ML092050186
| ML092050186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2009 |
| From: | Carnagey Biological Services |
| To: | Office of New Reactors, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML092050186 (24) | |
Text
MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARR RESERVOIR AND MONTICELLO RESERVOIR NEAR THE V. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION OPERATED BY SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA JANUARY 2009 Submitted To:
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY Fairfield County, South Carolina Submitted By:
CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC 636 Westwood Drive Lexington, South Carolina 29073 803-233-6952 SCDHEC Laboratory Certification No. 32572
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES iii I
SUMMARY
1 II INTRODUCTION 2
III DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 2
IV MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
A. Field Procedures 4
B. Laboratory Procedures 4
C. Data Analysis 4
- 1. Bioassessment Metrics 4
- 2. Regression Analyses 5
V RESULTS-Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis 5
VI DISCUSSION 8
VII REFERENCES 9
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1
Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for two Parr Reservoir stations near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 22 January 2009.
10 2
Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for three Monticello Reservoir stations near the V. C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 13 2009.
3 Bioassessment metrics for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the V. C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 22 January 15 2009.
4 Bioassessment metrics for the three Monticello Reservoir stations near the 16 V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
5 Results of the single factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness, total abundance, EPT index, EPT abundance, NCBI, and percentage of the dominant taxon among sampling stations for the petite Ponar data collected on Parr Reservoir, near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 22 January 2009.
17 6
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
18 7
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundance between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
18 8
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of the dominant taxon between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 18 2009.
9 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Index values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
18 10 Averages of the logio(x+l) transformed EPT Index values in Monticello Reservoir, listed in ascending order.
18 11 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Abundance values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 19 2009.
ii
LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED Table Page 12 Averages of the logio(x+l) transformed EPT Abundance data in Monticello Reservoir, listed in ascending order.
19 13 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
19 14 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHEC Bioclassification values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 19 January 2009.
iii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1
Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir, near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina.
3 iv
I I.
SUMMARY
On January 22-23, 2009, personnel from SCANA Services, Inc. collected petite Ponar macroinvertebrate samples from Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir near the V. C.
Summer Nuclear Station. The collected macroinvertebrates were identified and the data were analyzed by CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC (SC DHEC Laboratory Certification No. 32572). One objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed water treatment intake in Monticello Reservoir and the proposed new raw water intake in Monticello Reservoir relative to a control station up lake of these stations. A second objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed new cooling tower blowdown discharge location in Parr Reservoir relative to the control conditions at a control station located upstream.
The Parr Reservoir stations showed two significant differences. The proposed blowdown discharge station had significantly lower NCBI values and higher percentage of the dominant taxon as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis.
The Monticello Reservoir stations showed significant differences in just two of the metrics measured as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. Both EPT Index and EPT abundance were significantly greater at the raw intake point as indicated by single-factor ANOVA.
2 II. INTRODUCTION On January 22-23, 2009, a benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment was conducted on Monticello Reservoir (6,800 acres) and Parr Reservoir (4,400 acres) near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station located Fairfield County, South Carolina. Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility connects the two impoundments allowing for daily fluctuations in water levels at both impoundments. SCE&G has filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the right to construct and operate two new nuclear units. The two new units will withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir and discharge cooling tower blowdown and other liquid wastes into Parr Reservoir. The objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed water treatment intake in Monticello Reservoir, and the proposed new raw water intake in Monticello Reservoir, relative to a control station up lake of these stations. A second objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed new cooling tower blowdown discharge location in Parr Reservoir, relative to the control conditions at an upstream control station. This assessment is part of a larger study to document the macroinvertebrate community in and around the V. C. Summer Nuclear Plant.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA Collections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made from five sampling locations in Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station (Figure 1).
Parr Reservoir Control was located upstream of Hellers Creek, approximately 9.0 kilometers above the Parr Shoals dam. The substrate at this station consisted mainly of sand.
