ML14007A083
| ML14007A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/2013 |
| From: | Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14007A078 | List:
|
| References | |
| RS-13-282 | |
| Download: ML14007A083 (159) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #1 Document Provided Aquatic (AQ)1 la AQ-la/ AQ-la Response Sheet AQ-la/ (EA Engineering 2012) EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.
2012. Byron Station 2011. Fish and Benthos Monitoring and Historical Fish and Benthos Comparisons.
July 2012.lb AQ-1 b/ AQ-1 b Response Sheet AQ-1 b/ (ESI 2011) Ecological Specialist, Inc. (ESI) 2011. Unionid Communities near Byron Station, Rock River. ESI Project No. 11 -003a. O'Fallon, Missouri.November 2011.lc AQ-lc/ AQ-lc Response Sheet ld AQ-ld/ AQ-ld Response Sheet AQ-1 d/ (Exelon Nuclear 2011 c) Exelon Nuclear. 2011. WHC Wildlife Management Plan -Byron Generating Station. Byron, IL.2 AQ-2/ AQ-2 RAI Response Sheet 3 3a AQ-3a/ AQ-3a RAI Response Sheet AQ-3a/ 1. Byron ER-OL, Fig. 3.4-2 AQ-3a/ 2. Sargent & Lundy Dwg S-415 AQ-3a/ 3. Sargent & Lundy Standard 1743, Dwg 43-1 AQ-3a/ 4. Byron ER-OL, p. 3.4-3 AQ-3a/ 5. FMC Corp. Dwg. JK2242-2 AQ-3a/ 6. Byron UFSAR, sec. 2.4.8, p. 2.4-16 AQ-3a/ 7. IEPA 1989 3b AQ-3b/ AQ-3b RAI Response Sheet Environmental Justice (EJ)1 la EJ-la/ EJ-la RAI Response Sheet Page 1 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided 2 EJ-2/ EJ-2 RAI Response Sheet EJ-2/ Compilation of Telephone Logs Investigating Potential Existence of Subsistence-Like Populations In Ogle County, Illinois, July 18, 2013 Historical and Cultural Resources (HCR)1 HCR-1/ HCR-1 RAI Response Sheet HCR-1/ 1. Aerial photographs HCR-1/ 2. Letter from Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer (A. Dean) to U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (D. Muller) regarding review of environmental reports for Braidwood, Byron, and Clinton Stations, February 1974.2 HCR-2/ HCR-2 RAI Response Sheet HCR-2/ 1. Section 2.6.1 from the Byron Station ER-OL, as amended January 1983 (ComEd 1981 a, p. 2.6-1)HCR-2/ 2. Letter from Illinois SHPO (A. Dean) to Commonwealth Edison (J.McCluskey), September 18, 1974.3 HCR-3/ HCR-3 RAI Response Sheet HCR-3/ 1.Page iv from NRC 1982 HCR-3/ 2. Page 5-17 from NRC 1982 HCR-3/ 3. Page 9-5 from NRC 1982 4 HCR-4/ HCR-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 HCR-5/ HCR-5 RAI Response Sheet 6 HCR-6/ HCR-6 RAI Response Sheet HCR-6/ Byron UFSAR (Exelon Nuclear 2010a), Figure 8.2-3 7 HCR-7/ HCR-7 RAI Response Sheet 8 HCR-8/ HCR-8 RAI Response Sheet 9 HCR-9/ HCR-9 RAI Response Sheet 10 HCR-10/ HCR-10 RAI Response Sheet Page 2 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided 11 HCR-1 1/ HCR-1 1 RAI Response Sheet Human Health-Microbiological Organisms (HH)1 HH-1 (ALL)/ HH-1 RAI Response Sheet HH-1 (2013)/ 1. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January 1, 2013 through July 31, 2013.HH-1 (2012)/ 2. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 HH-1 (2011)/ 3. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 HH-1 (2010)/ 4. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 HH-1 (2009)/ 5. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January, 2009 through December 31, 2009 HH-1 (2008)/ 6. NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports for January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 2 HH-2/ HH-2 RAI Response Sheet 3 HH-3/ HH-3 RAI Response Sheet 4 HH-4/ HH-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 HH-5/ HH-5 RAI Response Sheet Page 3 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise (Met)1 Met-l/ Met-1 RAI Response Sheet Met-i/1. Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit, ID No. 141820AAA, Expiration Date: December 13, 2007 Met-l/ 2. Application for Renewal of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit, ID No. 141820AAA, September 11,2007 Met-l/ 3. Letter from Exelon Nuclear (M. Snow) to IEPA (B. Beasly) regarding FESOP Renewal Application Byron Nuclear Power Station, Application No.78090018, December 10, 2007 [updating information in the 9/11/2007 application and waiving the statutory 180-day final decision deadline]Met-l/ 4. Letter from Exelon Nuclear (B. Adams) to IEPA (B. Beasly) regarding FESOP Renewal Application Byron Nuclear Power Station, Application No.78090018, June 11, 2008 [waiving the statutory 180-day final decision deadline]2 Met-2/ Met-2 RAI Response Sheet Met-2/ 1. 