APPENDIX 9.1 ENTRAINMENT

Transcription

1 APPENDIX 9.1 ENTRAINMENT

2 Appendix 9.1 Entrainment Effects of the Proposed United Water Treatment Plant A. INTRODUCTION As a consequence of withdrawing Hudson River water through the intake, small aquatic organisms largely zooplankton, eggs, and larval fish entrained in the water withdrawn would be removed and lost. In an effort to minimize the loss of these organisms, it is proposed that the facility s pumping station be equipped with a cylindrical wedge-wire screen. The 15 inch long by 4.5 inch diameter screen is designed to limit through-screen velocities to 0.5 fps with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps. The screen assembly would be oriented longitudinally parallel to the river flow. The vertical spacing of the wire mesh screening would be 2 mm. Due to the small screen mesh size, only organisms with a minimum body dimension of less than 2 mm would be entrained into the facility. The low approach and through-screen velocities, coupled with the relatively high cross currents sweeping across the screen face, will make it unlikely that any organisms would become trapped (impinged) on the screen face. This analysis examined the number of fish potentially lost at the facility under a constant 10 MGD 24 hours a day water withdrawal scenario. This scenario is conservative because it assumes 10 MGD withdrawal throughout the year. Actual operations may require lower withdrawals during the fall and winter months. Another withdrawal scenario was considered that would have examined a withdrawal of 20 MGD with pumping for 12 hours per day on ebb tides. However, available data from prior Hudson River Sampling programs would not support an evaluation of entrainment over various tidal stages (i.e., tide-specific density data were not available). Consequently, it is not possible to discern differences in density over various phases of the tide. As a result, this withdrawal scenario was not examined. The focus of the analysis is on six key fish taxa common to the Lower Hudson River estuary: bay anchovy, river herring (blueback herring and alewife), American shad, Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, and white perch. Abundance data for these species was drawn from the 1974 to 2006 Hudson River Utilities Longitudinal River Ichthyoplankton Sampling Program (Long River Program) database. In the case of blueback herring and alewife, length-frequency information was not collected as part of the Long River Program. To complete this missing information, length-frequency information was used from a similar sampling program in the Delaware River. For all species, life history parameters and morphometric data were obtained from the scientific literature, particularly USFWS (1978). B. METHODS Two methods were used to assess the effects of entrainment due to the 10 MGD withdrawal described above. The first method used information on life stage specific natural mortality rates and durations to convert the entrainment losses of early life stages into equivalent losses of one-year-old fish for each target species (i.e., equivalent losses). The second expresses the potential losses due to entrainment as a fraction (i.e., conditional mortality rate) of the species population in the Hudson River in the fall of the first year of life. The equivalent losses and conditional mortality rate models are generally accepted methods used in fisheries management and impact assessment for setting acceptable loss levels for specific activities that may adversely affect fish species and determining significance of impacts to fish populations. 1

3 Equivalent losses Early life stages of fish typically have very high natural mortality rates. These rates frequently differ vastly from one stage to the next. As a result, losses of juveniles, with a higher probability of survival to adulthood, are more critical to species populations than are losses of younger life stages such as eggs that suffer much lower rates of survival. This difference in survival probability makes it more difficult to accurately assess and compare the effect to fish populations due to losses across various life stages. To adjust for the influence of the high natural mortality rates among younger life stages, projected numbers of individuals of a particular life stage entrained (i.e., direct losses of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles less than one year old), are converted into units of individual one-year-old fish. This process allows for a straightforward comparison of losses among various life stages and places the losses in a frame of reference more familiar to fisheries managers. Conditional mortality rate (CMR) The second modeling method expresses entrainment losses relative to the size of the source population. This is done by calculating the conditional mortality rate (CMR) (i.e., the fraction of the population lost due to entrainment in the absence of all other sources of mortality). The calculations are conducted using a modification of the Empirical Transport Model (ETM) (Boreman, et al. 1978). As described above, the primary data source for the assessment of entrainment losses was the Hudson River Utilities Longitudinal River Program. The long river survey was designed to collect representative ichthyoplankton data from regions within the Hudson River from the Battery to the Troy Dam (13 regions). Earlier years of the Long River Survey collected data from Yonkers to the Troy Dam (12 regions). The names, locations, and volumes of the regions are shown in Table 1. The proposed pumping station for the water treatment plant is located 1000 feet from the western shore of Haverstraw Bay in the vicinity of the U.S. Gypsum plant and therefore will withdraw water from the Croton-Haverstraw region (River Miles 34-38). Each region of the Long River Survey is further subdivided into sampling strata (shoals, channel and bottom). The shoals consist of waters from the shore to a water depth of 20 feet. Beyond a water depth of 20 feet, the water is divided into a bottom stratum (the lower 10 feet) and a channel stratum (from the water surface to 10 feet from the bottom). DIRECT AND EQUIVALENT ENTRAINMENT LOSSES Direct daily entrainment through the wedge-wire screen was computed by multiplying the intake flow (Q) by the density of organisms (D) in a given life stage and the fraction of organisms that are smaller than the cutoff length (i.e., 2 mm) for the wedge-wire screen. E s,d,sp,l = (Q d *P s )*D s,d,sp,l *f w,sp *E -1 (Equation 1) where E s,d,sp,l = entrainment on day d of species sp for life stage l from stratum s Q d P s = daily intake flow on day d = proportion of the intake flow from stratum s D s,d,sp,l = density of life stage l of species sp in stratum s on day d f w,sp E = the fraction of life stage l of species sp that is entrained during week w = efficiency of ichthyoplankton sampling gear 2