Parr Reservoir New Blowdown Discharge was located at the location of the proposed new cooling tower blowdown discharge from the proposed two new nuclear units at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, and approximately 1.0 kilometers upstream of the Parr Shoals dam. The substrate at this station consisted mainly of sand.
Monticello Reservoir Control, was located on the western side of the lake approximately 5.0 kilometers north of the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. The substrate at this station consisted mainly of sand and clay.
Monticello Reservoir New Water Treatment Intake was located at the proposed intake point for the water treatment plant. The substrate consisted mainly of clay and sand.
Monticello Reservoir Raw Water Intake was located at the proposed intake point for the V. C. Summer Nuclear Plant. The substrate consisted mainly of clay and sand.
3 Figure 1.
Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir, near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina.
4 IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Field Procedures--Petite Ponar Grab Samples Quantitative sampling of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir was performed using a petite Ponar grab sampler, as described in method 10500 (APHA, 1995). Five random replicate (15 X 15 cm) Ponar grab samples of sediment were collected from the lake at each location. Replicates were sieved in the field with a U.S. Standard No. 35 sieve (0.500 mm mesh), then placed individually in plastic bags, preserved with 85% ethanol, and transported to the laboratory for analysis.
B. Laboratory Procedures Upon return to the laboratory, all samples were washed over a U.S. Standard No. 35 sieve and organisms were sorted from the remaining material using forceps and the aid of a stereomicroscope. The organisms were retained in 70% ethanol, and identified to the lowest positive taxonomic level. All specimens will be maintained by Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, in a voucher collection for five years, or placed into the permanent reference collection.
C. Data Analysis To obtain the most information possible from the data, several types of analysis were performed. Bioassessment metrics allowed comparison of stations based on their overall taxonomic composition. A single factor ANOVA was used to detect trends in macroinvertebrate community composition between the two stations.
- 1. Bioassessment Metrics Comparisons of the macroinvertebrate communities were based on changes in taxonomic composition between sampling sites and on the known tolerance levels and life history strategies of the organisms encountered. Changes in taxonomic composition were determined using the metrics outlined in Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III of Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers (Plafkin et al. 1989). These metrics include the following:
a) Taxa richness - The number of different taxa found at a particular location is an indication of diversity. Reductions in community diversity have been positively associated with various forms of environmental pollution, including nutrient loading, toxic substances, and sedimentation (Barbour et al., 1996; Fore et al., 1996; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Shackleford, 1988).
b) EPT Index - EPT Index is the number of taxa from the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera found at a station. These three insect orders are considered to be intolerant of adverse changes in water quality, especially temperature and dissolved oxygen, and therefore, a reduction in these taxa is indicative of reduced water quality (Barbour et al., 1996; Lenat, 1988).
c) Chironomidae taxa and abundance - The Chironomidae are a taxonomically and ecologically diverse group with many taxa which are tolerant of various forms of pollution. The chironomids are often the dominant group encountered at impacted or stressed sites (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).
5 d) Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae abundance - The relative abundance of these four indicator groups is a measure of community balance. When comparing sites, good biotic conditions are reflected in a fairly even distribution among these four groups (Plafkin et al., 1989). The value of this ratio is reduced by impact due to the general reduction of the more sensitive EPT taxa and an increase in the more tolerant chironomid taxa.
e) Ratio of scraper/scraper and filtering collectors - When comparing sites, shifts in the dominance of a particular feeding type may indicate a community responding to an over-abundance of a particular food source or toxicants bound to a particular food source (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).
f) Percent contribution of dominant taxon - This measures the redundancy and evenness of the community structure. It assumes a highly redundant community reflects an impaired community because as the more sensitive taxa are eliminated, there is often a significant increase in the remaining tolerant forms (Barbour et al., 1996; Shackleford, 1988).
g) North Carolina biotic index (NCBI) - NCBI = TViNi/N where TVi is the tolerance value for the ith taxon, Ni is the abundance of the ith taxon, and N is the total abundance of all taxa in the sample. This index utilizes a pollution tolerance value developed over a wide range of conditions and pollution types and taxon abundance to assess the amount of impact (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 1997). The values range from 0-10, increasing as water quality decreases. This metric appears to be adversely affected by the combination of low taxa richness and low abundance, often indicating better conditions than actually exist.