2012 Annual Emission Report for Byron Generating Station Met-2/ 2. 2011 Annual Emission Report for Byron Generating Station Met-2/ 3. 2010 Annual Emission Report for Byron Generating Station Met-2/ 4. 2009 Annual Emission Report for Byron Generating Station Met-2/ 5. 2008 Annual Emission Report for Byron Generating Station 3 Met-3/ Met-3 RAI Response Sheet 4 Met-4/ Met-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 5a Met-5/ Met-5 RAI Response Sheet 5b Met-5/ Met-5 RAI Response Sheet 5c Met-5/ Met-5 RAI Response Sheet 6 6a Met-6/ Met-6 RAI Response Sheet 6b Met-6/ Met-6 RAI Response Sheet Page 4 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #1 Document Provided 6c Met-6/ Met-6 RAI Response Sheet Met-6/ 1. Annual Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, 2008. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. February 24, 2009.Met-6/ 2. Annual Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, 2009. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. March 1, 2010.Met-6/ 3. Annual Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, 2010. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. May 1,2011.Met-6/ 4. Annual Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, 2011. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. April 3, 2012.Met-6/ 5. Annual Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, 2012. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. March 13, 2013 7 7a Met-7/ Met-7 RAI Response Sheet Met-7/ 1. Loop Schematic Diagram Meteorological Monitoring Tower Instruments
-"EM" System (Computer
& Analog Inputs). Drawing 6E-0-4031 EM01.7b Met-7/ Met-7 RAI Response Sheet Met-7/ 2. Monthly Report on the Meteorological Monitoring Program at the Byron Nuclear Generating Station, January 2012. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear by Murray and Trettel, Inc. March 9, 2012.7c Met-7/ Met-7 RAI Response Sheet 8 Met-8/ Met-8 RAI Response Sheet 9 Met-9/ Met-9 RAI Response Sheet Met-9/ Byron ER-OLS, Section 2.7 10 Met-10/ Met-10 RAI Response Sheet Page 5 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #1 Document Provided 11 Met-1 1/ Met-11 RAI Response Sheet Met-11/ Byron ER-OLS, Section 5.6 12 Met-12/ Met-12 RAI Response Sheet 13 Met-13/ Met-13 RAI Response Sheet Met-1 3/ Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed Operating Licenses Environmental Supplemental Report, Volume II, New and Significant Information Report, Staff Interview Form, New and Significant Information Identification Process, Issue and Discussion:
- 58. Noise (pages 80 of 150 to 82 of 150)14 14a Met-14a/ Met-14a RAI Response Sheet Met-14a1 Byron Station Meteorological Tower -Average Monthly Temperatures, 30' Elevation.
June 1973 through November 2013.14b Met-14b/ Met-14b RAI Response Sheet Refurbishment (R)1 R-1/ R-1 RAI Response Sheet 2 2a R-2/ R-2 RAI Response Sheet 2b R-2/ R-2 RAI Response Sheet R-2/ ComEd Byron Drawing S-2683, Sheet Number 1, Old Steam Generator Storage Facility Socioeconomic (S)1 S-1/S-1 RAI Response Sheet Page 6 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided 2 S-2/ S-2 RAI Response Sheet 3 S-3/ S-3 RAI Response Sheet 4 S-4/ S-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 S-5/ S-5 RAI Response Sheet S-5/ 2011 Real Estate Tax Bill for Byron Station from Ogle County Tax Assessor 6 S-6/ S-6 RAI Response Sheet S-6/ Byron Station Charitable Spending For 2011 7 S-7/ S-7 RAI Response Sheet Special Status Species and Habitats (SSSH)1 la SSSH-1/ SSSH-1 RAI Response Sheet lb SSSH-1/ SSSH-1 RAI Response Sheet SSSH-1/ UFSAR (Exelon Nuclear 201 Oa), Figure 8.2-3 lc SSSH-1/ SSSH-1 RAI Response Sheet 2 SSSH-2/ SSSH-2 RAI Response Sheet Terrestrial Ecology 1 TE-1/TE-1 RAI Response Sheet 2 TE-2/ TE-2 RAI Response Sheet 3 TE-3/ TE-3 RAI Response Sheet Page 7 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided 4 TE-4/ TE-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 TE-5/ TE-5 RAI Response Sheet TE-5/ Email message from ComEd (T. Kay) to Exelon Generation (N. Ranek)dated 8/29/2013 Water Resources
-Groundwater (WR-GW)1 la WR-GW-la/WR-GW-la RAI Response Sheet WR-GW-1 a/ Exelon Nuclear 2011 b. NEI 07-07 Update, Hydrogeologic Investigation Report, Byron Generating Station. Prepared for Exelon Generation Company, LLC by Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates, Ref. No.072245 (2). May 2011.lb WR-GW-lb/
WR-GW-lb RAI Response Sheet WR-GW-1b/1.