4 The cylindrically shaped wedge-wire screen will be 4.5 feet in diameter and mounted on a riser assembly with the main axis parallel to the river bottom. The axis of the assembly will be approximately 10 feet from the river bottom. Therefore, the screen will be located about 8 to 12 feet from the river bottom. Consequently, the screen is expected to withdraw water only from the bottom and channel strata as defined in the Long River Survey. The entrainment estimates were calculated by withdrawing half of the water from the bottom strata and half from the channel strata (i.e., P bottom = 0.5, P channel = 0.5). The concentration (or density) of a given species and life stage, D s,d,sp,l, is available from the Long River Survey program. This program is conducted weekly from March through November and was designed to provide average densities of life stages within regions and strata over time. The fraction, f w,sp, of a given life stage and species that is entrainable during each week was calculated from weekly cumulative length frequency distributions of each species and the estimated maximum entrainable length. Given the mesh size of the wedge-wire screen (2 mm), the maximum entrainable length for each species was calculated using regression equations relating Total Length (TL) to the β maximum body depth (D) (see Table 2). These equations took the form: D = αtl where α and β are regression coefficients. The equation was then solved for the value of TL yielding a D value of 2.0. It was assumed that any fish above the maximum TL would not be entrained while any fish below this size would be entrained. The f w,sp, values were calculated and applied only to the post yolk sac and juvenile life stages because all eggs and yolk-sac larvae are assumed to be small enough to be entrained through the 2 mm slots. The efficiency of the Long River Sampling Program collection gear, 1-m 2 Tucker Trawl and 1-m 2 Epibenthic Sled, both with 505 micron mesh, has not been thoroughly evaluated. The findings, however, of PSEG (2005) can be used to estimate the sampling efficiency of the Hudson River sampling gear. Considering both net vulnerability and mesh retention, PSEG (2005) reported a maximum gear efficiency of approximately 85% for ichthyoplankton 8 mm in Total Length. Efficiencies decreased from this value at both greater and lesser lengths. For the present analysis, an overall gear efficiency of 70 percent was assumed for all yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae. Gear efficiency values for juveniles are not needed in the present assessment as those individuals are to large to be entrained. As described above, estimates of direct entrainment loss (i.e., numbers entrained of each lifestage) are difficult to interpret in terms of impact. A more meaningful measure of entrainment effects can be calculated by converting the numbers entrained of each life stage to Age 1 Equivalents. These Equivalents represent the number of organisms lost to entrainment which would have survived to become one-year old had they not been entrained. The calculation of Age 1 Equivalents is carried out in the following manner: The number of Age 1 Equivalents due to entrainment of eggs is: EA s,d,sp,e = (E s,d,sp,l )*S e *S ysl * S pysl * S juv (Equation 2) where EA s,d,sp,e = Age 1 Equivalents from entrainment of eggs on day d for species sp E s,d,sp,e S e S ysl = entrainment of eggs of species sp for life stage l from stratum s on day d = survival of eggs from time of entrainment to end of egg life stage = survival of entrained eggs through the yolk-sac larval stage 3