- 2. Regression Analyses To detect differences in the two bodies of water, single factor ANOVA analyses were performed on the data. Data were log 10(x+l) transformed prior to analyzing taxa richness, total abundance, percentage of the dominant taxon. EPT index, EPT abundance, NCBI values, and SCDHEC bioclassification V. RESULTS--Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis From Parr Reservoir, a total of 254 specimens representing 19 taxa were collected from the two stations on 22 January 2009. The number of specimens collected, their NCBI tolerance values, and functional feeding groups are presented in Table 1 for each sample.
Bioassessment metrics for each sample are presented in Table 3.
The bioassessment metrics indicated very few differences between the stations. The control was dominated by predators in three of the replicates and by collector-filterers in two replicates. The blowdown discharge point was dominated by collector-filterers in four replicates and predators in one.
Single factor ANOVA analyses of the data are given in Table 5. There was no significant difference in taxa richness (p-value = 0.1168), Total Abundance (p-value = 0.6580), EPT
6 Index (p-value =
5796), EPT Abundance (p-value
= 0.8717),
or SCDHEC bioclassification (p-value = 0.4112). NCBI (p-value = 0.0429) was significantly higher at the blowdown discharge point than at the control. The Percentage of the Dominant Taxon (p-value = 0.0065) was significantly lower at the control.
From Monticello Reservoir, a total of 277 specimens representing 16 taxa were collected from the three stations on 23 January 2009. The number of specimens collected, their NCBI tolerance values, and functional feeding groups are presented in Table 2 for each sample. Bioassessment metrics for each sample are presented in Table 4.
The bioassessment metrics indicated some differences between the stations. Most significantly, the raw water intake point was the only location in which any EPT taxa were collected. The control was dominated by collector-filterers in four of the replicates and collector-gatherers in one of the replicates. The Raw Water Intake point was dominated by collector-filterers in three of the replicates and collector-gatherers in one of the replicates. One of the replicates was dominated by an equal number of collector-filterers and scrapers. The Water Treatment Intake point was dominated by collector-filterers in four of the replicates and by an equal number of collector-filterers and predators in the other replicate.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 6. There was no significant difference (p=0.06016) in taxa richness between stations.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundance among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 7. There was no significant difference (p=0.25743) in total abundance between stations.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of dominant taxon among stations in Lake Monticello are presented in Table 8. There was no significant difference (p=0.18814) in percentage of dominant taxon between stations.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Index values among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 9. There was a significant difference (p=0.00041) in EPT Index values between stations.
In order to determine which station had significant differences in EPT Index values, a multiple comparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAs was performed. The averages of the logio(x+l) transformed EPT Index values are listed in ascending order in Table 10. Because water treatment intake and control had average values of zero, it was not possible to perform an ANOVA on the data.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT abundance among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 11. There was a significant difference (p=0.00097) in EPT abundance between stations.
7 In order to determine which station had significant differences in EPT abundance, a multiple comparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAs was performed. The averages of the loglo(x+l) transformed EPT abundance data are listed in ascending order in Table 12. Because water treatment intake and control had average values of zero, it was not possible to perform an ANOVA on the data.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI values among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 13. There was no significant difference (p=0.49318) in NCBI values between stations.
Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHEC bioclassification values among stations in Monticello Reservoir are presented in Table 14. There was no significant difference (p=0.31477) in SCDHEC bioclassification values between stations.
8 VI. DISCUSSION The Parr Reservoir stations showed two significant differences. The proposed blowdown discharge station had significantly lower NCBI values and higher percentage of the dominant taxon as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis.
The Monticello Reservoir stations showed significant differences in just two of the metrics measured as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. Both EPT Index and EPT abundance were significantly greater at the raw intake point as indicated by single-factor ANOVA.
