transcript of 730116 hearing in washington,dc.pp 8,693 ...it is entitled, "analytical report...
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES ATObWC ENERGY COMSSION
Z~\-'
IN THE MATTER OF:
z~7.i30~: 2OY~V. ~f~' C?
Place
Date - Pages, G593 - 3S89
DUPLICATION OR COPYING OF THIS TRANSCRIPT BY PHOTOGRAPHIC, ELECTROSTATIC OR OTHER FACSIMILE MEANS IS PROHIBITED BY THE ORDER FORM AGREEMENT
Telephone: (Code 202) 547-6222
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Official Reporters
415 Second Street, N.E. Washington, D. C. 20002
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
7
8aO20079 730116 PDR AD)OCK 05000247 ~Wl T PDR'
PD1-i
:(L~-:;:- : k" , vo:.. ..'z",
8693
CR#8151 ] RA: h t
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
9
101
11
12
13
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.0 22 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
In the matter of:
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
NEW YORK, INC.
(Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2)
Docket. No. 50-247
Room 532 Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C.
Tuesday, 16 January 1973
The above-entitled matter came on for further
hearing, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 a.m.
SAMUEL W. JENSCH, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board.
DR. JOHN C. GEYER, Member.
MR. R. B. BRIGGS, Member.
APPEARANCES:
(As heretofore noted.)
CR#8151 ht o
Ace - Federal Reporters,
8694
CONTENTS
WITNESS
John R. Clark
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT
8697
Exhibits
None.
RECROSS
CR8151 dora#1
lmil 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
I1
12
S13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23 0 24
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8695
P ROC E E D I NG S
CHAIR14AN JENSCH: Come to order, please.
Whereupon,
JOHN R. CLARK
resumed the stand, and, having been previously duly sworn,
was examined and testified further as follows:
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Mr. Clark has resumed the stand.
Applicant's counsel, are you ready to proceed?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Prior to beginnin
I would just like to state for the record that I have handed
Mr. Briggs this morning, the fourth document which was request
by the Board. It is entitled, "Analytical Report for Indian
Point 2 Reactor Vessel, Unit No. 2," by C. R. Cockrell and
J. C. Lowry. This document is available this week for
inspection by the Board and the parties.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would
like to request that the interrogation be conducted by Dr.
Lawler as a technical interrogator, pursuant to the AEC rules.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Any objection?
MR. KARMAN: No objection.
MR. MACBETH: No objection. I would like to inquir
what the area is we are going into.
MR. TROSTEN: The two areas we wish to interrogate
through Dr. Lawler are as follows: one, Mr. Clark's response
2mil 1
*2
3
* 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8696
to Mr. Briggs' question, which was provided yesterday at 1:00
o'clock, and further aspects of Mr. Clark's model.
MR. MACBETH: All right.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well. Proceed, Dr. Lawler.
MR. MACBETH: Just before we begin, there was one
paragraph that was a little confused and unclear. Perhaps
we could clarify that. It appears on page 8562 of the tran
script, where Mr. Clark said, "In my study the seasonal move
ments of striped bass contingents of Long Island Sound and the
New York Bight, Table 4, shows that 52 or 65 fish taken in
spawning situations, that is during spring in the Hudson, or
tidal rivers to the south," that sentence is not granatical.
It should read that "the 52 fish were taken in the Hudson
of a total of 65 taken in the Hudson and rivers to the south,
tidal rivers to the south."
Perhaps I could just ask Mr. Clark to confirm that
so it is in the record properly. Mr. Clark, is that change
in that sentence which you wish to make?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. TROSTEN: Would you please state that again,
Mr. Macbeth, or have the reporter read it back, please.
(The reporter read the record as requested.)
MR. MACBETH: No, that is not right. Let me be
sure we have it right. It should read, "In my study the
seasonal movements of striped bass contingents on Long
3mil 1
* 2
3
* 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce-Federa Reporters, Inc.
25
8697
Island Sound and New York Bight, Table 4, shows that 52 fish
were taken in the Hudson, of a total of 65 fish taken in
spawning situations, that is during the spring, in the Hudson
or tidal rivers to the south."
Mr. Clark says he has found another error in the
transcript he would like to correct.
THE WITNESS: Page 8561, there appear to be two
errors in numbers. New York, the fourth line from the top,
reads 9.492 as written. That should be changed to 9.482.
Line 17 reads, "I estimated the commercial catch at 726,000."
That should read 426,000. That is all the corrections I found
CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued)
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Dr. Lawler, will you proceed,
please.
DR. LAWLER: Yes, sir.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Mr. Clark, I would like to first proceed on a res
ponse that you made yesterday morning to Mr. Trosten's
question with respect to the role of the Hudson on the over
wintering ground. I would like to say before starting, that
the purpose of this entire sequence of questions, until I get
to Mr. Clark's calculations of entrainment and impingement
is entirely directed at attempting to clarify, at least in my
own mind, some of the estimates that led Mr. Clark to the
conclusion that the Chesapeake is, or the Hudson is contributi L
8698
4mil I
*2
'33
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
or is responsible for something on the order of 80 percent of
the fishery in the Middle Atlantic region, as defined as the
Maryland-Delaware line to the Connecticut-Rhode Island line.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well. I might suggest,
Dr. Lawler, that you speak as loudly as you can. I think your
voice doesn't quite carry in this size room. If you will
speak loudly so we may hear as well.
THE WITNESS: I am having difficulty hearing Dr.
Lawler from here.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Perhaps you could move over
further.
DR. LAWLER: No, I can speak louder.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q I will begin on pages 8498 and 8499 of yesterday
morning's testimony, in which you respond to Mr. Trosten's
question that you provide us with data on commercial fishing
which you indicate support your contention that the Indian
Point area is one of the greatest over-wintering areas on the
Northeast Coast. Now the object of my questions here is to
try to get some notion as to the role the Hudson River and
Indian Point area may be playing with respect to over
wintering by comparison to the role some of the more southern
rivers may be playing, namely, the Chesapeake and the Delaware.
A May we get back first, just for orientation, to the
part of my testimony that you are referring to? The page
5mil 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8699
where this statement is made.
MR. TROSTEN: It is in the July 14 testimony. I
will find it for you. It is on page 15 of your July 14
testimony under the heading "wintering" and the testimony at
that point reads, "Many important species winter over in high
concentration in the lower Hudson. In fact, the Indian Point
area is one of the greatest wintering areas for fish along
the Northeast Coast."
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Now on the top of page 8499 you state, "Now if you
look further at these statistics, you will find no river
in the Northeast wherein there are catches of striped bass
anywhere near this amount. The nearest place to the south
would be the Delaware or Chesapeake areas, but in the
Northeast, only in the Hudson." So I presume by this res
ponse that your definition of the Northeast is the Hudson and
rivers to the north. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now I have a few questions on that notion and
then I would like to come back to the possible role of the
Hudson by comparison to the rivers to the-south which are
still in this general area we are talking about here.
A Excuse me? You are going to talk about the
Northeast and then we are going to talk separately or later
about the southern areas?
8700
6mil 1
*2
3
*4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 4ce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q That is correct.
A Fine. When we talk about the Northeast, we are
both satisfied we are talking about not any farther south
than Barnegot Bay and from there up to New England?
Q Right. You said by the Northeast You mean the
Hudson and rivers to the north of the Hudson. Okay. Now one
thing I would like to know is are there any other rivers in
the Northeast where striped bass are fished for commercially?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Now is it not illegal to fish commercially for
striped bass in the Connecticut rivers?
A That may be. I don't know.
Q So your response is you don't know whether or not
A I don't know what the Connecticut laws are in rela
tion to fishing in rivers in the winter.
Q Well, let me postulate that if it is the case that
it is not legal to fish commercially for striped bass in
Connecticut rivers, there would be, then, no order of commer
cial catches from these rivers?
A Not since the time that the laws were in effect.
8701
CR8151 I
#2 dhl 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23 0 24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q Would it not be true that..the record of commercial
catches from the Hudson by comparison to other rivers-...
in the northeast is simply '&n isolated piece of information
for which there aren't any grounds for comparison? Again
referring to rivers in the northeast?
A. That may be so. I'm not familiar enough with
the winter commercial fisheries in Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut to know whether
there could be a counterpart or not in any river.
Q. I would like now to turn to the possible role
and the comparative role that the Hudson and the rivers
to the south, but still in the middle Atlantic region
that we have been discussing may be playing in the area of
overwintering.
I would like to turn to your 1968 tagging paper
and ask you to look at Figure 3, on Page 326, which is
entitled, "Summary of Striped Bass Winter Recaptures." I
can simplify the questioning, Mr. Clark -
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Wait until he gets the document.
THE WITNESS: I'm a little slow at this time of
morning. That was Figure 3?
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q. That is correct. Now, if you count the blue dots
which indicate the winter tag returns, I think you will find
that there were 22 returns from Chesapeake Bay, 37 returns
8702
dh2 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
from the Delaware, 14 returns from the South Jersey area,
for a total of 73 winter returns in the South Jersey area
or areas to the south of that location.
Furthermore, I think you will find that there
was one return in the winter from the North Jersey area,
and two returns from the Hudson. Would you agree to that
breakdown?
A. Yes.
Q. So what we are saying here is that of a total
of 76 wintertime returns, which, by the way, is 15 percent
of the total returns of some 498 or 500, 73 of those returns
were found in these southern areas, and only three of them
were found in the upper area.
Now, would you not agree that this is evidence of
a rather important role the Chesapeake and Delaware area is
playing in the overwintering of Hudson river fish?
A. No.
0. And your opinion, Mr. Clark, is that this is not
indictive of a rather major role that these southern areas
are making in overwintering, could you tell me why not?
A. I tried to explain this yesterday, that there are
two things that interfere with the winter fishery in the
Hudson. One is the law, and the other is ice. Between the
law and the ice, there is very little fishing pressure that
goes on up there.
dh3 I
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4 22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8703
Whereas in Delaware and the Chesapeake Bay, they
are rather free to fish throughout the winter. There isn't
ice in those areas to prevent fishing, and the temperatures
are slightly warmer, and therefore the fish are more active.
So what I tried to explain is when you try to
get a measure of the strength of the winter population of
adolescents and adult fish in the Hudson River, you have to
look at the faul run going up to the wintering grounds, which
you can get a measure of before the season closes, and the
spring abundance, once the season opens up again.
These two can be seen from Figures 4 and 6 on Pages
326 and 327. You see, in the fall, a sign of progress of
the fish arriving at the river, in winter the very limited
returns and then in the spring, very, very heavy returns.
Those are the wintering fish.
Q. So what you are saying is that the fact that
there is some fishing taking place in the southern areas
during the winter months, whereas there is no fishing, both
from a legal standpoint and also from the standpoint-of
difficulty, taking place in the more northern areas, suggests
to you that the fact that roughly 95 percent of the wintertime
returns were being found in the Chesapeake-Delaware area is
not really indicative of the role being played by these areas,
major role being played by these areas.
A. Yes, that is essentially it. I think I can add
8704
dh4 I
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
something to this subject, though. There are apparently a
great number of Hudson River fish that winter over in the
Chesapeake Bay. The indications from all of this are that
a number of those wintering fish in the Chesapeake Bay
would return up the coast and spawn in the Hudson River.
If you look at the spring recaptures in Figure 4,
and as to the origin of the recapture, you find there is only
one of those fish that was in a river where it could be
spawning in the springtime, when it could be spawning.
So of all of those fish that you see in the winter,
scattered around through Chesapeake Bay, a Very small per
centage stay there to spawn. They leave. And the only
place that we see extensive spawning of these contingents
is in the Hudson.
Therefore, I would conclude from this that
spawning stocks from the Hudson, a number of them, do winter
over to the south, so that there would be some wintering
areas for these fish south of the Hudson in the Chesapeake,
and perhaps the Delaware. I mean, they are not all crowded
into the Hudson.
Q. I'm not particularly concerned at this moment as
to when the fish we are talking about spawn in the Hudson
or elsewhere. I'm simply trying to find out from an
overwintering standpoint there is substantial evidence that
the southwestern areas play quiite a significant role.
8705
dh5 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A. Yes, I would say definitely they do.
Q. Thank you. Now, I have some additional questions
on the overwintering. I would like to return to your
statement yesterday on Page 8498 of the transcript, again
in response to Mr. Trosten's question that you provide
us with the data on commercial fishing which you indicate
support your contentions that the Indian Point area is one
of the greatest overwintering areas on the northeast coast.
I'm particularly concerned with the commercial
fishing data. These questions relate to the commercial
fishing data. You say in response to that question, "Yes,
on Page V-59, some of the final environmental statements for
Indian Point 2, there is a graph chart which shows the catch
in the Hudson in hundreds of pounds of striped bass, showing
that the catch in the Hudson has exceeded a million pounds
in certain areas.
"Those are the statistics that indicate that the
Hudson is a great wintering area for striped bass." Now,
I would like to examine, Mr. Clark, Figure V-59 in the
final statement.
A. Are you worried about my error of decimal points
in this?
That is part of it, correct, Mr. Clark.
A. I was one decimal point off in reading that scale,
if that is what is bothering you.
8706
dh6' 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q. I think these data can be more clearly seen on
Figure 12-2 of the final statement.
MR. TROSTEN: Page 12-37.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q. Now since you have indicated already that there
is a decimal point error, maybe I can shorten this whole
business by summarizing what I believe to be a more accurate
presentation of what the commercial fish data in the Hudson
River show for the period for which Dr. Goodyear reported on,
and if you agree to those questions, finally, then I don't
have any particular problem.
The data which Dr. Goodyear obtained this informati
from by the way, is obtained in a document entitled, "The
Hudson Fish and Wildlife" which was published by the Hudson
River Valley Commission and which was developed for the
Hudson River Valley Commission by the addition of fish and
game, New York State Conservation Department.
MR. TROSTEN: This information, by the way, is
all set forth in an attachment to a letter from Mr. Carmen
to me, dated November 10, 1972, Page 3 of the attachment
responds to the applicant's request for information about
the source data for certain figures in the final environmenta
statement.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q. Now these data are plotted by Dr. Goodyear on
8707
dh7 1
* 2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
e2 I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-* 22
0 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Figure 12-2, but in interpreting the Hudson landings, you
have to use a date five years prior to the date shown on the
horizontal axis.
For example, the maximum value of commercial
fishing reported in the Hudson occurred in 1959 and
1960, corresponding to the 1964 and 1965 pcifits on Dr.
Goodyear's chart.
Now, I think if you examine -- do you agree to
that characterization of the manner in which the Hudson River
landing data were plotted on Figure 12-2?
A. Yes, they used a 5 year offset.
# 3
arl
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8708
Q I think you will find in the data source that the
maximum values recorded in pounds of commercial striped bass
catch occurred in 1959 and in 1960, and the numbers were 133,1C
pounds in 1959, and 1 32,900 in 1960. And I think you will
find that if you analyze that record in that data source,
which is given from the years 1913 through 1964, with somte year
missing, that these are the only two values where the catch
exceeded 100,000 pounds. I think you will also find that the
average catch for the 32-year period from 1933 through 1964,
for which 27 years of data were reported, was 50,000 pounds
per year. And for the period 1931 through 1964,, for which
a total of 36 years were reported, the average catch was
38,000 pounds.
Now I would like to ask you whether you agree
that -the Hudson River commercial catch is better characterized
as being reported to be a max imum of 130,000 pounds per year
occurring twice, that no other yearly catch exceeded 100,000,
and that the average reported catch for the past 32 years is
50,000 pounds, and for the past 52 years is 38,000 pounds,
and that that characterization of the Hudson River commercial
catch is a better characterization than the characterization
it has exceeded a million pounds in certain years?
A Could I see your source, please? I don't have
that document by the Hudson River Valley people.
MR.TROSTEN: Here is a copy of the document
ar2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8709
referred to by Dr. Goodyear.
(Handing document to witness;)
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Now what would you like me to do, add some of
these figures up as you have? Or just agree to the calcula
tions you have done and check them later, or what? That
was a very complicated thing you did, going through and
drawing averages and picking off maximums and so forth. I
couldn't just'respond to those numbers and verify them without
checking them. But I am sure we don't want to go through all
of that, right? Could I just agree to that and attempt to
check this all later on? Can I get a copy of this from you,
a Xerox or something?
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q You certainly can.
A Sure, that is okay, the way you explained it, I
don't have any reason to doubt what you say is true, 38,000,
50 some thousand, 100,000, and 133 for those years, et
cetera, fine. As long as I get a copy of the document from
you so I can check it later against the transcript, and if
there is anything there I wouldn't agree with, it will be minor
but it will give me a chance to correct it.
Q So you are saying you agree with my statement
subject to your review of the document from which the data came
A Sure.
8710
ar3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CHAIR.MAN JENSCH: I think the last part of your
question, however, said something about isn't that a better
characterization. I think that involves a judgment in
addition to the figures. Are you able to express a judgment
without checking the math or accepting the figures subject
to check, can you express a judgment whether this is a better
characterization?
THE WITNESS: I would just like to simplify things.
It doesn't sound too bad to me, if I could just agree
temporarily and then check it and see if it is wrong. Other
wise, it would take a half hour to go through1 the calcula
tions, and we would have to take a recess.
MR. KARMAN: I wonder if I could inquire about
the source of Dr. Lawler's statement about the million
pounds.
MR. TROSTEN: That is Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark yester
day provided on page -
DR. LAWLER: Page 8498.
MR. TROSTEN: The purpose of the question, in
case there is any doubt, is on page 8498. Mr. Clark, in
response to my question, referred to page 559 in the Final
Environmental Statement and said, "On page 559 of the Final
Environmental Statement for Indian Point 2, there is a graph
chart which shows the catch in the Hudson in hundreds of
pounds of striped bass, showing that the catch in the Hudson
ar4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace.-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8711
has exceeded a million pounds in certain years."
MR. MACBETH: And he also said this morning that
he had made an error in reading the graph. So we can keep
that clear.
DR. LAWLER: Well, we can establish,-the fact
that in any event the million pounds is incorrect.
MR. MACBETH: Yes.
THE WITNESS: It is an order of magnitude off.
I should have said 100,000. This is the kind of stuff that
worries me. I flip through this, look at a scale, try to
give you a figure you want, and we have done-pretty good,
but once in a while something like this happens. 1 misread
that scale, thinking it was in thousands of fish, it. is
in hundreds, and I gave the wrong figure. That is why I want
to be particularly cautious about agreeing with your characteriza-~
tion of this without checking the numbers.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Fine. As I say, there is only one purpose for,
this line of questioning, and it is simply to put in as
proper prospective as we possibly can the various sets of
numbers that have been used here.
A Right.
Q I think it is important to bring out the correct
value of the commercial fish catch.
A Good. Sorry about that.
ar5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8712
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think you started with a
premise, the correction this morning, the whole thing comes
down to it being 100,000 pounds. That is the subject of
the question, is it not?
DR. LAWLER: It is a little more po-inted than that,
Mr. Chairman. I tried to point out that even in terms of
hundreds of thousands of pounds, the maximum reported is
130,000 pounds, and out of 36 years of record, that occurred
twice. And in no other cases were there catches reported of
100,000 pounds or more,
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Thank you.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q While we are still on -
MR. BRIGGS: Excuse me. Could I ask a question here
You point out in no years of record the catch was
more than 100,000 pounds. Are we primarily concerned about
what was happening back in 1930 and 1940, or are we more
concerned about what is happening in the late '50s and in
the '60s?
DR. LAWLER: Well, I think in this connection of
the relationship of the Hudson River fishery to the middle
Atlantic fishery, as characterized by the Staff, the data
source was from the early '30s into the early '60s. I think
it appears from the data source that the catch seems to be
trending upward, but I think that we need to concern ourselves
8713
ar6
2
3
4
e3 5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
with all of the data in drawing these various conclusions.
MR. BRIGGS: But then are you concerned about
averages, or are you concerned about shapes of curves,
rather than averages?
CR 8151 4
eakl
03 4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.0 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8714
DR. LAWLER: I think we are probably concerned
about both. I am simply using the average here to
characterize the approximate level of the catch ofi:commercial
fish in the Hudson River. I am not trying to do anything more
than that. And the one other point I would like to bring
out in this line of questioning appears on page 12-37, Figure
12-2, and that is I would like to ask Mr. Clark whether he woul
agree that this chart also shows that the maximum commercial
catch in the mid-Atlantic -- and I have to presume that this
is the middle Atlantic as defined by Dr. Goodyear, which was to
include the Delaware, The states of Delaware, New Jersey and
New York -- that the catch, the commercial catch for those
states was a maximum of 1,700,000 pounds and again for the
30-some odd year period from 1931 to the early '60s, an
average of approximately 750,000 pounds.
THE WITNESS: Yes, you are reading that middle Atlan!
catch.
DR. LAWLER: Mr. Briggs, if I may comment again
on the averages, I am trying to point out the relative differen(
between the commercial catch in the Hudson and the commercial
catch in the mid-Atlantic. It is clear on this chart, but the
ordinate is..a different scale. It is an order of magnitude
differences for each one.
DR. GEYER: I would like to voice a mild complaint
about the Figure 5-12 on page 5-57 and Figure 12-2 on page 12-3
eak2
2
03 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8715
Identical data are plotted in these two figures, they have
managed to use four different scales, expressed in two
different ways, and one way which is wrong, obviously, on Figu
5-12, the Atlantic landings haven't been multiplied by 10 to th
4th. They have been multiplied by 10 to the minus 4th to
get the scale.
MR. BRIGGS: Well, as long as we are making
comments here, I would like to get something else straight.
Is it the Hudson landings that are plotted according to the
proper year or is it the Atlantic landings that are plotted acc
ding to the proper year? I understood you to move the Hudson
landings back, is that right?
DR. LAWLER: My comment would be this, Mr. Briggs.
When I first looked at the chart it appears from the
comment Atlantic landings after five years, that the
abscissa is to correspond to the Hudson landings. But, of
course, the horizontal axis says the year of Atlantic
landings and that seems to be the case, because when you take
the data from the data source Dr. Goodyear used, you find you
can reporduce the Hudson landing curve, provided you set back
each of the calendar years on the horizontal axis by five.
MR. BRIGGS: You set back the Hudson landings?
DR. LAWLER: Right. So specifically where it
says 1960, you would have to, in this document, plot the 1955
landings in the Hudson.
eak3
02 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*0 22
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8716
MR. BRIGGS: So rather than Atlantic landings after
five years, it is Hudson landings five years before?
DR. LAWLER: Correct, right.
MR. BRIGGS: Thank you.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, may we all understand
that unless Mr. Karman informs us otherwise, that Dr.
Goodyear accepts this characterization of Figure 12-2 which was
just given by Dr. Lawler?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think it would be helpful to mov
the case along if Dr. Goodyear has a chance to follow the
transcript.
MR. KARMAN: Dr. Goodyear is reading last nights
transcript this morning.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: All right. If he will indicate
any differences he may note in the premise utilized by Dr.
Lawler. Thank you.
DR. LAWLER: I think that completes my questions on
the over-wintering area. I would like to go now to the
evidence that Mr. Clark submitted orally yesterday afternoon
which was read into the testimony.
MR. TROSTEN: Starting at page 8552.
DR. LAWLER: Well, there was a lot of questioning
of Mr. Aleuvas. It starts on page 8560.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, I am sorry.
eak4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
8717
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q I have three areas that I would like to question
you on on this evidence, Mr. Clark. The first area is
a few questions on the guesstimate, as you characterized it
yesterday, for the 1965 split among the Connecticut-New
York area and the New Jersey-Delaware area. And then follwoing
that I would like to go to a discussion of you support for your
belief that 80 percent of this mid-Atlantic fishery is supporte
or is contributed to by the Hudson and that is in two parts,
your statements referring to your own tagging paper -- this
is on the top of page 8562 -- and then at the bottom of
page 8562 where you deal with the tagging studies in the
Chesapeake.