5 S pysl S juv = survival of entrained eggs through the post-yolk-sac larval stage = survival of entrained eggs through the juvenile larval stage The survival of eggs through the egg stage is: S e = exp (-k e *(Δt e dhat e )) (Equation 3) where k e Δt e = daily instantaneous mortality rate of eggs = duration of the egg life stage dhat e = average age of eggs (= [ln(2) ln(1+exp(-k e *Δt e ))]/ k e ) The formulation for dhat results because the amount of time an organism has been in a life stage prior to entrainment is unknown. Therefore, the average age of an organism (age at which half of organisms in life stage are younger and half are older) in a life stage is used. The survivals of entrained eggs through the yolksac and post-yolksac stage are: S ysl = exp (-k ysl *(Δt ysl )) (Equation 4) S pysl = exp (-k pysl *(Δt pysl )) (Equation 5) where k ysl = daily instantaneous mortality rate of yolk-sac larvae k pysl = daily instantaneous mortality rate of post-yolk-sac larvae Δt ysl = duration of the yolk-sac larval life stage Δt pysl = duration of the post-yolk-sac larval life stage The survival of entrained eggs through the juvenile stage is: S juv = exp (-k juv *(Δt juv )) (Equation 6) where k juv = daily instantaneous mortality rate juvenile larvae 4

6 Δt juv = duration of the yolk-sac larval life stage The duration of the juvenile life stage, Δt juv, is variable because it begins when the entrained eggs have passed through the remainder of their life stage, Δt e dhat e, as well as the yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larval stages, Δt ysl + Δt pysl, and ends on a fixed date in the following year, termed the birthdate (bd sp ), when the juveniles become age-1 adults. The equation used to compute the juvenile life stage duration is: Δt juv = (bd sp + 365) (d + (Δt e dhat e ) + Δt ysl + Δt pysl ) (Equation 7) where bd sp = the birthdate for species sp expressed as a Julian date d = the day on which the egg entrainment occurred expressed as a Julian date The total equivalent adults resulting from all egg entrainment of species sp is simply: EA sp,e = EA b,d,sp,e + EA c,d,sp,e, for d from 1 to 365 (Equation 8) The subscripts b and c in the above equation refer to the bottom and channel strata respectively. The equivalent adults resulting from entrainment of other life stages is computed in a similar manner. The total equivalent adults resulting from entrainment of all early life stages of species sp is: EA sp = EA sp,e + EA sp,ysl + EA sp,pysl + EA sp,juv (Equation 9) The values used for the instantaneous mortality rates and stage durations for the species considered are shown in Table 3. CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE In the ETM, relative entrainment is computed by assuming an arbitrary starting population of a species in all regions and applying a distribution or D-factor to determine the relative proportion of a population in the pumping station region. The relative numbers entrained, based on the starting population, are then used to calculate the reduction in the population at the end of the entrainment period and compared to the ending population without any withdrawal to estimate the reduction in the population due to the facility. 5

7 The relative entrainment is calculated for each region on a daily basis as: RE r,d,sp,l = [(Q d *P r )*Dfact r,w,sp,l * Ffact d,sp,l ]*W d,sp,l *f w,sp (Equation 10) where RE s,d,sp,l = relative entrainment on day d of species sp for life stage l from region r Q d P r = daily intake flow on day d = proportion of the intake flow from region r Dfact r,w,sp,l = proportion of life stage l of species sp in region r during week w Ffact d,sp,l = the mortality fraction of entrained organisms of life stage l of species sp during day d W d,w,sp,l f w,sp = ratio of intake density to region density for life stage l of species sp in region r during day d = the fraction of life stage l of species sp that is entrained during week w P r, the proportion of the intake flow from region r, was set to 1 for the Croton-Haverstraw region and 0 for all other regions since all of the intake flow is withdrawn from this region. The D-factor, Dfact r,w,sp,l, is computed internally in the ETM for each life stage and is based on the region volumes and the average regional densities of each life stage and is measured in the long river program. The F-factor, Ffact w,sp,l, represents the fraction of entrained organisms that do not survive the entrainment process. Since the intake withdrawal flow is not returned to the Hudson River, the F-factor was set to 1 for all life stages, i.e., 100 percent mortality is assumed. The W-factor, W,w,sp,l, represents the ratio of the density of organisms in the intake compared to the density of organisms in the region. Because the intake will withdraw from two of the three strata (the bottom and channel strata) in the Croton-Haverstraw region, which represent 63.5 percent of the region volume, the W-factor was equated to the ratio of the average density in the bottom and channel strata (0.5 D b,d,sp,l D c,d,sp,l ) to the average density in all strata in this region and 0 for all other regions. The fraction of a life stage of species sp that is entrained through the wedge-wire screen during week w, f w,sp, was used in the same fashion as in the calculation of entrainment abundance discussed above. The entrainment CMR is computed for each life stage and combined to yield an overall CMR as follows: CMR t = 1 (1-CMR e )* (1-CMR ysl )* (1-CMR pysl )* (1-CMR juv ) (Equation 11) where CMR t = the fractional reduction in population due to entrainment of all life stages 6