9 VII. REFERENCES Barbour, M.T.; J. Gerritsen; G.E. Griffith; R. Frydenborg; E. McCarron; J.S. White; and M.L. Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:185-211.
Death, R.G. 1995. Spatial patterns in benthic invertebrate community structure: products of habitat stability or are they habitat specific. Freshwater Biology 33: 455-467.
Death, R.G. and M.J. Winterbourn.
1995. Diversity patterns in stream benthic invertebrate communities: the influence of habitat stability. Ecology 76(5): 1446-1460.
Fore, L.S.; J.R. Karr; and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluation of alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:212-232.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 222-233.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1997.
Standard operating procedures. biological monitoring. State of North Carolina.
Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 65 pp.
Plafkin, J.L.; M.T. Barbour; K.D. Porter; S.K. Gross; and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. US EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, D.C. EPA/444/4-89/001.
Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh (eds.) 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 488pp.
Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid bioassessment of lotic macroinvertebrate communities:
Biocriteria development. Biomonitoring Section, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control And Ecology Little Rock, AR 45pp.
Valentin, S.; J.G. Wasson; and M. Philippe. 1995. Effects of hydropower peaking on epilithon and invertebrate community trophic structure. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10: 105-119.
Ward, J.V. and J.A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: 105-119.
10 Table 1. Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station location, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
Control New Blowdown Discharge Seq Taxon TV FG Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Annelida Hirudinea 1 I Hirudinea Genus species p
5 11 Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae 2 Branchiura sowerbyi 8.38 SC 1
3 2
3 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 9.57 SC 6
1 3
1 6
5 2
1 5
4 Tubifex tubifex 10.10 SC 4
1 2
1 2
3 1
4 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 5 1 Macronychus glabratus 4.68 CG 1
Diptera Ceratopogonidae 6
Bezzia/Palpomyia sp.
6.96 P
2 7
Culicoides sp.
7.80 P
2 Chaoboridae 8 ] Chaoborus sp.
8.60 P
I Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder
11 Table 1. Continued.
IControl New Blowdown Discharge Seq Taxon TV FG Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Chironomidae 9
Chironomus sp.
9.73 CG 2
4 4
1 5
1 10 Clinotanypus sp.
P 8
1 7
12 2
11 Cryptochironomus sp.
6.50 P
1 12 Polypedilum illinoense gr.
9.10 SH 1
13 Procladius sp.
9.20 P
3 4
4 2
Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae 14 Hexagenia sp.
5.00 CG 1
2 Odonata Gomphidae 15 Stylurus plagiatus P
1 1
Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae Genus 16 species 0
2 1
Leptoceridae 17 l Oecetis sp.
4.80 P
2 Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-tilterer, CG3 : collector-gatherer, O)M = omnivore, P" = predator, SC5 = scraper, SH = snredder
12 Table 1. Continued.
IControl New Blowdown Discharge Seq Taxon TV FG Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Rep. 5 Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Corbiculidae 18 Corbicula fluminea 6.22 CF 2
2 1
13 17 12 39 4
12 1
Sphaeriidae 19 1 Sphaeriidae Genus species CF 2
Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC
- scraper, SH = shredder
13 Table 2. Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for three Lake Monticello stations near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
Control New Water Treatment New Raw Intake en
'I tIn e4 ffn
'I n
Seq Taxon TV FG Annelida Hirudinea 1 Hirudinea Genus species P
1 1
2 Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae 2
Eclipidrilus lacustris 7.13 SC 1
1 Tubificida Naididae 3
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.38 SC 2
1 1
1 2
5 3
4 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 9.57 SC 15 4
2 3
1 1
1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 5
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.29 P
1 6
Chironomus sp.
9.73 CG 1
2 1
2 7
Cladotanytarsus sp.
4.19 CG 2
8 Clinotanypus sp.
P 6
3 2
1 1
9 Cryptochironomus sp.
6.50 P
4 1
10 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 8.20 CG 11 Procladius sp.
9.20 P
2 Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC scraper, SH shredder
14 Table 2.
Continued.
