 25,432 19,965 4,403 24,368 19,965 4.403 Bay Anchovy 22,495 4,621 27,116 21,566 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Crab 0 0 0 0 0 0 445 462 462 0 458 458 0 458 458 0 445 Blueback Herring 0 528 528 0 250 250 0 347 1,053 706 347 1,053 706 337 1.043 708 364 1,072 702 133 835 761 349 1.110 706 Gunner 7,532 17 7.548 7.451 16 7,467 17 7,731 7,235 7 7,242 8,635 17 8,652 7,532 17 7,548 Fourbeard Rockling 7,715 104.88 1,62 106,51 655 107,80 127,43 1.702 129.14 107.01 1,688 108,70 107,01 1.688 108,70 Grubby 111,67. 1,837 113,51 107,15 7 6 3 9 0 9 7 9 7 6 3 0 6 23,088 664 23.267 22,437 661 23,098 22,437 661 23,098 22,433 654 Northern Pipefish 22,814 674 23,488 21,711 274 21.985 22,603 282 1,146 864 282 1.146 864 260 1,125 869 426 1,295 797 193 990 919 289 1.208 864 Silver Hake 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 3 3 0 6 6 0 6 6 Striped Bass 0 6 6 16 76 92 30 45 17 78 94 16 77 93 16 77 93 Tautog 16 78 94 14 1,103 202 1.180 908 201 1,109 908 201 1.109 907 196 Winter Flounder 915 210 1,125 830 77 907 978

Note: E = Entrainment I = Impingement

Page 8-70 Case 99-F-l625 • • K eySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article ^ pplication

Table 8.20 Adult Equivalent Entrainment (E), Impingement (I) and Total Biomass Loss (in pounds) at Ravenswood Generating Station Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

No Build IFCS Wedge-Wire I Wet Hybrid Dry Species E 1 Total E | Total E 1 Total E 1 Total E 1 Total E 1 Total

American shad 0.0 35.6 35.6 0.0 17.5 17.5 0.0 30.8 30.8 0.0 30.4 30.4 0.0 30.4 30.4 0.0 28.6 28.6

Atlantic herring 34.0 58.3 92.3 33.0 63.1 96.1 34.0 76.6 110.6 18.0 76.1 94.1 18.0 76.1 94.1 16.0 75.4 91.4

Atlantic 30.0 2.5 32.5 26.0 1.3 27.3 32.0 1.8 33.8 29.0 1.8 30.8 29.0 1.8 30.8 29.0 1.6 30.6 menhaden Atlantic 0.8 2.6 3.3 0.7 0.9 1.7 0.8 2.0 2.8 0.8 2.0 2.7 0.8 2.0 2.7 0.8 1.9 2.6 silverside Atlantic 2.0 0.5 2.5 2.0 0.2 2.2 2.0 0.4 2.4 2.0 0.4 2.4 2.0 0.4 2.4 2.0 0.4 2.4 tomcod Bay anchovy 58.0 11.9 69.9 55.0 8.4 63.4 54.0 11.3 65.3 51.0 11.3 62.3 51.0 11.3 62.3 50.0 11.2 61.2 Blueback 0.0 196.7 196.7 0.0 93.1 93.1 0.0 172.1 172.1 0.0 170.8 170.8 0.0 170.8 170.8 0.0 165.8 165.8 herring

Blue crab 0.0 604.1 604.1 0.0 281.6 281.6 0.0 593.1 593.1 0.0 583.5 583.5 0.0 583.5 583.5 0.0 575.8 575.8

Cunner 1.5 0.8 2.3 1.5 0.3 1.8 1.6 0.7 2.3 1.5 0.7 2.2 1.5 0.7 2.2 1.5 0.7 2.2

Fourbeard 228.0 0.5 228.5 214.0 0.2 214.2 256.0 0.5 256.5 223.0 0.5 223.5 223.0 0.5 223.5 220.0 0.5 220.5 rockling Grubby 3033.0 49.9 3082.9 2911.0 30.2 2941.2 3462.0 46.2 3508.2 2907.0 45.9 2952.9 2907.0 45.9 2952.9 2849.0 44.2 2893.2 Northern 62.0 1.8 63.8 59.0 0.7 59.7 61.0 1.8 62.8 60.0 1.8 61.8 60.0 1.8 61.8 60.0 1.8 61.8 pipefish

Silver hake 9.0 4.2 13.2 8.0 1.9 9.9 9.0 2.8 11.8 8.0 2.8 10.8 8.0 2.8 10.8 8.0 2.6 10.6

Striped bass 0.0 36.2 36.2 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 36.1 36.1 0.0 35.9 35.9 0.0 35.9 35.9 0.0 34.6 34.6

Tautog 11.0 55.9 66.9 10.0 21.5 31.5 12.0 55.7 67.7 11.0 55.5 66.5 11.0 55.5 66.5 11.0 54.7 65.7

Winter flounder 695.0 159.8 854.8 631.0 58.3 689.3 743.0 153.7 896.7 691.0 152.6 843.6 691.0 152.6 843.6 690.0 149.3 839.3

TOTAL 4164.3 1221.1 5385.3 3951.2 595.8 4547.0 4667.4 1185.7 5853.1 4002.3 1171.8 5174.1 4002.3 1171.8 5174.1 3937.3 1149.0 5086.2

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-71 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

^^ Figure 8-5 Adult Equivalent Biomass Loss at Ravenswood Generating Station Under "No

Adult Equivalents

( ,uuu -i • D Winter flounder I • Grubby I •Fourbeardrockling 6,000 • I D Others

5,000 -

c 4,000 - 3 O

(A

2,000 -

_• ^^ 1.000

& '••.••5/ •••-. m - • 0 - fm U*ti'3 &:% uMt hnm No Build IFCS Wedge-Wire Wet Hybrid Dry Alternative

Build" and "Build" Scenarios

•

C ase9 9-F-16:>5 ]Page 8- 72 • • • KeySpan Energy • - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article XApplication •

Table 8.21 Total Equivalent Adult Losses (in pounds) at Ravenswood and Corresponding Economic Value (1990-1997 Average Dollars)

No Build •PCS Wedge-Wire Wet Hybrid Dry $/lbs Source Species

Equivalent Adult Loss (Pounds)

American shad 36 17 31 30 30 29 0.69 NMFS 1998 Atlantic herring 92 96 111 94 94 91 0.07 AFS 1991* Atlantic menhaden 32 27 34 31 31 31 0.07 NMFS 1998 Atlantic silverside 3 2 3 3 3 3 0.26 = Bay anchovy = Silver hake Atlantic tomcod 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.25 Bay anchovy 70 63 65 62 62 61 0.26 AFS 1991* Blueback herring 197 93 172 171 171 166 0.19 NMFS 1998 Blue crab 604 282 593 583 583 576 0.98 NMFS 1998 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.39 AFS 1991*, other Maine finfish Fourbeard rockllng 229 214 256 223 223 220 0.39 AFS 1991*, other Maine finfish Grubby 3083 2941 3508 2953 2953 2893 0.39 AFS 1991*, other Maine finfish Northern pipefish 64 60 63 62 62 62 0.39 AFS 1991*, other Maine finfish Silver hake 13 10 12 11 11 11 0.25 AFS 1991* (Avg. hake) Striped bass 36 17 36 36 36 35 3.05 NMFS 1998 Tautog 67 32 68 67 67 66 3.52 NMFS 1998, recreational Winter flounder 855 689 897 844 844 839 1.44 AFS 1991* Economic Value (1990-97 Average) American shad $25 $12 $21 $21 $21 $20 Atlantic herring $6 $7 $8 $7 $7 $6 Atlantic menhaden $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Atlantic silverside $1 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 Atlantic tomcod $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Bay anchovy $18 $16 $17 $16 $16 $16 Blueback herring $37 $18 $33 $32 $32 $32 Blue crab $592 $276 $581 $572 $572 $564 Gunner $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Fourbeard rockling $89 $84 $100 $87 $87 $86 Grubby $1,202 $1,147 $1,368 $1,152 $1,152 $1,128 Northern pipefish $25 $23 $24 $24 $24 $24 Silver hake $3 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 Striped bass $111 $51 $110 $110 $110 $105 Tautog $236 $111 $238 $234 $234 $231 Winter flounder $1,231 $993 $1,291 $1,215 $1,215 $1,209 TOTAL $3,580 $2,743 $3,800 $3,476 $3,476 $3,428 * Adjusted for 5 years. inflation assuming 4%/yr.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-73 • • KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article ^Application

TableS.: 12 FalJ Juvenile Equivalent Entrainment (E), Impingement (I), Biomass Loss (in pounds) at East River Facilities