Now if we could first clarify the figures given
on page 8561, I took these figures which are given in pounds of
fish for the New York and Connecticut area and the New Jersey
and Delaware area, and divided them by the average weight of
fish of 3.6 pounds in Connecticut and New York and 2.7 pounds
in New Jersey and Delaware, to obtain the allocation by yoursel
of fishes in the zone of the Hudson River to the Connecticut
Rhode Island line, which is the New York and Connecticut
contribution, and the zone from the Hudson River to the Delawar(
Maryland line, which is the New Jersey and DElaware contributioi
Now, I would like to first ask you whether you agree
that the average weight of 3.6 pounds for the Connecticut and
8718eak5
1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
New York contingents -- strike the word contingents -- for
the allocation in Connecticut and New York, was obtained
by dividing the total weight reported in the 1965 survey
for the North Atlantic region of 47,999,000 pounds by the
reported total number of fish caught of 13,199;000 pounds, whic
yields an average value of 3.64? Is it correct to say that
that is the origin of the 3.6 pound average weight used for th
Connecticut-New York fish?
A Yes, two summary figures in this '65 report, summary
of weight and the summary of numbers for the North Atlantic
and Middle Atlantic areas. The total weight by the total
numbers.
Q Yields the average pounds?
A Yields the average weight of the fish.
Q Fine. It appeared that that was the
source of it, I just wanted to clarify that point, and, there
fore, as you just indicated the calculation of the 2.7 pounds
would also be obtained by taking the middle Atlantic total
weight of 7,351,000 pounds -
A Could you hold it a minute so I can follow you on
these figures.
Q -- by the middle Atlantic fish catch of 2,783,000
pounds, and that computes to an average weight of 2.64.
A Would you repeat that?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I wonder if this could be done --
eak6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
e4 17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8719
apparently you have several calculations -- would it be
advisable to take a little recess and
informally discuss what your calculations are. He may still
want to take them subject to check. But would it be helpful
if you let the witness know what your calculations are before
ask for these characterizations? Do you have many more of
this-:kind?
DR. LAWLER:
kind, Mr. Chairman. I
in his response, that,
CHAIRMAN JENSCH:
DR. LAWLER:
No, I don't have any more of this
think Mr. Clark has just indicated
yes, that is the source of the weight.
All right.
All Iram trying to do is clarify the
source.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: It is perfectly all right.
I was just thinking maybe this long recital of figures gets
a little difficult to follow unless you have a copy of
the computation. Proceed, please.
ypu
DORA #5 mml cr8151 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 lAce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
8720
BY DR. LAWLER:
Let me pose a problem here and if Mr. Clark agrees
that this is a problem, then I don't have a problem and if he
doesn't agree, I think I may have to use the blackboard.
The point I would like to demonstrate is that
if one takes the allocation of fish among the Hudson and the
other regions for the zones, te Connecticut-Maryland line to
the Hudson River -_ the Delaware-Maryland line to the
Hudson River and the Hudson River tothe Connecticut-Rhode
Island line.
If one takes the allocation given by Mr. Clark fox:
1965 in yesterday's testimony on page 8561 and further takes
the allocation given by Mr. Clark last week for the
average of the two years, 196.5 and 1970, which appears in a
table in the record after page 8578, one should then be able
to compute the allocation for 1970.
In other words, if you have the allocation for
the two-year average, and if you have the allocation for
one of those two years, you should be able to compute the
allocation for the other year.
And I have done that computation, and I find that
there is an inconsistency; and simply stated, I end up with a
negative number for one of the 1970 values.
I can simply summarize this by saying that you
may not be able, you may not be able to take a relatively
8721
mm2 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
0 23
24 ,ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
arbitrary or guestimate for on the one hand 1965 and on the
other hand 1965 and 1970 combined, without possibly and in fac
in this case it occurs, inducing an inconsistency in those
splits.
In other words, you can't have the-two -- the t wo
splits are not consistent with one anoth er. Not arguing:T
that you can't split these things up, Mr. Clark testified
yesterday he used his knowledge of the area and things of
this nature and made a guestimate.
I simply want to point out that the two guestimates
one of which appears in 8561 and the other appears in the
table after 8578, are not consistent.
A. Is that a question?
My question to you is, do you agree that that
could occur, because it will save a lot of blackboard work?
A. Not the way you stated it.
I think your sliderule backfired or something.
You can't get a negative catch. And there is nothing in what
I have done that could produce that. It is simply a percentage
allocation of the catches in the various areas.
There is no way it could end up being a negative.
Q. I agree with you 100 percent you can't get a
negative catch.
A. Yes, but you did.
I didn't.
mm3 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8722
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: One at a time, please.
BY DR. LAWLER:
All I am. saying is that you have taken the 1965
data.
. Yes.
And arbitrarily made a split.
A. Yes.
Into four zones, the four zones being -
A. Maybe this is where you went wrong.
The initial allocation is state by state, and
then it is simply pooling the state figures into each of these
areas. So it is aprocess of summary.
Q That is correct.
But the allocation by state is the guestimate that
I guestioned you on yesterday.
A. Yes.
All right.
All I am saying is, you made that allocation for
1965, which -
A. Yes.
. . Which I have no particular argument with, because
it is characterized as a guestimate. And you also made that
allocation again as a guestimate for the mean of the two years
1965 and 1970.
A. I don't know whether this is an answer or not, but
mm4 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24 .- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8723
when I tried to get that together, it was in response to
some particular question and so I took those figures and pre
sented them where I had for 1970 no records state by stae, so
that was based upon -- not upon individual state records and
a summary thereof, but an estimate, guestimate, of approximate
balances, and allocation between the two.
It wasn't based on the stae by state summaries.
Now, when everybody got interested in this and I
had to producesomething more definite at :Mr..Brigg's
recommendation and all, then I went back to harder data I had
the state by state allocations.
So the '65 stuff is, I think, fairly good. The
1970, we just don't even have the publication yet, there woul4
be no way to do it.
Q. I thought you told me yesterday that the 1965 was
guestimate.
You seem to be saying now the 1965 split was based
on a record of state by state?
A. No, it is based on an individual series of
approximations of state by state catches summarized, so that
for the far north section we had estimated Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, summarized those and
then we estimated Connecticut, New York -- those are the
numbers I gave -- and then New Jersey and Delaware -- those
are the other numbers I gave. -- then Maryland, Virginia
mm5 1
* 2
3
0 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8724
and North Carolinaas the south Toup.
It is a summation of individual -pproximations,
separately by stats. I don't know if this helps you out of
the dilemma of the negative number of not.
Q No, it doesn't, because if you recall
yesterday that that split among the states was an estimate mad
by Sandy Hook and not data that came out of the sport fishing
Census Bureau Survey.
A. Right.
So ultimately it comes down to a guestimate,
perhaps a very educated guestimate, no argument on that poinL
among the four states. But nevertheless, a guestimate?
A. Yes.
Q. And similarly for 1965-70 mean, a similar thingr
was done in the sense that an arbitrary, if you will, or
guestimate allocation was made.
A. Yes.
I am trying to point out that it is conceivable
that those two allocations may induce an inconsistency in an
allocation for 1970.
You just indicated you have not done an allocation
for 1970.
A. Right.
O So I am saying, since you have done it for '65 and
since you have done it for the mean of the two years, you
8725
mm 6 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce-Fed.' al Reporters, Inc.
25
should be able to back-calculate to get the '70 allocation.
But I am saying, in a sense you have put the cart
before the horse. You have assigned the mean before you had
the '70 estimate. And in doing this, you subject yourself
to the possibility that when you do the back calculation, you
will arrive at an inconsistency. And I am suggesting that
in fact, using the numbers that you have presented, you do
arrive at an inconsistency in the sense that the only way
you can obtain the averages for '65-70 with the split that
you have given for '65, is to induce a negative number in
one of the areas for '75 -- I mean for 1970.,
PL Maybe it would be helpful if during a recess we
just sat down with a paper and pencil, or went to the black
board -- when it gets to proportions and ratios and things
like this, I fi nd it hard to follow.
Q. But you understand the point I am driving at?
A. I think I do.. I am not sure.
Q. I am arguing that the basic notion of making
arbitrary or guestimates does, from time to time, lead one to
some inconsistencies and I think that is the case here.
MR. BRIGGS: Could I ask a question?
I understand the state by state allocation for
1965.
Did I understand you to say there was a state by
state allocation made for the average of '65 and '70?
mm7 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8726
DR. LAWLER: Yes, Mr. Briggs.
MR. BRIGGS: What page is that on?
DR. LAWLER: There is a table in the testimony
after page 8578.
That does not give the four states Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey and Delaware, but the contribution
designated under the North ATlantic for the Hudson is the statE
of Connecticut and New York, and the contribution under the
title Middle Atlantic for the Hudson-influenced fish are
the States of New Jersey and Delaware, or the areas encompasse
by those states.
Don't y ou think just a simple averaging of 1965
and 1970 numbers induce some pretty large -- I will not call
them errors-- but uncertainties?
Here the distribution between the North ATlantic
and the Middle Atlantic is entirely different in '65 from what
it is in '70. And it seems to me we all recognize that there
are some very large uncertainties in the numbers.
I wonder whether this is not just trying to cut
things too fine by pointing out that there can be some incon
sistencies when you do this sort of thing. We all recognize
that one is likely to induce inconsistencies in numbers
when we try to do the kinds of calculations that are being done,
and there are very large uncertainties in some of the numbers,
changes in distributions and that sort of thing.
mm8 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8727
I think the Board sort of looks on this as, well,
some information that is very useful, but I don't know, y ou
look at the third significant figure and you throw that away
and you look at the second significant figure and you throw
that away and you wonder how good the first number is.
DR. LAWLER: I am simply trying to distinguish
between the notion of uncertainty- and the notion of
inconsistency.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH:. If you accept the premise that
it is a guestimate, doesn't that automatically or inherently
mean a lot of uncertainty?
So if you get a couple of guestimates and you show
some minute differences, are we going to turn out the lights
and be in darkness or something?
DR. LAWLER: No, I am not suggesting that.
What I would suggest that Mr. Clark might have
done here, if he chooses to make an allocation among the region
Delaware-Maryland lines and north to Rhode Island and
Connecticut line, fine. But I think that the procedure
for making the allocation should have been to take 1965
and make an allocation, and to take 1970 and make an allocation
I wouldn't have nad any argument with that.
But my argument is that when you take 1965 and make
an allocation and then take the two years, the mean, and make
an allocation, you force an allocation on 1970. And, in fact,
mm9
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 @ 13
14
15
16
17
V8
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8728
the allocation forced on 1970 is one that simply doesn't make
any sense.
I am not arguing the notion of allocating or the
uncertainties for that matter.
MR. BRIGGS: You point out, so one should go back
then, if that is the case,and make another allocation for
1970 and come up with some numbers.
And I wonder, they will be more consistent, but
will they really be any better?
DR. LAWLER: I don't know.
I really couldn't answer that,
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think that is someth ._a you
might viant to te up with your lawyer, because it gets into
the questionof relevancy.
We could spend an undue amount of time and end up
with figures that aren't any better.
DR.LAWLER: I really can stop this line at this poin
because Mr. Clark and I agreed that in the recess we can
check these numbers.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: All right.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q. I would like to go on now to the top of page 8562
in which you have indicated that your support for the 80 percen
contribution of the liidson to this sport fishery characterized
by the 1965 and 1970 angling: surveys, and further broken
mml0 1
* 2
3
4
5
end #5 6 8151
7
8
9
10
11
..2
131
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce-Feder3l Reporters, Inc.
25
8729
down by yourself as we just discussed, is based on the
fact that in table 4 of your 1968 tagging paper, that 52 of
65 fish taken in spawning situations, that is during the
spring, in the Hudson or tidal rivers to the south -- I
should havesaid were taken --
CR 8151
# 6
kar ].1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 \ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8730
MR. TROSTEN: May we be sure we know what that,
those three lines say now? You read something based upon
what we said before and Mr. MacBeth read it off this morning.
I still, maybe I am the only one in the room that has this
felling, but would you simply read lines five-through seven,
Mr. MacBeth, as they now read?
MR. MACBETH: I don't want to do that, having done
it once. I have a note here and I might get it wrong. Intthe
Hudson and the tidal rivers of the south, 65 fish were taken
in the spring, in the spawning situation. Fifty-two of those
were taken in the Hudson.
THE WITNESS: Can I show it on the map?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Let's take a recess. Maybe we
can clear up the calculations and meanings of things. Do you
think it would be helpful to do this?
MR. TROSTEN: It is not necessary as far as I am
concerned, Mr. Chairman, whatever you think.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: If it is not necessary, then let'.,
proceed.
THE WITNESS: I could most easily just explain this
on a map very quickly. The area of the coast north of New
York is not thought by anyone I know of to be a productive,
to have productive spawning in rivers. There are in fact
occasionally some small fish taken in the Parker River in
Massachusetts. I think we have a record from the Saco River
kar 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 S 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
* 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8731
in Maine, and so forth. Occasionally ones have been reported
from a couple of the Conneticut rivers, but there is no sign
of any continuous successful or important spawning.
So I am saying that the spawning area we are con
cerned about is from the Hudson River south to Chesapeake Bay.
Throughout this whole area of the spawning in the springtime,
from April through June, when the fish could be spawning, I
had recovered 65 of my tags.
Now, of those 65 that were recovered, of the taggin
I did in the Hudson influenced area, 52 of those came from the
Hudson. And 12 Of them came from between the Hudson, and, or
throughout the lower part of the middle Atlantic area, from th
Hudson down to the Delaware, and only one came from the
Chesapeake Bay.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q That was certainly my understanding of what this
table four indicated. However, there are a few questions. Thi
table four also indicates that there were a total of 78 fish
taken and the difference between 65 and 78, or 13 fish taken
in the spring in the rivers north of the Hudson, namely the
rivers in Conneticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and the
St. John River. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So-
A Thirteen fish.
kar 3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8732
Q Now is this evidence that these fish were spawning
in those rivers north of the Hudson?
A It is a suggestion that they may, but the evidence
suggests if they do spawn, the egs die immediately and do not
succeed in providing any young in that river. There are so
many in some of the Conneticut rivers at the right time of
the spring it makes me think they are trying continually.to
spawn in these rivers, but they are not succeeding, because of
temperature or food resource problems, the timing and
schedule of phytoplankton blooms in the spring and so forth.
So I think what is happening is since, even in the
Parker River, there is evidence of spawning once in a while,
up in Massachusetts, suggests to me they are constantly.
attempting to spawn in these situations, to colonize them, and
only very rarely do they succeed.
Q So what you are saying is that although there may
be an attempt at spawning in the northern rivers, in your mind,
there does not appear to be evidence that there is successful
bleeding in them?
A Yes, right.
Q Would you say the simple presence of striped bass
in a river in the spring is evidence of spawning?
A No, it works the other way around. If they are not
there, they can't possibly spawn. If they are, they may.
Q Wouldn't you agree that you would also have to know
kar 4 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
*22
23
24 Ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8733
the age and the sexual maturity of the fish involved?
A Yes.
Q If you look at table five on page 340, which is
right next to table four on page 340 of your 1968 paper, you
give a breakdown of the 52 spring recaptures in the Hudson
in terms of the length. And these ranged from 11 to 24 inches
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, would you not also agree that the majority,
25 of the 52, fall into the 17 to 18 inch length group?
A True.
Q Is it not possible then that many of the fish which
occurred in the Hudson in the spring were not sexually mature?
A Yes, you can see that from table six where I tried
to carry this all of the way through and I provided specific
data on the lengths and the maturity of both male and female
fish from which you can see that your point , is well taken.
There is a gradually increasing maturity of these
fish over the area between 12 inches and 22 inches.
Q Depending on whether they are males or females?
A Depending on whether they are males or females.
Males may mature as early as age two. The females don't
ordinarily mature until they are four. This means that the
hordes of small males that are in the river are busy
fertilizing females, but the females need another year or two
8734
kar 5 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
to get to the point of producing eggs.
Q So therefore, without data on the sex .6f: thM 52
recaptures, we really don't know whether these 52 recaptures
were in a spawning situation?
A This is the young group, and the reason for that
is because when these fishermen, these sport fishermen were
tagging these fish, they preferred to tag the small fish, not
the trophy fish. If a guy caught a 10-pound striped bass, he
would bring that one home, and if he caught two pound and a
half or two-pound fish, three-pound fish, he would tag them
and let them go.
Q But your answer to my question is that we really
don't know whether any of the 52 fish captured in the Hudson
were sexually mature?
A' Only by a system of comparison and of logic here,
where you find that beyond the size of -- let me just check
this -- beyond the size of 23 inches, the data indicate in
table six they are 100 percent mature. So the last group woul(
be no doubt mature.
Q Two out of the 52?
A Twenty-three to 24. If you move up to 21 and 22,
you would see that you have -- 21 to 22 you would have a
percentage of maturity of somewhere around 50 percent or so,
if you kind of added the males and females together. And
backing up the way to 20, 19 and so on, you get a decreasing
kar6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8735
proportion of mature fish. Where you.can't be sure that any
individual fish is mature or not, the indication is that a
substantial proportion of these males were, and some of the
females would have been.
Q That is correct, Mr. Clark, if know that the 19 to
24 inch fish were, ifor example, all males. But we don't know
that. I am just simply trying to suggest that the mere
presence of the 52 returns can't be assumed to mean that the
majority of these were in a spawning situation.
A I have something to add to this that may be helpful
if I can find it. Yes. In my paper, our paper, "Migratory
fish of the Hudson estuary," there is a chart, one you didn't
enter into evidence, that shows the dispersal of fish from the
Hudson.
Now, these fish are of a larger size than the
others. These are fish ranging in size, when they are tagged,
from 9iinches in size in the mid '30s. So we have a mix,
very small fish, but it went up to very large ones. The
average range of these will be around three, four or five
pounds. So this is a sample of dispersal out of theiriver
after spawning of the larger and older fish.
And it does show them scattering out throughout the
Hudson influenced area, and some going as far north as
Massachusetts, Plum Island and the Merrimack River. There
aren't sufficient data from this to infer a percentage. It is
8736
kar 7 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
even lower niirnbers than I was trying to work with out of the
other paper.
Q Now, I would like to turn for a few moments to the
source of the fish that were caught in the Hudson area and
perhaps we can do this best at the table up here or maybe I
can just state what I have in mind.
I have in frong of me the original documents which
you gave me last night, in which the tagging areas of the
Hudson River returns are located. And I would simply like to
point out, if you agree, that the locations by and large for
the most part are in the near shore area around Jamaica Bay
or on the south side of the spit along Jamaica Bay itself and
in the western quarter of Long Island Sound.
A Can I interrupt for a minute? That same informatior
has been entered into evidence, it is-.a part of the record. It
might be helpful if you gave the page number.
MR. TROSTEN: This is the figure one?
THE WITNESS: Figure one from this report, yes.
MR. TROSTEN: I will find it, Mr. Clark, and we
will make reference to it.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q In any event, what I would like you to try to check
up for us is how you can go from these 52 of 65 or 78, whatevei
percentage you want to take, of tagged returns,,which are
recaptured in the Hudson in the spring, which came by and largE
kar 8
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
E #6 24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8737
from this relatively localized area in th'e western quarter
of the Sound and the western end of the southern side of Long
Island, to the allocation that you made for the contribution
of the Hudson River to the sport fishery, in which you defined
the sport fishery from as far to the north as *the Conneticut
Rhode Island border and as far to the south as the Delaware
Maryland line.
I don't really see that whether you use 80 percent,
which is 52 out of 65, or whether you use 67 percent, which is
52 out of 78, no matter what you use, the point remains that
the source of all these 52 fish is a very localized area in
the base and shallows of both the western quarter of i-he Sound,
and the south shore of Long Island on the west end,
And it seems to me that the role those areas are
playing is really no different than the role the Chesapeake
is playing to the rivers in the Chesapeake. So my difficulty
is the extrapolating to this very broad are.j really, when you
consider the miles and miles of shoreline from Montauk Point,
both sides of Long Island, the Conneticut border and all of
the way down to north Jersey and Delaware points.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, for the reference of th(
Board, the figure to which Dr. Lawler is -referring is entered
in evidence after pa ge 8168 in the transcript for January 11,
1973.
8738
CR8151
ter- 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce -,Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Thank you. Now, let us get back
and see what the question is. You have explained your diffi
culty, and you indicated so many miles of shoreline and this
extrapolation.
What is your question? You have told us what your
problem is. Do you want to ask if he has a problem with your
problem?
BY.MR. LAWLER:
Q I would ask him to connect up, if he can, how the
evidence of 52 spring recaptures from a fish, taaed in the
Verner Bay Shore area ofthe waters surrounding the mouth of
the Hudson River can lead him to the conclusion that this con-
tributes: to 80 percent of the area from the Connecticut-Rhoc]e
Island border on the north, to the Maryland-Delaware line, on
the south.
A Well, my answer to that is that it is the largest
number of tagging returns in this particular Hudson influenced
area -
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Will you speak a little louder,
please?
THE WITNESS: Surely. It is the best collection of
data I know of of taggings from the Hudson-influenced area with
which to make this kind of estimate. I have always collected
taqgings down in Great South Bay, West Hamilton Beach, and
other places in this area; more out on the south shore, for
8739ter-2
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 \ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
instance, and the pattern is essentially the same.
The numbers are fewer, but the pattern is the same.
I could refer you to a particular chart on a particular page
of one of Mr. Shaeffer's papers. But essentially, the pattern
is the same thing, that after you sort through.your;tags,:-fi
ter out from them, fish that are recovered in spawning
situations, they are predominantly in the Hudson, with some
in the Delaware Bay area, and if, if any, in the Chesapeake.
That'is just the situation for our fish up here.
They may be down there in the Winter, wintering over in numbers
but they don't stay there to spawn, they come up north to
spawn. They are a part of that Hudson-Atlantic contingent of
mine; spawn in the Hudson and just go right out again, real
fast.
You really do have to analyze -- this is one of the
things that has confused the issue over the years consistently.
People tag up here in the northern areas, and they get a bunch
of tagging returns back from the Chesapeake Bay, and they say,
"Well, these fish are all going down there and spawning in the
Chesapeake Bay," because they get a lot of tag returns.
But, you look at those tag returns, and you find
they come from January, February, and March. They don't come
from May and April, when those fish spawn down there. You
look and see where the fish were in May and April, and they
are already out of the Chesapeake Bay, headed north long beforE
8740ter-3
1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
spawning.
BY MR. LAWLER:
Q Would you give me the specific references which
you just referred to -
A Schaeffer and Alprin. You will find them in
Rainey's testimony where he has everybody layed out there. Ant
this is particularly the January, 1968 paper of Richard H.
Schaeffer, and in the New York Fish and Game Journal, Volume 1E
No, 1.
MR. TROSTEN: May I ask a question at this point,
Mr. Chairman?
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q First of all, Mr. Clark, would you please provide
us the specific reference in the Schaeffer paper?
A I just did, I read it into the record.
Q Which table, which page?
A I am sorry. I think Figure 25 specifically gives
a visual, dramaticview of this. But, that is only for one
experiment, at Westhampton Beach.
You should look at some of the others.
Q Is there something else in there that you say
supports your view, besides the figure you just mentioned?
A The several taggings that were done, if analyzed in
this fashion, will show you that the areas that the fish
tagged by Shaeffer and Albrin went to, to spawn, the primary
ter-4
I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 %ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8741
area was the Hudson River, regardless of their conclusions,
these guys have this data in front of them to look at, they
come out with some rather strange conclusions from it, and it
puzzles me that nobody has analyzed these tag records in this
fashion, that you have to look and see where they were, at
spawning period; now, where they spent the winter.
