JRWA Letter to NOAA: Re: Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation

                         

February 6, 2012

CERTIFIED MAIL and email

Ms. Mary Colligan

Assistant Regional Administrator

Protected Resources Division

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office

55 Great Republic Drive

Gloucester MA 01930-2276

            Re: Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation:

            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts: Relicensing

Dear Ms. Colligan:

We are writing about the Section 7 consultation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) in Plymouth, Massachusetts.  This consultation is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 1536 et seq.  As you may know, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting re-licensing proceedings on PNPS’s operating license.  The license expires on June 8, 2012 and the licensee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) seeks permission to continue operating for another 20 years.  See, Pilgrim LR Proceeding, 50-293-LR, 06-848-02-LR, NRC Docket No. 50-293.   Since it began operation in December, 1972, PNPS has been using once-through cooling water from Cape Cod Bay and discharging pollutants to the Bay.

Our research appears to show that the NMFS has yet to concur with the NRC’s July 2007 “biological assessment” under the ESA, nor has NMFS issued its own biological opinion or otherwise concluded an informal consultation. The last relevant communication in the relicensing proceeding record is a January 23, 2007 letter from NMFS stating ‘[c]omments relative to the Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation will be provided by NMFS Protected Resources Division under separate cover.” NUREG-1437, Supp. 29, page E-45. [1] We have been unable to locate a NMFS concurrence letter or any subsequent comments from NMFS on the NRC biological assessment for PNPS. 

      2

                                                                                                                                                     

If NMFS has yet to make its decision on whether to concur with the NRC’s biological assessment, we urge the NMFS to withhold concurrence at this time, for the reasons stated below.  If NMFS has concurred, we request that the concurrence letter be placed in the NRC docket as part of the record in NRC’s operating relicensing proceeding.

Relevant Law

The ESA regulations at 50 CFR 402.14(a) provide in pertinent part,

“[e]ach Federal agency shall review its actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat. If such a determination is made, formal consultation is required, except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section.” 

The two exceptions in 50 CFR 402.15(b) provide, 

“(1) A Federal agency need not initiate formal consultation if, as a result of the preparation of a biological assessment under § 402.12 or as a result of informal consultation with the Service under § 402.13, the Federal agency determines, with the written concurrence of the Director, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat.”  In this case, the Director is the assistant administrator of NMFS.  50 CFR 402.02.  (emphasis supplied)

The NRC has determined that ten federally listed endangered or threatened species that are under full or partial NMFS jurisdiction “may be affected by continuing operations of PNPS.”  NUREG-1437, p. E-73. The NMFS also informed the NRC that Cape Cod Bay is critical habitat for the Northern right whale. See, NMFS letter to NRC, June 8, 2006, NUREG-1437, p. E-15.  ESA consultation is also required on this critical habitat in its own right as well as on the ten listed species. The NRC has not addressed the critical habitat for Northern right whales in the 2007 biological assessment. 

In its 2007 biological assessment, NRC determined that operation of PNPS for another 20 years “would not have any adverse impact on any threatened or endangered marine aquatic species.” NUREG-1437, p. E-73.  On this conclusion, the NRC is required to initiate a formal consultation, obtain NMFS concurrence on the 2007 biological assessment, or otherwise conclude an informal consultation.

Relevant Facts

PNPS is located on Cape Cod Bay and withdraws up to 510 million gallons per day (mgd) of once through cooling water from the Bay.   Under the federal Clean Water Act and its state

counterpart, PNPS has an NPDES permit.  This permit expired on April 29, 1996, but has been administratively extended by U.S. EPA for 16 years.[2]  The state water quality

       3

certification is also expired.  In addition to NPDES regulated pollutants, liquids containing radioactive wastes are also discharged to Cape Cod Bay under NRC regulations. The NPDES permit allows Entergy to discharge to Cape Cod Bay least 510 mgd of heated condenser cooling water (daily maximum), 255 mgd of thermal backwash (daily maximum), 19.4 mgd of service cooling water (monthly average), .06 mgd of make up water (daily maximum), 4.1 mgd of intake screen wash, and stormwater runoff from at least four storm drains.