Ra venswo od 1 Astoria Poletti [ East River 1 Arthur Kill World Trade Center Species E 1 Total E Total E 1 Total | E 1 Total | E 1 Total 1 E 1 Total NO BUILD American shad 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.8 113.4 116.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic herring 1.7 6.4 8.1 2.1 3.975.5 3,977.6 0.1 78.1 78.2 1.0 291.5 292.5 3.8 6.047.0 6,050.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 I Atlantic menhaden 30.6 12.3 42.9 4.4 114.9 119.3 0.1 15.6 15.7 0.9 7.6 8.5 679.2 3,864.6 4,543.9 9.3 4.0 13.2 Atlantic silverside 0.4 15.9 16.2 7.8 64.6 72.4 2.1 12.9 15.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 23.6 99.5 123.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 Atlantic tomcod 2.1 2.3 4.4 0.5 39.4 39.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.3 7.9 9.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 Bay anchovy 17.9 12.3 30.2 12.2 54.3 66.5 2.2 5.0 7.2 11.4 85.9 97.3 30.7 4,379.7 4,410.3 4.6 0.1 4.7 Blueback herring 0.0 27.0 27.0 0.0 54.0 54.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 10.9 10.9 0.6 1,505.3 1,505.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 Blue crab 0.0 604.1 604.1 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 8.6 8.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 126.8 126.8 0.0 110.8 110.8 Gunner 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Fourbeard rockiing 171,3 0.8 172.0 138.6 15.4 153.9 2.6 1.0 3.6 28.3 1.3 29.6 1.4 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grubby 3,037.6 86.0 3,123.6 4,991.3 0.0 4,991.3 95.2 23.4 118.6 1,753.9 0.0 1,753.9 199.0 0.0 199.0 141.7 36.2 177.9 Northern pipefish 33.5 4.2 37.7 7.5 0.0 7.5 1.5 1.3 2.8 2.0 0.0 2.0 10.6 0.4 11.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 Silver hake 8.5 12.0 20.5 1.9 15.0 16.9 0.1 0.6 0.7 2.7 2.3 5.0 0.2 63.4 63.6 2.1 0.2 2.3 Striped bass 0.0 10.0 10.0 1.3 27.2 28.4 0.4 15.3 15.6 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.0 20.1 20.1 Tautog 0.5 4.1 4.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 6.9 14.0 Winter flounder. .36.6 271.8 308.4 15.0 885.8 900.8 0.7 127.4 128.1 5.9 447.5 453.4 2.7 112.9 115.6 14.0 4.2 18.1 TOTAL (NO BUILD) 3.340.8 1,071.6 4,412.4 5,182.6 5,250.5 10.433.2 104.9 293.0 397.8 1,807.4 860.8 2,668.2 954.6 16,318.4 17,273.0 180.7 185.3 366.0 | IFCS American shad 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.4 109.3 112.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic herring 1.7 5.1 6.8 2.0 2621.5 2623.5 0.0 17.4 17.4 0.7 190.2 190.9 3.2 5404.6 5407.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 Atlantic menhaden 26.4 6.5 33.0 3.0 93.1 96.2 0.0 7.8 7.8 0.6 6.1 6.7 761.3 3622.1 4383.4 9.3 4.0 13.2 Atlantic silverside 0.4 5.8 6.2 5.3 43.0 48.3 1.4 7.7 9.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 26.4 89.4 115.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 Atlantic tomcod 2.0 0.7 2.7 0.3 26.4 26.7 0.0 0.9 0.9 . 0.8 5.2 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 Bay anchovy 17.2 8.8 25.9 8.0 36.8 44.9 1.1 2.5 3.6 7.6 58.7 66.3 32.9 4090.9 4123.8 4.6 0.1 4.7 Blueback herring 0.0 13.1 13.1 0.0 36.7 36.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 7.4 7.4 0.6 1409.2 1409.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 Blue crab 0.0 281.6 281.6 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 114.6 114.6 0.0 110.8 110.8 Gunner 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Fourbeard rockiing 160.6 0.3 160.9 91.4 10.4 101.7 0.6 0.6 1.2 18.4 0.9 19.4 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grubby 2914.5 30.2 2944.7 3223.0 0.0 3223.0 25.7 4.7 30.4 1167.5 0.0 1167.5 187.1 0.0 187.1 141.7 36.2 177.9 Northern pipefish 31.9 1.6 33.5 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.9 0.5 1.4 1.3 0.0 1.3 10.9 0.4 11.3 1.8 0.0 1.8 Silver hake 7.8 5.4 13.3 1.3 12.2 13.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.9 1.6 3.5 0.2 56.4 56.6 2.1 0.2 2.3 Striped bass 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.9 18.3 19.2 0.2 9.9 10.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 4.3 4.3 0.0 20.1 20.1 Tautog 0.5 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 6.9 14.0 Winter flounder 33.2 100.4 133.6 10.0 614.3 624.3 0.4 69.6 70.0 3.9 300.4 304.3 2.2 102.9 105.1 14.0 4.2 18.1 TOTAL (IFCS) 3197.1 466.8 3663.9 3350.1 3515.8 6865.9 30.6 127.9 158.4 1202.8 574.7 1777.5 1029.2 15004.4 16033.6 180.7 185.4 366.0

Case 99-F-l 625 Page 8-74 • KeySpan^rargy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article^^.pplication

Table 8,23 Adult Equivalent Entrainment (E), Impingement (I) and Total Biomass Losses (In pounds) at East River Facilities

Ravenswood Astoria Poletti East River Arthur Kill BWorld Trade Center Species E I Total E I E 1 Total E 1 Total E I Total E Total I Total NO BUILD American shad 0.0 35.6 35.6 0.0 55.4 55.4 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 550.1 3,906.6 4,456.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 Atlantic herring 33.7 78.2 112.0 40.3 48,637.3 48,677.5 1.3 955.9 957.2 19.9 4.541.0 4,560.8 75.0 74.053.6 74,128.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 Atlantic menhaden 30.6 2.5 33.1 4.4 23.3 27.7 0.1 3.0 3.1 0.9 1.7 2.6 679.2 872.9 1,552.1 9.3 0.9 10.1 Atlantic silverside 0.7 2.6 3.3 16.0 8.3 24.3 4.3 1.3 5.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 48.3 7.3 55.7 0.3 0.0 0.4 Atlantic tomcod 2.1 0.5 2.6 0.5 16.3 16.8 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.3 2.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 Bay anchovy 57.6 11.9 69.4 39.2 21.8 61.0 7.0 2.0 9.0 36.5 42.5 79.0 98.5 3,031.8 3.130.3 14.7 0.1 14.8 Blueback herring 0.0 196.7 196.7 0.0 960.2 960.2 0.0 19.1 19.1 0.0 40.8 40.8 42.1 8,142.3 8,184.4 0.0 9.7 9.7 Blue crab 0.0 604.1 604.1 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 8.6 8.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 126.8 126.8 0.0 110.8 110.8 Cunner 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Fourbeard rockling 228.4 0.5 228.9 184.7 9.6 194.3 3.4 0.7 4.1 37.7 1.3 38.9 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 Grubby 3,037.6 49.9 3,087.5 4.991.3 0.0 4,991.3 95.2 11.3 106.5 1,753.9 0.0 1.753.9 199.0 0.0 199.0 141.7 25.8 167.5 Northern pipefish 61.6 1.8 63.4 13.9 0.0 13.9 2.8 0.5 3.3 3.6 0.0 3.6 19.5 0.2 19.7 3.2 0.0 3.3 Silver hake 8.5 4.2 12.7 1.9 8.0 9.9 0.1 0.3 0.4 2.7 0.8 3.5 0.2 30.1 30.3 2.1 0.1 2.2 Striped bass 0.0 36.2 36.2 293.3 163.3 456.6 80.5 26.2 106.7 0.0 6.8 6.8 0.0 28.8 28.8 0.0 195.0 195.0 Tautog 11.5 55.9 67.4 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.1 3.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.9 99.0 248.8 Winter flounder . 695.4 159.8 855.2 285.8 504.8 790.6 13.7 67.5 81.2 111.7 232.5 344.2 50.9 37.5 88.4 265.2 2.9 268.1 TOTAL (NO BUILD) 4.167.7 1,241.0 5,408.8 5,873.3 50,411.1 56,284.4 208.3 1,102.6 1,310.9 1,970.3 4,881.3 6,851.6 1,764.8 90.237.8 92.002.6 586.5 446.0 1.032.5 IFCS American shad 0.0 17.5 17.5 0.0 36.4 36.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 7.9 . 7.9 664.7 3642.1 4306.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 Atlantic herring 32.4 63.1 95.5 39.1 32072.5 32111.6 0.3 213.0 213.3 13.3 2961.6 2974.9 63.7 66177.8 66241.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 Atlantic menhaden 26.4 1.3 27.7 3.0 19.1 22.1 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.3 2.0 761.3 825.7 1587.0 9.3 0.9 10.1 Atlantic silverside 0.7 0.9 1.6 10.8 5.4 16.1 2.9 0.8 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 53.9 6.9 60.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 Atlantic tomcod 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.3 10.9 11.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 Bay anchovy 55.2 8.4 63.6 25.8 14.9 40.7 3.7 1.1 4.7 24.4 28.9 53.3 105.7 2822.8 2928.5 14.7 0.1 14.8 Blueback herring 0.0 93.1 93.1 0.0 645.4 645.4 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 27.5 27.5 47.4 7148.0 7195.3 0.0 9.7 9.7 Blue crab 0.0 281.6 281.6 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 114.6 114.6 0,0 110.8 110.8 Cunner 1.5 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.2 0,2 Fourbeard rockling 214.2 0.2 214.3 121.8 6.4 128.2 0.8 0.4 1.2 24.6 0.9 25.5 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 Grubby 2914.5 17.8 2932.3 3223.0 0.0 3223.0 25.7 2.4 28.1 1167.5 0.0 1167.5 187.1 0.0 187.1 141.7 25.8 167,5 Northern pipefish 58.6 0.7 59.4 9.1 0.0 9.1 1.7 0.2 2.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 20.0 0.1 20.1 3.2 0.0 3,3 Silver hake 7.8 1.9 9.7 1.3 6.5 7.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.6 2.5 0.2 26.4 26.6 2.1 0.1 2.2 Striped bass 0.0 16.7 16.7 195.5 113.7 309.2 51.8 11.8 63.5 0.0 4.7 4.7 0.0 27.0 27.0 0.0 195.0 195.0 Tautog 10.0 21.5 31.6 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.7 1.7 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.9 99.0 248,8 Winter flounder 630.8 58.3 689.1 190.0 346.0 536.0 7.6 37.3 44.9 73.7 155.0 228.7 42.6 34.2 76.8 265.2 2.9 268.1 TOTAL (IFCS) 3954.1 583.4 4537.5 3821.2 33279.0 37100.2 94.6 284.0 378.6 1310.7 3190.4 4501.1 1947.7 80825.6 82773.3 586.5 446.7 1033.2

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-75 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Figure 8-6 Comparison of Total Fall Juvenile Biomass Loss At East River Facilities Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

Equivalent Fall Juveniles

20,000

18,000] 1 No Build • Build

Ravenswood Astoria Poletti East River Arthur Kill wrc

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-76 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Figure 8-7 Comparison of Total Equivalent Adult Biomass Loss at East River Facilities Under "No Build" and "Build" Scenarios

Equivalent Adults

100,000

(fl •o c 3 o Q.