Control New Water Treatment New Raw Intake Seq Taxon TV FG 9
9 9
1 9
0 04 Chironomidae cont.
12 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr.
5.99 CF 4
1 4
1 13 Tanytarsus sp.
6.86 CF 2
1 1
Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae 14 1Hexagenia sp.
5.00 CG 2
6 6
6 Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Corbiculidae 15 Corbicula fluminea 6.22 CF 76 12 13 2
2 3
7 3
2 11 5
9 6
2 3
Gastropoda Limnophila Physidae 16 1Physa sp.
8.94 SC 3
Functional feeding groups: CF collector-filterer, CG collector-gatherer, OM omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder
15 Table 3.
Bioassessment metrics for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the V. C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
Station Control New Blowdown Discharge Metric Rep Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 ep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep_5 Taxa Richness 7
5 8
10 8
7 4
7 5
1 Number of Specimens 25 8
18 36 42 27 51 22 24 1
EPT Index 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 EPT Abundance 0
2 0
1 1
2 0
2 0
0 Chironomidae Taxa 2
1 3
3 3
2 1
2 1
0 Chironomidae Abundance 11 2
9 15 15 2
5 3
1 0
EPT/Chironomidae Abundance 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 North Carolina Biotic Index 9.15 8.91 9.26 7.67 7.20 7.59 7.21 7.55 7.56 6.22 SCDHEC Bioclassification 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 Percent Collector-Filterers 8.00 50.00 16.67 38.89 40.48 44.44 76.47 18.18 50.00 100.00 Percent Collector-Gatherers 0.00 25.00 22.22 11.11 7.14 7.41 9.80 4.55 0.00 0.00 Percent Omnivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent Predators 48.00 0.00 33.33 44.44 33.33 3.70 9.80 68.18 4.17 0.00 Percent Scrapers 44.00 25.00 27.78 5.56 19.05 40.74 3.92 9.09 45.83 0.00 Percent Shredders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scraper/Scraper & Collector-5.50 0.50 1.67 0.14 0.47 0.92 0.05 0.50 0.92 0.00 Filterers Percent Dominant Taxon 32.00 25.00 22.22 36.11 40.48 44.44 76.47 50.00 50.00 100.00 Number Of Dominant Taxa 5
5 8
6 3
5 3
4 4
1
16 Table 4.
Bioassessment metrics for the three Monticello Reservoir stations near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
Station Control New Water Treatment Intake New Raw Intake Metric RepI Rep 2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 Repl Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 Repl Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 Taxa Richness 8
2 3
2 4
1 2
3 2
8 6
5 8
7 6
Number of Specimens 103 16 16 6
9 3
13 8
3 20 11 14 27 15 13 EPT Index 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
1 1
EPT Abundance 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 6
6 6
Chironomidae Taxa 3
0 1
1 2
0 1
1 0
4 2
1 3
3 3
Chironomidae Abundance 7
0 1
4 4
0 6
3 0
6 2
1 7
3 3
EPT/Chironomidae Abundance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.86 2.00 2.00 North Carolina Biotic Index 7.86 6.99 6.79 6.05 8.14 6.22 6.22 6.76 7.30 6.81 6.87 7.90 6.69 6.84 6.49 SCDHEC Bioclassification 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.7 Percent Collector-Filterers 73.79 75.00 81.25 100.00 22.22 100.00 53.85 37.50 66.67 70.00 45.45 64.29 37.04 26.67 30.77 Percent Collector-Gatherers 0.00 0.00
.6.25 0.00 44.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.18 7.14 29.63 40.00 61.54 Percent Omnivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent Predators 7.77, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.15 37.50 0.00 20.00 27.27 0.00 11.11 6.67 7.69 Percent Scrapers 18.45 25.00 12.50 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 25.00 33.33 10.00 9.09 28.57 22.22 26.67 0.00 Percent Shredders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scraper/Scraper & Collector-0.25 0.33 0.15 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.50 0.14 0.20 0.44 0.60 1.00 0.00 Filterers Percent Dominant Taxon 73.79 75.00 81.25 66.67 33.33 100.00 53.85 37.50 66.67 55.00 45.45 64.29 22.22 40.00 46.15 Number Of Dominant Taxa 2