Q Mr. Clark, could you tell me the specific tables
or graphs or charts -
A All of the way through this, this whole thing is a
report on tagging. Now, if you would like me to give you
tables, I can do that.
Q Yes, I would like the exact table.
A Okay, Table Four, Table Eiqht, Table Twelve; and I
think that is it.
That would be sufficient.
BY MR. LAWLER:
Q And you are specifically dealing with the data in
those tables, not the conclusions of Schaeffer and Alprin?
And you are particularly concerned with the location, or the
whereabouts of fishes that were tagged in the spring, when
those fishes were captured?
A Yes. My data devided up by calendar months, you
know; January, February, March, March-April-May, so that is
as fine a breakdown as I have, spring.
As you mentioned before, just because they are
8742ter-5
2
3
4
end-7 5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
caught during that three months period, in the river, does
not necessarily mean they are spawning there.
But, it is a good indication, the areas where they
are in the spring, are the areas where they must be spawning.
imil I
sp 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8743
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Mr. Clark, are you relying upon the Shaffer paper
for your conclusion with respect to the contribution of the
Hudson spawning to the entire Atlantic Coast?
A Only in the sense that it confirms the general
trend. I haven't used it numerically.
Q Only in the sense that it confirms what general
trends?
A The trend that I found, approximating the
proportions of fish in the Hudson-influenced area that go
to different places to spawn, using tags to approximate
spawning locations of that group of fish. This pattern of
predominant spawning in the Hudson is confirmed by the
Shafner and all principal experiments as the data reported
by them is shown, for example, in the figures I just gave
you.
Q
trend you
right?
When you say the trends you found, you mean the
found and reported on in your 1969 paper, is that
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now you are referring to the documentl called,
"Size, Age, and Migration of Striped Bass," by Shaffer, is
that correct?
2mil 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8744
A Yes. Also "Dispersal, Migration, and Origins of
Striped Bass From Great South Bay Long Island," by
Irvin M. Alprin.
Q Are you relying upon the conclusions of Shaffer -
A Let me try to explain this. I have here the paper
by Alprin -
Q Before you do that, let me ask you two questions.
Are you relying upon the conclusion of Shaffer or upon the
tables that you read off to us?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What conclusions? Can you show
him the conclusions? I think we are getting into generalitie
here. Do you have a page before you that enumerates the
conclusions?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes. Let me read the conclusion
and ask if he relied on this, conclusions which appear on pag(
347. "It would appear that, for the most part, the
abundance of striped bass inhabiting the south shore surf
areas of Long Island is directly dependent upon the contri
bution of stocks produced in more southern waters, most prob
ably Chesapeake Bay. Apparently only in years when this
contribution is low does the influence of Hudson River stock
on the south shore population become evident." Is that the
conclusion that you are relying on?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't rely on either of
those conclusions.
3mil1 1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ae -Federal Reoreters, Inc.
25
8745
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Let me read you the conclusion from page 110
of the Aiprin paper, which appears in the New York Fish and
Game Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, January, 1966, under the
heading conclusions, page 110, "In years when- the population
of striped bass in Great South Bay is low, a substantial pro
portion of those present may be of Hudson River origin. But
when the species is abundant, it seems probable that most
of the fish come from the Delaware Bay-Chesapeake Bay region
and represent dominant year classes spawned there." Now my
question is, are you relying on those two conclusions for
your conclusion? Would you answer that question,, please?
A No.
Q Thank you.
A And I will explain why. This is the result of
the tagging in that Alprin paper (drawing on board). The
conclusion which you just read to me, which I will recap,
which says when the species is abundant, it seems probable
most of the fish come from the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake,
if you look at their tag returns you find spawning season,
spawning in rivers, tidal rivers in the spawning season,
six. from the Hudson, two from Jersey-Delaware, one from the
Chesapeake. Now this is
Q Would you tell me the exact sections of the Alprir
paper -- you read off the Shaffer paper. I want to know
4mil 1
2
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8746
exactly what data you are relying on, since the conclusion
is different from yours.
A We have to look at where they are in the spawning
period. That has been the trouble all of the way through
this. Now you will find these data in Table'9, pages 100
to 103 of the Alprin reference, New York Fish and Game
Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, January, 1966, which you just read
a conclusion from. You have to look at where they spawn.
How a man could reach a conclusion that his fish came from th,
Chesapeake and Delaware when those same fish go to spawn in
the Hudson and in Jersey, as well as Delaware and Chesapeake.
The predominant spawning grounds for those very fish he
talks about and he tagged here is the Hudson River. It. is
right there. It has it in his conclusions. viaybe you want
to check that and we will argue about it some more today,
because I think it is the important point of this,-how these
people have been misled over the years, as Dr. Goodyear
pointed out, into thinking the Chesapeake supplies all of
these fish, when every bit of analytical evidence you can
get out says just the opposite. They don't.
BY DR. LAWLER:
QAre you saying these were spawning fish or in your
opinion these were spawning fish?
A Those are -the 10 fish, or nine fish, excuse me,
taken in tidal rivers during the springtime. No other fish
8747
5mil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
*11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
were taken in the springtime in tidal rivers than those nine
and those are the areas in which they occurred. They were in
the bays, in the open coast; they were migrating, doing varioi.
things. But of the nine fish that showed up in any tidal
rivers during the springtime period, there is the summary of
where they did occur, which rivers they occurred in.
Q But you have to assume that to say they were
spawning, that -- well, the assumption -- it is an assumption
they were in the spawning mode. You don't know their age,
you don't know their sex.
MR. BRIGGS: It seems clear that Mr,, Clark has
said several times they were in a spawning situation and that
he said he doesn't know whether they were spawning or not.
DR. LAWLER: I have one other question on this.
You referred to several tables several months ago. Were
those specifically tables in Shaffer's paper?
THE WITNESS: Those were the second table
reference I gave, when Mr. Trosten asked, was Table 9,
starting on page 100 in Alprin.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q I am referring to the first table reference.
A The first batch of tables were Shaffer, Volume 15,
No. 1, New York Fish and Game Journal.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: At'this time, let us recess, to
reconvene in this room at 10:50.
(Recess.)
CR 8151 9
eakl
I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
023 24
Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8748
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Please come to order. is :'the
Applicant ready to proceed. Would you do so please.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q I would like to turn now to the bottom of page 8562
in which you continue a discussion of the support for the
80 percent contribution of the Hudson. You indicate that you
investigated the possible contribution of the Chesapeake
to the coastal migratory striped bass stock as shown by the
tagging data, and to summarize, you indicate that only 1.8 perc
of the recaptures were found outside of Chesapeake Bay.
I think you conclude from this that only a small
percentage of the Chesapeake Bay fish are contributing to
this Middle Atlantic area. Now, my first question is when
you say you investigated the possible contribution of the
Chesapeake, is this in a published paper?
A These numbers and so on.
Q No, your investigation.
A No, it is recorded -- let me see if I can find
that. It is recorded in a memorandum of August 18, 1967,
to the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
in Washington D. C., from the laboratory director of the Sandy
Hook Marine Laboratory, subject, "Atlantic Coast Cooperative
Striped Bass Migration STudy-Attachments."
Q Is that the only document that exists on this
topic relative to your investigation of the question?
eak 2
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
131
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8749
A That is my direct source of the numbers used in
the testimony. I don't know whether there is other information
or not. You are welcome to borrow the memorandum and have it
copied.
Q Thank you. Do you identify the source of the seven
experiments, so we can get the data on those?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: The record should show that
Mr. Clark has handed the documents to Applicant
counsel.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Mansueti and Nichols and Miller,
as reported in the memorandum, although the specific
citation to those two authors is not included, but thecy would
be locatable in Dr. Raney's testimony.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Is it not true, Mr. Clark, that the majority of
fish in these studies were less than four years old?
A Yes. The ages two to four are the ones that.I would
consider to be the primary age of beginning of first
migration, so that fish tagged between age 2 and 4, you would
be tagging in the age pool of fish that would be committing
themselves to become coastal migratory or -staying resident
in the Bay.
Q And weren't most of these recaptures also in the
same age bracket?
A Yes, I believe so.
eak3
1 Q And isn't it generally held that the young striped
2 bass don't begin to migrate out of the general zone of their
3 development until after age 4.
4 A No.
5 Q IT is not?
6 A It is in their third year of life that they begin
7 migrations normally. There are a number of references to this,
8 the third year of life meaning age 2, and then into age 3 or
9 age 4. So if you are trying to identify a group of fish that
10 might migrate out of the Chesapeake Bay to become part of the
1 coastal migratory stock, you would probably want to tag 2s
12 and 3s and 4s. Now, you will find that that document that
13 Mr. Trosten is now holding was relative to discussing a coastal
14 migratory stock as opposed from fishes living in bays, Long
15 Island Sound or estuaries, this sort of thing. So I am sure
16 you will want to look into that and you will find a figure
17 representing coastal migratory contingents by which it is
18 meant to imply only those fish that are migrating long
19 distances across the coast, not those living in western Long
20 Island Sound and Jamaica Bay and so on.
21 Q What I am simply suggesting here is that isn't it
* 22 possible that the reason for the relatively low percentage
23 of recaptures outside the Chesapeake Bay area is that the fish
24 we were dealing with are simply the fish that one would expect,
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. because of their age, to remain in the Chesapeake Bay? 25
8750
8751eak4
Ace - Federal Reporters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 , Inc. 25
A Yes. I can add a little to that from memory.
(Drawing on blackboard.)
But this is checkable in the Mansueti paper on age
and growth and migrations of striped bass caught in selective,
size selective year, a title something like that. If you look
at the age structure of the fish in the Chesapeake Bay that are
available either for tagging purposes for the scientists,
or for fishing purposes for either sport or commercial fishermen
you will find a high peak of abundance of age 2 fish, and a 1o7E
number of age 3, and even less of age 4. And then very
small numbers of 5s, 6s, and 7s. So the predominant age groups
in the Chesapeake Bay population available to be caught are froi
age 2 to age 4 which is also the group that has the migratory
propensity and which also consists of the bulk of the
population.
So, if you are tagging these fish, you are indeed
tagging a group of fish that are the likely subjects for
migration out of the bay. You are also tagging the main bulk
of the population. I am not talking about the zero and one
year olds here, the very small fish. But these that become
harvestable or catchable for tagging and so on, in this area,
tend to be the mass of the population. So you would be
getting a fairly representative, youwould be getting a very goo
sample of fish with the migratory propensity.
Q My question is,isn't it more likely that the recaptui
8752eak5
I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
\23
Ace Fe 2 4
Inc.
'5
of this,. age group will take place within the area, in
this case Chesapeake Bay?
A It certainly is. 98 percent of them stay right
there, only two percent go out.
Q Because one expects that they will still remain in hat
area for the ageat which they exist?
A Definitely. They stay there and they get
caught. There is a high fishing mortality,
in that bay. And with the natural mortality added on to that,
the decrease from age to age in those fish is very severe.
So by the time-they are age 5, those that remain inthe bay,
there are very few of them left that could augment the
fishery. In other words, the population is being
decimated'within a very short period of time. And that may
very well be the reason that there aren't more coming out,
because they are caught in the bay by fishermen.
Q What is theiaverage weight, Mr. Clark, of the fish
in this age group?
A Perhaps a pound and a half. Small fish. We
can check that too.
MR. BRIGGS: Excuse me. Rather than average age,
though, one might include that, could we give some idea of
weight as a function of age?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. The two year old fish
average about 12 ounces. The three year old fish average about
eak6
I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
one pound and 13 ounces. The four year old fish average
about three pounds.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q My question is, isn't it likely that the major
contribution to the, from the Chesapeake to the area of the
Atlantic beyond the Chesapeake, moves out from the
Chesapeake at age four years and beyond?
A This has been shown by Chapton and also by Nichols.
They talk about the fact that when the fish get out here to the
older sizes there is a higher probability of their recapture
outside ofithe Chesapeake Bay. I think everybody accepts
that, including me, that it is the older fish that leave the
bay. The problem is by the time you put a 60 percent
mortality or so, 65 percent total combined mortality on these,
you are cutting them down so fast that there just aren't any
fish left.
Q But we are talking about the contribution to the spo
fishery and we have established previously that the average
poundage in 1965, for example, in the lower range was two and
a half or 2.6-some odd pounds and in the North Atlantic region
was some 3.6 pounds.
And furthermore, if you take thedata from 1970 and
perform the same computations you will find the averages again
in the Middle Atlantic are in the area of 2.7 pounds, but the
averages in the North Atlantic are some 10.5 pounds.
8753
8754eak7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
I am simply suggesting that as far as contribution
to the fishery goes, whether it is leaving the Chesapeake
or the Hudson or the Delaware or whatever, don't we expect
it as far as contributing to the fishery, to leave beyond
the period or just about the end of the period where most of
the fish were tagged in the tagging studies that you refer to?
A Well, you could look at it -
MR. MACBETH: Just a moment. Could I have part
of that question clarified. Expected to leave -- what do you
expect to leave what in the question.
DR. LAWLER: Leave the Chesapeake or the Hudson or ft
that matter, to the fishery known as the Mid and North Atlantic
THE WITNESS: What I think might clear the situation
up is that perhaps a small percentage of 2s are going to migrat
a larger percentage of 3s, and -anveven larger percentage of
4s and a larger percentage of 5s, 6s, and so on. So that your
probability is very much higher of a fish of this size leaving
than one of that size?
(Indicating.)
But there are so few fish left of these sizes in the
Chesapeake Bay after several years of heavy fishing that there
is not a reservoir of these large fish to leave the Chesapeake
area.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Do you have an estimate Of --
eak8
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8755
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Let him finish.
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: And what has happened in the Chesapeak
Bay is this, that some of the people in the north interested in
fishing have asked the Chesapeake Bay people
to please raise their size limit. They now catch the fish
at 12 inches in theChesapeake Bay. They have been asked
if they wouldn't raise their size limit in the Bay, the
official one to say 16 inches, so that bhese fish wouldn't
be getting killed off so fast, and the populations would
be higher at ages 3 and 4, so that there would be a-more
substantial stock all of the way down to try to increase the
abundance of older fish in the hopes that we would get more
migration out of there to supply some more fish for up this
way.
But in the Chesapeake Bay they don't want to do that
because there is a natural mortality which is eating away
some of this every year and they just don't want to lose their
fish. So that is where it is resolved. I think what we are
all saying is essentially the same thing. It is the larger
fish with the higher tendency to migrate. But the problem
is there is very few of them there.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Fine, I understand what you are driving at, but for
example, do you have a population estimate of the large fish in
8756
@I 2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Chesl eake Bay?
A Very simply that can be done from the age compositid
of the catch which you can deduce from Mansueti's and other
.peoplet'; work, applied to a total population of between 11.milli
and 0 million-fish. It is possible to allocate this out. I haver
done it. At least I could find no record of my having
done it back in '67.
Q You just indicated that the size for legal catch
in the Chesapeake is quite low, 12 inches. And again this woul
seem to me to be consistent with the notion that what you saw i
those tagging studies was the recapture of some fish or very ma
fish which had not yet reached the age at which point
they would begin to migrate out of the Chesapeake. I am
simply saying that the tagging recapture studies that you
refer to, I have no argument with them, but I don't see
that the fact that only one and a half percent of those fish
were recaptured outside of the Chesapeake Bay supports
your contention that Chesapeake Bay is contributing only
one-some odd percentage to the fishery that we are talking
about.
A I have gone on an assumption that I haven't
actually gone through the mathematical analysis to check out,
but I have gone on the assumption that the tagging effort in
the Chesapeake Bay is related in its age composition to the
population. So that.if-the age 3 fish represented s < 30 percer
e ak 9
8757
e ak 10
1 of the total population of these fishes, that
30 percent
2 of the tagged fish would have been age 3. So that you
3 get a proportional representation in your tagging experiment0
4 the ages automatically by your fishing technique.
Now,
5the 1.8 percent would be every sensitive
to any large mis
6 representation of ages in the sampling,
and that could be
'9 7 checked.
8
9
10
1*1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
109
20
21
22
* 23
24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
#10 DORA 1
Oinl cr8151
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8758
Q. Well, you have explained your methodology here,
it is in the record, so I can study that later on.
What references are you relying on for your
statement a few moments ago that the striped bass migrate
out of Chesapeake Bay in their third year at age two?
A. That is generally -- that is a more or less general
accepted believe about the fish.
I could certainly find it in two or three or four
sources.
MR. TROSTEN: Would you do that?
THE WITNESS: I will get you at least one source.
I think the best immediate reference that I could
give you on this particular issue is a paper called "Striped
Bass in Maryland Tidewater" by Romeo J. Manswetti and
Edgar H. Hollis. And that is February 1963, publication of
the Natural Resources Institute of the University of
Maryland, Solomons, Maryland, in which Dr. Manswetti says:
"In general these studies show that only a
small percentage of fish appear to leave the Bay,
so that there is little loss to the outside of the
younger fish of catchable size."
MR. TROSTEN: Excuse me, Mr. Clark,that wasn't
the question.
Dr. Lawler's question was, what references do you
rely on for your statement that striped bass migrate out of
mm2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8759
the Chesapeake Bay in their third year. That is at age two.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
This is saying the same thing. The younger fish
stay in the Bay.-- well, okay. We will go on:
"Recent tagging studies of legal-sized fish
show that certain groups of fish in different
parts of the Bay, as in the Potomac River and
extreme northern Chesapeake Bay, remain localized
up to two years."
Then it is in their third year that they unlocalize
themselves.
BY DR. LAWLER:
That they begin to migrate?
A. Yes.
I was hoping you would accpet this, so I don't
have to do more homework. I have to leave right after this
session tonight.
MR. TROSTEN: I am afraid we can't accept it,
Mr. CLark, because I think it is a matter of some dispute.
THE WITNESS: It is a matter of semantics.
CHAIRVAN JENSCH: I don.t think it is a question of
your determining whether you will accept it or not.
This is data he submitted and you may contest it,
but we ae trying to accommodate his schedule by letting him
get to another hearing tomorrow and if there are going to be
8760
mm3 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
several requests for data, you will either have to take what
he gives you now, or have him supply it later. But we will
determine whether or not it will be acceptable.
MR. TROSTEN: I was responding to Mr. Clark's
request that I accept his staement without his responding
to my question for data.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: VEry well.
MR. TROSTEN: May we have a moment, please?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Sure.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q. Mr. Clark, in line with this series of questions
over the last several minutes, I would like to refer you to
package XII-36, in the Staff statement, the first sentence
in the first paragraph of that statement.
A. Excuse me, XII -
Q. XII-36.
A. Yes.
Q Dr. Goodyear makes the statement:
"Studies of tagged striped bass recaptured
within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin show that
only a very small proportion of the bass less than
four years old, migrate out of the Bay."
And he gives seven references for that.
Do you disagree with this statement of
Dr. Goodyear's?
8761
mm4 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
023
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A. No.
Then in the context of your statement with respect
to the tagging studies which you referred to, which we have
agreed deal with fish in the age bracket two to four years,
would you not have expected those fish to stay in the Chesapea
Bay area and not migrate out of the Bay?
A. I would expect a large proportion of them to
stay in the Bay.
Q All right.
But as far as the conbribution, then, to the Mid
Atlantic and North Atlantic striped bass fishery, it seems
to me that these studies which you refer to don't demonstrate
one way or the other, what the Chesapeake contributes to the
fishery that we are all concerned about.
A. I believe it does.
Q. Do you agree with that statement?
A. I don't believe that I am wrong, no.
Q I am simply asking you whether you agree with the
statement I just made.
A. Read it back, please.
(The reporter read the record as requested.)
THE WITNESS: No, I don't agree to that.
While we are having a little interlude, I could
refer you also to the Richard H. Shaffer paper, Volume 15,
Number one, New York Fish and Game Journal for a statement
mm5 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
122
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8762
about two-year olds, or younger, not migrating.
MR. TROSTEN: What page, please?
THE WITNESS: What immediately caught my eye is
on page 47.
BY DR. LAWLER:
This is a statement about two-year olds not migratiz
A. Yes, about their not migrating until they are two.
MR. TROSTEN: I am sorry, your voice dropped.
THE WITNESS: They are not migrating until they are
two years of age, in their third year c life.
BY DR..LAWLER:
Now, Mr. Clark, you also state on the boLtom of
page 8561, that the AEC Staff has reported calculations in
the Final Environmental Statement for Indian Point No. 2,
page XII-36 and 38, from which it might be estimated that up
to 79 to 93 percent of the Mid-Atlantic stock of striped bass,
those caught from New York to Delaware, may be of Hudson
river origin.
Are you aware that Dr. Goodyear stated in the tran
script, pages 6758 and 59 that he did not rely on the regressic
analysis to which you refer on pages 8561 and 62 for your con
clusion that 80 percent represents the best present estimate
of the Hudson contribution?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I wonder if I could understand
that question. As I understand it, you are saying the
8 7 6 3 ...
mm6 1
2
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
witness said yesterday on 8561 there are data from which I
can make an estimate.
You are saying, well, this fellow never used it
for that kind of estimate.
Do you want to talk it over with Dr. Goodyear?
I don't know whether this gentleman agrees with the conclusion
or not, but if %he used the data to arrive at a result, you
certainly are entitled to test his conclusions, but I
don't think you can have him argue out with Goodyear, who is
not here, as to how he used those data for some kind of
conclusion -- whether he did or not, I don't know.
But the itness said here. are the data from which
it might be estimated that up to 79 to 93 percent may be of
Hudson origin.
Maybe Goodyear said it looks like they are funny
fish or something. I don't know what he said, but you can ask
him about his conclusions, but not Dr. Goodyear's.
MR. TROSTEN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark in
this testimony I have been reading to you, and in other testi
mony which we can find if we have a moment, indicated that the
AEC Staff had drawn a certain conclusion from certain analyses
that they had made.
CHAIR14AN JENSCH: That is not what it says at 8561
and 62.
MR. TROSTEN: lie says:
mm7 I
* 2
3 0 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ' ce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8764
"The AEC Staff has reported calculations in
the Final Environmental Statement for Indian Point
Number 2, page XII-36 and 38, from which it might
be estimated that up to 79 to 93 percent of the Mid
Atlantic stock of striped bass"-
Those caught from New York to Delaware -
.-"may be of Hudson origin."
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: He stated that these calculation1
serve as a basis for him from which it might be estimated
that this is the result.
I don't know what Goodyear said.
MR. TROSTEN: The only point we are trying to make
is, I want to know if Mr. Clark is aware that Dr. Goodyear
was specifically asked if he relied on these calculations to
draw that sort of conclusion, and he said, no, he was not
relying on them.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: It doesn't make any difference
what Goodyear said.
If you disagree with Goodyear, you can test him.
As I understand his testimony at 8561 and 62, he said there
are calculations from which he makes an estimate of such and
such. That is his conclusion.
Ask all of the questions you want about what he
said, but I think when you say, well, John Jones didn't come
up that way, or how about Richard Smith, we have a lot of them
. mm81
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8765
here, it doesn't help anything.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a
point that I think is being lost here and that is that
Mr. Clark has stated that the AEC Staff has drawn this
conclusion -
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: No, he said the calculations
are there from which he makes an estimate.
MR. TROSTEN: May I go back to the transcript and
find the part where Mr. CLark said that there is one way
I can draw an estimate of 80 percent, and it was on the basis
of Dr. Goodyear's calculations.
He specifically referred to the 79 to 93, which is
the regression analysis.
I will go back and find it, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Whatever you desire to do,
proceed in any way you wish, but I think you have to examine
this man's conclusions.
MR. TROSTEN: Thank you.
DR. LAWLER: On that basis I would like to defer
this set of questions until a little later on.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: VEry well.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, may I call the Board's
attention to the transcript now. I have found the section.
It is pages 8451 to 8452. May I read from
the transcript?
mm9 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
2.3
24 -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8766
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Surely.