The Illinois State Water Inventory Program, III State Water Survey, 2008.WR-GW-1 b/ 2. The Illinois State Water Inventory Program, III State Water Survey, 2009.WR-GW-1 b/ 3. The Illinois State Water Inventory Program, III State Water Survey, 2010.WR-GW-1 b/ 4. The Illinois State Water Inventory Program, III State Water Survey, 2011.WR-GW-1 b/ 5. The Illinois State Water Inventory Program, III State Water Survey, 2012.2 WR-GW-2/ WR-GW-2 RAI Response Sheet WR-GW-2/ 1. Letter from AMO Environmental Decisions (R. Golia) to Byron Generating Station regarding March 2013 RGPP Summary Monitoring Report (1st Quarter 2013) [DRAFT]. May 2, 2013.WR-GW-2/ 2. Letter from AMO Environmental Decisions (R. Golia) to Byron Generating Station regarding May 2013 RGPP Summary Monitoring Report (2 nd Quarter 2013) [DRAFT]. July 17, 2013.WR-GW-2/ 3. Letter from AMO Environmental Decisions (R. Golia) to Byron Generating Station regarding August 2013 RGPP Summary Monitoring Report (3r Quarter 2013) [DRAFT]. September 10, 2013.Page 8 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided Water Resources
-Surface Water (WR-SW)1 la WR-SW-la/WR-SW-la RAI Response Sheet 1lb WR-SW-l b/ WR-SW-1lb RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-l b/1. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Byron Nuclear Power Station, Byron, Illinois, dated January 2013 ic WR-SW-lc/WR-SW-lc RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-ic/
Large scale (11" X 17") map depicting NPDES outfall locations ld WR-SW-ld/WR-SW-ld RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-1 d/ 1. Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Associated with Renewal of Byron Generating Station Units 1 & 2 Operating Licenses, dated July 2, 2012 le WR-SW-le/WR-SW-le RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-1 e/ Copy of Illinois DNR/Office of Water Resources (OWR) permit 15001 issued April 1977 to Commonwealth Edison (as referenced in IDNR letter to Exelon dated July 10, 2012)If WR-SW-lf/WR-SW-lf RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-if/
Copies of any Notices of Violation (NOVs), nonconformance notifications, or related infractions received from regulatory agencies associated with NPDES permitted discharges, sanitary sewage systems, groundwater or soil contamination, including spills, leaks, and other inadvertent releases of fuel solvents, chemicals, or radionuclides (covering past five years). Include correspondence of self-reported violations to responsible agencies.Page 9 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided+ig WR-SW-lg/WR-SW-lg RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-1 g/1. IEPA Water Pollution Control Permit: Byron Generating Station-Hauling of Sanitary Wastewater Tributary to the City of Oregon WWTP.Permit No. 2011-EP-1250, Issued February 16, 2011 WR-SW-lg/
- 2. IEPA Water Pollution Control Permit: Byron Generating Station-Land Application of River Sediment from Cooling Tower Cleaning -Ogle County, IL, Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1 (Supplemental), Issued April 20, 2010 WR-SW-lg/
- 3. IEPA Water Pollution Control Permit: Byron Generating Station-Land Application of River Sediment from Cooling Tower Cleaning -Ogle County, IL, Permit No. 2009-SC-2169, Issued June 23, 2009 1h WR-SW-1h/WR-SW-1h RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-1 hi UFSAR Revision 9, Section 10.4.5 "Circulating Water System", page 10.4-8 2 WR-SW-2/ WR-SW-2 RAI Response sheet WR-SW-2/ 1. Annual Operating Report Land Application Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1, dated November 26, 2012 WR-SW-2/ 2. Annual Operating Report Land Application Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1, dated November 23, 2011 WR-SW-2/ 3. Annual Operating Report Land Application Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1, dated November 14, 2010 WR-SW-2/ 4. Annual Operating Report Land Application Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1, dated November 14, 2009 WR-SW-2/ 5. Annual Operating Report Land Application Permit No. 2009-SC-2169-1, dated November 14, 2008 3 3a WR-SW-3/WR-SW-3 RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-3/ 1. Letter from Exelon Nuclear (M. Snow) to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Joint Permit Application for Exelon Byron Nuclear Generating Station, June 4, 2007 WR-SW-3/ 2. Letter from Commonwealth Edison (K. Womack) to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Joint Application for Exelon Byron Nuclear Generating Station, January 29, 2001 Page 10 of 11 ENCLOSURE A INDEX RAI Number Folder #/ Document Provided 3b WR-SW-3/ WR-SW-3 RAI Response Sheet WR-SW-3/ 3. Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Exelon Nuclear (M.Snow): CEMVR-OD-P-2007-925, July 3, 2007 WR-SW-3/ 4. Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Exelon Nuclear (K.Womack): CEMVR-OD-P-404830, February 15, 2001 WR-SW-3/ 5. Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Exelon Generation (B. Youman): CEMVR-OD-P-2012-1323, September 20, 2012 3c WR-SW-3/ WR-SW-3 RAI Response Sheet 4 WR-SW-4/ WR-SW-4 RAI Response Sheet 5 WR-SW-5/WR-SW-5 RAI Response Sheet 6 WR-SW-6/ WR-SW-6 RAI Response Sheet Page 11 of 11 Remote User UOOONR2 Microsoft 12/18/13 Word -Enclosure AIndexclean.docx 05:19 PM Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-1 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: Provide the following information:
2012. Byron Station 2011 Fish and Benthos Monitoring and Historical Fish and Benthos Comparisons.
July 2012.Response: The requested information is attached.List of Attachments Provided: 1. (EA Engineering 2012) EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.