KS5 m

-••—

Ravenswood Astoria Poletti East River Arthur Kill WTC

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-77 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

NYSDEC (Mr. Ed Radle, Athens Generating Station testimony) estimated that the fall Hudson River population of juvenile American shad averaged 21,400,000 individuals during 1981-87. The estimated loss of 45 to 92 equivalent fall juveniles represents only 0.0002 to 0.0004% of this population. Losses compared to the American shad fishery also represent a very small fraction. During 1998, commercial landings for American shad in New York were 81,568 lbs.; in the Atlantic, 1,073,760 lbs. were landed (NMFS 2000). Direct impingement losses for Ravenswood represent a very small fraction of these landings. For all East River power plants combined ("No -Build"), the loss of 104 lbs of age 4+ represents less than 0.13% of the landings in New York and less than 0.01% of the Atlantic landings. These losses are too small to have any significant or meaningful affect on the American shad population. Based on 1990 to 1997 commercial value of $0.69 per pound, the economic value of the equivalent adult shad lost at Ravenswood is $12 to $25 annually.

b. Atlantic herring

Adult Atlantic herring are abundant throughout the North Atlantic. Spawning in the mid-Atlantic region takes place offshore between the northern part of the Middle Atlantic Bight and the Gulf of Maine. Although spawning occurs throughout the year, peak activity typically occurs during the fall. The eggs are demersal and likely remain near the spawning sites. After hatching, the late stage larvae generally begin to move inshore during January to May, but may appear at other times. By July the early juveniles move back to the offshore regions. As a consequence of this life history strategy, Atlantic herring are typically entrained only as post yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) and young-of-year (YOY) from November through December and impinged as YOY (25-65 mm TL) from March through June.

Under the "No Build" scenario, Ravenswood alone, the loss of equivalent age 1+ Atlantic herring is 92 lbs. Under the various proposed "Build" scenarios, losses range from a low of 91 lbs for "Dry Cooling" to 111 lbs for the "Wedge-Wire" option. The IFCS loss is 96 lbs, or an increase of 3.8 lbs (4.1%) over the "No Build" scenario. Under this scenario, entrainment losses decreased by 1 pound while impingement losses increase by 4.8 lbs.

When examined in light of total regional power plant operations, Ravenswood "No Build" losses are 112 lbs of equivalent age 1+ herring. This amount would be reduced to 96 lbs under the IFCS, a reduction of 14%. Losses from the five additional plants would be 128,325 lbs and 101,543 lbs for the "No Build" and "Build" scenario. Overall, the "Build" scenario reduces total losses by 26,798 lbs or nearly 21%.

Total losses are unlikely to have any affect of the Atlantic herring population. During 1992 through 1996, an average of 208 million pounds of herring were reported in the commercial

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-78 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

fishery. Even under the "No Build" scenario, this is only 0.06% of the landings. Presently the Atlantic herring population is under exploited and expanding.

The economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood $6 to $7 annually. c. Atlantic menhaden

Similar to Atlantic herring, Atlantic menhaden is an offshore species that uses near-shore waters as a nursery ground for a brief period during its life cycle. Although spawning of pelagic eggs occurs throughout the year, peak spawning generally occurs during the fall. Larvae move inshore during the winter and spring with most juveniles leaving these inshore regions by October. Eggs and larvae may be entrained throughout the year, but are most abundant during fall through spring. Impingement of juveniles occurs sporadically throughout the year.

Under the "No Build" scenario, Ravenswood alone, the loss of equivalent age 1+ menhaden is 33 lbs. Under the various proposed "Build" scenarios, losses range from a high of 34 lbs for "Wedge-Wire Screening" to a low of 27 lbs for the IFCS option. The IFCS option represents an almost 16% reduction on losses over the "No Build" scenario.

When examined in light of total regional power plant operations, Ravenswood "No Build" losses are 33 lbs of equivalent age 1+ menhaden. Losses from the five additional facilities would be 1,596 lbs and 1,623 lbs for the "No Build" and "Build" scenario. Overall, the "Build" scenario increases total losses by 54 lbs or by 3%.

The economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood for all scenarios is $2. d. Atlantic silverside

The Atlantic silverside is a near shore pelagic species and is expected to utilize the East River year-round. Eggs and yolk-sac larvae (YSL) are most abundant in the East River in June, while post-yolk-sac (PYSL) larvae are most abundant in July. Young-of-year (YOY) are found in the East River from July through December, with peak abundance from August through December. Yearlings and adults are present year-round with peak abundance from August through March. Estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood for the no build alternative through entrainment of eggs and PYSL are 1.9 x 104 and 2.0 x 104, respectively. Corresponding impingement losses are 2,313. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 3 lbs. Compared to the no build case, the implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 52% of equivalent age 1+ Atlantic silversides annually, that would otherwise be lost due to entrainment and impingement at Ravenswood. Approximately 18% would be saved if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative was

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-79 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

implemented. Dry closed cycle cooling would reduce losses by 21% while wedge-wire screens would reduce losses by 15%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all four facilities (e.g., Ravenswood, Astoria, Poletti, East River, Arthur Kill and World Trade Center) are 90 lbs. The cumulative losses are 83 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for Atlantic silverside, the proposed alternative represents the least impact, both for Ravenswood and cumulatively, from river water withdrawal. Overall, these direct entrainment and impingement losses represent a very small fraction of the New York commercial bait landings. During 1990-97, a total of 416,227 lbs. were landed in New York (NMFS, pers. Comm. 1998). Losses from all East River power plants combined represent less than 0.02% of the catch. The annual economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood is $1 or less, depending on the scenario. e. Atlantic tomcod

Atlantic tomcod is a bottom dwelling species and is present in the East River as post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL), young-of-year (YOY) and adults. Post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) are generally present from March through May, with peak abundance in April. Young-of-year (YOY) are present from May through November, with peak abundance from September through November. Adults are present from January through August, with peak abundance in April.

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment are 3.8 x 105 PYSL and 4.8 x 104 age 0+; direct losses through impingement are 492. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 3 lbs. An estimated 12% of equivalent age 1+ Atlantic tomcod would be saved from entrainment and impingement annually if the proposed IFCS alternative were implemented, compared to only 4% if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities total 25 lbs. A total of 17 lbs. is lost under the proposed IFCS scenario. Although relatively small numbers of Atlantic tomcod are impacted from river water withdrawal in the East River, the proposed alternative is the best scenario for reducing overall losses from both a Ravenswood and a combined plant perspective.

The Hudson River population of Atlantic tomcod represents the southernmost major breeding population. Here, spawning appears to be confined almost exclusively to the Hudson River from Saugerties to West Point. (There is no evidence of spawning in the East River). As the hatchlings develop, they move progressively downstream. By the PYSL and YOY stage, a small proportion of the young may pass through the Harlem River into the lower East River {Note: eggs and YSL are generally not collected in the East River or Long Island Sound). While some young tomcod may take up residency in the East River, young are probably continually recruited

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-80 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

throughout the year from the Hudson River and New York Harbor. Based on this life history pattern, the East River is not a critical spawning area and is likely not an important nursery area. From the Hudson River Utilities DEIS (1999), the average number of age 1 tomcod in the Hudson River during 1991 through 1997 was 1.16 million. Ravenswood losses represent less than 0.001% of this number while total East River facility losses represent less than 0.05% of this number.

The annual economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood for all scenarios is $1.

f. Bay anchovy

Bay anchovy is a marine and estuarine species widely distributed along the Atlantic coast. Adults prefer open water habitats of moderate to high salinity where they feed by selectively filtering planktonic organisms from the water column. They are relatively weak swimmers, frequently traveling in large schools. Nutrient rich inputs from the several sewage treatment plants likely result in relatively large standing crops of forage species and make the location a suitable feeding ground. The high current velocities and lack of natural shoreline habitats, however, would make it difficult for bay anchovy maintain residency in the lower East River for extended periods of time. Adults would be transported from Long Island Sound and the upper East River through the project area and out into New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean within a very short period of time. Adult bay anchovy seek high salinity areas such as Long Island Sound for spawning. Eggs, YSL, PYSL and YOY are highly pelagic and are easily transported through the lower East River. Some spawning may take place in the lower East River, but it seems likely, based on NOAA ichthyoplankton surveys, that the majority of spawning occurs in the upper East River, Long Island Sound and the nearshore coastal waters. Eggs are most abundant in the East River in June and July, while larvae are most abundant in July and August. Young-of-year (YOY) are found in the East River from July through December, with peak abundance in December. Yearlings and adults are present year-round with peak abundance in May.

Estimates of direct losses for the no build alternative at Ravenswood through entrainment of eggs, YSL, PYSL, and age 0+ are 10.1 x 106, 1.4 x 105, 25.8 x 106, and 4.4 x 104, respectively; those for impingement are 15,645. These losses equate to an annual loss of 70 lbs of equivalent 1+ fish. Bay anchovy are present in the East River year round, making them vulnerable to intake-related impacts. However, the implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 9% (7 lbs.) of equivalent age 1+ bay anchovy from entrainment and impingement annually, compared to the no build case at Ravenswood. If the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented, 10.9% (8 lbs.) of equivalent age 1+ bay anchovy would be saved annually at Ravenswood. Dry closed cycle cooling would reduce losses by 12% while wedge-wire screens would reduce losses by 7%. Cumulatively, loss under the no build scenario

Case 99-F-1625 Pa8e 8-81 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

attributable to all facilities is 3,364 lbs. The cumulative loss is 3,106 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for bay anchovy, the proposed IFCS alternative would reduce overall losses by 258 lbs.

The economic value of the annual losses at Ravenswood ranges from $16 to $18, depending on the scenario. g. Blueback herring

Blueback herring is an anadromous species, spending most of its adult life at sea. Adults ascend the Hudson River in the spring and spawn in the upper proportions of the river and its tributaries. Spent adults generally return to sea from mid-June to mid-August. Eggs, larvae and YOY juveniles move progressively downstream, during July through mid-September peak concentrations are found in the Catskill to Poughkeepsie region of the Hudson River. YOY begin to emigrate from the Hudson River nursery grounds in mid-October, apparently triggered by the dropping temperature. Due to their upriver spawning habits, blueback herring are seldom, if ever, entrained at Ravenswood. YOY blueback herring generally overwinter in the higher salinity regions of the lower Hudson River before migrating seaward the following spring. During this period, young blueback herring may be impinged at Ravenswood.

Estimates of direct losses blueback herring for the no build alternative at Ravenswood through entrainment of age 0+ is 15.6 x 104 organisms and through impingement is 5,539. The proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 53% (104 lbs.) of equivalent age 4+ blueback herring from entrainment and impingement annually, compared to the no build case at Ravenswood. If the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented, 13% (26 lbs.) of equivalent age 4+ adults would be saved annually at Ravenswood. Dry closed cycle cooling would reduce losses by 16% while wedge-wire screens would reduce losses by 13%. Cumulatively, loss under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities is 9,411 lbs. The cumulative loss is 7,978 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for blueback herring, the proposed IFCS alternative would reduce overall losses by 1,433 lbs.