8 CMR e = the fractional reduction in population due to entrainment of eggs CMR ysl = the fractional reduction in population due to entrainment of yolk-sac larvae CMR pysl = the fractional reduction in population due to entrainment of post-yolk-sac larvae CMR juv = the fractional reduction in population of due to entrainment of juveniles The CMR s of each life stage are computed as: CMR l = (N l,w/o - N l,w ) / N l,w/o (Equation 12) where N l,w/o = the population of lifestage l without entrainment due to the intake N l,w = the population of lifestage l with entrainment due to the intake C. RESULTS BAY ANCHOVY Bay anchovy is a small forage fish generally frequenting the higher salinity portions of the estuary. It is most abundant during the spring and summer when spawning occurs. Based on the year-round 10 MGD scenario, density data from 1974 to 2006 yield an average total annual entrainment of egg and larval bay anchovy. (Table 4). Using the more recent 2000 to 2006 data only, total losses average These values correspond to 37,000 and 32,000 Age 1 equivalents, respectively. As a percentage of the total population, these losses represent approximately 0.10 percent and 0.09 percent of the population between RM 0 and RM 152 (Table 5). AMERICAN SHAD Adult American shad ascend the Hudson River in the spring to spawn in the upper reaches of the river and its tributaries. Most early life stages are found well upriver of the Croton-Haverstraw region. The juveniles emigrate in the fall, typically during late October through November. Based on the 1974 to 2006 density data, full year-round 10 MGD pumping yields an estimated average of 761 early life stage American shad entrained (Table 6). In recent years, the American shad population has declined. Correspondingly, using just the 2000 to 2006 densities, an estimated 314 eggs and larvae would be entrained. In either case, the entrainment loss equates to only a single Age 1 equivalent. Based on the CMR results, these entrainment losses represent less than percent of the Hudson River American shad population (Table 7). STRIPED BASS Like American shad, adult striped bass ascend the Hudson River in early spring to spawn. Unlike shad, however, bass spawn in the mid regions of the estuary, including the Croton-Haverstraw region. After spawning, eggs and larvae begin drifting downstream, often following closely the salt front as it moves upstream and downstream with river flows and tides. 7