2012. Byron Station 2011 Fish and Benthos Monitoring and Historical Fish and Benthos Comparisons.
July 2012.
BYRON STATION 2011 FISH AND BENTHOS MONITORING AND HISTORICAL FISH AND BENTHOS COMPARISONS PreparedJor:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, Pennsylvania Prepared by." EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 July 2012 BYRON STATION 2011 FISH AND BENTHOS MONITORING AND HISTORICAL FISH AND BENTHOS COMPARISONS Prepared for: Exelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way Kennett .Square, Pennsylvania Prepared bv: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Dr. Richard Monzingo Prniect Mainner (7 Date Joe Vonodska Project Director Date July 2012 14880.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I -IN TRODUCTION
...........................................................................................................
1-1 2. M ETHOD S ......................................................................................................................
2-1 2.1 FISH .....................................................................................................................
2-1 2.1.1 Field and Laboratory
................................................................................
2-1 2.1.2 Data Handling and Analysis ....................................................................
2-2 2.2 Benthos ................................................................................................................
2-3 2.2.1 Field and Laboratory
................................................................................
2-3 2.2.2 Data Handling and Analysis ....................................................................
2-4 2.3 PH YSICO CHEM ICAL M EA SUREM EN TS ......................................................
2-5 3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 FISH .....................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1.1 Electrofishing
............................................................................................
3-1 3.1.2 Seining ......................................................................................................
3-3 3.1.3 DELT A nom alies ......................................................................................
3-3 3.1.3 Relative W eight ........................................................................................
3-3 3.2 BEN THO S ..........................................................................................................
3-4 3.2.1 Hester-Dendy
..............................................................................................
3-4 3.2.2 Ponar and Kick N et Sam ples ......................................................................
3-5 4. DISCU SSION ..................................................................................................................
4-1 4.1 FISH ....................................................................................................................
4-1 4.1.1 Operational Studies ..................................................................................
4-1 4.1.2 Pre-Operational Studies ...........................................................................
4-2 4.1.3 Sum m ary ..................................................................................................
4-4 4.2 BEN THOS ...........................................................................................................
4-6 4.2.1 Pre-Operational Studies ...........................................................................
4-6 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 4.2.2 S um m ary .........................................................................................
.........
4-6 5. REFERENCES
..................................................................................
5-1 A ppendix A: Byron Station Fish D ata ..................................................................................
A -I Appendix B: Byron Station Macroinvertebrate Data ............................................................
B-I ii LIST OF FIGURES Number Title I Sampling locations in the Rock River near Byron Station iii LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2-1 Intercept (a) and Slope (b) Parameters for Standard Weight (Ws) Equations with Minimum Total Lengths (mm) Recommended for Application 3-1 List of Common and Scientific Names of Fish Taxa Collected Near Byron Station, August 2011 3-2 Summary of Fish Collected by Electrofishing and Seining in the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011.3-3 Fish Captured at each Electrofishing and Seining Location in the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-4 Length Frequency Distributions of Channel Catfish, Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Smallmouth Bass, and Largemouth Bass Collected from the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-5 Summary of Physicochemical Data Collected in Conjunction with Electrofishing in the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-6 Summary of DELT (Deformity, Erosion, Lesion, and Tumor) Anomalies on Fish Captured by Electrofishing and Seining in the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-7 Mean Relative Weights of Fish Collected from the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-8 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Collected from the Rock River in the vicinity of Byron Station, August 2011 3-9 Density (#/m 2) and Relative Abundance
(%) for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Collected in Hester Dendy Samples from the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 3-10 Density (#/m 2) and Relative Abundance
(%) for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Collected in Ponar and Kick Net Samples from the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011 iv
- 1. INTRODUCTION Fish, benthos, and physicochemical monitoring was conducted during summer 2011 in the Rock River upstream and downstream of the Byron Station to collect current aquatic biological information needed to support the preparation of the Environmental Report that is part of U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license renewal application.
The 2011 data were compared with historical data to determine if changes in the Rock River have occurred that could be related to station operation.
Byron Station is located near the Rock River in Ogle County about three miles south of Byron, Illinois.