2 3
2 4
1 2
3 2
8 6
5 6
7 6
17 Table 5.
Results of the single factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness, total abundance, EPT index, EPT abundance, NCBI, and percentage of the dominant taxon among sampling stations for the petite Ponar data collected on Parr Reservoir, near the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for Taxa Richness Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F-crit Between Stations 0.1096 1
0.1096 3.0905 0.1168 5.3177 Within Stations 0.2836 8
0.0355 Total 0.3932 9
ANOVA for Total Abundance Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F-crit Between Stations 0.0392 1
0.0392 0.2113 0.6580 5.3177 Within Stations 1.4827 8
0.1853 Total 1.5219 9
ANO VA for percentage of the dominant taxon Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F-crit Between Stations 0.2188 1
0.2188 13.3530 0.0065 5.3177 Within Stations 0.1311 8
0.0164 Total 0.3500 9
ANO VA for EPT Index Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F-crit Between Stations 0.0091 1
0.0091 0.3333 0.5796 5.3177 Within Stations 0.2175 8
0.0272 Total 0.2265 9
ANO VA for EPT A bundance SS df MS f Variation F
P-value F-crit Between Stations Within Stations 0.0016 0.4491 0.4507 1
8 9
0.0016 0.0278 0.8717 5.3177 0.0561 Total ANOVA for NCBI Source of Variation SS dJ MS F
P-value F-crit i Between Stations 0.0087 1
0.0087 5.7831 0.0429 5.3177
- Within Stations 0.0120 8
0.0015 Total 0.0206 9
SANO VA for SCDHEC BioclassifPication
!I Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F-crit
- Between Stations 0.0031 1
0.0031 0.7516 0.4112 5.3177 Within Stations Total 0.0330 8
0.0041 0.0361 9
18 Table 6.
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for Taxa Richness Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.24645 2
0.12322 3.58529 0.06016 3.88529 Within Stations 0.41243 12 0.03437 Total 0.65887 14 Table 7.
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundance between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for Total Abundance Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.33227 2
0.16613 1.52273 0.25743 3.88529 Within Stations 1.30922 12 0.10910 Total 1.64148 14 Table 8.
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of the dominant taxon between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for Percentage of the Dominant Taxon Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.09522 2
0.04761 1.92634 0.18814 3.88529 Within Stations 0.29659 12 0.02472 Total 0.39181 14 Table 9.
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Index values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANOVA for EPT Index Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.19332 2
0.09666 16.00000 0.00041 3.88529 Within Stations 0.07250 12 0.00604 Total 0.26582 14 Table 10. Averages of the loglo(x+l) transformed EPT Index data in Monticello Reservoir, listed in ascending order.
Average Log (EPT Index + 1)
Station Water Treatment Intake Control Raw Intake Average 0.00000 0.00000 0.24082
19 Table 11. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Abundance values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANOVA for EPTAbundance Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 1.20995 2
0.60498 13.07380 0.00097 3.88529 Within Stations 0.55529 12 0.04627 Total 1.76524 14 Table 12. Averages of the logio(x+l) transformed EPT Abundance data in Monticello Reservoir, listed in ascending order.
Average Lo,{ (EPT Abundance + 1)
Station Water Treatment Intake Control Raw Intake Average 0.00000 0.00000 0.60248 Table 13. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for NCBI Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.00177 2
0.00089 0.75020 0.49318 3.88529 Within Stations 0.01419 12 0.00118 Total 0.01596 14 Table 14.
Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHEC Bioclassification values between stations in Monticello Reservoir, 23 January 2009.
ANO VA for SCDHEC Bioclassification Source of Variation SS df MS F
P-value F crit Between Stations 0.00842 2
0.00421 1.27477 0.31477 3.88529 Within Stations 0.03965 12 0.00330 Total 0.04807 14