                                                                                                                                                    

As described by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in upholding the state’s authority to regulate the PNPS intake and discharges, “the environmental impact of these systems is staggering.”  Entergy Nuclear Generation Company vs. Department of Environmental Protection, SJC-10732, 2011 Mass. Lexis 163, April 11, 2011. The state’s highest court further stated:

“As the sources referenced by the department indicate, the ecological harms associated with CWISs are well understood. The intake of water by a CWIS at "a single power plant can kill or injure billions of aquatic organisms in a single year." Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 475 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2007), rev'd in part on other grounds, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498, 173 L. Ed. 2d 369 (2009). See Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 358 F.3d 174, 181 (2d Cir. 2004).   In light of the SJC’s ruling, a careful ESA consultation is warranted.

In the PNPS relicensing process, Energy prepared an Environmental Report (ER) that the NRC used, along with other information, as the basis for its final environmental impact statement.  NUREG-1437, p. E-53.  The NRC agency staff then produced the 2007 biological assessment based on the final environmental impact statement. 

Entergy has submitted a NPDES renewal application to EPA.  Entergy makes no secret about its position that it should not be required to change its operating methods to reduce its environmental impacts on Cape Cod Bay.[3] The pending NPDES permit renewal process, which Entergy is likely to delay by challenging any efforts to require operational changes to its water use and discharge, should not drive NMFS’s consultation process.  Entergy itself has argued against a delay in a similar nuclear power plant relicensing proceeding.[4] While we are not suggesting that NMFS has delayed its concurrence decision pending EPA action on the NPDES permit and State Water Quality Certification, we are simply pointing out Entergy’s position that NMFS should not delay its decision. 

                                                                                                                                                               4

Deficiencies in NRC’s Biological Assessment

It is our view that NMFS concurrence with the NRC’s biological assessment is unwarranted and would be inconsistent with the ESA.  The assessment relies almost entirely upon information produced by Entergy’s consultants and ignores scientifically and commercially available data. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). The species and habitat data is clearly not sufficient to make an informed decision as to the effects of PNPS’s operations. Bob Marshall Alliance v. Watt, 685 F. Supp. 1514, (D. Mt. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 852 F.2d 1223 (9^th Cir.) cert. den. 489 U.S. 1066 (1989).[5]  The NRC’s biological assessment ignores readily available data from such organizations as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, and others that would provide specific information about the impacts of PNPS on listed species.

                                                                                                                                                    

Some specific deficiencies in the NRC’s biological assessment are listed below.  This is not a comprehensive list.

First, the biological assessment unlawfully limits the geographical area it covers.  The action area for purposes of the ESA is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The NRC has improperly attempted to limit the scope of its biological assessment to “near PNPS” or “at PNPS.” See e.g., E-66, p. E-67, E-68, E-73.  One reason this is improper is highlighted by comments by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) on Entergy’s Clean Water Act 316 demonstration report.  Exhibit 1, hereto, June 27, 2000 letter.  CZM has stated that the thermal loading from the PNPS may impact “hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay.”  Thus, it is this agency’s position that Entergy’s operations at PNPS affect not just the area “at” or “near” PNPS but “hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay”. While CZM’s comments relate to Entergy’s CWA compliance, it is also relevant to the assessment of impacts on listed species and critical habitat in Cape Cod Bay.

CZM stated Entergy’s impingement events may impact “food web dynamics in the region of Cape Cod Bay near the Entergy-Pilgrim station” and “at least one modeling study predicts that hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay may increase by one degree Celsius or more due to thermal loading from the discharge….”  It cites “evidence that the rate of fish impinged by the continuous action of the cooling water intake structures is thousands to tens of thousands per year….” The NRC has not addressed how thermal loading, impingement, and entrainment impact the food web, food supply for the listed species and critical habitat.