Makeup cooling water is withdrawn from the Rock River at river mile 115, two miles to the west of Byron Station and five miles upstream of the Oregon Dam. Byron Station has two generating units and a closed cycle cooling system that uses two natural draft-cooling towers.The cooling towers discharge through a short canal downstream of the intake.The 2011 monitoring program was comprised of two primary elements.Fish sampling using electrofishing and seining gear, and associated physicochemical measurements at locations sampled during previous monitoring efforts.Benthos sampling using artificial substrate samplers and a grab sampler or kick net was conducted along transects that were established during pre-operational studies.The objectives of the 2011 Byron program were to: Determine the current species composition, relative abundance, and distribution of fish within the study area and compare results with available historical data from pre-operational studies.Determine current taxa richness, density, and relative abundance of benthos within the study area and compare results with available historical data from pre-operational studies.EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (FA) was contracted by the Exelon Generation Company, LLC to perform these tasks.1-1
- 2. METHODS Fish sampling was conducted at three transect locations in the Rock River (R2, R3, and R4) and one stream mouth location (Spring Creek S5) downstream of the blowdown area (Figure 2-1).The river transects represent sampling locations upstream of the cooling tower blowdown discharge (R2); near the discharge (R3); and 1.25 river miles downstream from the discharge point (R4). Each river transect was divided into east bank (L) and west bank (R) sampling locations.
River and creek locations were the same as those sampled during previous monitoring efforts. Fish sampling was conducted during August 2011.Benthos sampling was conducted along three of the transects that were established during the pre-operational studies conducted during the 1970s (R2, R3, and R4). Sampling was conducted along one bank upstream (R2), along both banks adjacent to the discharge (R3), and along both banks downstream (R4) for a total of five sampling locations.
Each location was sampled using Hester-Dendy (HD) artificial substrate samplers and a Ponar grab sampler or kick net. Artificial substrates were set in June and retrieved in the August. Ponar grab samples were collected in August when the artificial substrates were recovered.
2.1 FISH 2.1.1 Field and Laboratory Fish were sampled by electrofishing and seining. Electrofishing was conducted using a boat-mounted boom-type electrofishing system utilizing a 230-V, 5,000 W, 3-phase AC generator equipped with volt/amp meters and a safety cut-off switch. Sampling began no earlier than one-half hour after sunrise and did not extend beyond one-half hour before sunset. Each location was sampled in a downstream direction for 30 minutes. If the downstream boundary of a location was reached before 30 minutes had elapsed, the boat returned to the beginning of the sampling area and a second pass was initiated slightly farther off shore, continuing until the 30-min period expired. The crew consisted of a boat driver and one dipper; each equipped with long-handled, 3/16-inch mesh dip nets for retrieval of stunned fish. Shoreline seining was the second collection method used at each location.
A straight seine 25 ft long by 6 ft deep with 3/16-inch ace mesh was used. Two seine hauls were made at each location in a downstream direction, each covering approximately 15 meters of shoreline.
Seining and electrofishing were conducted on different days to avoid potential bias caused by each sampling effort.All fish collected were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level and counted. For each gear type, at each location, up to 25 randomly selected individuals of each species were measured for total length (millimeters) and weighed (grams). Any remaining individuals of a species were counted and batch weighed. Minnow species (Cyprinidae), excluding carp, goldfish, or carp/goldfish hybrids, were counted and batch weighed only. Specimens that could not be positively identified in the field were preserved in 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory for positive identification.
In the laboratory, fish were processed in the same manner as in the field. Fish identifications were conducted utilizing current taxonomic keys or publications including Becker (1983), Pflieger (1975), Smith (1979), and Trautman (1981).All fish collected were examined for external anomalies.
External anomalies were classified as 2-1 DELT anomalies (deformities, erosions, lesions, and tumors; Ohio EPA 1987, 1989), external parasites, or "other" abnormalities.
The following is a review of DELT anomalies and their causes in freshwater fishes (Ohio EPA 1989): 1) Deformities
-These anomalies can affect the head, spine, fins, and have a variety of causes including toxic chemicals, viruses, bacteria (e.g., Mycobacterium sp.), and protozoan parasites (e.g., Myxosoma cerebalis) (Ohio EPA 1989).2) Erodedfins
-These are the result of chronic disease principally caused by flexibacteria invading the fins causing a necrosis of the tissue (Post 1983). Necrosis of the fins may also be caused by gryodactylids, a small trematode parasite (Ohio EPA 1989).For this study, fin erosion was separated into three categories:
slight erosion -<1/3 of fin eroded; moderate erosion -1/3 -2/3 of fin eroded, and severe erosion ->2/3 of fin eroded.3) Lesions and Ulcers -These appear as open sores or exposed tissue and can be caused by viral (e.g., Lymphocystis sp.) or bacterial (e.g., Flexibacter columnaris, Aeromonas spp., Vibrio sp.) infections (Ohio EPA 1989).4) Tumors -Tumors result from the loss of carefully regulated cellular proliferative growth in tissue and are generally referred to as neoplasia.
Tumors in wild fish populations can be the result of exposure to toxic chemicals.
Baumann et al. (1987)identified polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as the cause of hepatic tumors in brown bullheads in the Black River (Ohio). Viral infections (e.g., Lymphocystis) can also cause tumors. Parasites (e.g., Glugea anomala and Ceratomyxa shasta; Post 1983) may cause tumor-like masses, but are not considered tumors. Parasite masses can be squeezed and broken between the thumb and forefinger whereas true tumors are firm and not easily broken (Ohio EPA 1989).Only those anomalies visible to the naked eye were recorded.