Based on recent NYSDEC testimony (Mr. Ed Radle) for the Athens Generating Station, the average population size of fall juvenile River Herring {Alosa spp.) in the Hudson River during 1981 through 1987 was 1.11 billion. Losses of blueback herring from Ravenswood ("No Build") represent less than 0.0005% of this value while total East River facility losses represent less than 0.03%.

The economic value of the annual losses at Ravenswood ranges from $18 to $37, depending on the scenario.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-82 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

h. Blue crab

Blue crabs are bottom-dwellers and are present in the East River as young-of-year (YOY) and adults. Young-of-year (YOY) blue crabs are present from August through December and are most abundant in October and November. Yearlings and adults are present year-round and are most abundant in May and June.

For the no build case, estimates of equivalent impingement loss at Ravenswood is 604 lbs. Compared to the no build case, an estimated 53% of blue crab would be saved from impingement annually at Ravenswood if the proposed IFCS alternative were implemented; only 2% would be saved if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood and 5% saved if dry closed-cycle cooling were implemented. Wedge-wire screens would save an estimated 3% Cumulatively, loss under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities is 853 lbs. The cumulative loss for the proposed IFCS alternative is 515 lbs., a reduction of 338 lbs. or 40%.

Impingement losses of blue crab represent a. very small fraction of the commercial landings. During 1998, the commercial landings in New York for blue crab were 1,528,285 lbs.; that for the Atlantic was 150,204,440 lbs. (NMFS 2000). Equivalent impingement losses all of the East River facilities combined ("No Build") represent less than 0.06% of the New York landings, and less than 0.001% of the Atlantic landings. These losses are too small to play an important role in the blue crab population. Thus, the proposed IFCS alternative is the best alternative to reduce overall losses for blue crab.

The economic value of the blue crab losses at Ravenswood ranges from $276 annually for the IFCS to $592 annually for the "No Build" case.

i. Gunner

Cunner is an inshore inhabitant of pilings, rocky reefs, oyster beds, whaves, and similar structures. There is no directed commercial fishery and only relatively small numbers are taken by recreational angling. Spawning in the spring with larvae appearing in entrainment samples during July and August. Yearling and older fish occur in impingement samples throughout the year but with highest number in January through April.

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment are 1.0 x 10 eggs and 1.0 x 103 age 0+; direct losses through impingement are 587. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement "No Build" losses equate to a biomass of 2 lbs. An estimated 22% of equivalent age 1+ cunner would be saved from entrainment and impingement annually if the proposed IFCS alternative were implemented,

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-83 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

compared to only 4% if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood. If the dry closed cycle scenario were implemented, losses would decrease by 4% over the "No Build" state. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities total 1 pound. A total of 2 lbs. is lost under the proposed IFCS scenario.

The annual economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood for all scenarios is $1. j. Fourbeard reckling

Fourbeard rockling is primarily a demersal species and is expected to utilize the East River for spawning. Larvae and young-of-year (YOY) are not expected to be present in the East River since they tend to migrate out to the ocean upon hatching. However, eggs are relatively abundant in the East River in April and yearlings and adults are most abundant in March and April.

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment of eggs is 84 x 106; corresponding impingement losses are 40. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 229 lbs. An estimated 6% of equivalent age 1+ fourbeard rockling would be saved from entrainment and impingement annually if the proposed IFCS alternative were implemented, compared to only 2% if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood. Dry cooling would reduce losses by 4% while wedge-wire screens would increase losses by 12% (28 lbs.). Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 468 lbs and the cumulative losses are 371 lbs. for the proposed EFCS scenario. Thus, the proposed alternative represents the least impact to fourbeard rockling, both for Ravenswood and cumulatively, from river water withdrawal.

The economic value of the rockling losses at Ravenswood ranges from $84 annually for the IFCS to $100 annually for the "No Build" case.

k. Grubby

The grubby is a bottom dwelling species and all life stages are present in relatively high numbers in the East River at some point during the year. Eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), and post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) are found in relatively high numbers in April and May. Young-of-year (YOY) are found in moderate numbers from June through December, and yearlings and adults are present in relatively high numbers from January through April.

For the no build alternative, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment of eggs, YSL, PYSL, and age 0+ are 9.0 x 105, 3.5 x 106, 8.9 x 106, and 3,801, respectively.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-84 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Corresponding estimates for impingement are 3,181. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 3,083 lbs. Compared to the no build case, the implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 5% of equivalent age 1+ grubby annually that would otherwise be lost due to entrainment and impingement at Ravenswood. Approximately 4% would be saved if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative was implemented and 6% if dry cooling was implemented. Under the wedge- wire screen scenario, losses increased by 14%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 10,306 lbs. The cumulative losses are 7,705 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for grubby, the proposed alternative is the best scenario for reducing losses from river water withdrawal.

The economic value of the grubby losses at Ravenswood ranges from $1,128 annually for the "Dry Cooling" scenario to $1,368 annually for the "Wedge-wire" case.

I. Northern pipefish

Northern pipefish is a small, short-lived, inhabitant of shallow bays, harbors, salt marshes and estuaries. It is frequently associated with beds of submerged aquatic vegetation. Post yolk-sac larvae are entrained during July though October while adults are impinged throughout the year. Highest impingement numbers, however, occur in March through June.

For the no build alternative, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment of PYSL, and age 0+ are 9.8 x 104, and 1.3 x 106, respectively. Corresponding estimate for impingement is 2,846. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 64 lbs. Compared to the no build case, the implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 6% of equivalent age 1+ pipefish annually, that would otherwise be lost due to entrainment and impingement at Ravenswood. Approximately 6% would be saved if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative was implemented and 2% if wedge-wire screen scenario was implemented. Under the dry closed cycle cooling scenario, losses decreased by 3%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 107 lbs. The cumulative losses are 96 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for northern pipefish, the proposed alternative is the best scenario for reducing losses from river water withdrawal.

The economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood $23 to $25 annually.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-85 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

m. Silver hake

Silver hake is an offshore groundfish of some commercial importance. Eggs are entrained during June, July and August at Ravenswood. Young-of-year and yearlings are impinged during the winter and early spring months.

For the no build alternative, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment of is 6.5 x 10 . Corresponding estimate for impingement is 2,527. Expressed as equivalent age 1+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 13 lbs. Compared to the no build case, the implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 25% of equivalent age 1+ hake annually, that would otherwise be lost due to entrainment and impingement at Ravenswood. Approximately 18% would be saved if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative was implemented and 11% if wedge-wire screen scenario was implemented. Under the dry closed cycle cooling scenario, losses decreased by 20%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 59 lbs. The cumulative losses are 49 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for silver hake, the proposed alternative is the best scenario for reducing losses from river water withdrawal.

The economic value of the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood for all scenarios is $3. n. Striped bass

Striped bass is a pelagic species and is only expected to utilize the East River as a migratory route. Eggs and larvae are not expected to be present in the East River. Young-of-year (YOY) are found in moderate numbers in the East River in December, and yearlings are most abundant in January.

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through impingement are 433. This equates to a biomass of 36 lbs. The implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative, compared to the no build case at Ravenswood, would save an estimated 54% of equivalent age 5+ striped bass annually, that would otherwise be lost to impingement. If the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood, an estimated 1% would be saved. The wedge-wire screen scenario reduces losses by less than 1% while the dry closed cycle scenario reduces losses by 4%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 830 lbs. The cumulative losses are 616 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario.

NYSDEC (Mr. Ed Radle), in testimony regarding the proposed Athens Generating station, reported that the fall population of Hudson River juvenile striped bass averaged 31.8 million during the period 1981-87. Based on the expected losses under the "No Build" and the IFCS senarios, the Ravenswood losses would be only 0.0012% and 0.0006% of this population size.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-86 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

These percentages are too small to have any meaningful biological influence on the Hudson River striped bass population.

During 1998, combined commercial and recreational landings for striped bass in New York were 2,803,190 lbs.; that for striped bass in the Atlantic was 19,633,033 lbs. (NMFS 2000). Overall, the equivalent losses at Ravenswood represent a very small fraction of these landings. Entrainment and impingement losses from all of the East River power plants combined ("No Build") represent 0.03% of the landings in New York, and 0.004% of the landings in the Atlantic. These losses are too small to play an important role in the striped bass population.

The economic value of the striped bass losses at Ravenswood ranges from $51 annually for the IFCS scenario to $111 annually for the "No Build" scenario. o. Tautog

Like cunner, tautog is an inshore inhabitant of shallow water structures. There is no directed commercial fishery but moderate numbers are taken by recreational angling. Spawning in the spring and summer with peak eggs numbers occurring in June. Larvae occur in relatively small number in entrainment samples during April through July. Yearling and older fish occur in impingement samples throughout the year but with highest number in January through June.

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment are 3.0 x 106 eggs and 40.0 x 103 PYSL; direct losses through impingement are 122. Expressed as equivalent age 3+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement "No Build" losses equate to a biomass of 67 lbs. An estimated 53% of equivalent age 3+ tautog would be saved from entrainment and impingement annually if the proposed IFCS alternative were implemented, compared to less than 1% if the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented at Ravenswood. If the dry closed cycle scenario were implemented, losses would decrease by 2% over the "No Build" state. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities total 324 lbs. A total of 285 lbs. is lost under the proposed IFCS scenario.

The economic value of the tautog losses at Ravenswood ranges from $111 annually for the IFCS scenario to $238 annually for the "Wedge-wire" scenario. p. Winter flounder

Winter flounder is a bottom dwelling species and, as adults, one of the most abundant secondary consumers in the East River. Eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL), and young-of-year (YOY) are found in moderate numbers in the East River during the months of March through August. Yearlings are most abundant during January through April.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-87 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

For the no build case, estimates of direct losses at Ravenswood through entrainment of eggs, YSL, PYSL, and age 0+ are 3.7 x 106, 7.4 x 103, 4.6 x 106, and 3.2 x 104, respectively. Corresponding estimates for impingement losses are 7,276. Expressed as equivalent age 4+ adults, the combined entrainment and impingement losses equate to a biomass of 855 lbs. The implementation of the proposed IFCS alternative would save an estimated 19% of equivalent age 4+ winter flounder from entrainment and impingement annually, compared to the no build case at Ravenswood. If the wet closed-cycle cooling alternative were implemented, only 1% of equivalent age 4+ winter flounder would be saved annually at Ravenswood. Under the dry closed cycle scenario losses would be reduced by 2% while under the wedge-wire scenario losses would be increased by 5%. Cumulatively, losses under the no build scenario attributable to all facilities are 2,428 lbs. The cumulative losses are 1844 lbs. for the proposed IFCS scenario. Thus, for winter flounder, the best scenario for reducing overall losses, both from Ravenswood and from a combined plant perspective, is the proposed IFCS alternative.