Second, the biological assessment ignores scientific data readily available about whale activity in the area.  For example, a quick review of available data produced this photo of a federally endangered fin whale (balaenopter physalus) in front of PNPS. The NRC’s biological assessment contains a scant half page of “assessment” of the impacts of PNPS on the fin whale.  NUREG-1437, p. E-71. 

                                               

                                                                                                                                                               5

Photo courtesy of Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. A view of PNPS from Cape Cod Bay is also shown in another photo, which provides a clearer picture of the four tanks at PNPS also shown in the WDCS photo.  From the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/11/nuclear_watchdo.html

Third, NRC’s Biological Assessment as to the effects on sea turtles is contradictory and lacking in specific habitat data.  It relies on stranding data, and on Entergy’s monitoring data. p. E-66.  It states, “The applicant has been monitoring aquatic communities in western Cape Cod Bay since 1969.  No Federally endangered or threatened species have ever been observed in Cape Cod Bay near PNPS, or in the facility intake and discharge areas, during the duration of these studies.”

The reliance on Entergy’s “monitoring” is totally misplaced because Entergy’s monitoring covers only fisheries and plankton – not turtles or whales.  Based upon our preliminary review of the 77 Environmental Monitoring Reports prepared by PNPS in the last forty years, we have found no requirement that the presence of sea turtles or whales be documented or reported.[6]  Therefore, these reports cannot form the basis of a reasonable biological assessment regarding sea turtles.

Further, the NRC’s statement about the absence of listed species near PNPS is at odds with the statement in the EIS at NUREG-1437, page E-65 that a federally endangered loggerhead turtle was stranded .63 miles south of PNPS on Priscilla Beach in 2003. Finally, as NMFS has noted, sea turtles have been impacted by other nuclear power plants on the East Coast.  See, e.g. Nov. 21, 2006 NMFS Biological Opinion for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

Fourth, the NRC biological assessment fails to address the fact that river herring are now considered a candidate species under the ESA. 76 Fed. Reg. 67652, 67656 (Nov. 2, 2011).  About two months ago, NMFS announced a 90-day finding for a petition to list

           6

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), collectively referred to as river herring, as threatened under the ESA and to designate critical habitat

concurrent with a listing.  76 Fed. Reg. at 67652.   NMFS’s ESA determination on river herring is due by August 5, 2011.[7]

According to the NRC, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) “is one of the most commonly impinged species at PNPS (ENSR 2006).  Alewife larvae and juveniles have been collected in the PNPS entrainment sampling.  Juveniles and/or adults have been consistently collected in the PNPS impingement sampling program.  Over the last 25 years (1980 to 2005), alewives have had the third highest number of individuals impinged at PNPS, based on annual extrapolated totals (Normandeau 2006b).” NUREG-1437, p. 2-34. This assessment raises several serious questions.  For example, the NRC states that alewife “spawning occurs in freshwater rivers and streams,” p 2-34, but then says larvae are found in the entrainment sampling at PNPS.   It seems extraordinary that larvae would be entrained at PNPS’s saltwater intake, several miles from suitable freshwater habitat in the area such as Eel River and Jones River.  This raises the question, which has not been assessed, as to whether PNPS thermal discharges are disrupting alewife reproduction.

Entergy’s own records show that during a ten-year period, 1994 to 2004, 46,286 alewife and 16,188 blueback herring were impinged at PNPS, for a total of 62,474 river herring.

These facts stand in stark contrast to the wholly inaccurate predictions on the impact to alewife from PNPS in the mid-1970s.  In 1975, PNPS’s consultant Stone and Webster stated that over the 40 year operation of PNPS (1972 to 2012) impingement and entrainment would result in a loss of 29,410 alewife.[8] Worse yet, this prediction was based on the operation of two nuclear generating units at PNPS – the second one was not built. The impingement numbers for alewife (42,286) and blueback herring (16,188) from 1994 to 2004, a ten year period, were 1.5 times as many alewife impinged as predicted for the full 40 year time period.