The exact counts of anomalies present (e.g., the number of tumors or lesions per fish) were not recorded.
An external anomaly is defined as the presence of externally visible skin or subcutaneous disorders, and is expressed as percent of affected fish among all fish processed (Ohio EPA 1989).2.1.2 Data Handling and Analysis Field and laboratory data were entered on forms compatible for computer entry following serialization, diga-coding, and QA/QC checks. Data were managed in a SAS format (Release 8.2) to provide flexibility in reporting study results. Data developed from electrofishing and seining were reported as number and percent abundance for each species and kept separate by location, gear type, and sampling period. Electrofishing data were also reported as catch-per-effort (CPE, number/hr) by location and sampling period. Summarizations of length-frequency distribution were developed for five game species: channel catfish, green sunfish, bluegill, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass. Relative weight (Wr) was calculated for all applicable species. All observed occurrences of DELT anomalies were summarized in tabular form and reported as percent occurrence by species for each sampling period.2-2 Fish condition was evaluated using the relative weight (Wr) index (Wege and Anderson 1978). This index represents a refinement of the relative condition factor concept and allows for interpopulational comparisons by making the standard weight-length regression species-specific rather than population-specific.
Relative weight was calculated as: Wr = W/Ws x 100 Where W is the measured weight, Ws is the standard weight and Wr is the length-specific standard weight predicted by a weight-length regression constructed to represent the species as a whole.Length-specific standard weight functions are in the form: logi Ws = a + (b x logli total length)where a (intercept) and b (slope) account for genetically determined shape characteristics of a species and yield Wr values of 100 at particular times of the year for fish that have been well fed (Anderson and Gutreuter 1983).Intercept, slope, and minimum length values for the Ws equation have been published for 36 species and one hybrid (Bister et al. 2000; Anderson and Neumann 1996; Murphy et al. 1991) (Table 2-1).Minimum lengths are established because the accuracy in weighing fish decreases markedly for smaller individuals and minimum lengths represent the length at which the variance to mean ratio for logi0 sharply increases (Murphy et al. 1991).Appendix A provides the Byron Station fish data.2.2 BENTHOS 2.2.1 Field and Laboratory Benthos sampling was conducted along three transects that were established during the pre-operational studies conducted during the 1970s (R2, R3, and R4) (Figure 2-1). Sampling was conducted along one bank upstream (R2L), along both banks adjacent to the discharge (R3), and along both banks downstream (R4). Each location was sampled using a combination of Hester-Dendy (HD) artificial substrates and Ponar grabs or kick nets.Each modified HD artificial substrate sampler consisted of eight 3x3-inch plates constructed from 1/8 inch tempered hardboard and twelve 1/8 plastic spacers. The plates and spacers were arranged on a 1/4 inch eyebolt so that each sampler had three 1/8 inch spaces, three 1/4 inch spaces, and one 3/8 inch space among the plates. The total surface area of a single sampler, excluding the eyebolt, was 0.093 m 2 (1.01 ft 2). A single HD sample consisted of a five HD sampler array, arranged on a single cinder block, and deployed on the stream bottom. Duplicate HD sets were deployed at each location to minimize the potential loss of samplers (e.g., from vandalism).
The HD samplers were set on 7 July 2011 and retrieved approximately eight weeks later on 29 August 2011. Retrieval of the HDs was accomplished by enclosing the samplers in a fine-mesh sweep-net and then carefully lifting the sampler array and net to the surface. The HDs were placed into a single labeled container, and preserved with 10% formalin.The Ponar and/or kick net samples were collected concurrent with the HD sample retrieval.
Ponar samples from each location consisted of four composite grab samples at each location 2-3 using a full-sized 522.6 cm 2 (81 in 2) Ponar dredge sampler. For locations where the substrate was too coarse to obtain a Ponar grab sample, four 522.6 cm 2 (81 in 2) kick net samples were collected.
Each sample was sieved in the field using an U.S. Standard No. 35 (500 [im) mesh sieve and preserved.
The material obtained in each sample was examined to qualitatively determine substrate characteristics and percent composition.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, the samples were logged in and accounted for. Based on measured current velocity, the amount of silt/debris caught on the samplers and the numbers and types of organisms observed during retrieval, one of the duplicate HD arrays from each location was initially processed.
The second HD array was kept as a backup. The five HDs from each array were disassembled in a water filled enamel pan and cleaned of organisms and debris. This mixture was then passed through a No. 60 (250 ltm mesh) U.S. Standard Testing Sieve and preserved in labeled containers containing 10% formalin.Sorting of each HD and Ponar grab or kick net sample was conducted in grided petri dishes under a dissecting stereo-scope at lOX magnification.
The samples were initially pre-picked to remove any large or rare taxa (less than 20 individuals/sample) prior to subsampling.
When necessary, a Folsum sample splitter was used to subsample until a manageable number of organisms was achieved.