9 Based on the 1974 to 2006 data, an estimated eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screens (Table 8). This equates to approximately 3,028 Age 1 equivalents. In recent years, the Hudson River striped bass population has been increasing. Using data from 2000 to 2006, therefore, yields somewhat higher losses approximately eggs and larvae or 5,681 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River striped bass population. Based on the 1974 to 2006 density data, those losses represent approximately percent of the population (Table 9). A similar fraction, percent, was found for the 2000 to ATLANTIC TOMCOD Atlantic tomcod is a relatively small bottom-oriented species endemic to the cold waters of New England and Maritime Canada. In the Hudson River, it is near the southern limit of its distribution. Adult Atlantic tomcod ascend the Hudson River in mid-winter with peak spawning during January and February. Early larval stages are generally found downstream of the salt front. Based on the 1974 to 2006 data, an estimated eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen (Table 10). This equates to approximately 35 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000 to 2006, yields somewhat higher losses approximately larvae or 60 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod population. Based on the 1974 to 2006 density data, those losses represent approximately percent of the population (Table 11). A similar fraction, percent, was found for the 2000 to 2006 data. WHITE PERCH White perch is an abundant year-round resident of the Hudson River between New York City and Albany. During spring, white perch migrate upriver to spawn. Spent adults move back downriver to areas of higher salinity in the Croton-Haverstraw and Tappan Zee regions. Larvae begin to disperse downriver in July. By late summer and early fall, the young-of-year move to deeper offshore areas of the middle and lower estuary to overwinter (EA EST 1995; Klauda, et.al. 1995). Based on the 1974 to 2006 data, an estimated eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen (Table 12). This equates to approximately 1005 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000 to 2006, yields somewhat lower losses approximately eggs and larvae or 894 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River white perch population. Based on the 1974 to 2006 density data, those losses represent approximately percent of the population (Table 13). A similar fraction, percent, was found based on the 2000 to 2006 data. RIVER HERRING The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) are closely related species with similar distributions, ecological roles and environmental requirements. The eggs and larvae of these species are often indistinguishable and are thus collectively referred to as Alosa spp. All of the abundance data collected in the long river program of the early life stages of these species are treated as such and this collective reference also includes river herring. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the alewife and blueback herring will be examined together as river herring. Within the Hudson River, alewife and blueback herring spawn primarily in the Catskill and Albany regions beginning in April (EA EST 1995). Yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae are most abundant in the upper estuary, though the larvae will eventually disperse downriver. Post-yolk-sac larvae have been found as far south as the Battery region (RKM 1-19) in early June. By late June and July, juvenile alewife and blueback herring are found primarily in the middle estuary region (EA EST 1995). 8

10 Based on the 1974 to 2006 data, an estimated eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen (Table 14). This equates to approximately 254 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000 to 2006, yields somewhat higher losses approximately eggs and larvae or 264 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River river herring population. Based on the 1974 to 2006 density data, those losses represent approximately percent of the population (Table 15). A similar percentage, percent, was found for the 2000 to 2006 data. D. DISCUSSION The modeling results summarized above indicate that the projected water withdrawals due to the proposed project will have minimal effects on the key fish populations in the Hudson River. The relatively small effects of the proposed facility are not surprising because the proposed 2.0-mm wedge-wire screen represents state of the art technology for reducing the effects of water withdrawals on fish populations. In fact, the screen eliminates impingement impacts completely and minimizes entrainment by preventing juveniles and some post-yolk-sac larvae from entering the intake. While the estimates of numbers of eggs and larvae entrained are small compared to other water withdrawals on the Hudson, their population effects are difficult to interpret until they are translated into an equivalent number of Age 1 fish. The Equivalent Loss estimates show numbers less than 10,000 for all species except bay anchovy, for which the equivalents are less than 40,000. These are small absolute numbers and are also small compared to estimates of population size and yield to the fisheries which are in the millions. The bay anchovy losses are a very small portion of the large coastal population that is the source of the bay anchovy that enter the Hudson. As discussed above, the estimates of CMR represent the fractional reduction in the population after entrainment in the absence of other sources of mortality. The CMR values range from percent to percent confirming the extremely small projected effect on the populations studied. 9

11 E. LITERATURE CITED Boreman, J., C.P. Goodyear, and S.W. Christensen An Empirical Transport Model for Evaluating Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Plant Team, FWS/OBS-78/90. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA EST) Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG). July Fish Sampling Gear: A Review of Sampling Efficiency. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Development of the Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An Atlas of Egg, Larval and Juvenile Stages. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-78/12. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 10