Overall, these direct entrainment and impingement losses represent a very small fraction of the southern New England-Middle Atlantic winter flounder stock. Stock biomass (age 1+) was 85 million lbs. in 1981. Since then, the stock gradually declined to a record low of 18.7 million lbs. in 1992 (NOAA 2000). Strong year classes in 1992 and 1994 have helped rebuild the stock to 39.7 million lbs. in 1996. Combined recreational and commercial landings were 6.2 million lbs. in 1994 and have increased to 7.3 million lbs. in 1995-1996. During 1998, combined commercial and recreational landings in New York were 866,912 lbs., and for the Atlantic were 11,504,839 lbs. (NMFS 2000). Losses from all East River power plants ("No Build") represent less than 0.006% of the southern New England-Middle Atlantic stock in 1996 and 0.02% of the 1998 Atlantic commercial and recreational catch. In New York, the cumulative losses ("No Build") represent 0.28% of the combined commercial and recreational catch during 1998. These losses are too small to play an important role in the management plans of the New England- Middle Atlantic winter flounder population or in the continued maintenance of the New England-Middle Atlantic stock.

The economic value of the winter flounder losses at Ravenswood ranges from $993 annually for the IFCS scenario to $1,291 annually for the "Wedge-wire" scenario.

8.5.2 Conclusions

Overall, entrainment and impingement losses at Ravenswood are notably low. As evidence, under the "No Build" scenario, annual losses of equivalent adults are under 100 lbs for 11 of the 16 species. Losses for three species, Atlantic silverside, Atlantic tomcod, and cunner, are less than 5 lbs annually. Only blueback herring, blue crab, fourbeard rockling, grubby and winter

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-88 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

flounder exceed 100 lbs per year. Of these, fourbeard rockling and grubby are locally and regionally abundant species with no commercial or recreational fishery.

All East River plants, but particularly Ravenswood, appear to have much lower entrainment and impingement loss rates than other nearby facilities. As evident in the following table, Ravenswood has the lowest entrainment and impingement loss rate among the lower Hudson River basin facilities examined in this report:

Comparison of Entrainment and Impingement Rates at Lower Hudson River Basin Water Intakes Loss (lbs/106 m-5) Facility "No Build" "Build" Ravenswood 4.39 4.18 Astoria 58.09 56.44 Poletti 20.24 11.31 East River 39.41 36.26 Arthur Kill 161.28 156.17 World Trade Center 16.98 16.98

Although some of the difference apparent in the above table may be due to year-to-year differences in data sets used to estimate abundance, two additional factors likely play an important role in the low Ravenswood numbers. The East River, particularly near Ravenswood, is a tidal strait with strong currents and scoured bottom. There is minimal shoreline habitat, littoral zone, or submerged aquatic vegetation. This is an area of low natural production. Some of the species that do occur in relatively high numbers, such as Northern pipefish, Atlantic silverside, and bay anchovy, are probably from Long Island Sound populations and are transported into the vicinity of Ravenswood by the strong tidal currents.

The losses at Ravenswood, both under the "Build" and "No Build" scenarios represent only a small portion of the fish and crab stocks in the area. Population or landings data are not available for many of the species assessed in this report, but judging from the information that is available, losses attributable to Ravenswood (or for all East River facilities) represent much less than 1% of the available stocks. For example:

• American shad losses at Ravenswood represent less than 0.0005% of the fall Hudson River stock

• Atlantic herring losses at all facilities under the "No Build" scenario represent 0.06% of the commercial fishery landings. "Build" losses are 0.05% of the landing. Currently the Atlantic herring population is under exploited and the stock increasing in size.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-89 Article X Application KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility

. Atlantic silverside losses from all East River facilities represent 0.02% of the New York bait landings.

. Atlantic tomcod equivalent age 1+ losses at Ravenswood represent less than 0.001% of the fall juvenile population in the Hudson River. For all East River facilities combined, losses represent less than 0.05% of the fall stock.

. Blue crab losses from all facilities represent less than 0.06% of the New York State commercial landings

. Striped bass losses from all facilities represent 0.03% of New York State commercial landings

. Winter flounder losses at all East River facilities represent 0.28% of the New York State commercial and recreational landings.

None of these percentages are great enough to have any biologically meaningful influence on the stocks of concern. In fact, percentages of these magnitude are much too small to measure in real world fisheries management.

At Ravenswood, the most biologically effective method for reducing entrainment and impingement losses is through the IFCS scenario. Total entrainment and impingement losses under the "No Build" scenario is 5,385 lbs annually (expressed as adult equivalents and summed over all species). In rank order, the various scenarios would change the expected loss picture by the following (relative to "No Build"):

Change in Ravenswood Equivalent Adult Losses (lbs.) under Various Alternatives Compared to the "No Build" Alternative Alternative Change (Pounds) Percentage Change IFCS 838.3 15.5% reduction Dry Closed Cycle 299.1 5.6% reduction Wet Closed Cycle 211.2 3.9% reduction Hybrid Closed Cycle 211,2 3.9% reduction Wedge-Wire Screen -467.8 8.7% increase

The IFCS scenario reduces losses 15.5% over the "No Build" scenario and is nearly three times as effective in reducing losses as the Dry Closed Cycle alternative. The Wet and Hybrid Closed Cycle Cooling alternatives were only slightly less effective than the Dry Closed Cycle scenano whereas the "Wedge-Wire" scenario increased losses over the "No Build" case. Because the

Page 8-90 Case 99-F-l 625 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

"IFCS is more effective than the Dry Closed Cycle alternative, IFCS must be considered the best technology available for the Ravenswood cogeneration project.

Even if the IFCS were not the most effective method for reducing biological losses, the cost of the other technologies is wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits. The technology costs are described in Section 16. Table 8.21 shows the economic values associated with the equivalent adult losses at Ravenswood. Total "No Build" losses are valued at $3,580 per year. The economic value of the IFCS loss is $837 per year lower. The difference between the highest (Wedge-Wirfe) and lowest (IFCS) biological values is only $1,057 per year. Differences in costs among the various technologies are far greater than this value. The low economic value of the losses and the small overall dollar difference among them suggests that the overall cost of the technologies should be the primary concern in selecting the appropriate technology for the site.

Based on the above evidence, it is concluded that:

• Overall entrainment and impingement losses at Ravenswood, regardless of scenario, are notably small. This stems largely from the naturally low productivity of this portion of the East River coupled with the high level of anthropogenic habitat degradation.

• Ravenswood has the lowest entrainment and impingement rate per unit flow of any of the East River power plants.

• Entrainment and impingement losses from Ravenswood, as well as from other East River power plants, do not jeopardize the continued propagation of local fish stocks.

• The cost of the practical alternatives is wholly disproportionate to the biological savings.

• Entrainment and impingement losses at Ravenswood are minimized under the IFCS configuration and it is the best technology available for the situation.

8.6 Discharge Effects

This section first presents a species-by-species summary of the effects of the thermal plume. The detailed assessments are found in Appendix 8C. Based on these results, it is concluded that the proposed IFCS will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish,fish and wildlife in an on the East River in the vicinity of the project. Support for this conclusion is provided in Section 8.6.2.

8.6.1 Assessment Results

Case 99-F-1625 Pa8e 8-91 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

a. American shad

American shad is a common east coast member of the herring family. Like striped bass, it is anadromous, spending most of its life in marine coastal waters. While at sea, it makes extensive seasonal migrations along the coast. Spawning takes place in freshwaters with most major east coast rivers supporting discrete stocks. In the Hudson River, spawning takes place dunng May and June, primarily from Esopus Meadows (RM 90) to the Troy Dam (KM 150) where they are prevented from further upstream movement. As the young develop, YSL, PYSL and YOY move progressively downstream and, by late fall to early winter, they reach the high salinity waters of the lower estuary and nearshore coastal waters. YOY shad may pass through the East River during this downstream migration via the Harlem River. Overwintering yearlings may also briefly enter the East River from the New York Harbor area prior to moving to the ocean. There is no evidence that American shad spawn in the East River. It is, therefore, unlikely that the project area is critical to the growth, reproduction, or survival of American shad.

The East River primarily functions as a pathway for American shad migrating from the Atlantic Ocean into the Hudson River to spawn and emigrating as juveniles back down into the ocean. Therefore, the potential for blockage of migratory pathways exists. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

. During their peak abundance period, adult and yearling American shad will not avoid even the highest temperatures in the plume.

. Juveniles will only avoid the higher temperatures in the plume that will occupy a maximum of only 21% of the cross-sectional area of the east channel of the East River.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways.

American shad eggs and larvae will not be adversely affected by the plume because these life stages are not known to occur in the East River.

Since young-of-year (YOY) American shad have been collected in the East River during the winter, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) could occur. The potential for cold shock occurs when a power plant shuts down rapidly and the rate of temperature decrease is greater than the fish can tolerate. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish can tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem for American shad at Ravenswood for several reasons:

P 8 92 Case99.F-1625 ^ - KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• The dynamic nature of the plume leads to rapid mixing such that the higher temperatures exist only in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. American shad are highly pelagic, and the East River currents are so strong that they exceed critical swimming speeds of American shad for the majority of the tidal cycle. Therefore, American shad are not able to remain in the warmer isotherms closer to the outfall for sufficient periods of time to acclimate to these higher temperatures.

• American shad are a transient species in the East River. Because they utilize the channel as a migratory pathway from the ocean to the upper Hudson River and back, they are not expected to be present in the East River for a sufficient duration to become acclimated to any temperature.

• Based on the limited cold shock data that is available, even if American shad became acclimated to the lower temperatures within the plume, they would not be adversely affected by cold shock.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so small that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradients is close (within 20 m) to the outfall and relatively small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to American shad. h. Atlantic silverside

Atlantic silverside is a small, pelagic species typically found in near shore shallows, often in large schools. In winter, they tend to move offshore. Atlantic silverside are widely distributed and abundant throughout their range. Spawning occurs in shallow areas of fringing salt marsh habitat near open water. Because of the extensive bulkhead development in the lower East River and the lack of saltmarsh habitat, the project area is not used as a spawning or nursery area. Age 0+, particularly from the upper East River and Long Island Sound, are undoubtedly swept through the project area and end-up in the New York harbor and Atlantic Ocean. The project area is not a critical or important area with respect to the growth, survival or reproduction of this species.