A minimum of 250 organisms in representative proportions was removed from the fractionated samples. Organisms from all sample types were sorted to higher taxonomic levels (generally Class or Order level) and preserved separately in labeled vials containing 70% ethyl alcohol. Sorted samples were routinely checked by senior EA personnel to assure a consistent level of quality and sorting efficiency.
Macroinvertebrate identifications were made to the lowest practical taxonomic level using the most current literature available.
Chironomidae (midge) larvae were cleared in 10% potassium hydroxide and mounted in CMC-10 on glass slides prior to identification.
For all sample types, specimens were enumerated, coded, and recorded on a standard laboratory bench sheet for data processing.
2.2.2 Data Handling and Analysis The following data were used for spatial and temporal comparisons:
- 1) Density (no./m 2) -Density is the total number of individuals collected within a square meter. Extremely high or low density relative to other locations may be indicative of environmental stress.2) Relative Abundance
(%) -Relative abundance is the percent each taxon composes within a sample. Dominance by one taxon or relatively few taxa may suggest greater environmental stress.3) Dominant Taxa -Based on relative abundance, similarities in the top five dominant taxa among stations suggests balance within the benthic community.
Numerical dominance by one or a few taxa may suggest impairment.
2-4
- 4) Total Taxa Richness -Total number of different types of macroinvertebrates.
Generally, the higher the taxa richness, the better the quality of the benthic community.
- 5) EPT Taxa Richness -Collectively, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera are referred to as EPT. EPT richness is the number of taxa identified from these groups.Since EPT taxa are generally considered to be intolerant of environmental stress, a relatively higher number of EPT taxa typically represent a quality benthic community.
- 6) Tolerance Values -Developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA 1987) tolerance values are used to generally characterizethe environmental sensitivity of the benthic community.
The tolerance values were derived for individual macroinvertebrate taxa and reflect an increasing level of pollution tolerance from 0 (least tolerant) to I I (most tolerant).
A benthos community dominated by taxa with lower tolerance values is typically indicative of a healthy benthic community while a higher tolerance values suggest some degree of impairment.
Appendix B provides the Byron Station macroinvertebrate data.2.3 PHYSICOCHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS Water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, percent oxygen saturation, specific conductance, and water transparency using a Secchi disk were measured at each electrofishing location.
All measurements, except Secchi depth, were made at mid-depth in the water column.Instruments used to measure temperature were checked against a calibrated thermometer.
Instruments used to measure DO were calibrated before each measurement.
In addition, immediately before each sampling day, they were checked against the Winkler method as specified in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (current edition).The conductivity meter was also checked against a standard before each electrofishing sampling day. Percent oxygen saturation was determined from the relationship between dissolved oxygen in the water and water temperature.
2-5
- 3. RESULTS 3.1 FISH Fish were collected with boat electrofishing and standard seining at seven locations, six in the Rock River, and one site along Spring Creek. In 2011, samples were collected on 29 and 30 August.Twenty-eight species plus one hybrid (Lepomis) were collected from the study area in 2011.Diversity was highest in the carp/minnow, suckers, and sunfish families, which were represented by seven, seven, and five, respectively (Table 3-1).A total of 2,577 fish comprised of 28 species and one hybrid weighing 80.5 kg were collected by gears combined during the program. Spotfin shiner (40.2%), bullhead minnow (25.0%), sand shiner (8.3%), gizzard shad (4.9%), bluntnose minnow (4.2%), smallmouth bass (4.0%), freshwater drum (3.8%), bluegill (1.8%), channel catfish (1.8%), and emerald shiner (1.8%) were the ten most abundant species collected in 2011. These ten species comprised 95% of the total abundance.
Carp (15.8%), freshwater drum (13.8%), channel catfish (13.2%), silver redhorse (13.1%), quillback (11.6%), shorthead redhorse (6.4%), river carpsucker (6.2%), golden redhorse (5.3%), flathead catfish (2.8%), and bigmouth buffalo (2.7%), comprised 91% of the total biomass collected during the 2011 electrofishing and seining efforts (Table 3-2). No endangered or threatened species were collected (Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 2011).3.1.1 Electrofishing Twenty-seven species and one hybrid were collected by electrofishing as part of the 2011 monitoring study. Spottail shiner (18.9%) was the dominant species followed by gizzard shad (13.8%), bullhead minnow (13.2%), freshwater drum (12.6%), and smallmouth bass (10.5%).Other species that comprised two percent or greater of the catch by number were bluegill (4.2%), bluntnose minnow, (3.6%), green sunfish (3.6%), channel catfish (3.6%), sand shiner (3.1%), emerald shiner (2.6%),and largemouth bass (2.3%) (Table 3-2).Sport fish species collected during the 2011 electrofishing surveys included northern pike, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white bass, green sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, and freshwater drum. Individuals of these species comprised 37.7%of the total catch by number (Table 3-2). Freshwater drum (12.6%), smallmouth bass (10.5%), bluegill (4,2%), green sunfish (3.6%), channel catfish (3.6%), and largemouth bass (2.3%) were the most abundant sport fish species collected.
Northern pike, flathead catfish, white bass, largemouth bass, and walleye were occasionally encountered during the 2011 collections.