12 F. TABLES Geographic Region Table 1 Stratum and Regional Volumes of Sampling Regions of Hudson River River Miles Channel Volume (m 3 ) Bottom Volume (m 3 ) Shoal Volume (m 3 ) Region Volume (m 3 ) Battery (BT) ,809,822 48,455,129 18,747, ,012,784 Yonkers (YK) ,452,543 59,312,978 26,654, ,420,288 Tappan Zee (TZ) ,000,768 62,125, ,684,99 321,811,465 2 Croton Haverstraw (CH) ,309,016 32,517,633 53,910, ,736,754 Indian Point (IP) ,269,472 33,418,632 12,648, ,336,267 West Point (WP) ,830,022 25,977,862 2,647, ,455,769 Cornwall ,882,267 36,768,629 8,140, ,791,019 Poughkeepsie ,975,052 63,168,132 5,990, ,133,444 Hyde Park ,165,041 32,012,000 2,307, ,484,666 Kingston ,657,021 35,479,990 12,332, ,469,879 Saugerties ,143,296 42,845,077 20,307, ,295,711 Catskill ,914,081 42,281,206 34,526, ,721, Albany ,025,080 13,517,183 25,606,842 71,149,105 Totals 1,603,433, ,880, ,505,25 7 2,476,818,894 Species Table 2 Entrainable Lengths of 2 mm Wedge-Wire Screen Entainable Length 2,3 (mm) Body Depth Coefficients 1 α β Alewife American Shad Atlantic Tomcod Bay Anchovy Blueback Herring Striped Bass White Perch River Herring Notes: 1 D = α*tl β ; D = Body Depth (mm), TL = Total Length (mm) 2 setting D = Mesh size and solving for TL yields the Entrainable Length, L e 3 Le = (M/α) (1/β) ; L e = Entrainable length as total length, M = mesh size (mm) 4 Average of alewife and blueback herring 11

13 Table 3 Life History Parameters Used in Entrainment and ETM Modeling Species Birthdate Stage Duration (days) Mortality Rate (day -1 ) Survival (%) Alewife Apr 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % American Shad Apr 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % Atlantic Tomcod Jan 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % Bay Anchovy May 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % Blueback Herring May 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % Notes: juvenile % Striped Bass May 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % White Perch May 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % River Herring 1 May 1 eggs % yolk-sac % post yolk-sac % juvenile % 1 For River Herring, the life history parameters of blueback herring were used. 12

14

15 TABLE 4 BAY ANCHOVY NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD ALL YEAR Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Year Egg Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg ,773, ,278, ,052,127 5, , , ,379, ,207, ,587,953 1, , , , ,189, ,535, , , ,280, ,566, ,847, , , ,136,571 2,489 2,717, ,856,980 5, , , ,090, ,508, ,600, , , ,080, , ,686, , , ,153, ,291, ,446, , , , , ,991, ,175, ,167, , , ,973,809 1,182 1,764, ,739,729 1, , , ,736, ,601, ,338, , , , , , , , ,068, ,157, ,226, , , ,517, ,266, ,784,140 2, , , ,270 47,119 6,404, ,517, , , ,215,502 15,741 3,479, ,711,013 2, , , ,715,861 8,823 26,298, ,023,197 9, , , ,411, ,763, ,174, , , ,468, ,122, ,591,092 3, , , , ,177, ,551, , , ,151,976 14,742 8,112, ,279,149 5, , , ,411, ,031, ,442, , , ,423,335 2,749 13,656, ,082,463 5, , , , ,286, ,063, , , ,119, ,377, ,497, , , ,183, ,183, , , , ,493, ,825, , , ,469, ,403, ,873, , , ,938, ,479, ,418,229 1, , , ,044,633 12,269 8,923, ,980,150 3, , , ,267 14,095 5,354, ,171, , , ,212,838 4,279 4,442, ,659,960 1, , ,793 Mean ,623,275 3,908 6,024, ,651,318 1, , ,971 Mean ,828,602 4,378 4,611, ,444,708 1, , ,248

16 TABLE 5 BAY ANCHOVY ENTRAINMENT CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE 10 MGD ALL YEAR Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total CMR % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mean % % % % % Mean % % % % %

17 TABLE 6 BAY ANCHOVY NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD MAY 1 - SEP 30 (8 MGD OTHER MONTHS) Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Year Egg Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total ,773, ,278, ,052,127 5, , , ,379, ,207, ,587,953 1, , , , ,189, ,535, , , ,280, ,566, ,847, , , ,136,571 2,489 2,717, ,856,980 5, , , ,090, ,508, ,600, , , ,080, , ,686, , , ,153, ,291, ,446, , , , , ,991, ,175, ,167, , , ,973,809 1,182 1,764, ,739,729 1, , , ,736, ,601, ,338, , , , , , , , ,068, ,157, ,226, , , ,517, ,266, ,784,140 2, , , ,270 47,119 6,404, ,517, , , ,215,502 15,741 3,479, ,711,013 2, , , ,715,861 8,823 26,290, ,015,378 9, , , ,411, ,758, ,169, , , ,468, ,112, ,581,136 3, , , , ,173, ,548, , , ,151,976 14,742 8,108, ,275,310 5, , , ,411, ,022, ,433, , , ,423,335 2,749 13,652, ,078,270 5, , , , ,276, ,053, , , ,119, ,377, ,496, , , ,182, ,182, , , , ,485, ,817, , , ,469, ,399, ,869, , , ,938, ,479, ,417,495 1, , , ,044,633 12,269 8,922, ,979,463 3, , , ,267 14,095 5,347, ,164, , , ,212,838 4,279 4,405, ,622,197 1, , ,035 Mean ,623,275 3,908 6,020, ,647,890 1, , ,906 Mean ,828,602 4,378 4,603, ,436,161 1, , ,080