In relation to the total Jones River river herring stock, PNPS’s impingement and entrainment numbers are significant.  In 2004 alone, PNPS impinged 2,192 river herring (alewife and blueback herring).  In the following year, 2005, the total estimated Jones River river herring stock was 804 – therefore in 2004, PNPS impinged 2.75 times as many fish as the entire Jones River river herring run the next year (2005).

Fifth, the NRC improperly excluded potential impacts from Entergy’s dredging project

from the biological assessment.  The EIS states, “other activities that may affect marine

aquatic resources in Cape Cod Bay include periodic maintenance dredging….However,

based on discussions with plant personnel, there are no plans for dredging of the intake embayment or discharge canal at PNPS.”  NUREG-1437, p. 4-75. This is inaccurate. In

2012, Entergy is scheduled to dredge the intake channel.   It has permission from the state

to dredge 43,200 cubic yards of in-situ sediments plus a potential 11,000 cubic yards of

over dredge.[9] Entergy requested and received a waiver of the state requirement for an

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, citations are to NRC’s “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 29, Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Final Report, July 2007,” NUREG-1437, and its Appendices. (NUREG-1437).  Available on line: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement29/index.html; Vol. 1 ML 071990020; Vol. 2 Appendices ML 071990027.

[2] Jointly issued State Permit No.  359 and Federal Permit No. MA 0003537. The NPDES permit is based on a daily plant operating capacity of 655 MW. See, Aug. 30, 1994 Modification of NPDES permit.  Following a power optimization overhaul in 2003, Entergy is now producing 715 MW daily.   NUREG-1437, p. 1-8.  The annual capacity factor for 2010 was 98.5%, meaning that PNPS operated at 100% capacity for 98.5% of the time.   Entergy “Marine Ecology Study” No. 77, Annual Report for 2010, p. 2.  This raises questions about whether the annual quantity thermal discharges and discharges of other pollutants has been higher in recent years, including 2010, given the increased annual operating capacity.

[3] See, e.g., ENSR and Entergy Corp., “Application of a Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Alternative Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies Under 316b”, http://www.gunderboom.com/PDFfiles/ENSR%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

[4] Letter from Goodwin Proctor to NRC, Sept. 6, 2011 on Indian Point reactors. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11257A103.pdf

[5] In this case, the court ruled the Department of Interior violated ESA by failing to gather species and habitat data sufficient to make informed biological assessment of effects of oil and gas leasing in National Forest area, because such failure during agency planning process creates likelihood of future conflict as development proceeds and, in effect, gives development priority over endangered species.

[6] The monitoring is done under Entergy’s NPDES Permit, Paragraphs A.8.b & e, and Attachment A, Paragraph 1.F.

[7] The decision on listing river herring could be made before the NRC makes its decision on PNPS’ nuclear plant operating relicensing.   The duty to consult with NMFS under the ESA can be ongoing, and consultation must be reinitiated under certain circumstances. 50 CFR 402.16.  If the listing decision on river herring is made before June 8, 2012, a new consultation must be initiated.

[8] “316 Demonstration for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, July 1975”, prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, p. 7-4.

[9] See, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Certificate, EEOEA #14744.

GROUPS SAY ENDANGERED SPECIES AT RISK FROM ENTERGY’S PILGRIM STATION

GROUPS SAY ENDANGERED SPECIES AT RISK FROM ENTERGY’S PILGRIM STATION

Ask federal agency to assess impact on fish, whale habitat, and rare turtles

Contacts:

Jones River Watershed Association             Pilgrim Watch

          Pine duBois, 781-424-0353               Mary Lampert

          Meg Sheehan, 508-259-9154             www.pilgrimwatch.org

          www.jonesriver.org

          Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear power station on the shores of Cape Cod Bay in Plymouth, Massachusetts may be impacting endangered species like the fin whale, loggerhead turtles, the critical habitat for the endangered Northern right whale, and river herring.  In a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch say the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) likely violated the federal Endangered Species Act in the relicensing process by ignoring potential impacts to the endangered species and their habitat.  Letter available at: http://www.jonesriver.blogspot.com/

            Entergy, a Louisiana based corporation, has a license to operate the Plymouth nuclear plant but it expires in June 2012.   Entergy has asked the NRC to extend the license for another 20 years.  The groups say Entergy’s license should not be extended until it upgrades the cooling water system that takes water from Cape Cod Bay and discharges harmful pollution, potentially impacting the endangered species and their habitat.