MR. TROSTEN: The witness -
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Excuse me, I think I have the
transcript here. Let us see if we can follow you.
8451?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Excuse me a moment, please.
What line?
MR. TROSTEN: Line 4, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Thank you.
MR. TROSTEN: "The Witness: The best way to
answer this" -
This being the question about the value of the
Hudson River fishery -
"-"is to try to combine some of the Staff's
thinking about this with mine. If we could accept
that around, say 80 percent of the striped bass in this
general area, are derived from the Udson, then you
could take 80 percent of that $75.4 million -- maybe
we could use that as a hypothetical example.
"Question: Are you attributing to the Regulatory
Staff the conclusions that 80 percent of the -- please
repeat what you said. I am not entirely clear what you
said.
"Question: So we will accept for the moment that
mmlO 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce - Federal Repofters, Inc.
25
8767
you consider that the Staff believes that 80 percent
of the $75.4 million is supported by the Hudson. We
will inquire into that later.
"Answer: Yes."
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What is the answer yes to, it
is all right for you to inquire about it?
MR. TROSTEN: I imagine so, yes.
"Question: What does that amount to, then, in
terms of fish.annually, as you see it?"
Let me skip that part there. Let me turn to Line
8, page 8452.
"Question: The Staff reference t6 80 percent
is not in the Final Environmental STatement, Mr. Clark.
Are you pointing to some specific st&-mnent in the
transcript? -•
"Answer: This is in the transcript from the
December discussions that we had, and as I remember
it, there were two figures that Mr. or Dr. Goodyear
discussed. One was with some correction involving
the formulation of his approach which he said if
you did it that way, it would comeout to about 78
percent, if you did it another way, it would come
out to over 90 percent. I was just taking the
conservative side, I think he said 78, rounding it off
to 80. But we culd do 78 percent as easily and it will
8768
mmll 'still come out right around about 7.6 million fish
2 times 78 percent comes out to 5.9 million. That
3 would be a number we could talk about."
4 It was in light of this colloquy that I
5 wanted to ask the question we posed here, which was:
6 Are you aware that Dr. Goodyear stated on the
7 transcript pages 6758 to 9, that he did not rely on the regres
8 sion analysis to which you refer on pages 8561 and 62 and on
9 the transcript pages to which I was just referring for your
10 conclusion that 80 percent represents the best estimate of the
11 Hudson River cnntribution.
12 CHAIRMAN JENSCH: It seems to iie from these pages
13 that both you and the witness are trying to get on a common
14 basis of some kind, and he started out by saying maybe we can
15 combine some of the thinking of the Staff and come up with abou
16 80, and you kept trying to bring him around to, is this what
17 Goodyear said, and he said, this is in the transcript as I
18 remember it -- there were two figures, so he is starting on
19 a recollection of the transcript without your having identified
20 the portion of the transcript that you mentioned in your
21 questions on 8451 about what the Staff did.
22 A lot of these difficulties could be removed if,
23 when you refer to previous testimony, you do have the
24 transcript, give the page to the witness so he can see it.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 So you are both kind of recalling, and finally,
mml2 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 kce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8769
this is a number we can talk about, but I think it lacks the
specificity and the definiteness that would be a predicate
for saying, well, you said the Staff said this.
It is kind of fishing around, saying that would
be a number we could talk about.
MR. BRIGGS: It seems to me also that the Board
decided that maybe the hypothetical example that was being
discussed there wasn't really very helpful, and this was
the reason for our question, well, what do you think the
percentage is, and how did you arrive at that percentage?
Well, all of the discussion there was maybe
it could be this, you could do this, and didn't turn out to be
very satisfactory after all.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: It seems the further discussion
still talks about it, and the witness said, well, you had a
different number in your table than I have, I don't know if
that refers to the same table or not. But it seems to me it
lacks. the positive basis for a predicate for your questions,
and furthermore, I think that it would move this case along a
lot better if, wherever you refer to previous testimony, if
you'can, take the page and the line and give it to the
witness.
None of this reflects that kind of approach.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I was trying
to do exactly that in the questioning today. I have no
mml3 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 'ce -Federal Reporters, Inc.
8770
knowledge of the pages Mr. Clark was referring to when he
brought up Dr. Goodyear's testimony in the December hearing.
Excuse me, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: That might have been an occasion
for you to inquire about that. But at the same time, this kind
of looking up references on the stand is taking up so much
time.
Now, in asking for support for a lot of the
statements Dr. Lawler asked, we havetaken time for the witness
to go through his files there, of which he seems to have quite
a collection, to find documentary material.
This is the kind of off-the-record information
that should have been inquired about when you prepared for the
hearing, because we are taking a lot of time.
Now, to get back to 8561, he didn't saqy on 8561
that this is what Goodyear said.
He just said these are calculations from which
it might have been estimated. I think there is that
difference.
I think as Dr. Geyer points out, he doesn't
mention Dr. Goodyear here.
Will you proceed, please.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, we have concluded with
this line of questioning and we can move to another subject.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Well, shall we, as we did yesterday,
8771
mml4 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
recess a little earlier?
MR. TROSTEN: Fine.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What time would you suggest for
the noon hour?
MR. TROSTEN: May I suggest we resume here at
12:35, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Any objection?
MR. MACBETH: No objection.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: We are going to conclude by
5:15 this afternoon, aren't we?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
What I would like to do at this time,
Mr. Chairman, it is apparent. to me we are-not going to be
able to finish all of the cross-examination, so what I would
like to do is ask the Board's permission to submit interroga
tories.
Would that be satisfactory?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Let's give some consideration to
that at a later time. I think that that might be a basis for
assistance in preparing rebuttal evidence. I think the subject
might necessarily be open for some interrogation a a further
session. That is the interrogatories would not necessarily
sign off that subject. You may have some rebuttal or redirect
in reference to it,
MR. TROSTEN: What I thought I would like to do,
8772
mml 5
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
end #10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
to avoid the problem of extensive cross-examination in the
redirect rebuttal case that pertains to the direct testimony
and also to conclude within my estimate of five days that I
gave, that is to conclude today.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Why don't you talk it over with
the attorneys and we will give consideration to it later.
At this time, let us recess to reconvene in this
room at 12:30.
(Whereupon, at 11:35 a-.m., the hearing was
recessed to reconvene at 12:30 p.m. this same day-)
8773
imil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
AFTERNOON SESSION
(12:35 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Come to order, please.
Whereupon,
JOHN R. CLARK
resumed the stand, and, having been previously duly sworn,
was examined and testified further as follows:
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Are we ready to proceed? Is
Applicant ready t6 proceed?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Will you do so, please.
CROSS-EXAiMINATION (continued)
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q This line of questions, Mr. Clark, deals with your
testimony of October 30, 1972, that is indicated final,
and I am particularly interested in the data and the series
of calculations that you made in conjunction with the
estimates of entrainment removal or removal by entrainment
and removal by impingement. I think the easiest way to do
this is to just move through your testimony page by page and
where I have a question that I feel has not yet been covered,
I will attempt to ask it.
Now the first question that I have is that on
Figure 2, the horizontal axis has two scales, a calendar month
scale beginning at June 1 and a weeksfrom hatching scale
87741
2mil1 11
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
0 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
beginning at week zero. My question is, is it your intention
to start the hatching from June 1? Or a median point of
hatching is assumed by you to take place on or about June 1,
is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now on page 20, the bottom of the page, you state
that -- excuse me. On page 6, the top of page 6, 1 am sorry,
you state, "At an age of four to five months after hatching
when they have reached an average size of three to three and
a half inches in length, they may be considered mlore bottom
oriented than pelagic," and then a final statement is
attached to that. Then going to page 20, you state that
"Within the 28 days of this stage" -- referring to the early
juvenile stage now -- "from August 13 to September 9, the youn
stripers will almost double their length from one and a half
to nearly three inches, as reflected in Figure 2-B."
My question is, would you not agree that it is
correct to say that the three-inch length is reached in three
months or shortly thereafter, say a week beyond the three
month estimate, rather than at an age of four to five months?
I am simply trying to clarify some length data here. There
is nothing more behind it than that.
A I would say about 15 to 16 weeks or approximately
four months would carry them through to three inches in
length. And here are you talking of standard, fork lengths,
8775
3mil1 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12.
13
1 4.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
total length, or just generally lengths?
Q I am referring to the length measurements that you
are reporting in this testimony.
A Then in Figure 2-B, I would stick with that.
Following page 10, Figurer 2-B. Both of the curves that we
previously discussed here come in around three inches, around
15 to 16 weeks.
Q I would suggest that if you use Figure 2-B and
use the scale on Figure 2-B, you will find that the three
inch length for the Carlson-McCann curve corresponds to 14
weeks and the three-inch length for the Raney curve correspond
to 16 weeks, which is an average of 15 weeks --- 13 weeks is
three months, so 15 weeks is three months and two weeks.
The only thing I bring it up here is I get confused
in reading through here with the different times you have
postulated. it seems to me from all of the evidence that has
been presented, presuming you are starting from June 1 as
the time of median hatching, that the period of time to be
associated with three-inch fish should be on the order of
three to three and a half months. Do you agree?
A Yes, I agree, essentially. Table 24 of Carlson
McCann is the basic thing I have leaned on, and you find them
reaching three inches somewhere around the 1st of October.
That is Column 2 under "mean total length inches," page 45,
Table 24. They are 2.7 inches in early September, and 3.1
8776
4mil j
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
inches in the second week of October. So somewhere in
there, they appear to pass the three-inch mark. I think I
would stick with four months.
Q I would call your attention, then, to Figure 12 in
Carlson-McCann, which again if you scale, take the scale
given by Carlson-McCann, you will find that the three-inch
length coincides very closely with the 1st of September.
This is data taken for the period 1.966 through 1968.
A That iS on page 34 of Carlson-McCann.
Q Yes, sir.
A I tried to do some scaling, I see, from the lines
I have drawn on here, and I gave up, because that growth curve
is even worse than the one I have in my Figure 2-B, I mean
as far as your being able to scale anything off from it.
So anyway, I stuck to the Table 24.
Q All right. Excuse me just a moment.
A Sure.
Q On Figure 1, Mr. Clark, which is just after page 8
in your testimony, you define the ranges by which you define
heavy, moderate, and light or none. And under early larvae,
you indicate that heavy are. those densities greater than .8
organisms per thousand cubic feet and under moderate you
indicate that the density range is .2 to .4 organisms per
thousand cubic feet.
Could you indicate to me the reason for the gap
8777
5mil1 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
between the upper end of the moderate range and the value
selected for the heavy range?
A I would have to check that to be sure, but it may
very well be that there were no values for .5 or .6 that were
obtained in any of the efforts.
Q Would you also check the gap between the value givE
for light or none under juveniles and the value given for
the moderate densities again under juveniles?
A Is this going to be asked? Are you asking me to
check now?
Q No, not now. I would just kind of like to know
the reason why this is so. Again orn that table, you are
plotting data from Carlson and McCann. Were these the
reported Carlson-McCann averages that are reported in their
appendices for each station for the years '66 and '67?
A I would assume so, but let me check.
Q Mr. Clark, in view of the Chairman's comments
earlier this morning, we can proceed. I don't need that
particular piece of information at the moment.
A All right.
Q I thought if you knew the answer right offhand
A Yes, I am sorry. I would have-to dig.
Q Fine. We can discuss that later.
A I have located one of the values, for instance
the Hyde Park section I have as .82 in my Carlson-McCann
8778
6mil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
'66-'67 stuff from here, and I notice that falls into the
heavy category, so I could confirm it to that extent, that
those are the as reported, the average as reported values
for Carlson-McCann, just based on that one I was able to check
in this short time.
Q Fine. Going on to page 10 where you begin to dis
cuss the population and survival curve, I have several ques
tions on this curve and again these are primarily to make sure
we are both talking about the same thing. In the middle of
the page you say that the base points for fitting the Hudson
population model were estimates of the average mid-point popul
tion for each stage derived from the Carlson-McCann data
for 1966 and 1967. When you say the average mid-point
population, are you referring to the mid-point in calendar
time over which that stage appears in the estuary -- by
"appears," I mean as reported by Carlson and McCa-n?
In other words, you have the eggs going over a
period of "X" number of weeks and there is a mid-point in that
period. Is that what you mean by the average mid-point popula
tion?
Yes.
You mean a location in time?
Yes.
At which you assigned an estimate of the popula-
tion.
8779
7mil 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A Yes.
Q And furthermore, that estimate of the population
is not the population appearing in the river at that point in
time in 1966 or '67, but rather the totality of organisms
corresponding to the particular stage in question, say
larvae, for example, that were:produced by the estuary over
however many weeks the production was taking place?
A It would be halfway from the beginning and the end
of each stage and, of corresponding abundance of the
population of larvae or eggs or early juveniles falling in
that mid-point in time.
Q Maybe ! can clarify the point. The reason I am
struggling with this, it has been somewhat unclear in my
mind just how you define it. But I think I know. Take the
larvae, for example. You have a period of larval production
or recruitment to a larval population in the river over some
five or six weeks. And you have gone ahead and made an
estimate of the number of larvae that were recruited from a
prior stage somewhere just after hatching, let's say, to the
river. And that production or recruitment actually extended
over several weeks. But to construct the survival curve,
whose time axis is age after hatching, rather than period of
residence in the Hudson River, you choose the mid-point of
the period of residence in the Hudson River as the point at
which you would assign your estimate of total population?
8780
8m il 1
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A Yes. That is exemplified in Figure 2 by the "X"
up there around 110 or 112 million. Arid it is in the mid
point in time between zero and four weeks. And the zero to
four weeks is the early larval stage.
Q Right, okay, that is clarified.
Now in describing the curve at the bottom of the
second paragraph on page 10, you say, "The -curve follows
Pearcy's description, a concave form of decreasing mortality
rates with age." My question here is that as the mortality
rates are decreasing, the concentration or density of the
organisms is also decreasing. Would it be possible to charac
terize this curve as an indication of a non-linear mortality
rate or a density dependent mortality rate?
A Down at the low end of it there may be some kind
of density dependent situation going on. You know, way down
where you have 100 million or several hundred million larvae.
Q When you say down at the low end, you mean at the
low end in time, the early period?
A Right. Over to the left end of the chart. All I
can say is maybe, or agree it is possible.
Q Right. The reason why I am bringing out that ques
tion is we have had so much discussion over the past
several months of density dependence, non-linear relationships
et cetera, and in the modeling effort we have proposed,
for example, the analytical use of the density dependent ,,otio:
9mil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
121
13
14
15
16
11 17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8781
is simply a decreasing mortality with decreasing concentra
tion.
A The only thing-that really bothers me about it is
we are talking about fish here in the order of one little
larva or a half a larva in every thousand cubic feet of water.
I mean even -- when they are very, very abundant in that early
stage, there is only maybe a couple for every thousand cubic
feet of water. In that same cubic feet of water there is Lots
and lots of food. I just don't see why there would be any
reason to have density dependent effects at a level of popula
tion or a concentration as indicated by the Carlson-M~cCann
data of the maximum of around one larva or so. Like the
range I was working in in '66 or '67 was varying from, varying
'in and around a half larva, or one larva for every 2000 cubic
feet of water.
Q These are relative concentrations, correct?
A Right.
#12 Dora mm] cr8151 W 2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8782
Q. Did you not testify yesterday that these concentra
tions would be substantially lower than their absolute
counterparts?
A. Yes.
Even if there were 10 or 20 for every thousand
cubic feet of water, I wouldn't imagine there would be any
shortage of food.
I think the cell counts of copepods is higher.
Q. Is food the only explanation of density dependent
mortality?
A. Unless there is some space crowding. I don't think
we would exactly be crowded together in 2000 cubic feet of
water.
Q. Are there no other mechanisms of density dependence?
A. Maybe disease transference or something if you have
a very ove-rcrowded population.
Q. Now on page 19, stage 3 -- this is again simply a
point of clarification of the definition of the terms -- you
indicate that:
"This stage extends from the ends of the yolk
stage through the larval and prejuvenile stages,
during which the striped bass develop the essential
features of the adult form and cease its planktonic
existence."
You further state the end point of this stage is
•8783
mm2 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
reached at the size of one and a half inches.
I think on page 5 you stated that the planktonic
stage ends at one inch.
Could you simply clarify that?
A. What I am saying is that in all of this post-larval
stage they do remain planktonic, but 6 or 7 weeks after
hatching they reach one inch, or slightly more and transform
to the pre-juvenile stage.
In this' stage they begin to take on a more typical
striped bass appearance. There is a transference or a change
in their behavior at around 6 or 7 weeks that takes place
over a few weeks.
And I say that I would expect the to be plankt-o-ic
up until 6 or 7 weeks, or let's say one inch. Planktonic until
they reach an inch, and then during the time from one to two
inches, or one and a half, they are changing over to a non
planktonic form of life.
. All right.
A. With an end point in this at one and a half inches.
Q. Now at the bottom of page 20, again I have some note
here, but I think you may have just clarified it by your last
statment.
You say under stage four juvenliles, the juvenile
stage begins at the time the striped bass ceases its
planktonic mode, becomes pelagic and finally bottom-oriented at
mm3 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8784
about one or one and a half inches in length and extends
throughout the first year of life.
Again, I have the same confusion here as to when I
should associate the words "planktonic" and "pelagic" and
"bottom-oriented" with particular lengths and sizes.
I. I can maybe clarify that.
(Drawing on the blackboard.)
Starting from the original size of the larva, up
to about one inch in length, I am saying that is the planktonic
stage.
From one and a half inches on I am saying it is a
pelagic stage up to a greater size, certainly by a size
of about three inches. They then become demersalo
In here, between one and one half inches, I believe
they are switching from planktonic to their pelagic stage,
so you have a transition period from the two phases of life tha
occurs in that size range.
Q. Now on table 3 which occurs immediately after page
21, you are reporting the striped bass catch in trawls at
Cornwall and the source is table 16 in Carlson-McCann. And
you head it "Bottom Trawl and Surface Trawl" and Carlson-McCann
head the two columns in your table 3 as semi-balloontrawl
towed on bottom, and then mid-water trawl towed off the bottom.
I wonder why you characterize the second column
as surface trawl?
8785
mm4I
* 2
3
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10.
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A.
f ind this.
On page 26 of Carlson-McCann -- let me see if I can
The first paragraph on that page explains that the
net was restricted to surface use. It starts out with the
comment, "The 16 by 16 foot square opening water trawl
was made of nylon" et cetera.
The last few words are "the net was resticted to
surface use" at the bottom of the paragraph.
Q. Thank you.
I could not find that, is the reason for thle
question.
A. That is a hard one to find, I will admit.
Q. Just so we are completely clear about this, back
on page 20 you state:
"Juvenile stage begins at the time"~- et cetera,
and your final phrase or sentence is, "extends throughout
the first year of life."
What you are referring to here is your combined
stages four and five?
Your stage four, as I recall it, goes through
early or mid-September, an d then your stage five, which is the
stage for which you have impingements losses, carries through
the remainder of the year. I am pretty certain this is it,
but -
A. I believe that is true, yes.
1 * mm5
2
S 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8786
Q Thank you.
Now, going on to the estimation of removals, which
begins on page 24, in your first paragraph you state:
"The numbers of each stage which would be
withdrawn from the Hudson along with the condenser
cooling water and either killed on the protective
screens or carried through the screens into the
plant, where they are exposed to lethal conditions."
You are assuming, as I recall from your testimony
yesterday, that there would be 100 percent mortality in both
cases?
A Both entrainments and. impingements?
Q. Right.
A. Yes.
Thank you.
And again in the computation of your entrainment
mortalities in the various stages, you are using' average
concentrations reported in Carlson-McCann in the vicinity of
Indian Point to make your estimates, is that not correct?
A Of the removals?
Q. Of the removals.
A. Yes.
Q So if there is any difference between the averages
in the entire area known as section 8 in Carlson-McCann, or
section 7, I am sorry, and the actual distribution in the near
mm6 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace- Federa! Roporters, Inc.
25
8 787
vicinity of Indian Point, that would not be reflected in your
computation?
A. That is correct.
0. Now it is true to say that you provide no estimate
of the removal mortality or the removal effect of eggs by the
plant?
A. I am sorry, I don't understand that question.
Q. Table 7 which is after page 45 -- this is the
table in which you estimate or present your estimate of the
effect of the plant on removal, is that correct?
And eggs are not included, is that correct?
A. No, there are no eggs.
Q. Now, in the computational procedure described on
pages 27 and 28 for stage 2 in which you are estimating the
percentage reduction due to entrainment by the plant in the
early larvae, you do not make any correction for the fact
that if the plant is withdrawing organisms in the vicinity',
then the level or the density or concentration of those
organisms in the near vicinity of the plant will have to begin
to reduce.
In other words, you have used the average concentra
tion in the Indian Point area as reported before Indian Point
2 goes on line. So, were Indian Point 2 to continue to draw
water and presumably some-organisms with it, its concentration
of organisms in that vicinity would have to drop down.
mm7 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8788
My question to you is, you do not take that into
account, do you?
A. I think my answer is going to be yes, but just a
moment.
No, I do not take that into account and don't belie,
it is necessary in this type of analysis to do so, unless your
percentage removals gets up to a higher amount than it would
at that stage.
If you are talking about, you know, 5'out of 120-.
some being removed, your error because of this drawdown
effect would be an unnoticeable part of that 5.7.
Q Well, if the 5.1 percent reduction that you are
referring to compares to the entire population along the
entire length of the estuary, but were to calculate it with
respect to the concentrations in the Indian Point vicinity
only, I think you would find, using this computational procedur
that the percentage reduction in the Indian Point area would
be much larger.
I agree with what you are saying if it was only
the Indian Point area you were reporting the percentage reductio
on.
A. What you are saying is there must be a substantial
proportion, then, of the larvae in the Indian Point area that
would be sucked into the plant, substantial enough so that
this correction would be necessary?
ar2
I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8793
sort of trend analysis.
Q Correct.
A That I have multiplied by the 10 billion feet.
That you think maybe it is an overestimate, because it is
scaled down from a peak density rather than an. average density
in that time?
Q Yes.
A You may be right.
Q If that is the case, then, Mr. Clark, would you
not agree that the estimate of 16.7 percent of the population
in this stage may be an overestimate of the percentage reductic
A Yes, if you are right, the effect of that would be
to overestimate. I will check that, and if there is some
reason you are not right, I can report back.
Q I would like to make one comment here that may
provide some degree of clarification, because it is a very
sticky point. I found in going through this whole problem of
trying to estimate-the effect of the plant that I had to use
both the calendar year notion, over which a spawn is occurring,
and therefore subsequent stages are occurring -
A Right.
Q -- and also the stage-lengths notion, and in the
various models I presented, those notions are both part of
the model. I find it'very difficult to do it any other way.
A Yes. It is all right when you get down the line
8 79 2
* #13
an .
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
0 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q
A
Q
using from
and/or its
stage.
May I add a point or two of clarification?
Yes, surely.
The thing that troubles me here is that you are
the survival curve a total population, 112 million
counterpart, 8-1/2 percent of that in the later
A Yes.
Q To obtain the percentage reduction, you are going
to compute the effect of Indian Point.
A Yes.
Q Now your survival curve, as we discussed before,
no longer has the notion of variable concentration over the
calendar period during which that stage exists in the river?
A Yes.
Q And to get around this, you have made your computa
tion of total population at any given stage and assigned it
to a particular point in the population curve. And once-you
do that, it seems to me that when you use the kind of computa-,
tion that you have used for the influence of the plant, which
is an operation of the plant again over a calendar period, you
really must be, as I say, as a minimum, you should be using
the average concentration during that period. That is what
I am asking you; do you not agree?