The East River primarily functions as a migratory pathway for Atlantic silversides. Therefore, the potential for blockage of migratory pathways exists. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-93 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• During their peak abundance period, adult Atlantic silverside will only avoid the higher temperatures in the plume that will occupy a maximum of only 1% of the cross-sectional area of the east channel of the East River.

• Juveniles will avoid temperatures that will occupy a maximum of only 21% of the cross- sectional area of the east channel.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways.

Atlantic silverside eggs and larvae are not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects.

Since young-of-year (YOY) and adult Atlantic silversides are present in the East River during the winter, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) could be a potential problem. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish can tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem for Atlantic sijversides at Ravenswood for several reasons:

• The dynamic nature of the plume leads to rapid mixing such that the higher temperatures of the plume exist only right near the outfall. Atlantic silversides are highly pelagic, and the East River currents are so strong that they exceed critical swimming speeds of Atlantic silversides for the majority of the tidal cycle. Therefore, Atlantic silversides are not able to remain in the wanner isotherms closer to the outfall for sufficient periods of time to acclimate to these higher temperatures.

• Although only one data point (at an acclimation temperature of 680F, corresponding to the months of July and October) was available for the effects of cold shock to Atlantic silversides, the difference between the acclimation temperature and the point at which mortality was observed was very large. This indicates that Atlantic silversides are probably not very sensitive to cold shock.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to Atlantic tomcod.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-94 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

c. Atlantic tomcod

The Hudson River population of Atlantic tomcod represents the southernmost major breeding population. Here, spawning appears to be confined almost exclusively to the Hudson River from Saugerties to West Point. (There is no evidence of spawning in the East River). As the hatchlings develop, they move progressively downstream. By the PYSL and YOY stage, a small proportion of the young may pass through the Harlem River into the lower East River. (Eggs and YSL are generally not collected in the East River or Long Island Sound). While some young tomcod may take up residency in the East River, young are probably continually recruited throughout the year from the Hudson River and New York Harbor. Based on this life history pattern, the East River is not a critical spawning area and is likely not an important nursery area.

The East River probably functions primarily as a migratory corridor between the New York Harbor/Atlantic Ocean and the Hudson River estuary, where Atlantic tomcod are known to spawn. Given this function, the potential for blockage of migratory routes is possible. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

• Atlantic tomcod are demersal, while the plume is mostly at the surface.

• The maximum plume temperature that will contact the bottom of the east channel of the East River is below the lowest avoidance temperatures for juvenile and adult Atlantic tomcod during their peak abundance periods.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways.

Atlantic tomcod eggs and yolk-sac larvae (YSL) will not be adversely affected by the thermal plume because these life stages are not known to occur in the East River. Post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) are also not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects.

Since peak abundance of young-of-year Atlantic tomcod occurs from September through November, and some adults are also known to be present in the East River in the winter, the potential for cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) exists. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem at Ravenswood for several reasons:

• Atlantic tomcod are highly demersal, and the plume will not contact the bottom of the east channel for a sufficient duration to allow benthic/demersal organisms to become acclimated to it.

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-95 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so small that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradients is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities.

d. Bay anchovy

Bay anchovy is a marine and estuarine species widely distributed along the Atlantic coast. Adults prefer open water habitats of moderate to high salinity where they feed by selectively filtering planktonic organisms from the water column. They are relatively weak swimmers, frequently traveling in large schools. Nutrient rich inputs from the several sewage treatment plants likely result in relatively large standing crops of forage species and make the location a suitable feeding ground. The high current velocities and lack of natural shoreline habitats, however, would make it difficult for bay anchovy maintain residency in the lower East River for extended periods of time. Adults would be transported from Long Island Sound and the upper East River through the project area and out into New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean within a very short period of time. Adult bay anchovy seek high salinity areas such as Long Island Sound for spawning. Eggs, YSL, PYSL and YOY are highly pelagic and are easily transported through the lower East River. Some spawning may take place in the lower East River, but it seems likely, based on NOAA ichthyoplankton surveys, that the majority of spawning occurs in the upper East River, Long Island Sound and the nearshore coastal waters. It is likely, therefore, that the project area is not critical for the spawning, growth, or reproduction of bay anchovy.

The East River could potentially function as a migratory pathway for bay anchovy in the spring. Therefore, the potential for blockage of migratory pathways exists. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

• Adult and juvenile bay anchovy will avoid only the higher temperatures in the plume.

• The higher temperatures that may be avoided will occupy a maximum of only 21% and 7% (for adults and juveniles, respectively) of the cross-sectional area of the east channel of the East River.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways

Bay anchovy eggs and larvae are not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-96 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Bay anchovy tend to migrate off-shore in warmer coastal waters during the winter and are therefore not expected to be present in large numbers during the winter. Consequently, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) is not expected to be a significant problem. Nevertheless, some bay anchovy have been found in the East River during the winter; therefore, a small number of bay anchovy could be present in the East River for long enough to become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish can tolerate.

• The dynamic nature of the plume leads to rapid mixing such that the higher plume temperatures exist only right near the outfall. Bay anchovy are highly pelagic, and the East River currents are so strong that they exceed critical swimming speeds of bay anchovy for the majority of the tidal cycle. Therefore, bay anchovy are not able to remain in the warmer isotherms closer to the outfall for sufficient periods of time to acclimate to them.

• Lethal cold shock temperatures for juvenile and adult bay anchovy acclimated to the lower temperatures in the plume, fall well below ambient temperatures in the East River during the peak abundance periods for these life stages.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so small that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradients (within 20 m of the outfall) is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

• As stated above, bay anchovy are not expected to be present in the East River in large numbers during the winter season, when cold shock is of most concern.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to bay anchovy. e. Blue crab

Blue crab is a decapod crustacean typically found in marine and brackish waters. Its life cycle is rather complex, undergoing several distinct stages of development. Mating occurs in the summer months in the fresher waters of estuaries. After mating, the females move downriver to higher salinity areas of estuaries, sounds and nearshore coastal areas where they overwinter buried in the mud. The female carries the eggs until they hatch the following spring. The zoeal stage is quickly flushed out to the ocean where they develop for several months while undergoing transformation to the megalope stage. By using selective tidal-stream transport, the megalops stage migrates upstream to near-freshwater areas heavily vegetated with Vallisneria and Potamogeton, where they metamorphose to the first crab stage. Young crabs make their way

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-97 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

downstream to higher salinity waters over the next several months. The high salinities and lack of vegetation precludes the project area from being an important nursery area for blue crabs. The lack of a soft, muddy bottom also precludes it from being an important overwintering site. The East River likely serves mostly as a dispersal corridor from the Hudson River, Long Island Sound and New York Harbor areas.

The East River probably functions as year-round habitat for blue crabs and as a potential migratory pathway. Given this function, the potential for habitat exclusion and blockage of migratory pathways exists. This is unlikely, however, because blue crab are a benthic species, and the highest plume temperatures that will contact the bottom of the east channel of the East River are well below the estimated avoidance temperatures for blue crabs during their peak abundance period.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways or result in significant habitat exclusion for blue crabs.

The early life stages of blue crabs (eggs, zoael, and megalope) will not be adversely affected by the plume because these life stages are not known to occur in the East River.

Since blue crabs overwinter by burrowing into the mud, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) is not expected to be a substantial problem during the winter. Nevertheless, in the late fall or early spring, if blue crab were to emerge from the mud, there is a very slight chance that they could become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than blue crabs can tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem at Ravenswood for several reasons:

• As mentioned above, blue crabs overwinter by burrowing into the mud. Therefore, during the winter months, they are not expected to be exposed to the thermal plume.

• Blue crabs are benthic organisms,.and the plume will not contact the bottom of the east channel for a long enough duration to allow benthic/demersal organisms to become acclimated to it.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that blue crabs would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-98 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• Even if blue crabs become acclimated to the highest temperature within the plume that touches the bottom of the east channel in the winter (which is highly unlikely), they would not be adversely affected by a sudden return to ambient temperatures due to a plant shut down.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to blue crab. f. Fourbeard reckling

The fourbeard rockling is a benthic, marine species that moves into the nearshore waters during the warmer months to spawn. The young are pelagic, quickly disbursing widely throughout the offshore coastal region. While the fourbeard rockling may use the East River for spawning, the project area does not appear to be critical for population maintenance. This species is widely distributed, common, and not subject to any degree of commercial or recreational exploitation.

For fourbeard rockling, the East River probably functions primarily as a spawning area. Given this function, the potential for exclusion of spawning habitat exists. This is unlikely, however, because the highest plume temperatures that will contact the bottom of the east channel are well below the estimated avoidance temperatures for fourbeard rockling during their peak abundance period. Consequently, the project will not result in exclusion of spawning habitat.

Fourbeard rockling eggs are not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects. Fourbeard rockling larvae will also not be adversely affected by the plume because these life stages are not known to occur in the East River.

Because yearlings and adults are present in the East River in the winter and early spring. Cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) could be a potential problem. Theoretically, fourbeard rockling could become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish could tolerate.

• Fourbeard rockling are highly demersal, and the plume will not contact the bottom of the east channel for a long enough duration to allow benthic/demersal organisms to become acclimated to it.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradients close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-99 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to four beard reckling.

g. Grubby

The grubby is a small, benthic species commonly found in the nearshore regions of the Atlantic coast. The species can use a wide variety of substrates for spawning. Eggs are adhesive and may be deposited directly on the bottom or on plants, rocks, or other objects. While grubby appear to spawn in the project area and use the lower East River as a nursery area, the region does not appear to be critical to the maintenance of the population. This species, like fourbeard rockling, is widely distributed, common, and not subject to any degree of commercial or recreational exploitation.

The East River functions as habitat for all life stages of grubby. Given this function, the potential for habitat exclusion exists. This is unlikely, however, because the highest plume temperatures that will contact the bottom of the east channel are well below the estimated avoidance temperatures for grubby during their peak abundance period.

Therefore, the project will not exclude habitat for the grubby.

Grubby eggs and larvae are not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects.