            “Since 1972, Pilgrim has been taking a half billion gallons a day of sea water from Cape Cod Bay, running it through the nuclear reactor system to cool it down, and dumping it back into the Bay.  This water is super heated and polluted.  For decades, Entergy has been sucking in and killing hundreds of thousands of fish and larvae, and millions of fish eggs and plankton every year with this process.  This is an outdated and destructive method and has created a killing zone in Cape Cod Bay,” said Pine duBois of the Jones River Watershed Association in Kingston.  “Local groups, towns, and the state are putting time and money into preserving and restoring our rivers and bays. Entergy is undermining this work with its destructive operating methods.   If Entergy wants to keeping running Pilgrim for another 20 years, it must upgrade the cooling water system to stop this unnecessary destruction of marine life and properly assess endangered species impacts.” she added. 

            "Cape Cod Bay is a national treasure.  It is critical habitat for endangered whales and some of the planet's most endangered turtles migrate through.  This year we've seen unprecedented numbers of dolphins stranded in Cape Cod Bay.  Our laws that protect these species should be rigorously upheld and actions that jeopardize these species should be thoroughly reviewed,” said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch. “This is just one more way that Entergy, with the complicity of the NRC, is evading public scrutiny and federal and state requirements today, and planning to continue to do so over the next 20 years,” she added.

###

TODAY:

MASSPIRG and Environment Massachusetts to release study at press conference in Plymouth TODAY (12/24/2012)
Massachusetts Research and Policy Center representatives will be joined by local environmentalists near the Pilgrim nuclear power plant Tuesday to release a new report which includes data on how nuclear power threatens the Commonwealth's drinking water.  The report can be found here  (Summary and full report)

The official report will be released on Tuesday, January 24, at 12 p.m. by the Manomet Lobster Pound - almost overlooking Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station - and the press conference will include comments from MASSPIRG's Patrick Nagle, Mackenzie Clark of Environment Massachusetts, Anna Baker of Pilgrim MUST, Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch and Pine Dubois from the Jones River Watershed Association.

Mussels

Mussels have been on my mind lately.  Those of you who've seen me walking around in a sling this week know why.  But yesterday it was mussels of a different sort that I was thinking about.

A big component of the restoration design is the installation of three riffles. These riffles are critical to the restored channel in several ways.  Most importantly they control the grade of the river as it slopes through the site.  By controlling the grade these riffles ensure that there is adequate water depth for fish to pass even at the lowest typical flows.  They can be thought of as 3 big 'steps' that raise the water through this relatively steep section of the Jones. In this picture you can see the furthest upstream riffle immediately following its construction yesterday (9/29).  The carefully selected and placed stone will ensure that sufficient upstream water depths are maintained and that fish can swim up the channel.

These riffles are a centerpiece of the design and when the project is complete the will contribute to improved habitat for a wide range of aquatic wildlife.  Of course, construction is a disruptive business.  The last thing we want to do is negatively impact wildlife while we are working to protect it.  So early yesterday, as the water levels were adjusted to allow for the riffle install, we went on mussel patrol.  Mussels can move surprisingly fast for a bivalve but sometimes they just can't keep up.  We walked the site where the water had been drawn down and relocated any of the mussels that were ending up high and dry.

Turtle, snail, and fish patrols were part of the process too.  And everything was safely relocated away from the construction activities.  It's been amazing to see how quickly some animals have been to take advantage of the improved channel.

UN-Dam It!