A Let me just check the Carlson-McCann tables and
see where we are at. It is the 0.16 fish derived from this
ar 4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 .2
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8795
It seems to me you are stating here that the 1-3/4 inches has
been reached by mid-August, and three inches is reached by
early September. Do you not agree?
A Yes. I can tell you quite frankly that I did some
switching around when I was trying to get this,.model together.
And trying to decide which of these lengths would be the most
appropriate one to pick up one stage and drop another. And
part of the confusion is just a residual of my own shifting
around during the first two or three runs on this thing. So
I think that these expressions, the variation between 1-1/2
and 1-3/4 inches do not affect the outcome of the calculation,
only a description of my idea of the condition of the fish
during this period.,
Q My concern is that again throughout -the course of
the hearing we have had a lot of discussion as to what is
vulnerable and what is not vulnerable to entrainment, and a
lot of this discussion has centered around the size of the
organism and whether it appears in the discharge canal and
so on and so forth.
A Yes. As we have already -- we have already come
up against this situation on this Figure 2-B, where there are
two different growth rates involved. And the 1-3/4 inches
and the 1-1/2 inches both occur in that widest gap between
the two growth curves."
Part of my problem was trying to settle on which
mm8 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8789
Q. No, I didn't -
I. As opposed to comparing it to the whole river,
you would agree with me that 5 million out of 112, that rate ol
drawdown if you tried to correct for that in terms of the whole
112 million, it would be a very small adjustment?
That is correct.
That was my question to you, because the withdrawal
analysis that I am suggesting has to take place within the
vicinity of the plant, because that is where the drawdown is
taking place.
And your answer to my question was, well, you didn't
think it was necessary because the percentage reductions were
very low.
I would say yes, I would agree with you
provided ttb percentage reductions you are reporting referred
only to the Indian Point area, but it does not.
Thank you.
Now I would have asimilar comment on stage three,
that again the influence of drawdown on the density in the
vicinity of Indian Point is not included in your computation?
A. Yes, it is not included.
Now, in making the computationin stage three, you
use the peak densities of the larvae at Peekskill as the basis
for your computational procedure?
A. Rather than the average?
mm9
2
* 3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8790
Q. Rather than the average, that is correct.
Your statement is:
"The median population cf early larvae, 112
million," which is your production now of the larvae which has
been located on the population curve at June 15 or two weeks
after hatching -- "corresponds tothe time peak density of
larvae at Peekskill in mid-June," and you state what those
peak densities are.
Then you go on to say that the survival and the
mid-point of the next period, the stage three period that you
are now dealing with, is 8 1/2 percent from your population
curve, but then you apply that 8 1/2 percent -to the peak
populations, which are now the calendar time population obs--v
at Indian Point.
And you further go on to calculate the effect of
the plant in terms of those peak calculations.
I suggest as a minimum that you should be using
the average concentrations rather than the peak value, as you
did in your computational procedure for stage two.
Do you agree with that statement?
AI It sounds -- well, it is complicated, what you have
said. I couldn't follow every bit of it.
It sounds logical to me, but I would prefer to be
able to go through it step by step in my own mind and make
sure your premise is right and I agree with what you have said.
mmlO 1
* 2
3
end #12 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8791
But you understand my statement?
Not clearly yet, no.
I think I have got it, but I am not entirely sure.
ar3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8794
out toward the fall, and it is not too bad at the very
beginning in the spawning period, but it is in that transition
that the trouble arises, I agree.
Q Thank you.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, could we have a 5
minute recess?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: At this time let us recess to
reconvene in this room at 1:35.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Please come to order.
Is Applicant ready to proceed?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Will you proceed, please?
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Mr. Clark, I am on page 31 now, stage 4, the
estimate of removals for early June. Again I have a few ques
tions here simply to make sure that I understand what in
particular you consider the vulnerability of these organisms
to be. You start off by stating that this stage is assigned
to a period of 28 days, from August 13 to September 9, and
then you say this is a period of fast growth, during which
the juvenules increase from about 1-3/4 inches to about three
inches. Again I am sorry I didn't bring this out earlier,
but this was part of my problem in going through the business
of one inch, one and a half, and when did three inches occur.
8796
ar5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
growth curve to go with, and finally saying the only thing to
do is get- verything back to Carlson and McCann, and use
their temperatures, use their lengths, use their entrainment
data for each stage of larvae, et cetera.
Q So the basis for your statement here is the Carlson
McCann?
A Yes, I apologize for any confusion that may have
caused, but I will say to you that the computations in this
stage relate to a period of time from August 13 to September 9;
So whatever the legnth of the fish was then.
Q Do you not agree, though, that it is important to kn
the length of the fish during this period of time, because it
does bear on the relative vulnerabi.lity to entrainment?
A Yes, and fortunately in Table 24 of Carlson
McCann, they relate the percentage of screenable and non
screenable fish to a period in time rather than to a size.
Q You are referring to their Cornwall notions?
A Yes, so the resolution of the particular question
about the vulnerabilityY in relation to size, in relation to
the stage, should be resolved by the fact that they give
this screenability byweeks.
Q You are not suggesting, are you, that there is an
either/or notion on vulnerability, that either they are subject
to entrainment, or if-nbt, they are subject to impingement?
A At a size where they are, they would be considered
8797
ar6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 rce - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
pelagic, at an age where they are suspended in the water
rather than living around or near the bottom, yes, they could
be equally vulnerable. They would be entrained with the
water and either be stopped on the screen or carried through
the screen, depending on their size and characteristic.
Q Your notion then is at this stage of 1-1/2 inches
or 1-3/4 inches, two inches, where I think you are still
defining them as in a pelagic stage that they are totally
vulnerable to entrainment or being swept into the plant and
either impinged or entrained?
A Well, to go back to my little diagram on the
board -
(Drawing on board.)
-- there is a period of time here when they get to be three
inches that I am saying that they are fully screenable at
this point. And there would no longer be any entrainment. There
would no longer be any carried through the plant. And this
stage is the one in which I believe the -- Or I have assumed
the transition takes place. So between an inch and a half
or an inch and three quarters and three inches, this stage is
the transition stage of going from nonscreenability to full
screenability. At this size I am saying they would all pass
through the screens, and at this size they would all be stopped
on the screens.
Q But that still doesn't answer my question as to
ar7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8798
the vulnerability of the organisms in that stage to entrain
ment. Let me ask it this way:
Have you seen any data anywhere, or can you provide
us with any evidence that three-inch fish appear in the
discharge canal?
A Fish less than three inches?
Q No, fish of a size, iet's say, between two inches
and three inches.
A No, I don't know of any records showing the
presence or absence of those in the discharge canal.
Q Are you aware of any records at Indian Point that
show fish of sizes one and a half inches to two inches in. the
discharge canal?
A No, I am not aware of any data on the size of
fish in the discharge canal in the summer. Or the species or
anything else.
Q But you are aware that screening for fish has
taken place in the discharge canal?
A Excuse me?
Q You are aware that sampling for fish has taken place
in the discharge canal?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: When?
DR. LAWLER: Did you say when?
CIIRMAN JENSCH: Yes. When did this happen?
DR. LAWLER: I am referring to te data presented
ar8
1
* 2
3 0 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8799
by Dr. Lauer in the October 30 testimony and also in the
cross-examination in December.
THE WITNESS: You mean if by any chance they,:are
able to get through the plant alive, they should end up in
the discharge canal some place? And therefore.they should
have been caught in these plankton nets? You certainly
wouldn't catch a one and a half or two-inch fish in a
plankton net.
MR. MACBETH: Would it also be useful to have a
reference to the time at which Dr. Lauer was doing his
experiments and the time assigned to this stage in the testi
mony? As I remember it, Dr. Lauer's experiments ended the
1st of August, the time now being discussed is the middle of
August to the middle of September.
DR. LAWLER: I am simply trying to bring out that
Dr. Lauer has testified that they had not observed fish of
sizes one through two inches in the discharge canal.
The fishes beyond an inch and three quarters to two inches
all appear to be, when they are brought into the plant area,
appear to be impinged.
THE WITNESS: I think I state very clearly what
my hypothesis is on this transition on page 32 of my testimony,
the first full paragraph, sentence three, "The change from
pelagic to bottom-oriented mode is reflected in a linear
reduction from full vulnerability to removal by entrainment
ar9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
e13 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8800
on the first day to nil on the last day."
By saying that, I am saying when they get to this
size, quite apart from anything that happens with the screens
at all, if they weren't even there, by the time they are
three inches, I am saying none would be entrained. I am
saying that back here at one and a half to one and three
quarters inches they would be completely vulnerable, entrained,
and carried through the plant.
So this goes from this period of time, when your
vulnerability changes from 100 percent to zero percent, and the
screenability, that is the property of the ability of the
screen to catch these fish, goes from zero to 100, zero per
cent to 100 percent.
Q Okay.
CR 8151 14
eakl
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ;%ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8801
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Excuse me, may I interrupt a
moment? Since he just mentioned screen ability and so forth,
it is my recollection that the: .gettleman who testified
yesterday, Mr. Aleuvas, said that at the time he had been
there, there had only been four or five times that the pumps
were off, when they cleaned the screens. As I understand it, h
came with the company about 1970?
MR. TROSTEN: I believe it was sometime in '70, Mr.
Chairman, I believe.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think we have been using a lot
of data from time prior to that. If you have any records of th
shut off of the pumps, I would appreciate that when you put
rebuttals on, some reference to that if you could. I don't kno
whether you have any records or not. But you can see the
difference if the pumps were not on and not creating a velocity
which impinged its fish on the screens -- as I understand it,
when you raise the screens, if the pumps are still running,
they will catch the dead fish and pull them in toward the
traveling screen.
Of course, if the pumps are off and they are
between the screens, they won't be pulled in when the screens
are up.
MR. TROSTEN: Your question is did we have records
that indicate how often the pumps are shut off when the traveli
screens are raised.
eak2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8802
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: No, when the fixed screens are rai
MR. TROSTEN: Oh, when the fixed screends are
raised.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Yes. Thank you. Would you
proceed.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q I understand your description here and it is
given clearly on page 32 in the first full paragraph as you
suggest. And it is the one hundred percent vulnerability
at an inch and a half to an inch and three-quarters that
troubles me, and I am simply asking do you have any evidence
that suggests that the fish of this size will be vulnerable
to the plant to the tune of 100 percent?
A One source of information on that is the Table 16
on page 36 of Carlson-McCann from which we see that there
were very high concentrations at times of these striped bass
all through the summer but particularly in the end of August
and early September, that they apparently were up at the
surface.
In other words, that they are in a pelagic
stage, that they are moving up and down in the water column
in the same fashion that the larvae are, apparently, in their
daily search for food. The indication is they are pelagic.
If they are pelagic, and they are related to the water
itself, rather than to the bottom, then there is no reason to
3ed.
8803eak3
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
think they wouldn't be moved with the water into the plant.
I have no other evidence.
Q You have no direct evidence that organisms of this
size are found in the plant?
A No, what their ability might be to -i:wim away from
the Indian Point side of tIChe river, if they thought they were
in danger or something, I don't know. I certainly would expect
that after they get to be bottom living, that they would
not be that subject to vulnerability.
Q Now, if I can understand the remaining part of
this first full paragraph on page 32, I think-we can finish
off on this stage. You say that you are assuming 100 percent
vulnerability at the low end of the stage, and zero vulner
ability at the high end of the stage?
A Yes.
Q And an average of 50 percent. Then, you
say,"T-he size of the fish results in 77.5 percent being
screened at the intake."
Do you many by this that the range in sizes of the
fish as they progress over the period mid-August to mid
September from an inch and three-quarters to three inches,
that once they exceed let's say two inches, most of them are
screened, if they are inthe intake flow and, therefore, you
discount this percentage from your computational procedure
for mortality due to entrainment? It seems to me what you are
8804eak4
I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 kce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
doing here, I would just like confirmation.
DR. GEYER: Can we have a definition of vulnerabilit
that is used in this discussion for clarification.
DR. LAWLER: I think what Mr. Clark is saying on
vulnerability is that, as he described a moment ago, he
describes the fish to be in a pelagic mode, moving in the water
column, not particularly moving toward the bottom or toward
the shallows or toward the shore, and therefore, those in the
vicinity of Indian Point will move in toward the plant as
certain water in the vicinity of Indian Point also moves into
the plant.
DR. GEYER: As I understand it, they are vulnerable
to either entrainments or impingements.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. GEYER: How does the screen ability come into
it?
THE WITNESS: Well, the probability of the fish bein
drawn in with the cooling water and ending up on the screen
over that period of four weeks goes from zero to 100 percent.
So that if we get a fish there in the water going into the
plant, what I am saying is that it would pass through the scree
on day one, but on day 28 it would, there is 100 percent
chance of it getting impaled on the screen. So getting the. fisi
there is the other side of it, the vulnerability. What I am
using is this, at some point we all agree they are down, being
eak5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8805
bottom fish. And they are not being drawn with the water
where it goes, they are perfectly capable of maintaining
their station here in the maximum flow of the river or the
maximum flow of the plant. But that I say takes place at the
end of this 28-day transition period and you get to 100 percent
screen ability and that then becomes zero vulnerability.
DR.GEYER: They could be screenable, but none of
them would be there to be screened?
THE WITNESS: Right. Before this at 100 percent
it is saying that none of them have this bottom affinity,
and they are all being carried with the water up and down
the river, wherever it goes, they may be migrating up
and down feeding on plankton up here at night, coming down clos
to the bottom in the daytime, whatever they do.
But essentially their fate is dictated by the
fate of the water, whereas, in this stage of zero vulnerability,
the fate is dictated by what happens at the part of the
bottom where it is living.
DR. GEYER: I see. So you are saying that at the
lower ends of this stage, they are all vulnerable, but they
won't be screened out, they are vulnerable to entrainment,
not entrapment?
THE WITNESS: Yes. At this size they are all com
pletely vulnerable, but they are all non-screenable. So they
would all get sucked into the plant in direct-proportion to
8806
eak6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
_-2!
*@ 22
23
* 24 %ce-Fedeal Reporters, Inc.
25
their abundance in the water. I am saying by the end of this,
none of them are -
DR. GEYER: All right, you have clarified it for
me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Will you put a figure on what
you just described. First you said they are vulnerable to
something. What is the size there.
THE WITNESS: This would be 1.5 to 1.75 inches.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: That is when you say they are
completely susceptible to being taken into the plnt, is that
correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Thank you.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q The only point I am driving at or trying to clarify
now is that the percentage being screened at the intake, which
is computable on the basis of the size changes, is eliminated
from the computation procedure? Here you say reducing
the .34 million by 77 percent, leaves a total of .077 million,
subject to withdrawal into the plant.
So of this total population as estimated by you or
that would be subject to movements into the plant area by
the plant, only .077 million of that-figufe -would be subject..
to.what we::haVe chosen totcall entrainment.
A Yes. The reason I halted for a minute at the board
eak7
. 2
3
* 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
*24 ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8807
was because I thought now we have it simplified I should
say one more thing, and that is that when I say zero vulner
ability, I mean to death by what we think of as entrainment.
But there are things that obviously make these bottom living
fishes vulnerable to the plant and to being screened, because
they do get impingement of fish on the screens.
So zero vulnerability to this passive entrainment
does not mean, by that I don't mean to say they are not
vulnerable to death on the screens through a mechanism
affecting the demersal stage, which is not vulnerable to entrai
ments.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q And the estimate of that death by impingement is
obtained for this particular stage by interpretation of the
plant impingement records, right?
A Yes. Here I get into this problem between the
relative and the absolute.
Q Now, let's go on to stage 5, the latter juveniles.
This is the stage in which losses, if they occur by the plant,
are due to screen losses, impingements fully, rather than by
entrainments?
A Rather than by what we call, seem to be calling
entrainments.
Q And you indicated a moment ago that it is here
where you get into the problem of relative concentrations or
eak8
I
* 2
3
* 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
*24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8808
densities of populations and absolute values?
A Yes.
Q And the first question that I would ask you is
do you not agree that the estimates of impingements as
obtained from the plant records are closer to an absolute
notion of what the plant will withdraw than are the estimates
of population in the river?
A Yes, because in a sense you are not dealing with
the representative of the sample, you are just dealing with
the error in trying to fully estimate it, whereas the other
data are strictly taken as sample and trying to split
a universe from it.
Q Now, your estimate of the impingement loss due to
the plant via your computational procedure is on the order
of 15 to 20 percent. My question is do you not agree that
taking into account this notion of relative and absolute
values, that if you were to come closer to an estimate of the
total population in the river, that the estimates of impingemen
mortality in terms of percentage effect on the population
would be lower.
A Well, the problem comes where we try to dovetail
the two together. If you recall the shape of that survival
curve on Figure 2, with the relative numbers, you see it coming
down, down, down someplace. Then we have this 28-day
transition period in here and then we try to connect this up
eak9
2
3
* 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
e14 17
18
19
20
21
*22
23
*24 kce -FederaI Reporters, Inc.
25
8809
with something out here, and here is where the problem is,
that these data that would be based on impingements, or where
we are talking about impingements, and we are dealing with
these quasi-absolute numbers that have also some relativity
to it in the sense that we are not exactly sure how much of
the total number of fish killed at the intake were actually
getting on the screens. So this could be varying over a
range.
At the same time, as you have pointed out, this
curve might be up here or up here. We are talking about two
sets of derivations, neither of which you can say is
absolute. We probably all just believe that these impingement
figures may be more in the.range of absolute or they would have
less possible total variation on the relative scale than these.
But still you are trying to hope to gather relative in the
sense of sampling with relative in the sense of
dealing with error.
lmil 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8810
Q Let's take the two areas of relativity. In the
area of impingement various estimates have been proposed by
the Applicant as well as by yourself. Now in this case the
Applicant's estimate of impingement losses are substantially
smaller than your own estimate of impingement losses?
A Yes.
Q And there has been a lot of cross-examination in
both directions with respect to this topic. But throughout
all of this,would you not agree that there was no discussion
of these estimates being relative estimates of the impinge
ment, they were rather, would you not agree, an attempt to
hone in on just what the impingement loss by the plant would
be?
A Yes, and we finally ended up agreeing in a
stipulation on the screen kills, the kill on the traveling
screens. We tried to accept each other's situation and to agr
to a basis for approximating what the total would be from
the screen kill records. But still it is only the traveling
screens and it doesn't count any that should pass by the
traveling screens, whatever that might be, if there are any,
and it doesn't say anything about the fixed screen, which is
the area where the kill will take place. This is an
approximation of it, or some kind of a relative estimate of
the fixed screen kill.
Now what the degree of relativity is between this,
2mil 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
* 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
O 22
23
24 -Fede aI Repofters, Inc.
25
8811
or what the actual proportion is between here and here is the thing we have been coping with, and the thing that we haven't come to any agreement on. We have come to an agreement on a
way to do this, but not that.
Q Let's take the second circle, the one to the right. A moment ago you indicated we don't really know those that pass through. But several moments ago I think we agreed that once we were beyond three inches, we weren't getting anything through the plant. It is that stage that we are discussing
right now.
A Yes.
Q Is that not true?
A The ones we are discussing are the ones that we are saying are fully screenable, in terms that if they hit the screen, they are going to be stopped there and they won't pass through the screen. I don't know if there is any way for the fish to escape around the sides of this screen and be drawn on into the pump without ever passing through the screen. That part may be a source of error. But I don't know. I am n t that familiar with how the screens work and how well they are, how well the edges are set into whatever they go into.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that there is anything of a substantive nature passing the screens as
you just suggest?
A Around the edge of the fittings or whatever, no.
*3mil1 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8812
This part we have accepted. There may be some room to argue
there, but we have accepted a figure for the screen kills.
Now the traveling screen kills, which is an estimate of the
total kill. This is a proportion of the total kill at the
area where the damage is do ne, namely the outside or fixed
screen.
Q Well, Mr. Clark, two things have occurred with
respect to the left-hand circle. Number one, in your own
estimate of impingement
A That would be the fixed screen.
Q That is right. In your own estimate of impingement
kills, a substantial upgrading of the reported numbers has
been made to account for things of the nature you have
des cribed?
A Only two specific things that we allocated to it.
One is that in the process of sampling the numbers that are
jetted off of the screens and fall down in the flume or plume,
the trough, that we have accepted that there is a loss there,
that the guys don't get all of the fish that come off the
screens and, say 25 percent more could be added onto what
they get for those that go down. You have probably seen the
sampling operation, too, and a lot of-fish go down the trough
that they don't get with their scoop. That is for that. The
other is for periods when there was no sampling going on,
like the kills, screen kills are much higher at night. The
4mil 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8813
highest point in the whole 24-hour period is around 2:00 or
3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, and it is not very often, at leas
in the past with these records we have stipulated to that
people were there at that time of morning measuring. So
that takes that into account, those two things. We haven't
even talked about leakage past this traveling screen. I
am saying that might be a small source of error or a big one,
I don't know. Let's say it is either small or nil. That
takes care of all the error then connected with these rotating
screens. They, in turn, give you a measure of the actual
kill on this fixed screen. And I don't know what the relation
ship between those is. I am sure you feel that you get most
of those that are killed here. I have no way of -- other
than just hearing Mr. Aleuvas discuss what he thinks must
happen, but I haven't heard him say anything about what does
happen.
Q Well, you have heard Mr. Aleuvas testify, for
example, that there is no build-up of fish in this outer side
the fixed screen. And you have heard Mr. Aleuvas indicate
yesterday that -- in which he tried to indicate to you just
what happens at that point.
A Yes.
Q Now let me ask you this: What is your estimate
of the degree of relativity in the estimates of impingement
losses taking into account these areas that you are suggesting
8814
5mil 1
* 2
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
* 22
23
24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
are unknowns?
A I know there were 120,0 00 fish removed from these
fixed screens in one two-day period. That is a lot of fish.
Now I have no way of knowing how many of those would have
come into the plant if the screen had been raised and the f ish
allowed to come in. I have a suspicion, a feeling, an
intuition, that we could be losing an awful lot of the fish
from the fixed screen and getting them into the plant, but
I have no way of moving this. I heard Mr. Aleuvas describe
what he thinks what might happen. I had the unfortunate
experience of beiJng up there one da.y when there were fish
littered all over the front of those bays in the water with the
debris that is in the *water.
I know that at.times they have attempted to havTe a
scuba diver go down and try to look at the screen, and they
have tried with a television. But I don't know. i couldn't
tell you what I would assign as a correction factor to get
the total fixed screen kill from the records from the travelin
screen.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, we have a stipulation,
and I will have tc resort to the same device Mr. Macbeth has
in the past, as to the number of fish that are collected,
and I think if we are going to testify about these matters,
we ought to stay with the stipulation.
MR. MACBETH: Yes. Part of it says we are not to
6mil 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8815
elicit testimony that would be in violation of the stipula
tion.
MR. TROSTEN: I will call attention to the fact,
Mr. Chairman, that on page 4 of the stipulation the Hudson
River Fishermen's Association and the Applicant have agreed
that the average daily collections indicated on Schedule C
may reasonably be increased by 25 percent for under sampling.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What page is that? Excuse me?
MR. TROSTEN: Page 4.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What does that come out to as a
total figure, with the 25 percent increase? Do we have the
total figure?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, there are total daily figures
for fish .collections and they can be increased by 25 percent.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What I had in mind was 125,000
fish stated by the witness to be killed in two days. Is it yo
thought that that -- is that incorrect in some way as it
relates to the stipulation or to the facts?
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be
best if Mr. Woodbury responded to your question.
MR. WOODBURY: Would you restate the question,
please?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What I have in mind is the
witness just said there were 125,000 fish killed in two days
up there, and there has been some protest from the Applicant
8816
7mil 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
that they better stick with the stipulation. The stipulation
says 25 percent over the daily, average daily collection.
But I didn't understand that the statement by the witness
violated the stipulation in any way. You have made the
stipulation as to what the average daily is. He may be talking
about a peak, as far as I know. So this doesn't cover peaks,
it calls only for an average. So is 125,000 fish for two
days a correct statement of the facts?