18 TABLE 7 BAY ANCHOVY ENTRAINMENT CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE 10 MGD MAY 1 - SEP 30 (8 MGD OTHER MONTHS) Post yolksac Year Egg Yolk-sac Juvenile Total CMR % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mean % % % % % Mean % % % % %

19 TABLE 8 AMERICAN SHAD NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD ALL YEAR Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total , , ,999 2, , ,620 3, , , , , , Mean Mean

20 TABLE 9 AMERICAN SHAD ENTRAINMENT CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE 10 MGD ALL YEAR Post yolksac Year Egg Yolk-sac Juvenile Total CMR % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mean % % % % % Mean % % % % %

21 TABLE 10 AMERICAN SHAD NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD MAY 1 - SEP 30 (8 MGD OTHER MONTHS) Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total , , ,999 2, , ,620 3, , , , , , Mean Mean

22 TABLE 11 AMERICAN SHAD ENTRAINMENT CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE 10 MGD MAY 1 - SEP 30 (8 MGD OTHER MONTHS) Post yolksac Year Egg Yolk-sac Juvenile Total CMR % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mean % % % % % Mean % % % % %

23 TABLE 12 STRIPED BASS NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD ALL YEAR Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg , , , , , , , , ,438 79, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,065 51,806 99, , ,165 79, , , , , ,051, , , , , , , ,382 99, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,428 3,274, ,593, , , , , , , ,291 1,608, ,712, , , ,655 5,853, ,159, , , , , , ,213 6,027, ,150, , , , , , , , , ,340 5,978, ,250, , , ,763 37,346 1,876, ,915, , , , ,112 1,754, ,939, , , ,897 16,764 9,683, ,702, , , ,375 2,703,414 11,017, ,903, , , ,690 57,661 7,602, ,676, , , , ,345 2,138, ,498, , , ,510 1,766,495 2,898, ,739, , , , ,424 3,504, ,941, , , ,596 11, , , , ,147 1,754, ,256, , ,362 Mean , ,416 2,193, ,494, , ,028 Mean , ,988 4,206, ,082, , ,681

24 TABLE 13 STRIPED BASS ENTRAINMENT CONDITIONAL MORTALITY RATE 10 MGD ALL YEAR Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total CMR % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mean % % % % % Mean % % % % %

25 TABLE 14 STRIPED BASS NUMBERS ENTRAINED AND AGE 1 EQUIVALENTS 10 MGD MAY 1 - SEP 30 (8 MGD OTHER MONTHS) Numbers Entrained Age 1 Equivalent Year Egg Yolk-sac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total Egg Yolksac Post yolk-sac Juvenile Total , , , , , , , , ,438 79, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,065 51,806 99, , ,165 79, , , , , ,051, , , , , , , ,382 99, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,428 3,274, ,593, , , , , , , ,291 1,608, ,712, , , ,655 5,853, ,159, , , , , , ,213 6,027, ,150, , , , , , , , , ,340 5,978, ,250, , , ,763 37,346 1,876, ,915, , , , ,112 1,754, ,939, , , ,897 16,764 9,683, ,702, , , ,375 2,703,414 11,017, ,903, , , ,690 57,661 7,602, ,676, , , , ,329 2,138, ,498, , , ,510 1,766,495 2,898, ,739, , , , ,424 3,504, ,941, , , ,581 11, , , , ,147 1,754, ,256, , ,362 Mean , ,415 2,193, ,494, , ,028 Mean , ,985 4,206, ,082, , ,681