Because yearlings and adults are present in relatively high numbers in the East River in the winter, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) could occur. Theoretically, grubby could become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood Were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish could tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem at Ravenswood for grubby for several reasons:

• Grubby are highly demersal, and the plume will not contact the bottom of the east channel for a long enough duration to allow benthic/demersal organisms to become acclimated to it.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-100 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to grubby. h. Striped bass

Striped bass is a common species found along the East coast of North America. It is anadromous, spending most of its life in marine coastal waters but moving into freshwater to spawn. Discrete stocks of striped bass are found in most of the major rivers of the northeastern seaboard. In the Hudson River, spawning occurs during May and June, primarily from the Croton-Haverstraw vicinity (RM 34) to Kingston (RM 90). After hatching, larvae move progressively down river and, typically by winter, move into the high salinity areas of the estuary and coastal waters. Some YOY may find their way into the East River from the Harlem River during the downstream migration or from the New York Harbor region prior to moving seaward. The lower East River is not a major nursery area and it is unlikely that striped bass reside there for any length of time. There is no evidence that striped bass spawn in the East River. The East River cannot be considered essential to the growth, reproduction or survival of striped bass.

The East River probably functions primarily as a corridor for striped bass to migrate between the New York Harbor/Atlantic Ocean and the upper Hudson River to spawn. Given this function, the potential for blockage of migratory routes exists. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

• Juvenile and yearling striped bass will only avoid the higher temperatures in the plume.

• At these temperatures, the plume will occupy a maximum of only 21% of the cross- sectional area of the east channel of the East River.

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways.

Striped bass eggs and larvae will not be adversely affected by the plume because these life stages do not typically occur in the East River.

Because striped bass predominantly occur in the East River during the winter, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) the potential exists. Theoretically, striped bass could become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish could tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem at Ravenswood for striped bass for several reasons:

• The dynamic nature of the plume leads to rapid mixing such that the higher temperatures of the plume exist only right near the outfall. Striped bass are highly pelagic, and the

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-101 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

East River currents are so strong that they exceed critical swimming speeds of striped bass for the majority of the tidal cycle. Therefore, striped bass are not able to remain in the warmer isotherms closer to the outfall for sufficient periods of time to acclimate to these higher temperatures.

• Although unlikely, it is possible striped bass could become acclimated to the lower temperatures within the plume. Even if acclimated to these lower temperatures, striped bass would not be adversely affected by a sudden return to ambient temperatures due to a plant shut down.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradients close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to striped bass. i. Winter flounder

Winter flounder prefer sand and mud substrates for feeding, for spawning, and for shelter. Both juvenile and adult winter flounder frequently burrow into the mud or sand, leaving only their eyes exposed. East River substrates, due to high current velocities, are primarily hard or rocky. It is likely, therefore, that the project area is not optimal habitat for winter flounder and it is unlikely that the area is critical to survival, reproduction, or growth. Although eggs, YSL, PYSL, and YOY winter flounder are found in the East River, current velocities in the River and lack of natural shore-line habitat make it unlikely that the project area is an important nursery area. Most reproduction in the area most likely takes place in the upper reaches of the East River and Long Island Sound. Eggs and larvae are probably swept through the project area and ultimately end-up in New York harbor and, subsequently, in the Atlantic Ocean. Residency time for eggs and larvae in the project area is likely very short.

The East River probably functions primarily as a dispersal corridor between Long Island Sound and New York Harbor/Atlantic Ocean. Given this function, the potential for blockage of migratory routes exists. This is unlikely, however, for the following reasons:

• Winter flounder are demersal, while the plume is mostly at the surface.

• The maximum plume temperature that will contact the bottom of the east channel of the East River is below the avoidance temperatures for juvenile and adult winter flounder during their peak abundance periods.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-102 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Therefore, the project will not block migratory pathways.

Winter flounder eggs and larvae are not expected to be adversely affected by the plume because they will not be entrapped in the plume for a sufficient duration and temperature that would cause lethal effects.

Because winter flounder are predominantly a "winter" occurrence species, cold shock (mortality resulting from rapid temperature decrease) could be a potential problem. Theoretically, winter flounder could become acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures during cold periods. If Ravenswood were to shut down rapidly, the rate of temperature decrease could be greater than the fish could tolerate. It is not anticipated that cold shock will be a problem at Ravenswood for several reasons:

• Winter flounder are highly demersal, and the plume will not contact the bottom of the east channel for a long enough duration to allow benthic/demersal organisms to become acclimated to it.

• Temperature gradients far from the outfall (the majority of the area of the plume) are so slight that fish would need to rely on chance encounters very close to the outfall to locate the heated effluent. Because the area of detectable gradient close (within 20 m) to the outfall is so small, it is unlikely that many would make such an encounter.

• Even if winter flounder become acclimated to the highest temperature within the plume that touches the bottom in the winter (which is highly unlikely), they would not be adversely affected by a sudden return to ambient temperatures due to a plant shut down.

Therefore, the project will not result in cold shock mortalities to winter flounder.

8.6.2 Conclusions

For the purpose of evaluating discharge effects, design flows were used. Under normal plant operating conditions plant flows will be less than design. Even under these conservative conditions the plume dilutes rapidly, and volume, cross-sectional area, and surface area occupied by the plume are small when compared to the area and volume available and needed by the species using the area. The species -by-species analysis presented above for the RIS demonstrates the lack of impact in the following six areas set forth in Section 8.4.1:

• No adverse population impact due to habitat exclusion

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-103 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• No barrier to migratory pathways

• No adverse population impact on reproduction, growth, and survival

• No adverse population impact due to cold shock

• No adverse population impact on threatened and endangered species (See Section 8.8)

• No adverse population impact due to interaction of the plume with other pollutants.

Based on the demonstration of no impact in any of the above areas, for any of the RIS, it is concluded that both the present Ravenswood facility and the proposed IFCS assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in an on the East River in the vicinity of the project and as a result they comply with Section 316(a).

8.7 Habitat Effects

Potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) include changes in physical or chemical properties of the water column. Water quality impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed project would most likely be limited to changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) or salinity. Aquatic species have preferred ranges for each of these water quality parameters. Values beyond those ranges may reduce the species' ability to function and may cause death (lethal limit). Project related impacts on temperature are discussed in section 8.5.3.

In the past, low levels of DO have been a persistent problem in the East River. Levels below 4 mg/1 occurred regularly during the summer months. Since the shift to secondary treatment at the STPs, East River DO levels have generally remained above the water quality standard of 4 mg/1, a value sufficient to support fish life. Even if DO levels are low in the project area, power plant operation would have little influence. A study by LMS (1995) found that the effect of all East River power plants combined was to reduce DO levels by 0.02 to 0.04 mg/L. Therefore, the project will not have a biologically meaningful effect on DO levels in the East River. See Section 7 for additional discussions of DO.

The East River is a highly industrialized urban river with heavy boat traffic. As such, it carries high levels of chemical wastes, petroleum hydrocarbons, organic nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals. Generally, as temperatures increase so does the toxic potential of these pollutants. Because the project has a very limited effect on water temperature, it is expected that there will be no increase in the acute or chronic effect of the existing pollutants.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-104 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

The project, as described, requires no dredging or other aquatic construction. Therefore, there will be no direct loss of habitat or habitat disturbance. Even if the project were to require such river-side work, it would have little to no lasting harm to fish habitat, for the following reasons:

• No beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) would be destroyed as there are virtually no such beds in the project area. Currents in the area are too swift and the shorelines too developed to encourage SAV growth. SAV beds are not important trophic linkages in the project area.

• Due to the nature of the substrate, construction activities should produce relatively little silt. Any silt escaping containment precautions would be quickly diluted and dispersed by the currents.

Overall use of the East River as EFH, and the potential for impact on this EFH by the proposed project are discussed below.

a. Early Life Stages

There are several species for which EFH has been defined for early life stages (i.e., eggs, yolk- sac and post-yolk sac larvae, YOY). Although zooplankton collections were included in several studies conducted in the East River, none indicated the presence of early life stage fish (LMS 1980, Hazen and Sawyer 1981). No ichthyoplankton-specific studies are known to have been conducted in the East River. However, data collected during impingement and entrainment monitoring programs conducted at Astoria Generating Station and Ravenswood Generating Station indicate that for several species it is unlikely that early life stages are present in the East River. The species for which no early life stages were collected include bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, scup, black sea bass, and American plaice. These species tend to be offshore spawners. It is therefore unlikely that the East River is essential habitat for the early life stages of these species.

The early life stages of six EFH species were entrained, however many were in very low abundance. Entrainment of the early life stages of red hake and Atlantic herring was less than 1% of the estimated total for those life stages entrained. It may be inferred from these results that the early life stages of these species are not abundant in the East River. Further, the value of the East River as EFH for these life stages is probably low; therefore no impact is expected on EFH for the early life stages of red hake and Atlantic herring.

Entrainment of early life stages of windowpane flounder, butterfish, and summer flounder was also proportionately low, but was somewhat higher than for red hake and Atlantic herring. The early life stages of these species entrained during the monitoring studies varied, but were

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-105 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

generally less than 4% of the estimated total (See Section 8.3.2). Although the East River falls within the area designated as EFH for spawning adult windowpane flounder, the majority of bottom habitat in the East River is not the preferred habitat for adults. Windowpane flounder prefer sand and mud substrates for feeding, spawning, and for shelter. East River substrates are primarily hard or rocky. Therefore it is unlikely that windowpane flounder spawn in the project area. Summer flounder larvae and juveniles, and windowpane flounder juveniles also prefer sandy substrates. The presence of early life stages of these species is probably indicative of reproductive activities in the upper reaches of the East River and Long Island Sound, with the subsequent transport of eggs and larvae through the lower East River to New York Harbor. Residency time for eggs and larvae in the project area is likely very short. As a result, it may be inferred that the value of the East River as EFH for these life stages is low. No impact is expected on EFH for the early life stages of windowpane flounder, butterfish and summer flounder as a result of the proposed project.

Table 8.24: Life Stages Entrained During Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Astoria and Ravenswood Generating Stations

Common Name Egg Yolk-sac larvae Post yolk-sac larvae YOY Red hake - A Windowpane flounder R - A,R R Atlantic herring - - A.R Blueflsh - - Butterfish - - A.R R Atlantic mackerel - - Summer flounder A.R - A.R R Scup - - Black sea bass - - American plaice - - Winter flounder AJl R AJl A,R A - Astoria Generating Station R - Ravenswood Generating Station b. Adults

Several fisheries studies were conducted in the Upper and Lower East River during the mid- to late-1980s (see Section 8.2.4). All of the species for which EFH has been designated in the Hudson-Raritan estuary and western Long Island Sound were collected, with the exception of Atlantic mackerel and American plaice. Winter flounder was consistently the most abundant of the EFH species collected, often accounting for over 50% of the fish collected. The remaining EFH species; red hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic herring, bluefish, butterfish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass were consistently the least abundant. These species accounted for 1% or less of the fish collected during bottom trawl surveys.