MR. TROSTEN: I have no idea what Mr. Clark is
referring to, Mr. Chairman.
THE WITNESS: I am referring to February 6 and 7 -
excuse me, March 6 and 7, 1970 -
MR. TROSTEN: Which page?
THE WITNESS: I ist
MR. MACBETH: It is in the environmental report
supplement, I think Appendix S.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. What I am discussing,
Mr. Chairman, is the relation between these collections, which
we have stipulated to, and what they mean. Now we all have
agreed on what the collections should be and could be. But
I didn't realize there was any limitation in here on interpret
ing what these collections mean in terms of their effect on
the river.
MR. MACBETH: In fact, the stipulation says
specifically --
8mi 1 1
*2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8817
MR. TROSTEN: It says any party can demonstrat
or argue that these facts prove whatever they may prove.
What is troubling me, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Clark is referring
to some collection of some sort -- I don't know exactly what
he is referring to. It is not something that is referred
to in the stipulation, it is just a number that is coming
out here. I am simply pointing out that Dr. Lawler was
asking him a very specific question which had to do with the
relative accuracy of these two estimates, and then we
started to come out with a different number; Mr. Clark says he
remembers it, and I think we are getting awfully confused
and off the point. I think if Mr. Clark would simply answer
the question asked of him, he could move the interrogation
along.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think that is true, and I think
at the same time, he was trying to support his position on
this relativity situation by stating that, for example, there
were 125,000 fish killed, and he identified the dates, March
6 and 7, 1970. I understand you were there at that time.
Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I was not there at the time. These
are records from the company that I was furnished by Mr.
Aleuvas.
MR. MACBETH: They are included in the environmenta
report supplement.
9mi].
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*--22
23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8818
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I understood his
reference was to support his stated position.
So I think it is related to the evidence in
that respect.
Will you proceed, Dr. Lawler.
DR. LAWLER: Let me try to get at it this way. Let me state,
first of all, what I am trying to demonstrate here is that
based on what has been brought out in the record to date,
it seems to me that there are some substantial differences
between the estimates of impingement losses relative to
absolute, and the ratio of relative to absolute estimates of
the population. And what I am simply trying to suggest
here is that based on the data that has been put in the record
to date, it is my opinion that we have a lot closer estimate
of the absolute value of the impingement losses than we do of
the population in the river. And furthermore, Mr. Clark has
indicated previously that, if anything, the estimates of the
population in the river are low, and substantially low.
And what I am simply trying to suggest is all this
means is that if we are closer to a correct estimate of the
impingements loss than we are to the population loss in the
river, and if the population loss in the river is -- if the
population in the river is under-estimated, then the percentag
impact or effect of the plant impingement, which is obtained
by ratioing the plant loss to the population in the river, is
lOmil I1
* 2
'3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15 12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
0 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8 819
probably less and I would say substantially less than the
numbers reported in Table 7.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: You probably want to calculate
it and present it as evidence as your position and then they
will have a chance to see how you come out with your
calculations.
Shall we proceed? Do you have something more from
the witness?
Q
with that
A
BY DR. LAWLER:
I would simply ask Mr. Clark would he not agree
notion?
Yes, I would agree.
#16
arl
* 2
03 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8820
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: While there is a pause, Mr.
Woodbury said he was not familiar with this 125,000 figure,
and I understood the witness said it came from the company.
Maybe before we meet in March, you might look at the records
and confirm it.
MR. TROSTEN: Perhaps we can ask Mr. Macbeth to
find the reference.
MR. WOODBURY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: You needn't do it now, as far as
that goes.
MR. TROSTEN: All right.
DR. LAWLER: May I proceed?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Well, the attorney is checkin-g
that.
MR. MACBETH: I have the reference, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Would you show it to Mr. Woodbury'.
MR. MACBETH: (Handing document to Mr. Woodbury.)
MR. WOODBURY: What is the question now?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Is that 125,000 a correct state
ment of the fish killed in those two days?
MR. WOODBURY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: What is the figure?
MR. WOODBURY: That represents the collections that
were made on those days after the screens had not been raised
for several days. So it represents collections over several
1 . ar2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8821
days.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Was this an eye-balled count
or -
MR. WOODBURY: It was an early day, sir, in an
attempt to try to solve the fish problem in March, 1970, and
the count is probably -- that particular count was probably
not very accurate, because of the circumstances under which
it was made. Some of those fish were netted in the river
as best they could be netted at the time. We had attempted
to keep the fish impingement loss down by keeping the screens
down and not raising them and cleaning them every day.
As a result, we found that we collected a lot on
the screens and on a day when it was decided to do the
cleaning, we got an excessive number of fish on that day,
and the next day, as I recall it.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: You don't know how long the
screens were down from the last cleaning?
MR. WOODBURY: I would have to look that up, but
I would guess from one to two weeks, sir.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I would be happy to put the numbers
I have on the board.
MR. TROSTEN: Where are these numbers from?
THE WITNESS: These are from your records.
MR. TROSTEN: Why don't we just use the records
ar3
1
* 2
S3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8822
then?
MR. MACBETH: Can I indicate what I see in the
records? There is a count for February 28 of 3000. There is
no count for March 1, no count for March 2. There is a count
for March 3, 24,000; a count for March 4, 15,000; a count
for March 5, of 30,000; and then for March 6 and 7 combined,
120,000. And it is Table 3, page A-4, Appendix S of the
Environmental Report Supplement. And the table is entitled
"Estimated Number of Fish Netted Prom In Front of Fixed Screens
at Indian Point Unit No. 1, From the Period January 28 to
April 2, 1970."
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Let's give some thought to that
over the recess and see if we can work something out.
Go ahead, Dr. Lawler, we are trying to save the
witness' time.
DR. LAWLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q The notion I described a moment ago of an under
estimate of the population of juvenile recruits to the total
population, you described yesterday as probably being
attributed to a very poor efficiency in the nets in catching
these.
A
Q
percent?
Yes.
And pu just had the number of on the order of 10
ar4 8823
* 2
S 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
A Yes.
Q When you were asked whether the estimate could be
only one one-hundredth of the total population, you said you
were not willing to go that high in describing the ratio
between the relative population and
A Yes.
Q But I did not understand you to have a great deal
of trouble with the notion of 10 percent ratio of the relative
population to the absolute population.
A Yes, because that is within the realm of my own
personal experience.
Q And you also yesterday, in discussing the whole
notion of the contribution to the fishery, on page 8564, say,
"This discussion about proportional contributions also leaves
unsolved the basic paradox, namely, there do not appear to be
enough young leaving all of the estuaries combined tL.o provide
enough recruits to supply the Atlantic catch."
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Would you like to take a look at
the transcript, so we don't get problems with context?
MR. TROSTEN: It is page 8564, Mr. Chairman.
BY DR. LAWLER:
Q Furthermore, on the bottom of the page, you
suggest that this leaves the Hudson as the major supplier,
but quantitative data from the Hudson do not indicate it
could supply this whole fishery of 14.7 million fish "or even a
ar4
ar5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
substantial portion, say 80 percent. I take it that what
you meant there is that the estimate of the juvenile recruits
to the population is somewhere in the order of 1 million to
2 million, using your population curve. Is that rot correct?
A Yes, around 2 million at the end of.the year, which
would come out at the end of my curve as not compatible with
the supply of fish to that extent. But part of the error is
on the fishing statistics end, too. So if it is not 14.7,
if it is actually 5 or 6 million fish, then you are getting
closer down to what the Hudson would be supplying, andif
we have errors in the population in the Hudson to bring it up,
that is the way we would get the two to come together.
Q Yes, and I would suggest that an order of magnitude
factor of five to 10 times, taking into account the over
estimate by the fishermen and the mortality that takes place
from year 1 into year 3, 4, 5, et cetera, when the fish are
caught, and the fact that the fishing exploitation is not the
total population, but only a portion of it, that one would
need a factor of somewhere on the order of five to 10 as a
multiplier to your estimate of 1 to 2 million juveniles to
come anywhere close to explaining the support of the fish. Do
you agree to that?
A The five to 10?
Q The factor, you need a factor of five to 10 to
scale the relative population of juveniles as estimated by
8824
8825
ar6
9
10
I I
12
13~
14
15
16
17
e16 18
19
20
21
22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
your Hudson River population curve, to get into the order of
the numbers of fish that you need to explain the hypothesis
of the contribution of the Hudson to the mid-Atlantic and
north Atlantic fishery.
A only if you accepted that -- yes, this would be
true if you accepted that the sport fishing statistics were
sound and not inflated, not exaggerated. Now if you were to
work on that end of it, and accept that they are probably
exaggerated to some extent by what the samplers call prestige
bias errors, that is the fancy word for fishermen exaggerating
what they caught, if these prestige bias errors could be
as high as half the catch, you might not have to go nearly
that high in the magnitude of the fishery output to match up
to the fishery. My feeling is that -- and this is only a
feeling -- that there is enough error in that, if it was
brought down, and there is enough error with our sampling in
the river that the two could be brought together eventually.
8826
#17 mml Dora, cr5 1 Q I suppose what you are saying is, for example, if
2 you have a fishery instead of on the order of 6 to 7 million,
3 3 to 3 1/2 million, taking 50 percent, that the factor that
4 you would have o scale your Hudson River juvenile
recruits
up to would be somewhat lower.?
6 What would you suggest would be a good estimate?
7. Well, the actual number is 4.9, which represents
8 80 percent of the 6.1 and so on that I calculated.
9 It is in this, aroundcx these pages of the transcript
10 you are reading from, preceding 8565.
11 I am suggesting that if the sport fish component of
12 this, which if I am right, would be around 4 million sport fishl,
13 if that were exaggeraged by two, it could bring the whole thing
14 down to less than 3 million fish supported by the Hudson.
15 I don't see how you can leave out the commercial
16 catch.
17 A. No, the commercial catch is included.
18 If the commercial catch is .9 -- I forget just what
19 it was -
20 It was .4, Mr. Clark.
21 A. If the commercial. fishing is .4 of this, then
22 4.5 is the sport fishery.
.23 If that were reduced down by half, and the
24 commercial fishey then added in, you would have 2.65 million
Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 fish supported by the Hudson, according to these figures.
8827
mm2 1 Then you would get closer to what seems to be coming cut of the
2 Hudson.
3 Q I should comment, as an aside, .that .4 also would
4 have to be multiplied by .8 as it was this morning. It doesn't
5 change it that much, Mr. Clark.
6 A. Okay.
7 Well, 2.6, around there.
8 Q Now, all right, you are suggesting a number on the
9 order of 2.6?
10 A. I am saying that that is within reason.
[1 1 Now your testimony or your population curve suggests
12 a population on the order of 1.9 in January and no estimate
13 of what the population is at the end of the first year of life.
-4.1 Furthermore, no estimate of what the population is
15 at the end of the second year of life, or the end of the third
16 year of life, when this begins to contribute to the population.
17 A. Yes.
18 Additionally this 2.6 million is a catch, it is
19 not a population.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q So I suggest that we still have a substantial scale
0 22 up factor to explain even the 2.6 million fish, right?
23 IL Yes.
24 Would you accept for the moment that that scale-up
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 factor may be in the order of 5 to 10 that I suggested a moment
8828
mm3 1 ago?
2 A. I is possible.
3 Q Is it probable?
4 A. No .
5 Q. What would you suggest -
6 A. Wait a minute.
7 I don't mean it is not probable. I mean I would not
8 want to say it is probable without making a serious attempt
9 to rationalize the sport fish catch, and making a serious
10 attempt to convince myself of what I would think the level of
11 gear efficiency would be on the various nets and so forth.
12 Q. Now, let's turn back to the impingements problem tha
131 we mentioned a moment ago.
14 Do you consider that the estimate of the impingement
15 loss is underestimated?
16 A, That the -
17 Q. Do you consider that the estimate of impingement
18 losses, recognizing that the Applicant has presented a particu
19 lar set of calculations. estimating an impingement loss and
20 you also have provided a particular set of calculations esti
21 mating another impingement loss, and the two differ, yours
22 being greater than the Applicants, referring to your now, do
23 you expect that your estimate of the impingement losses by the
24 plant is low?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25, A. Yes. By the proportion of difference between the
8829
mm4 I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
traveling screen and the fixed screen records.
I can't say records out here, because we don't have
records for the fixed screen, other than that one period in
early 1970.
I understand that because you have described
that that is where your estimate may be low previously.
Now, would you suggest that your estimate may be lou
by as much as 10 percent?
Let me give a little background.
This plant, Indian Point plant, was operated for a
number of years without the benefit of fixed screens. Now,
a fixed screen was installed and it seemed to decrease the amou
of fish that were taken off the traveling washes.
The reduction in the number of fish that are taken
off of here is this thing preventing them from getting into the
Bay. This seems to be what we believe.
Now, how is it that these fish are prevented from
getting in here and still remain alive, if fish, when they
are pulled up against this screen by that amount of velocity,
are impinged on it and are not able to get away?
In my way of thinking, it is very logical that the
difference betweenwhat you get on the traveling screens now and
what you got before, consists of a bunch of fish killed on
this fixed screen, which you never get back into the traveling
screen.
8830
* 22
* 23
end #17 24
Ace -M e'lI Reporters, Inc. 25
g I think Mr. Alevras clearly indicated that that is
the case. I don't think there is any argument on it.
A. Here is my problem.
How can there be a reduction in the number of fish
impinged and taken out on this traveling screen, now can
there be a reduction if they are not in effect kept out by
the fixed screen?
I think we all, on both sides, agree that the fixed
screen is preventing the fish from getting back into the Bay
where they would get taken on the traveling screen. These
fish do not enter the Bay to get caught on the screen.
Where do they go?
If they come up to the screen, they are going to
be impinged.& velocities of the kind, I think nearly one
and a half feet per second through the.meshes. They get im
pinged on the screen.
How are they going to get off?
Where are they going?
There is nothing for them to do except be stuck
on the screen until the screen is pulled up.
The only thing I can see is they must be lost
from that screen in the process of hauling-the screen up
because they don't get back here on the traveling screens.
mea- 1 CR 815]. #18
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
883].
Q I would suggest Mr. Alevras has offered a clear
explanation of what happens there. But let me ask you this:
I need to have some idea of what you think you should be
increasing your population or your impingement estimate by.
A I will give it to you in this fashion: If anybody
will tell me what the difference is between, .the proportionate
differences in impingement on these screens now, in comparison
to what it was before the fixed screen -- let's say for some
units of time since these were put in, a million fish, in
some units of time a million fish are impinged on these
screens.
CHAI MAN JENSCH: On which ones?
THE WITNESS: On the traveling screen.
And let's say that for an equivalent period of
time, when the fixed screens were put down, the collection
here is only .5 -- let's see if I have this right. If this
is a million fish before the fixed screens and a half million
after the fixed screens, then I would be willing to say the
other half a million were also stuck on this screen, did,
did not get taken in on the traveling screens and there is
your proportion; whatever you in your experience have found
out the proportion is between impingement upon these screens,
with and without the fixed screen, will give you a direct
answer and I would be willing to accept that as an amplifier.
In other words, if the ratio went down 50 percent,
8832
mea-2
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
the drop is 50 percent collection here, then the other half
of the fish are still out there and I would say then your
factor would be 2. Multiply everything on the traveling
screens by 2 and that would give you the total amount of
impingement on the fixed screen. That kind of figure, I would
say, would be what we could use.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Mr. Clark, do you have any evidence of any sort
that indicates that the fish that are impinged on the fixed
screens are riot collected on the traveling screens?
A I have seen them floating around that river myself.
And I also know that fish tend to sink when they are killed
under a variety of conditions, and could just disappear from
sight on the bottom or whatever. I have seen this evidence of
the fish floating around on the surface of the river.
Q Where have you seen fish floating around?
A Right in the area of that dock, right by the area
of the base, mixed in with the debris. And I have heard a
number of other accounts, but they are not reliable enough
to present here.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Will you proceed, please.
BY MR. LAWLER:
Q -Jr. Clark, what you are telling me is that you are
unwilling to make any estimate of the supposed error in the
loss?
8833me a- 3
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Didn't hie just give a factor
based upon you supplying the data on same relationship?
That is his answer. You seem to be coming back and back to
something he just answered already.
BY MR. LAWLER:
Q So the numbers you have given on the board are a
purely hypothetical example.
A And I will say it would be that same ratio in any
valid comparison you have between the pre-fixed screen and
the post-fixed screen conditions I would accept as being the
ratio between the screen kill collections as adjusted and
reported in the stipulation, and an estimate of the probably
total impingement kill on the fixed screens.
Q Mr. Clark, turning to table 7 in your testimony,
before page 47
Q In the next to the last column where you show the
percentage of the population which is in your estimates
removed by the plant, in our discussion here thlis afternoon
we had some substantial discussion about stage 3 as to the
proper way of estimating those lost and also in stage 5 where
we have been going around and around as to the relative
proportions that the impingement loss and the total population
represent of their respective absolute estimates.
A May I interrupt for a minute? Since this is the
8834
mea-4
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
S122
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
first time we have had table 7, I would like to point out an
omission. In the second column, under Original Population
Median, it should say in parens, "Millions."
Q Thank you. My question simply is would you not
agree that presuming a correction in the two stages, stages 3
and 5, on the basis of the discussions that we have had, that
some substantive reduction in your total estimate of a 39
percent reduction would follow?
A For stage 3?
Q Well, I simply picked -- to be very precise, in
every one of the stages I have suggested to you areas where
'the percentage estimate of the population may be harmed, but
I am not arguing now that it is our belief that losses across
the condenser are not one hundred percent, or that
distributions across the Hudson are not the same as the
average.
Leaving that out, simply focusing particularly on
the two areas, stage 3, where I suggested to you that the
use of maximum rather than averages may not be appropriate,
and stage 5, where the impingement losses may represent a
closer estimate of the absolute impingement losses than does
the population represent of the total population losses.
A I understand all of this.
Q Based on these two premises, would you not agree
.that it follows that were these two points to be borne out,
8835mea-5
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
that the population reduction of 39 percent would be possibl
substantially lower?
A it would be possibly substantially lower, yes.
I think that it has to be borne in mind that in what we are
speaking of there is a response back on the adjusted removal;
in other words, if the thing is relative to the size of the
population, and if you are going to increase the population,
you are going to increase vastly the number of fish that are
taken out, because then you get back to a higher density in
front of the plants, with a much higher absolute number of
fish killed. Your percentage could stay the, same in this for,
say entrainments at stage 3, and the nuitrder increase by fivc
times in number. It could go to seven and a half million
instead of one and a half million, if you were on an order
of five to one between your relative and. your actual
population. The percent of the population could stay the
same.
Q Let me clearly distinguish here. If you recall, I
did not induce any contention with respect to the relative
population size in talking on the impingement estimates.
I agree that the impingement estimates are primarily a
function of distribution, which we have discussed many times
before and it is a distributional concept, namely using the
notion of maximum rather than averages; that is my contention
there.
8836
mea-6
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
8151 17
End 18 18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
In the case of the impingement, it is a different
matter -
MR. BRIGGS: Excuse me. You talked initially about
impingement; you meant entrainment, didn't you?
DR. LAWLER: I am sorry, stage 3 is entrainment,
and there I am not concerned with relative population; I am
concerned with the distributional aspects and procedures used.
In stage 5 my contention is the estimate of the
impingement losses is a lot closer to the absolute estimate of
impingement than is the estimate of the population to its
absolute counterpart.
THE WITNESS: If all of these postulates were to
come true, there would be a substantial reduction in the
percentage of the population indicated to be removed by my
calculations.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: At this time let us recess to
reconvene in this room at 3 o'clock.
(Recess.)
i
8837
#19
arl
2
*3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Please come to order.
Is the Applicant ready to proceed?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, I am ready to proceed.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Proceed, please.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Mr. Clark, with regard to page 6 of your testimony,
you say that during the third and fourth months, the striped
bass gradually become large enough to be stopped by the
three-eighth inch mesh screens. For clarification, by the
third and fourth months, do you mean August to October?
A From approximately the twelfth week on.
Q Does that mean from August to October?
A I will check and see. It wQuld mean from mid
August or thereabouts on. For a period of -- I think we
talked about a period of 28 days that I had used for my
transition.
Q Now, Mr. Clark, there are relatively few striped
bass impinged during those months of the year. Is that correct
On the intake screens?
A Excuse me. I do have that in here. I will find
the page in which I have it. I have tried to assign them,
the impinged fish, to seasons. Page 37, there is a June-to
August period in which I am estimating the lowest impingement
for any three-month period throughout the year.
Q Right. Now, Mr. Clark, is it correct that there
I
8838
ar2
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
are larval marine fishes, for example, bluefish, that are
found near Indian Point?
A There are juvenile bluefish that are taken in the
area.
Q How about larval marine bluefishes?
MR. MACBETH: I object to this question on the
grounds of relevance, unless:. some relevance can be shown.
It just sounds like it comes out of the blue. What is this
going toward?
MR. TROSTEN: Well, I think it is rather an
important point, Mr. Macbeth. I am sorry you don't see the
relevance of it.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: You stated the conclusion. What
is the relevance of it?
MR. TROSTEN: I think one of the basic points of
the hearing is to discuss the transport of larval organisms
in the river, and marine fishes don't spawn in the river.
I am curious to know whether Mr. Clark agrees that there are
indeed larval marine fishes, that is fish that spawn in marine
areas as opposed to the Hudson River, in the vicinity of
Indian Point.
BY MR.TROSTEN:
Q Do you have any data that suggest to you that that
is the case?
A That was my specialty for a number of years at
8839
ara3
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
1.4
15
16
07
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Sandy Hook, trying to figure out how that worked. out of my
recollection of this, and my studies of the particular situa
tion, I have concluded that a number of marine fish use the
Hudson estuary as a nursery ground where they go after they
have developed beyond the larval stage. I would not expect
marine fish up there in the larval stage. I would expect
them up there in the juvenile stages, when they are strong
enough to be able to swim that distance from the sea. The
bluefish in the area offshore of the Hudson have their
predominant, their heaviest spawning as a distance of 30 or
40 or 50 miles to sea. And they come from there shoreward.
And then pass into the estuaries and protected, waters.
But this is when they are one inch or an inch and a half,
two-inch fish.
Q Just to repeat the question the third time, are you
aware of any data that indicate that there are larval marine
fishes in the vicinity of Indian Point?
A No.
MR. MACBETH: Are we passing beyond the bluefish?
MR. TROSTEN: The bluefish is a marine fish.
MR. MACBETH: Well, that was not the third time
you repeated that question. If you want an answer to the blue
fish question, let's stick to that.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Are you aware that there are any larval marine
8840
ar4
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11I
* 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
fishes found in the vicinity of Indian Point, any data that
indicate that?
A I am not aware that there are any data that indicate
there are larval stages of any ocean-spawned fish there. I
trust that is what you mean by marine.
Q Yes.
A Although we get into the trouble of whose definition
of a larvae we use.
Q Thank you.. Now, were the Carlson-McCann data
collected, Mr. Clark, for the purpose of determining the
survival of eggs and larvae?
A They were collected to -- with the specifiLc
purpose
Q Could-you just answer the question and then give
an explanation if you think it is necessary?
A No.
Q Thank you.
A They were collected for the specific purpose of
estimating the amount of loss due to entrainment by the
proposed Storm King pump storage plant.
Q Just to save time, would you accept the definition
of what the Carlson-McCann study was, which is set forth on
page 4 of the document?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: I think this, if you have some
statement from the publication that declares the purpose of
ar5
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8841,
that other organization's work, that should be utilized, not
to ask the gentleman to give a recollection. Or was he a
part of the Carlson-McCann group?