That's been our slogan throughout the project and now it's a reality. If you blinked you missed it. Working around some issues SumCo decided to dig into the dam this morning (9/20). Lack of rebar and breakable concrete made the demo easier than expected and over the course of the day they had the whole thing out. While there is still a lot of work to do to make this a successful restoration, the dam was the symbolic obstacle. And it's gone...

Underway!

JRWA has had the Wapping Road Dam in its sites for a long time. There has been decades of talk about how to remove this obstruction in river, or at least get fish past it. In June of 2007 the Massachusetts Riverways Program (now the Division of Ecological Restoration) hired an engineer to conduct a preliminary assessment of the dam and suggest some alternatives for fish passage. The resulting report suggested several options - including full removal of the dam. In September of 2007 JRWA officially created their Ecology Program. One of the Program's first missions was to follow up on this preliminary report and take it to the next level. And the first step in doing so was to secure funding for further analysis. In 2008 JRWA was successful in securing finding from the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment to conduct a Feasibility Study on the alternatives at the site. The Feasibility Study report was finalized in the spring of 2009 with a conclusion that full dam removal was the preferred option to meet all of the environmental, economic, and safety goals of the project.


With a clear plan in mind, the next step was to prepare the complex engineering designs and proceed the layers of required permitting. In July 2009 JRWA received funding from the Open Rivers Initiative to conduct these aspects of the project. Open Rivers Initiative is a federal program that provides technical expertise and financial assistance to remove dams and barriers and restore habitat for the many species that migrate between the ocean and the nation’s freshwater rivers and streams. This initiative contributes to sustainability of U.S. fisheries, provides an economic boost for communities, and improves public safety. In 2010 Open Rivers Initiate again funded the project - this time to provide the resource to actually implement the restoration effort.


Meanwhile, the project continued to receive support from the Division of Ecological Restoration who have come through with invaluable technical expertise and frequent, well-timed state funding. Massachusetts Environmental Trust has also provided state funding that provided the opportunity for monitoring and local outreach. All the while the Town of Kingston has worked as an active partner. The Town worked with the JRWA and the property owner to secure a riverfront parcel which will recognize the historic aspects of the site and provide public access. The property owner, Dan Galambos, graciously donated the full proceeds of the land sale back to the project to provide critical local funds.


The project has continued to escalate in terms of local support. Upcoming posts will describe the critical donations by private and public organizations to make this project really come to life. Check back frequently for status updates with lots of pictures and videos! It's on...Un Dam It!

Intern Corner: River Herring

This week we have a piece written by a pair of Mass Maritime Academy students who are spending their winter break with us. Cadet Michael Kerrigan is a Junior at the Academy and is fulfilling his co-op requirement here at the Landing. Cadet Holly McLaughlin is a freshman who is volunteering to help us out.

Enjoy...

Many rivers and streams are nurseries to different juvenile fish. The reason for this is because they provide protection from predators and provide ideal spawning grounds. Some of these areas can be strictly salt or fresh water flowing, but some are a mixture of both. These areas are commonly known as estuaries. An estuary is a transition zone from where freshwater flows to seawater. This prevents predators from going up these types of rivers and streams because their bodies can't handle the transition of salinity. These types of rivers are very significant because problems continue to grow along them and affect wildlife, specifically populations of spawning fish such as river herring.

River herring are migratory fish that travel in various amounts known as schools. There are normally two fish species linked together when using the term river herring, Alewife (Alosa psuedoharengus) and Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Alewives can live up to 10 years, grow as large as 36cm, and spawn in early spring when water temperatures are between 60F (16C) and 66F (19C). While blueback herring live up to 8 years, grow up to 40cm, and spawn a little later than Alewives in spring when water temperatures are between 70F (21 C) and 75F (24C) .They are both also anadromous fish, which means they are one of the many types of fish that travel up rivers or streams to spawn and then travel out to sea. Although this process seems fairly simple, in some cases it isn't. River herring face many obstacles between the ocean and their spawning grounds causing a continual decline in population .Most herring return to their natal spawning ground, but due to various human activity, they can not reach their destination. This includes, but is not limited to the water quality of the area, over fishing and bycatches, and loss of habitat. All of these factors can be related to anyone living on or near a river.