The results of impingement monitoring studies carried out at Astoria and Ravenswood Generating stations were similar to those of the bottom trawl surveys, with few exceptions.

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-106 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

American plaice was the only EFH species that was not collected during the impingement studies. This, along with their absence in bottom trawl and entrainment studies, is strong indication that American plaice do no use the East River and that EFH for the adult life stage of this species will not be impacted by the proposed project. Red hake were impinged at Astoria (less than 1%), but not at Ravenswood. This together with the low abundance of this species in bottom trawl surveys indicates that adult red hake do not use the East River as essential habitat. It can therefore be inferred that the proposed project will not affect EFH designated for the adults of this species. The final exception is Atlantic herring. Data from the Astoria impingement study indicated that Atlantic herring accounted for 80.5% of the estimated total fish impinged. In contrast, this species only represented less than 1% (LMS 1993) and less than 5% (Normandeau 1994a) of the estimated species impinged at Ravenswood. Based on relative abundance during Ravenswood impingement studies, and the very low abundance of this species in bottom trawl surveys, it can be concluded that the East River is not essential habitat to Atlantic herring. It is probable that the species uses the waters of the Long Island Sound and New York Harbor for important biological processes (e.g., spawning, nursery habitat). Therefore it can be inferred that the proposed project will not impact EFH designated for the adult life stage of this species.

Several of the EFH species collected during the Astoria and Ravenswood impingement studies were less than 1% of the total estimated fish impinged during the two studies. These species include: windowpane flounder, bluefish, butterfish, Atlantic mackerel, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. When this is considered with the results of the bottom trawl surveys, it appears likely that the use of Long Island Sound and New York Harbor waters as essential habitat by these species overshadows the use of the East River. Thus, it may be inferred that EFH designated for the adult life stage of these species will not be impacted by the proposed project.

8.8 Threatened or Endangered Species

Two groups of Threatened or Endangered Species may have a remote, but possible, involvement with the Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility: Sea turtles-Kemp's Ridley, green, leatherback, and loggerhead-and sturgeon. Both groups are discussed below.

8.8.1 Sea Turtles

Sea turtles are southern species that occur rarely in the New York and southern New England region. When they do occur, it is generally only during the summer and fall. Sea turtles may occur in greater numbers during periods of warm water temperature, but at no time are they common in the area. In fact, it has been difficult to verify their presence at all in the New York area. Several studies that might have expected to encounter them, have not. Individuals that have

Case99-F-1625 Page 8-107 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

been found in New York waters are typically moribund adults. It is thought that the adults disperse during the spring and follow the warming water northward. In the fall, individuals failing to move south to warmer water may succumb to hypothermia in the rapidly declining water temperatures.

Due to their southerly range, warm temperature requirements, low abundance and preference for oceanic waters it is unlikely that sea turtles would ever occur in the East River or the vicinity of the proposed facility. Even if this did occur, however, it is unlikely that the Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility would be detrimental to them. Healthy adult sea turtles are too large to be entrained or impinged. Additionally, because of the rapid dilution and the resulting small area of detectable thermal gradients, coupled with the strong tidal current of the East River the turtles would have difficulty locating and staying in the thermal discharge plume. Thus, no thermal effects are expected.

8.8.2 Sturgeon

Shortnose sturgeon is an uncommon inhabitant of the Hudson River that could find its way into the East River. Normally, this species is found well up the Hudson River. Most spawning occurs between Croton Point (RM 35) and Hyde Park (RM 81). Adults may make occasional forays into the lower Hudson River and into the East River. Shortnose sturgeon are large, reaching a maximum size of about 3.5 ft. Healthy fish of this size are not entrained or impinged. The closely related Atlantic sturgeon, while not officially listed as Threatened or Endangered, has become of concern over the last several years. Populations of Atlantic sturgeon have been rapidly declining. The small cross-sectional area of the thermal plume coupled with the fact that sturgeon are demersal while the plume is mostly at the surface assures that migratory patterns will not be disrupted. Atlantic sturgeon prefer higher salinity waters than do shortnose sturgeon and are, therefore, more likely to be found in the East River than shortnose sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon, however, are considerably larger, reaching a maximum of nearly 14 ft. Healthy fish of this size are not entrained or impinged. The small cross-sectional area of the thermal plume coupled with the fact that sturgeon are demersal while the plume is mostly at the surface assures that migratory patterns will not be disrupted.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-108 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

8.9 References

Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison, J.C. Stevenson, L. Staver, V. Carter, N. Rybicki, R.E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber, P. Heasley, and P. Bergstrom. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration goals: A technical synthesis. Cited in NYSDEC. 1999. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey. August 1999.

Cloem, J.E. 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in south San Francisco Bay?. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). 1996. Arthur Kill Generating Station Diagnostic Study and Post-Impingement Viability Substudy Report.

Cushing, D.H. 1959. The seasonal variation in oceanic production as a problem in population dynamics. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp. Deegan, L. and J.W. Day. 1985. Estuarine fish habitat requirements. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley «& Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Eppley, R.W. 1972. Temperature and phytoplankton growth in the sea. Fish. Bull. 70:1063- 1085. Falkowski, P.O. 1980. Light-shade adaptation in marine phytoplankton. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Hazen and Sawyer Engineers. 1981. Newtown Creek water pollution control plant. Final Report Monitoring Program. May - October, 1980.

Heinle, D.R. and D. Flemer. 1975. Carbon requirements of a population of the estuarine copepod Eurytemora affinis. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-109 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Heinle, D.R., R.P. Harris, J.F. Ustach, and D.A. Flemer. 1976. Detritus as food for estuarine copepods. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Hurley, L.M. 1991. Submerged aquatic vegetation. Pages 2-1 to 2-19 In Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources. 1991. S.L. Funderburk, J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley (eds.). Prepared for Living Resources Subcommittee. Chesapeake Bay Program.

Kemp, W., W. Boynton, R. Twilley, J. Court Stevenson, and L. Ward. 1984. Influences of submersed vascular plants on ecological processes in upper Chesapeake Bay. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1980. Biological and water quality data collected in the Hudson River near the proposed Westway Project during 1979-1980. Vols. I and II. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1983. 1982-1983 Westway winter sampling program. Volume I - Trawl Data. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation. July 1983.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1986. 1985-1986 Hunters Point aquatic program. Fourth quarterly progress report and annual summary (draft). Prepared for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1989. Halleck Street. Environmental studies for the proposed floating detention facility. Prepared for the City of New York Department of Corrections. December 1989.

Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1993. Ravenswood Impingement and Entrainment Report, September 1991 - September 1992. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York, NY.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1994. Astoria impingement and entrainment studies. January 1993 - December 1993. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. May 1994.

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-110 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1995. Power plant heat load effects on dissolved oxygen in the East River. Final Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Co. May 1995.

Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 2000. Astoria Generating Station Final Action Plan. Prepared for Astoria Generating Company, LP, Liverpool, NY.

Lerman, M. 1986. Marine biology - environment, diversity, and ecology. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. 534 pp.

Mann, K.H. 1972. Macrophyte production and detritus food chains in coastal waters. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Marra, J. 1978a. Effect of short-term variations in light intensity on photosynthesis of a marine phytoplankter: a laboratory simulation study. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Marra, J. 1978b. Phytoplankton photosynthetic response to vertical movement in a mixed layer. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Marshall, H.G. 1995. Phytoplankton. Pages 25-32 m L.E. Dove nd R.M. Nyman, (eds.). Living resources of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program.

Martin, J.H. 1970. Phytoplankton-zooplankton relationships in Narragansett Bay. IV. The seasonal importance of grazing. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15:413-418.

Meldrim, J.H., J.J. Gift and B.R. Petrosky. 1974. The Effect of Temperature and Chemical Pollutants on the Behavior of Several Estuarine Organisms. Ichthyological Associates, Inc.BulletinNo.il. 129 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division.

New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP). 1992. New York City comprehensive waterfront plan. Reclaiming the city's edge. Summer 1992. NYCDCP 92-27.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-111 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP). 1997. The new waterfront revitalization program. A proposed 197a plan. May 1997. NYC DC? 97-12.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 1998. New York Harbor water quality survey. August 1999.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1999. Descriptive data of municipal wastewater treatment plants in New York State. December 1999. Nichols, F. 1985. Increased benthic grazing: An alternative explanation for low phytoplankton biomass in Northern San Francisco Bay during the 1975-1977 drought. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 21:379-388.

Nixon, S.W. 1981. Remineralization and nutrient cycling in coastal marine ecosystems. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2000. Status of fishery resources off the northeastern United States, http://www.nefsc.mnfs.gov/sos.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (NAI). 1994a. Ravenswood Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Report, February 1993 - January 1994. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York, NY.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (NAI). 1994b. East River Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Report, January - December 1993. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York, NY.

NYNEX. 1993. NYNEX boaters directory. New York/Connecticut edition. NYNEX Information Resources. New York, NY.

Officer, C.B., T.J. Smayda, and R. Mann. 1982. Benthic filter feeding: A natural eutrophication control. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Orth, R.J., R.A. Batiuk, and J.F. Nowak. 1994. Trends in the distribution, abundance, and habitat quality of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries: 1971 to 1991. Cited in NYCDEP. 1999. New York Harbor water quality survey. August 1999.

Case 99-F-l625 Page 8-112 KeySpan Energy - Ravenswood Cogeneration Facility Article X Application

• Oviatt, C.A., S.W. Nixon, K.T. Perez, and B. Bucklay. 1979. On the seasonal nature of perturbations in microcosm experiments. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Parish and Weiner, Inc. 1989. River Walk. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vol. 2. Prepared for The Related Companies. December 1989.

Roman, M.R. 1984. Utilization of detritus by the copepod, Acartia tonsa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29(5):949-959.

Sibert, J.R., T.J. Brown, M.C. Healey, B.A. Kas, and R.J. Naiman. 1978. Detritus-based food webs: Exploitation by juvenile chum salmon {Oncorhyncus ketd). Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Steeman-Nielsen, E. 1958. The balance between phytoplankton and zooplankton in the sea. Cited in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Sutcliffe, W.H., Jr. 1973. Correlations between seasnal river discharge and local landings of Amiercan lobster (Homarus americanus) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Cite in Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 558 pp.

#

Case 99-F-1625 Page 8-113