MR. TROSTEN: To my knowledge, he was not, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Let's not ask him to define
another organization's primary objective.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q All right. I will read to you from page 4 of
the Carlson-McCann study, Mr. Clark, and tell me if this
statement comports with your understanding of -- the statement
as set forth by the policy committee -- comports wit-h your
understanding of the purpose of the study.,
"The following actions were initiated by the
policy committee to compile data relevant to effects of the
proposed pump storage plant on the fisheries of the Hudson
River. A study program was developed that would determine
the distribution in time and space of all fish life stages
in that section of the Hudson River subject to the effects
of operation of the proposed pump storage generating plant
at Cornwall, New York; determine the distribution of these
life stages outside the Cornwall area, and their abundance
rlative to that of Cornwall; determine the impact of possible
losses in the striped bass fisheries in the area."
Now it was in light of that paragraph, I assume,
8842
ar6
2
* 3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* .23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
that you answered that the Carlson-McCann data were not
collected for the purpose of determining the survival of
eggs and larvae of striped bass.
A Yes. Nor do I see anything in the statement you
just read or have I heard anything in that statement that
would indicate that the study was aimed at determining the
natural survival. When you said survival, I interpreted it
as natural survival. The mortality by the plants is clearly
a part of the study..
.Q Yes, right. Now this study, you would say, was
not designed to determine the size of larvae at various
times in their growth either, was it?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Aren't we back to a different
form of the question? You are asking him what iS3 that program
undertaken or what was it undertaken to do. Whatever t'he
words say, they are, that is what they were going to do.
I don't know we gain or save much time by asking him that.
Let the record speak.
MR. TROSTEN: All right, Mr. Chairman, I will be
prepared to let that record speak for itself.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q There is just one final question on this point. It
was the case, was it not, that the Carlson McCann study was
an attempt to determine the effect of a pump storage plant,
ncta steamr electric plant? Is that not true?
8843
ar7
1
2
*3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 I0 11
* 12
13~
14
15
e19 16
17
18
19
2: 21
* 2:
2
Ace -Federal Reporters, In 2
A Yes, that is true.
Q Thank you. Now you report on page 10 of your testi
mony, you state on page 10 of your testimony that Carlson
McCann used methods "designed to be quantitative." Is it
not correct that Carlson-McCann never purported to estimate
th
actual number of eggs, larvae and juveniles in the Hudson
River?
MR. MACBETH: Could you indicate what part of page
10 you are reading from? Is it where it says, "The Carlson
McCann vary widely," and so on, they provide the only
opportunity to make base line approximations of striped bass
populations in the various early life stages?
MR. TROSTEN: I am trying to find the particular
part.
2
3
4 'C.
:5
THE WITNESS:Third line on the top of page 10.
8844
CR8151
#20-ter-i 1 BY MR. TROSTEN:
2 Q No, there was an estimate in your testimony, yes,
3 I am sorry, it is on page ten, "In these two years, sampling
4 of young striped bass was conducted throughout
most of the
5 estuarine and tidal fresh waters of the Hudson,
using methods
6 designed to be quantitative."
7 Do you see that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is it not correct that Carlson-McCann never
pur
10 ported to estimate the actual number of eggs,
larvae, and
11 juveniles in the Hudson River?
12 A That is not true. If you look at Table 20, you
13 will see one example of that, where they
have estimated",
14 not a relative number, but they attempted here
to get a total
15 number.
16 If you take all of the eggs in that column
on the
17 left, those daily withdrawals, multiply them by seven,
to con
18 vert them from daily to weekly and add them
up, you find out
19 that 39 million eggs of the striped bass
would be removed from
20 the river by the Storm King Plant.
21 Now, that is an actual number, 39 million would be
22 taken out of the river by that plant; at a rate of approximate
23 463,000 :per day, over an eleven week period.
24 Q Mr. Clark, do you see any population of the
river
Ace - Fedeal Reptes . of the total number of eggs, larvae and juveniles in the
8845
ter- 2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2R Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc
iudson River in Table 20?
A I see the total mean abundance at Cornwall, the mean
abundance in the zone of withdrawal, the estimated number of
eggs subject to withdrawal, daily.
All this under a title of, "Estimated Percentage of
the Total Number of Striped Bass Eggs Available at Cornwall
by Week and Season;, the Estimated Number of Eggs Subject to
Withdrawal by Pumping at the Plant Intake."
This is for the Cornwall section. And it is a numer
ical evaluation of absolute numbers of the striped bass eggs
that would have been killed or at least taken into that plant.
Q By the Cornwall Plant?
A Yes.
Q The estimated withdrawal at Cornwall?
A Yes.
Q Do you see any number in that table, or do you see
any number elsewhere in the Carlson-McCann Report that provides
an estimate of the actual number of eggs, larvae, and
juveniles in the Hudson River?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: That is not what he said in his
testimony on page ten, as I see it. I wonder how you are
relating your question to his testimony. He may utilize -- as
I understand it, he utilized some of the McCann data.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, he did, Mr. Chairman; but I
think it is a matter of probing the understanding of the term,
8846
ter- 3
"designed to be quantative."
CHAIRMAN JENSCHt Ask him what he means by that,
that might be easier.
MR. TROSTEN: Could I amplify for a moment, Mr.
Chairman?
19
20
21
22
*23
24
Ace-Federal Repoters, Inc. 25
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Sure.
MR. TROSTEN: I think it is quite clear the
Carlson4lcCann Study was designed to determine the effect of
withdrawal by a pump storage plant, located at Cornwall.
I think it is important to ascertain here, whether
it was designed to do more than that, or perhaps, whether the
witness thought it was designed to do more than that.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Well, I think your question is
where are the data in the McCann Report that show the total
population.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes. My question is, could Mr. Clark
direct my attention -- I just want to ask that question -- can
he direct my attention to a place in Table 20, or elsewhere
in the Carlson-McCann Report where they estimated the actual
number of eggs, larvae, and juveniles in the Hudson River.
I just want an answer to that question.
THE WITNESS: I don't think they did.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Thank you, Mr. Clark.
Are you suggesting that a striped bass population,
8847
ter- 4
I which you report as producing an annual sports catch in 1965
2 of 29 million pounds of fish -- here I am referring
back to
3 page two of your April 5, 1972 testimony. Do you want to look
4 at that?
5 A April 5?
6 Q Yes, page two. Do you have a copy of that, there?
7 A I am trying to find it.
8 Q I will give you my copy.
A Now, I have one.
10 CHAIRMAN JENSCH: May the question be reread.
MR. TROSTEN: I had just started it. Shall I just
12 restate it?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: If you can. 13
BY MR. TROSTEN:
15 Q Are you suggesting, Mr. Clark, that a striped
bass
16 population which you report as producing an
annual sports
17 catch in 1965, of 29 million pounds of fish, produced only,
18 on the order of 1.3 billion fertilized eggs in 1966 and 1967?
MR. MACBETH: I think we have been over this at some
20 length, earlier in the afternoon. I thought Dr. Lawler's
21 questions pursued this point at some length.
0 22 I object, on the grounds that it is repititious.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, I will be prepared to
O 23
24 move on. I think Mr. Macbeth's point is probably well taken.
Ace-Fedeial Repotets, I2c. CHAIRMAN JENSCH: The objection is sustained. 25
8848
ter- 5 1 1 Proceed.
2 BY MR. TROSTEN:
3 Q Mr. Clark, you have suggested earlier, that sampling
4 error is a very likely source of the error in the population
5 estimates for eggs, and larvae as set forth in the Carlson
6 McCann Study.
7 Is it likely, referring now, to the difference in
8 catch between 1966 and 1967, that the difference was due to
9 cyclic behavior between those two years, ratherthan sampling
10 errors.
11 You report a very significant difference between
12 the population reported in Carlson and McCann in '66 and '67.
13 On page 13, and 14 of your October 30 testimony, you suggest
14 that sampling error is the cause of this variation.
15 A What page is that, please?
16 Q Page 13, and 14.
17 A You mean Table 1 and -
Q Do you see, on page 13 and 14 -- it is actually
19 12 through 14.
20 A All right.
2 Q You suggest that, if you see on the top of page
22 12, there is a paragraph that
says, "Although absolute numbers
23 are assigned to the Population, they must be considered rela
24
Ace-4Federal Reporters, I. tive values, because the sampling errors are believed
to have
Ac -Feerl eprtrs 25c
8849
ter-6
Ace - Federal Report
the effect of minimizing the population size."
A Yes.
3 Q My question is this; do you think it is likely
that
4 cyclic behavior, rather than sampling errors,
could also play
5 a large role in causing these minimum estimates
to have been
6 produced?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Thank you.
9 Do you think that it is also possible that
river
10 conditions, different river conditions, could have contributed
11 substantially, to producing the variation in the estimates
12 between 1966 and 1967?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, turning to page 19 of your testimony,
you
15 report a reduction of larvae in the Cornwall
area and then a
16 reappearance of them due to the -- you report
on page 20, "It
17 is likely that this represents the measure of their true
18 abundance in the Hudson. The increase may have
been caused
19 by the penetration of the salt front up the
estuary to Cornwal.
20 bringing the later larvae and prejuvenile
fish with it."
21 A Yes.
22Q I have a question I wanted to ask you about
that.
23 Is it possible that if the salt fronts were
to penetrate up
24 the estuary, north of Indian Point, at
the beginning of June,
and remain there for, on the order of a month, that
the vast ers, Inc.
8850ter-7
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
end 20 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
•0 22
*23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
bulk of eggs and larvae would remain at that general location,
that is near the, just above the salt front, for that period
of time?
A No.
Q Well, is that not what you were suggesting here on
the top of page 20 when you say the increase may have been
caused by the penetration of the salt fronts up the estuary to
Cornwall, bringing the later larvae and prejuvenile fish with
it?
A You asked me if they would be above the front and I
said, no, not above the front, below it.
Q I am sorry, below the front?
A Below the front. I would expect you would find a
higher concentration in that particular area.
I
8851
lmil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q Would you say that it would take the vast proportio
of the larvae up with it?
A I can't answer that. I have no opinion on that.
Q Mr. Clark, on the bottom of page 19 and the top of
page 20 again you report on the June 30-July 6 catches of
larvae, stage 3 larvae and you report on the July 7 to 13
abundance. You say, "It is likely that this represents the me
ure of their true abundance in the Hudson, 174 per 1000 cubic
feet ."
What other data support your hypothesis that this
represents the measure of their true abundance in the Hudson?
A Well, this fact, that when you are sampling in the
way Carlson and McCann sampled, you are sampling from a fixed
point on the river in relation to a dynamic situation in the
water. And you are stuck there in this one point along the
river, sampling whatever is going by. Now since they were
not able to move with the body of fish, the next place down
the line where they could get another measure of them, since
they had these fixed stations along the river, the next point
down would be, I think, around, whatever it was, 10 miles or
so, down to the next station, so your sensitivity to these
dynamic changes is low, because you are in a fixed sampling
site. Therefore, if fish disappear from your sampling area
and then reappear, the obvious conclusion to that to me is
that they are responding to a variation, a transport of the
J
88521
. 2mi 1
9
10
11
*1 13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
* 221
* 23
24
Ace - Federal Repurters, Inc. 25
larvae in the river which could only be, or which most
logically would be the salt front movement. Now since those
disappeared and then reappeared in the highest abundance
of those older stages of larvae, I am assuming that that is
a measure, that that estimate at the time they-reappeared
would be a measure of their true abundance, and what
occurred before was sampling when they were absent, down
river or up river with the salt front.
Q Mr. Clark, in estimating the number of striped bass
eggs removed by the plants at Indian Point, you used
the average density of eggs at the Peek'skill sector, is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And it is true, isn't it, that striped bass eggs
are slightly negatively buoyant, and therefore, tend to be
concentrated in the lower portion of the water column, isn't
that right?
A Yes.
Q Now if this is the case, then they would be less
available to the plant intake than if they were evenly
distributed, as your calculations assume, isn't that true?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: May I have the question read,
please?
(The reporter read the pending question.)
THE WITNESS: No. No. I will try to explain why
r .... ..
8853
3mil 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
* 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace - Federal Re0orters, Inc. 25
I think that. (Drawing on board) The channel edge is steep
next to Indian Point and then goes off into some flats,
as we have discussed earlier. However, the intake -- I am
thinking now about Indian Point 1 -- is 27 feet from mean
water to the bottom of the intake. The pump in the back
is located very near the bottom of the intake. The flow of
water then directed toward the pump entrance would be from
deeper and shallower than the location of the pump, the area o
influence would be something like this. Interfering with
this is the fact that there is this ledge which interrupts
the natural flow-in of the water at this point. That would
deflect this coin somewhere upwards. The effect of that
is that you would be drawing in your water at the considerable
depth below the surface on a net basis.
This would indicate to me that you would be
drawing some from the surface, some from the bottom, but mainl
from the middle depths of the river, depending upon the
actual depth contours here which from the 27 feet, go off -
I don't know at what, the actual perimetry of this bottom in
relation to the area of influence of the intake water, that is
unknown to me.
BY MR.. TROSTEN:
Q Do you have a copy of your July 14 testimony handy?
I seem to have misplaced mine.
A Yes.
4mi 1
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0 12
131
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8854
Q Figure 4 shows the depth here of roughly 60 feet
down here?
A Yes.
Q Now the plant is at a mean depth of 27 feet, I
believe, 26 feet, which brings you in this general area
here. (Drawing on board). Now under these circumstances,
let me ask you two questions: Have you made any analyses
of the parts of the river from which the water comes that is
taken into the plant?
A No, the only information we have on that is what
was supplied in some interrogatories by Dr.. Lawler, I believe.
And I am not conversant enough with this to go into it in
detail. But just to explain why I am not able to answer either
affirmatively or negatively, whichever I was supposed to, that
I am not ready to accept that these eggs would not be
vulnerable to withdrawal by the plant.
MAR. MACBETH: Can I clarify one point? In your
calculations of the percentage of striped bass population
removed, did you not ignore any withdrawal of eggs from the
river in any case?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I calculated the withdrawal
of eggs in that percentage and decided that the probably
effect on eggs was of such an order of magnitude, so small
compared to the killing of the larvae and the killing of the
juveniles, that I would just leave it out and simplify things.
8855
5mil 1
W 2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Moving on the early larvae, to estimate the early
larval stage removals, you once again appear to assume that
the fish are randomly distributed throughout the sector. Is
that correct? I infer this from the first sentence on the
top of page 27.
A Yes, 27?
Q 27.
A I have homogenized the distribution, is what I
have done.
Q So in other words, the early larval stages are
considered to be randomly distributed, evenly distributed?
A Yes, homogenlous.
Q Now is it not true the early larvae might be
distributed differently, depending both on their development
stage and on the time of day?
A Yes.
Q For example, would not larvae which were just
hatched tend to sink in the water column?
A Yes, those are what I described yesterday, that
swim up and sink back down and swim up again all day long.
Swim up fry.
Q Do not older larvae -- let me see if I understand
what you are saying. What I am about to ask you is about olde
larvae that perform diurnal movements. That is what you just
8856
6mil
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
210 23
24 Akce -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
mentioned?
A No, these are the swim-up fry, the yolk larvae.
They are the ones that swim up and fall down and swim up and
fall down.
Q Those are not the diurnal movements?
A No, that is just their attempt to keep from droppin
down on the bottom.
Q.- I see. Now the older larvae that tend to perform
the diurnal movements, don't they tend to be more at the
surface at night and at the bottom during the day?
A Yes, there is a tendency there. But it is diffi
cult to be positive about that, too, because of the sampling
error problem with the plankton nets. The escapements of
fish from plankton nets is such that the catch rate in a
plankton net is much higher in relation to the population
there at night than daytime because the fish at the surface,
the fish are denied light at night, and this makes it. diffi
cult for them to see the net approaching and to escape.
Down on the bottom, however, it is pretty dark all day long,
because the river is so turbid, and therefore you get a
different relative proportion of surface and bottom larvae
just on the basis of sampling efficiency related to net escape
ments.
#22
an 1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8857
Q Do you have any data to support this reaction to
light mechanism that you are describing?
A Oh, yes, I can give you several right now. I
will give you the primary references on this subject, because
I think you can find the rest of it from there'. It is
called "Zooplankton Sampling," published by UNESCO in a series
called Monographs on Oceanographic Methodology. It is a
multiple-author publication by UNESCO.
Q Just for my information, is this a text that
discusses sampling for striped bass eggs or fish eggs?
A All kinds of
Q Fish larvae?
A Yes, this is the result of a large, a worldwide
symposium on the subject of zooplankton sampling and gear
efficiency and so on, in which they discuss all kinds of fish,
the differences between day and night, selective sampling
from avoidance, et cetera, et cetera.
Q All right. We will take a look at that. Now let
me ask you this: I gather from your last answer that you
felt that sampling errors could perhaps confuse the question
of the vulnerability of these organisms during the day and
night. But you do agree, do you not, that the most
vulnerable larvae, the ones most recently hatched, do indeed
tend to sink to the bottom and the older larvae tend to
concentrate towards the bottom during the day, when the plant
ar 2
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*2 2
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8858
is operating most at this particular time of the year? Do you
not agree with that?
Do you want the question read back?
A Well, it is just that I don't know anything about
your plans for running the plant night or day.
Q Let me just -
A I just wanted to give you this reference so you
can look at it. I don't have an other copy of it.
Q This is the doucment you just referenced.
A Yes, the UNESCO document.
MR. BRIGGS: What is the date on that document?
MR. TROSTEN: Do you know where the date is?
THE WITNESS: I don't have the date on my copy of
this publication. I believe it was 1970.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Let me restate the question. First of all, with
regard to the operation of the plant, let me just mention
that if you just assume for the purpose of the question that
the plant is being operated again with a 80 percent plant
factor, without any special attention being paid to operating
in a special vein, and at that time of the year there is more
daylight than nighttime hours because of the time of year.
A Yes.
Q So to rephrase the question now, wouldn't you
think that the tendency of the -- the biological tendencies
ar 3
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8859
of the larvae reduce the probability of their being entrained
for the following reasons:
First, that the youngest, most vulnerable larvae
tend to sink to the bottom after they have been hatched;
and second, that the older larvae tend to concentrate toward
the bottom during the day, when, as I have indicated, the
plant is operating most, because there are more daylight hours
at that time of the year.
A I would say what you are postulating is possible.
But I can't simply answer in the affirmative, because it is a
numerical thing. When those fish are concentrated at the
surface, they are there in high numbers. It is likely you
could do as much damage at nighttime, when they are up at
the surface, as you :might during the whole day, when they are
distributed more completely throughout the water column. It
is complicated, too complicated to answer without a more
complete premise, a more complete statement of where in the
water column you are anticipating they would be night and day.
If you could give me that, I could come up with a better
opinion, you know, 80 percent at the top at night, 10 percent
at the bottom, whatever.
Q Just for the record, there is a fair amount of data,
is there not, that indicates the diurnal movements of larvae
during the day and night?
A Yes.
8860
ar4
2
*3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
*23
24
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
Q So this is a phenomenon that is rather well under
stood, isn't it?
A Yes, I am admitting that there is good evidence
of vertical migration, and I also accept what you are saying,
that the youngest larvae would tend to be distributed in a
way that would be closer to the bottom than the older larvae.
But whether in fact this would work out on balance 24 hours
a day to give you less kill than if they distributed them
selves in some different way, I can't answer.
Q But this is something that could be answered, would
you not think, by scrutinizing the data on the percentage
distribution in the vertical water column?
A Yes.
Q Thank you.
CHAIPAN JENSCH: I might add that while you
promised to finish by 5:00 o'clock, there is no compulsion
that you do.
MR. TROSTEN: What I am thinking is that we can
indeed conclude earlier.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Fine.
MR. MACBETH: If the cross-examination does conclude
earlier, perhaps we can also conclude the Regulatory Staff,
and we do have answers to some of the outstanding items in
the record which would take a few minutes.
MR. KARMAN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clark has been on
ar 5
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8861
the stand for five days now, and while I can certainly state
for the record that there was not much in Mr. Clark's direct
testimony which would necessitate extensive cross-examination,
we anticipated Mr. Trosten, who indicated he certainly would
go until the end of today, and we are evaluating the cross
examination of Mr. Clark and would like to reserve to our
selves, as indicated this morning, the right, if needed -
and I am not saying it will be -- to pose a few interrogatory
questions to Mr. Clark at the conclusion. I don't think this
would be a proper time, and frankly we have .not completely
evaluated the testimony for me to start in cross-examination
at this stage of the game today.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Yes, I do think we have to bear
in mind that the witness has been under pretty searching
examination for five days. We will try to accommodate
other cross-examination in view of that situation.
MR. KARM.AN: Thank you.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q Just to move on, Mr. Clark, to page 56 of your
testimony. Here you discuss other species and the effects of
the-plants on other species. Now what data do you have that
populations of other valuable species can be expected to
suffer serious adverse effects? You say that on page 57.
You say, "Thus the populations of other valuable species
cant be expected to suffer serious adverse effects from Indian
8862 1
ar6
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace - Fedeal Reporters, Inc.
25
Point No. 1 and 2."
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Doesn't the "thus" indicate
that the preceding paragraph is the basis?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, it would appear that Mr.
Clark has said, 'Although I have not made quantitative estimates
of the effects on other Hudson fishes" -- this is the bottom of
page 56 -- "it is clear that" -- and he goes on and discusses
these various things. I am just asking him, although he says
he has not made any quantitative estimates, I accept that,
I would like to know what data demonstrate that the popula
tions of other valuable species can be expected to suffer
serious adverse effects, particularly in view of the fact that
he has not made any quantitative analyses.
THE WITNESS: It is based on parallelism between
the kind of early life situation typical of the white perch,
anchovy and herring, the similarity in terms of the planktonic
stages of larvae, and their passivity, and the likelihood
that they too would be drawn into the plant in the same way
that striped bass would be drawn in and that they would also
suffer injury or death from going through the plant. It is a
question of parallelism.
BY MR. TROSTEN:
Q In view of the fact that these fishes do have
different life stages and life styles, I guess is the term
that is used sometimes, and in view of the lack of data with
-j
8863
ar7
2
* 3 .4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
respect to these fishes which you acknowledge, would you not
say that it is an equally acceptable hypothesis that the
populations of these fishes will suffer no adverse effects
whatsoever? Populations of these fishes?
A No. I will just state right out flat that my
opinion is, based on my knowledge of the early life history
of these fishes in general and their relation to striped bass,
what we have learned about striped bass, that great numbers
of them would also be drawn into the plant, they will also be
killed, and their populations will also suffer in the way
the striped bass has. I don't think we have to spend one
minute more out on the river collecting eggs, larvae, or any
thing else to be thoroughly convinced of that hazard. If
you want to know the details of it, get into a really
detailed study of how all of these adverse effects are going
to happen, okay. But we don't need that to know that it is
going to have great damage on these other species.
MR. TROSTEN: Mr. Chairman, I have simply one
other point to make with regard to Mr. Clark's testimony
at this time, and that is that I wish to move to strike the
section of his testimony entitled "Additional Power Plants"
on the bottom of page 57 for the reason given in all of the
papers before the Board having to do With the Bowline and
Roseton plants on the grounds that this evidence is not
relevant to the issues before the Board.
8864,
ar8
2
*3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
e222 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
0 23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
MR. MACBETH: I contend on the basis of all of
the papers and evidence before the Board that this should be
retained.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: The motion is denied.
Does that conclude your examination?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
cross-examination.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well. We will discuss the
witness -
MR. MACBETH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clark does have
the answers to some of the outstanding items that the
Applicant asked for in the course of the last few days of
testimony, which he could give at this time. We reserved
that until the end of the cross-examination.
CR 8151 23
eakl
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8865
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Well, would you prefer to give
it orally or type it out?
MR. MACBETH: He would prefer to give it orally.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: All right, proceed.