There are many contributions that can cause a decline in water quality. Along rivers there are recreational activities, houses, and businesses, which all effect the condition of the water. Among some of the recreational activities are boaters, which can be seen as a contributor to water pollution. A lot of boating activity in an area constitutes a problem as well because the river is faced with constant engine idling, harmful bilge pump outs, and oil or gas spills and leaks. Also, many boaters have small portable toilet systems and do not take the proper measures to go to a pump out station as directed. Instead many pump them directly overboard with no treatment leaving sewerage in the area. Houses along the river can be a cause of sewerage infiltrating the river as well. Many of the houses in the area have septic systems with leaching fields. Leaching field discharge often finds its way to bodies of water. Also, when the river has high tides it can flood septic systems and pull back pollution as the tide retreats. Even with homes that had septic systems that have recently connected to the sewerage line can still pose problems. This is because although the system isn't geting anything put into it the leaching fields are still discharging and the soils around them take time to be flushed out. Also, homes around the river have sediment runoff into it. All runoff is, is when it rains or water is applied to a surface it will find low points normally leading to a river or stream and carry material with and substances with it. With homes this can cause problems because many people apply lawn fertilizer, pesticides, and have fluids leaking out of there cars. All of these substances can eventually make there way through runoff to a stream or river. Some businesses produce water pollution as well because they are allowed to discharge small amounts into rivers causing further contamination. All of these factors contribute to water quality. The fish cannot return in order to spawn if the water is not clean enough.

River herring are an easy species to be targeted as bycatch. This is because they travel in schools that can be made up of large numbers. As they move closer to there spawning grounds they become more confined as the river narrows, making them an easier target for fishermen. Besides just river herring which go upstream to spawn, there is also the Atlantic Herring (Clupea Harengus) which are strictly marine fish which have some restrictions on harvesting but not a total closure to the fishery. This is where most of the bycatch takes place and the fish are taken. River Herring have harvesting bans which restrict fishermen from catching them. River Herring populations have been drastically decreasing. For example, fishery landings have declined from 40,000 tons in the 1950s to less than 3,500 tons in 2005 (FAO, 2007). This is why rather than being a targeted species, they are often bycatch, getting caught in gear such as gillnets and midwater trawls.

In the early 1900's, as industry grew, the more people harvested hydro power off of rivers for convenience in factories. With many of these factories gone, still standing dams are left behind. This interrupts the natural flow of the river as well as the habitat of everything that lives in or around the area. Dams make it impossible for the herring to migrate back to their original spawning grounds. Although some actions have been taken to allow fish to pass, there is still no solution to the problem. Fish ladders are one of the solutions, but they do not solve the problem because fish can be too weak to swim up or locate them. If fish ladders are present and hydro power is being generated, they still pose a threat for many reasons. Herring are a velocity species, which will cause them to swim closer to the turbines. As they get closer to the turbines, they will be in the tail race where over oxidization of the water occurs. The herring may also swim up into the
turbine discharge tube, which will either kill them or lead them to a dead end. Some actions put into place are installing metal screens, so the fish don't have access to these areas, but they are not very reliable.

The obstacles that the river herring population face can be prevented. Many of these problems can be addressed with simple procedures. For instance, in boating aspects, funnels can be used to avoid spillage, safer chemicals can be used when cleaning, and catching bilge water while discharging can be helpful. To address the septic system problems, connecting to the town sewerage would be ideal. When doing any yard work or maintenance be cautious of any harmful chemicals used or put down and also check your cars periodically for leaks or drips that could be going onto the ground. Although the cost is high, dam removal would be an great solution for dams that are nonfunctional. Most obstacles river herring face can be eased and if we all do our part we can help rebuild their population.