MR. MACBETH: If there is any probl6m with the
answers, the Applicant could speak up now.
MR. TROSTEN: I am not sure, Mr. Macbeth, that I
can speak up instantly, depending on what the answer is. But
why don't you go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Relative to page 7897 of the
transcript, I was asked whether reports mentioned from other
rivers of other, the Connecticut and Delaware Rivers, whether
the studies there had demonstrated adverse effects. My
answer is I believe that the reports mentioned have not.
demonstrated any effects, either adverse nor beneficial.
Page 7970 of the transcript, I was asked if I
agreed with Mr. Trosten's characterization of Mr. Kerr's study,
and my answer is I cannot agree with the size of 1.8 to 3.2
inches. The size given on page 37 for condenser tests was
0.83 to 1.81 inches. I cannot agree with the temperature
increase of 18 degrees Fahrenheit. The Delta T appears
on page 37 as 16 degrees Fahrenheit. I cannot agree with a
survival rate of 85 to 90 percent. It appears on page 37 as
94 percent. I cannot agree with a final temperature of
90 degrees F. It appears on pages 37 and 38 that the
.. .. .. e a k 2
I ambient temperature was 72 degrees Fahrenheit. This plus 16
2 degrees F is 88 degrees F. I can agree with the five-day
3 test period.
4 BY MR. TROSTEN:
5 Q Maybe to simplify matters, do you agree with the
6 characterization of the results that appear in the Kerr Report?
7 Are you simply qualifying with -
8 A With your characterization, yes.
9 Q With my characterization of what those numbers were?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay.
12 A On page 7998, I was asked to review some more
13 testimony in relation to gammarus entrainment effects. My
14 answer is that gammarus are harmed by entrainment is shown by
15 one major review of the situation in the Draft Statement on
16 Indian Point No. 2, page Roman 5-52. On transcript page
17 8000 -
18 Q Just let me interject at that point. Is that
19 the sole reference that you rely upon with regard to your
20 statement that gammarus will be harmed by entrainment?
21 A.. That is the particular reference that influenced
0 22 me most, yes.
23 Q Was there some other one that influenced you?,
24 A I had been influenced by what Dr. Lauer had said
Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc. in his earlier testimony. I can't remember the details of it, 25 nhserirtsioy Ica'reebrtedtisoit
8866
eak3
1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8867
but indicating that there would be some significant mortality.
I think that was his April 5 testimony. On transcript page
8 000, in relation to a question about the damage to
zooplankton or phytoplankton populations, I would refer you to
three sources, Donald De Silva, in Biological Aspects of Therma.
Pollution, page 270, quotes Michursky that 95 percent of plankt(
died going through the plant.
No. 2 is that Charles Coutant in the CRC,
Critical Reviews in Environment, Volume 1, Issue 3. He discuss
,n considerable detail lethal and nonlethal effects.
And thirdly, the Draft Statement of the AEC Staff
Roman 5, page 49. On transcript page 8001, I was asked to
review the Oyster Creek and other plant data and respond to that
I have not been able to get that information yet.
In relation to another question for which I do.!.
not have the transcript page number -- this was given to me by
Mr. Macbeth, relayed to me -- was to supply sources of infor
mation on the amount of food available in the Hudson for fish.
The main source of information on this was in Ecological Surve5
of the Hudson River, Progress Report No. 3 of NYU, I presume
and the article is called "Zooplankton and other Invertebrates
in the Hudson River" by H. I. Hirscbfield and E. Musnick in
which there are abundant data on zooplankton in the river. His
summary statement on page 3-33 says, "The WAter is high in
phytoplankton.(not inventoried) and in zooplankton, with
eak4
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
with regional patches of plumes."
There is more information on this same subject by
G. P. Howells and others in the second symposium on Hudson
River ecology. I was asked for information and also I have
no transcript references for this, on the predation of striped
bass on white perch, and this reference appears on page 51
of my October 30 testimony. That relates to the Chesapeake.
As far as the Hudson is concerned, there are no
detailed studies available,to my knowledge,except on limited
survey of juvenile striped bass feeding habits occurring at a
size before predation would be expected to occur heavily on
the white perch. I would expect predation on white perch
by striped bass to occur mostly in late spring after spawning
by the adolescents and spawning size fish in the
river.
I was asked to provide -- I have no transcript page
for this -- I was asked toprovide the standard actuarial
formula for adding together natural and fishing mortality.
For this I refer you to the Ryker publication, as previously
mentioned by me, as the classic study ini1948, as on page 4,
formula number 6. There is one left open which has to do with
the source of information about larger fish and fewer numbers
being diagnostic fisheries. I do not have that information
yet.
Q There is just one I believe was left off. I asked
8868
8869eak5
2
* 3
e2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
0 23
24
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
you atone point whether you agreed that Dr. Goodyear's
opinion that 500,000 to 1 million Hudson River
spawned striped bass were caught by commercial fishermen?
A Yes, I agree that it could be in that range.
I]
8870
511 K RA#24mml 3151 2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: You are going to defer your
redirect, are you, until the interrogatories?
MR. MACBETH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: As I infer from the statements
of both Applicants' counsels in discussions at-or about noon,
you gentlemen considered the mechanism of exchanging
interrogatories and getting answers back before we meet on
March 5.
Is that correct?
MR. KARMAN: As far as the Staff is concerned, I
really don't anticipate too much.
MR. TROSTEN: We did not, as a matter of fact,
Mr. Chairman. I expect if we do have interrogatories, they
would be minor in nature.
MR. MACBETH: I am relieved to hear that.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Whatever you do in that regard,
if you will work out a convenient schedule for getting
responses in time for study and that sort of thing, so that we
won't be met on March 5 with a motion to continue.
MR. TROSTEN: We may well not have any
interrogatories, .Mr., Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: That sounds better every time.
Very well, that completes your testimony. Thank
you, Mr. Clark, you are temporarily excused, subject to
presentation of interrogatories, if any.
8871
mm2 I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
(Witness temporarily excused.)
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: We had a further matter we would
like to take up with Mr. Woodbury, and Mr. Briggs has some
inquiries on this of you.
MR. BRIGGS: I am not sure this first inquiry shoul
be directed to Mr. Woodbury. Possibly to Mr. Trosten.
I believe we asked for these reports on the
reactor vessel and we also asked about information
concerning the toughness requirements.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir.
That answer'is in preparation. I hoped to have
it to you by now.
MR. BRIGGS: Fine.
I believe that it was in January when we were in
New York -- I think we were there in January -- that
there was some discussion about the research program that the
Applicants propose to do. And I believe it was stated
that that research program was described in the Environmental
Report, is that right?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. BRIGGS: So that would be in Section 2.3.6,
Biological Impact?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, Mr. Briggs.
There is a general discussion of this that appears
in the Environmental Report. That Environmental Report,
8872
mm3
* 2
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
of course, was prepared in the fall of 1971, in August and
September of 1971.
A more recent summary of the research program is
contained in the Appendix G which was offered into evidence
it is Appendix G to the comments of the Applicant on the
Staff's draft detailed statement.
But go ahead, yes.
MR. BRIGGS: Some of these questions that I have may
be covered in Section A, Appendix G, and if they are, you can
indicate that.
MR. TROSTEN: I might add that the subject of the
research program is an area we do expect to submit rebuttal
testimony on.
MR. BRIGGS: Fine. Maybe this will be helpful in
providing some information about our interests that you could
cover in the rebuttal testimony. You might consider it in
that light also.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIGGS: On page 2.3.6-9 there is a staement
concerning assurance of adequate ecological studies.
It says there the studies are directed by the
Hudson River Policy and Technical Committees, that they
outline and supervise studies and insure that they are done
in a professional manneriand present conclusions and
recommendations to ConEd.
mm4 I
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
eid 24 18
19
20
21
22
* 23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8873
Now, is this the manner in which the program is
to be run, or has this been changed?
MR. WOODBURY: This has been changed, sir.
MR. BRIGGS: And does the Appendix G tell the way
in which it has been changed, the way in which the program
will be run?
MR. WOODBURY: Well -
MR. TROSTEN: That is dated the 28th of May, and i
gives only a very generalized discussion of this.
MR. WOODBURY: I think not, sir, because as a
result of the statement you just read, the Hudson River
Policy Commitee had occasion to review its relationship with
ConEdison in connection with this study and its capabilities,
and in May, June and July of 1972, subsequent to the
preparation of our initial statement and subsequent to the
preparation of Appendix G, we arrived at an understanding
of what their relationship would be.
I have copies of that correspondence here.
CR8151
#25-ter-i
2
03 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
*23
24 kce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8874
MR. BRIGGS: What is there relationship going to be?
MR. WOODBURY: It is one of serving as a steering
group, providing technical review, advising the company and
the contractor, or concerning the conduct of the study and
making recommendations concerning any changes that they feel
should be accomplished as a result of their observations.
They also review the bimonthly periodic reports
and monthly review a specific area of activity which is brought
before them by some elements of the study group, working on
the river.
They also review semi-annual reports, and comment
to Conn Edison on them; and, will review the final report.
This relationship is described in a recent letter, which I
have received from the Chairman of the Hudson River Policy
Committee, which I requested as a result of Chairman Jensch's
inquiry in January, or December, I guess it was; when we were
meeting up on H Street.
I sent them a copy of the transcript and asked
them to respond to:the questions which I was unable to answer;
and I have that letter.
MR. BRIGGS: Will that be put into your rebuttal
testimony?
MR. TROSTEN: We have copies of this correspondence,
here, Mr. Briggs, if you care to see it?
CHAIRMAN JENSCF1: I think it would be well to have
ter-2
1
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
it. We can consider,.-at a'later time, whether we want to have
it made a part of the record; unless you desire to do so,
now?
MR. TROSTEN: I suggest we just refer it to the
Board, and its evidentiary status can be determined at a later
time.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well. I notice'that copies
are being given to the other parties.
MR. TROSTEN: Yes.
MR. BRIGGS: Does the Hudson River Policy Committee
have any responsibility at all for deciding Whether a plant
is doing damage to the ecology or is not doing damage to the
ecology?
In this sense, do they have any responsibility for
deciding whether the plant is damaging the fish life in the
Hudson?
MR. WOODBURY: They have no regulatory authority.
They have assumed responsibility for reviewing the items
which are under study, but for the purpose of making such a
determination, for reviewing the data as it is developed;
reviewing all reports that come from that study, and reaching
their own independent conclusions with respect to that data.
MR. BRIGGS: Is it -
MR. WOODBURY: That is described on the bottom of
page three of the correspondence in which they state, "Data
8875
8876
ter-3
2
* 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
*23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
analysis and conclusions therefore, are the responsibility of
the scientific contractor for2 Consolidated Edison. The
Committee reserves the right to make an independent analysis
and arrive at its own conclusions."
MR. BRIGGS: It reserves the right to do this, it
can make its own independent analysis?
MR. WOODBURY: And I have asked that they do so.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: And I suppose the next question
is, what is going to happen to the conclusion when it is
rendered, this independent conclusion?
Do you commit yourselves to accept their
recommendations?
MR. WOODBURY: No, sir. You mean with respect to
the findings of the Committee, at the conclusion of the-study?
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Whatever conclusions are included
within the definition of the third paragraph to which you just
referred.
As I understand it, you reserve judgment on any of
their conclusions, you will not agree to comply with any of
them, at this time?
MR. WOODBURY: That is correct. We have agreed
to entertain any recommendations that they make, regarding the
conduct of the study, the nature of the data we are getting,
the kind of analysis we are making.
We have not made any. We have no agreement with
ter-4
1
2
* 3
4
5
end 25 6
7
8
9
10
1!.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8877
them that if they reach a conclusion that is different than
the conclusion that our study contractors reach, that we will
accept that conclusion.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Supposing your contractor says,
put up cooling towers. Would you put up cooling towers?
8878
imil I
2
* .3
4
.5
-6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*22
* 23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
MR. WOODBURY: Neither the contractor nor the
Hudson River Policy Committee is making the determination
of what kind of a cooling system is best for Indian Point.
They are studying the impact of the Indian Point operations
on the ecology of the river and studying means of mitigating
any adverse impacts.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Such as cooling towers?
MR. WOODBURY: By whatever means.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Very well.
MR. BRIGGS: Well, the Hudson River Policy and
Technical Committee doesn't outline and supervise the studies
any more. As of this date, who does decide on the studies
and supervise the studies?
MR. WOODBURY: Mr. Briggs, a plan of study was
prepared by the technical staff of Consolidated Edison and
was submitted to the Hudson River Policy Committee for approva
The Hudson River Policy Committee made recommendations
concerning that plan of study. Their recommendations were
incorporated by the company and they subsequently approved the
plan of study.
MR. BRIGGS: So you have a plan of study that was
derived by Con Ed. What role did the Fish Advisory Board play
in this plan?
MR. WOODBURY: They likewise reviewed the plan of
study and contributed directly to its drafting. The Fish
. 2rnil 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
12
13
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
8879
Advisory Board was brought into existence in 1970, in the late
spring of 1970,1 and met very frequently at the outset in an
attempt to help us find a direction in which to go to try to
get a handle on this problem. And we met almost monthly,
about monthly, for the first nine months or so. It was during
that time that the plan of -- the genesis of the plan of
study came about.
MR. BRIGGS: Let's talk about the plan a bit.
In the licensing of reactors and in looking at the safety
analysis reports that come out for use in obtaining construc
tion permits, one usually sees a research and development
program that has been defined, and then at the time an operat
ing license is asked for, there are estimates concerning a
research and development program. I think it has been the
practice in the past that the research and development
programs were never so well defined that you could know what
research and development results were to be attained, how
they were going to be attained, and when the final safety analy
sis report was written it was never written in a manner to
show how these initial objectives were attained, or when
they were attained, and then whether new objectives arose
during the construction and what plans were made to take
care of those problems that arose.
Now, in your plan, do you define all of the
objectives -- well, does the plan have well-defined objectives
8880
3mil 1
*2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
that tell. you what you need to do in order to determine
whether the plant is having an impact on the Hudson? Do you
have all of the postulates that you have to prove or disprove
given in this plan and the approach to proving them or dis
proving them, including the development of analytical methods,
the development of sampling, all of this that goes with
proving and disproving the postulates?
MR. WOODBURY: We have attempted to do that. Some
of the postulates are developing as the study develops. So
the plan of study basically is a living thing, it is a thing
that changes as we discover things that were unsuspected.
And then these things get incorporated into the study effort,
after consultation with the Policy Comnittee, and after
consultation basically with Dr. McFadden, who is the technical
adviser to Consolidated Edison concerning this study.
MR,. BRIGGS: For instance, does the plan say you
have to establish what the population of striped bass in the
Hudson is at a certain time during the year?
MR. WOODBURY: Yes, sir. It establishes six
objectives, and it establishes, under each objective, the
activities which will take place in order to obtain the data
necessary to accomplish the objective. Among these things
are such things as testing different kinds of gear, which you
spoke of specifically. We are testing the effect of different
kinds of gear on the survivability of fish, we are testing
8881
4mil I
* 2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
I I 12
13
14
26 151
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24
Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc. 25
different kinds of tagging methods on the survivability of
the fish. We spent our first year, as a matter of fact, in a
series of validation tests basically in order to develop
methodologies by which the study would be conducted.
MR. BRIGGS: It indicates the number of times that
you-expect you will have to run trawls and do things like
this and the number of years- that you will have to do it in
order to arrive at a final result?
MR. WOODBURY: Yes, sir. Again the plan of study
was used as a basis for seeking proposals from contractors.
We receive these proposals, they were reviewed by the Hudson
River Policy Committee, and a contract was written on the
basis of the proposal. In some instances the contractor
proposed work in addition to that which we had thought
needed to be done. And that additional work was incorporated.
Dora #27 mml cr8151
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 '%ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8882
MR. BRIGGS: And there will be one contractor, or
are there several contractors?
MR. WOODBURY: There are three contractors, sir.
But let me explain.
Texas Insturments is the lead contractor, and they
have the bulk of the work. Their work basically has to do with
screenable organisms. They are doing a study on screening
methods, the value of air curtains in reducing impingements,
velocity considerations on impingements.
They are doing the population dynamics study, they
are doing all of the catching and tagging and recapture of fis
NYU is doing the entrainment study, that is they
are studying the organisms that are affected once they are tak
into the plant.
And Quirk Lawler and Matusky are doing an
integrating effort with their mathematical model as a part of
the input to the study.
The general results of the study will be assembled
by Texas Instruments, including the input from NYU and
QLM, and a single report prepared.
I met with each of them every two months jointly to
go over their progress reports, as does the-technical committe
and the Hudson River Policy Committee.
MR. BRIGGS: Is the plan to be made a part of the
evidence in this proceeding? Or, has it been made a part and
8883
rmi2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace - Federal Repol ters, Inc.
25
I am not aware of it?
MR. TROSTEN: The plan in the sense of a descriptia
of the program, the contractors' efforts and so forth, is to
be covered in our redirect rebuttal testimony, Mr. Briggs.
There is a general --.just a simple general descrip
tion cf this that appears in Appendix G.
MR. BRIGGS: Yes, but as you say, that is a
simple general description.
Areyou going to cover it in more detail, are you,
in rebuttal testimony?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. BRIGGS: I believe the Staff has indicated
that a closed cycle method of cooling should be incorporated
into the plant, but that if you have evidence to demonstrate
that this-is unnecessary, then the recommendation would be
reconsidered.
Is that your understanding of the Staff's
recommendation?
MR. TROSTEN: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIGGS: Has the Staff reviewed the plan in
detail and reached any conclusion that you know about
concerning whether they consider it to be adequate or not, or
whether there are things that are left out of the plan, or
if it came to them, if the data came to them three years
from now they would say, look, you left out this big area of
mm3 I
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 ce- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
ARRA
research and development that should have been done?
MR. WOODBURY: Would you excuse me a moment?
MR. BRIGGS: Yes, sir.
MR. WOODBURY: We reviewed with the Staff the.
plan of study in connection with the discussions on the
technical inspection for the 50 percent license. And while
I don't, it is not my impression that the Staff has done any
detailed analysis of the plan of study up to this time, it is
my understanding that they I am aware of no disagreement
with any part of the plan except in one case they asked us to
study more than the white perch and striped bass, they asked
us to add -- I believe it was four or five additional species.
To my knowledge, that is the only suggestion that they have
made up to this time concerning the plan of study.
MR. BRIGGS: Do the plans for the study -- this
isn't the plan of sutdy -- but do the plans include a
periodic review with the Staff?
MR. WOODBURY: No such arrangement has been made
up to now. But the Staff, you will recall, in their
recommendation has only given us until the first of July,
1973, to reach whatever conclusions we have t reach before
we appear before them with recommendations for an alternate
cooling system.
So there is very little time for the conduct of a
study to get very far between now and July 1 of 1973.
8885
rm4 1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
23
ed#27 24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
2 5
MR. BRIGGS: Well, maybe I haven't read the Staff
recommendation quite correctly, but I had the impression that
even after that time if you had evidence that -- and before
you began actual construction of the cooling tower -- if you
had evidence of the fish being benefitted by the operation of
the plant, that they would reconsider the requirement.
MR. KARMAN: I believe, Mr. Briggs, that there are
two recommendations, of course; one-is that by July 1, 1973,
the Applicant must come in with its evaluation for the
alternative cooling cycle system.
However, the other one is anticipated to extend
past that time, t hat at any time even subsequent thereto, the
Applicants can come in and clearly demonstrate that the
operationof unit two, in conjunction with unit one, with
the once-through cooling system, will not result in an
unacceptable long-term irreparable damage to aquatic biota.
The Applicant may file an appropriate application
for amendment of the operating license and the Commission
will take appropriate action.
So that I believe that would be considered
subsequent to July 1, '73. Of course we have to all assume
that 1978 date is somewhat a fixed date in our recommendation.
MR. B3RIGGS: Yes, I assume that.
8886
#26
an 1
* 2
0 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1I
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.0 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
MR. WOODBURY: The detailed management of the
environmental monitoring program that the AEC has suggested
be undertaken was a matter for discussion between the company
and the AEC in connection with the tech specs for the 50
percent license, testing license. And we are in the process
of developing the tech specs for the 100 percent operating
license. I presume that the same will be true there. We
are in the drafting stage at this point.
MR. BRIGGS: I believe that at one time many months
ago you indicated that one member of the Hudson River
Fishermen's Association sat in on meetings of one of your
groups, is that right? Is there any relationship, any workiLng
relationship between this program and the Hudson River
Fishermen' s Association?
MR. WOODBURY: No. About a year ago, before the
present contractor started work on the river, and at the
point where we were finalizing the plan of study and reviewing
the proposals of contractors, we invited the Hudson River
Fishermen's Association to send a representative to a meeting
of the fish advisory board, and sent to the Hudson River
Fishermen's Association representative a copy of the agenda
ahead of time, and of the plan of study, and requested that
he, that we would like to explore with him his views concerning
the plan of study at the meeting. It was the same kind of a
letter that went to the other members of the fish advisory
8887
ar 2
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
board. We had invited to that meeting in addition representa
tives from Boyce Thompson Institute, who were not regular
members of the fish advisory board, but who had indicated an
interest in some studies on the river.
Mr. Clark came as a representative of the Hudson
River Fishermen's Association to that meeting in March. ItwYas
the first such meeting that he had ever been to. His counsel
at that time was that we were wasting our time and money
studying what to do about the, what the impact of the plant
would be on the ecology of the river, and we ought to spend
our money designing cooling towers. It was much the same as
his testimony here this afternoon. He made no recommendations
concerning the plan of study at all at that time, nor has
he since that time.
From time to time representatives of the Hudson
River Fishermen's Association and others have sought to
observe operations at Indian Point, and we have a working
arrangement with Hudson River Fishermen's Association to make
the facilities at Indian Point available to them whenever
they want to come, subject to whatever the safety problems
might be or escort problems, that sort of thing, at the time of
the proposed visit. And Mr. Clark has been at Indian Point
on numerous occasions, and witnessed collections on the screens
studies done by Dr. Lauer on entrainment, Dr. Lauer's entrain
ment collection, that sort of thing.
8888
ar 3
* 2
9 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
* 22
* 23
24 Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
MR. BRIGGS: Well, the Hudson River Fishermen's
Association then has a copy of the plan as it was when
originally proposed, and the plan would be, I suppose, public
information as it is put into your rebuttal testimony. How
public will be the results of the study? In other words,
how will the results of the study be-published as they come
along? Will it be one final report that is published, or will
there be frequent reports published on the progress of the
study?
MR. WOODBURY: At present we contemplate publishing
a single report at the conclusion of the study. However, I
have authorized the individual scientists who are participating
in the study to publish any works that they develop as a result
of their study or in connection with their study, and in fa ct
I think no less than eight of them have offered papers at
the next Hudson River symposium. We have no desire to keep
the work of text instruments or NYU private. As a matter of
fact, on the 15th of November we conducted a press conference
up there in the laboratories and opened the laboratories
to the press, and we would be happy to do that with any
scientific group or intervenors or anybody that would like to
come.
MR. BRIGGS: Are the data being kept in such a way
that should the need arise, the basic data can be made
available to various groups?
ar4
* 2
9 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
e28 18
19
20
21
* 22
23
24 Ace -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
8889
MR. WOODBURY: Yes. We have devised a data bank
system in which all of this data is uniformly reported and
recorded and deposited in a computer. We have made known
last year at a similar symposim the methods which we devised
and have recommended that others who are studying the river
do the same thing, and as a matter of fact the other
utilities on the river who are doing studies are using the same
data-reporting system, and it is all being deposited so that
it can be retrieved by whomever wants to use it.
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: Does anybody desire to speak to
this matter any further?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JENSCH: If not, at this time let us
recess, to reconvene in this room tomorrow morning at 9:00
O'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned,
to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 17, 1973.)
U