The highest number (234) of fish was collected upstream of Byron Station's discharge at Location R3R, where freshwater drum (54), spotfin shiner (48), bullhead minnow (36), gizzard shad (29), sand shine, and emerald shiner (both 12) were the most abundant species collected (Table 3-3). The lowest catches occurred at Location S5 and R2L, 64 and 67 fish, respectively.
Catches at Locations R2L, R3R, and R4R were similar (87-89 fish). Species composition among sampling zones ranged from 12 taxa (R2R) to 17 taxa (Location R3R, and R4L). Seven species, 3-1 gizzard shad, spotfin shiner, bullhead minnow, channel catfish, green sunfish, smallmouth bass, and freshwater drum were collected at each of the seven sampling locations (Table 3-2).Length frequency distributions were developed for channel catfish, green sunfish, bluegill, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass collected by electrofishing and seining (Table 3-4). Length frequency distributions were not developed for additional game fish species due to insufficient sample size.In 2011, nine (24.3%) of the 37 channel catfish collected were young-of-year (YOY) measuring<100 mm in total length, whereas twenty-eight (75.8%) were Age 2 or older L>210 mm). The majority of the 28 green sunfish collected in 2011 were likely Age 1, with low numbers of YOY and Age 2 also present. All of the bluegill collected from the Rock River in 2011 were relatively small fish. Twenty-two of the 47 fish collected measured less than 49 mm (YOY), and twenty-five were larger than 50 mm but less than 100 mm in total length (Age 1). The majority of the smallmouth bass collected in 2011 were YOY, with some Age I and a few Age 2 and older.Young-of-year fish (<70 mm) comprised 83.0% (85) of the smallmouth bass collected.
Age 1 fish (90-190 mm) comprised 13 (12.7%) of the 102 smallmouth bass collected.
Young-of-year and Age largemouth bass were present. The majority (66.7%) were YOY (Table 3-4).The 2011 mean electrofishing catch-per-effort (CPE) for fish collected at all locations combined was 224.0 fish/hr (Table 3-3). Mean electrofishing CPE for locations sampled upstream (R2L and R2R) from the Byron Station discharge canal was 154 fish/hr. Mean CPE at locations downstream (R3L, R3R, R4L, R4R, and SI) of the discharge averaged 251.6 fish/hr. Eighteen and 25 taxa were collected from the combined upstream and downstream zones, respectively.
CPE's from the left (plant side) shoreline were higher compared to those from the right shoreline locations, 316.7 fish/hr and 162.7 fish/hr, respectively.
This was mainly due to higher catches of spotfin shiner at left bank locations and bullhead minnow at Locations R2L and R3L and freshwater drum at Location R3L.Water quality measurements collected during the 2011 electrofishing survey are summarized by location in Table 3-5. Water temperature was highest (24.9°C) at Location R3L, which is located immediately downstream of the Byron Station discharge canal. Water temperatures at the upstream river locations R2L and R2R were 22.4 and 22.6°C, respectively and at the remaining river stations (R3R and R4) temperatures ranged from 22.7 to 23.1°C. The temperature at stream mouth location S5 was similar (23.0°C).
Mean water temperature (seven locations combined) in 2011 was 23.1°C. Dissolved oxygen values in 2011 ranged from 8.8 ppm at Locations R2L to 12.7 ppm at Location R2R. The dissolved oxygen reading at R3L was 9.1 ppm. DO concentrations were consistently above the General Use minimum standards (effective 28 January 2008) of 5 ppm at any time March through July and 3.5 ppm at any time August through February.
Conductivity by location in 2011 ranged from 753 IS/cm at Location R2R to 1143 [tS/cm at Location R3L. Based on conductivity, the electrofishing gear was adjusted to provide output at about 220 volts at five amps or greater. Transparency (Secchi disk)readings ranged from 35 to 55 cm. at locations R3L and R2L, respectively.
Water clarity was adequate for the field crew to observe and retrieve fish stunned by the electrofishing gear. All of the physicochemical measurements were within the range of values suitable to the native fish fauna of the Rock River.3-2
3.1.2 Seining
Fourteen species were included among the 1,794 fish collected in seine samples (Table 3-2).Spotfin shiner (49.6%), bullhead minnow (30.1%), sand shiner (10.5%), bluntnose minnow (4.5%), and smallmouth bass (1.1%) dominated seine catches. These five species comprised 95.8% of all the fish collected by seine. No other species individually comprised more than 1%of the numerical catch. Cyprinids comprised 95.4% of all fish collected by seine.Spotfin shiner, bluntnose minnow, bullhead minnow, and smallmouth bass were collected at each of the seven sampling locations, whereas, sand shiner was collected at six locations (Table 3-3). The greatest number of fish (965) was collected at location R3L, where spotfin shiner comprised 57.8%, and bullhead minnow 26.0% of all fish captured.
The fewest number of fish (24) was collected at Location R3R. Total number of taxa collected by location ranged from six at Locations R2L and R4L to 10 at Locations R2R and R3L.3.1.3 DELT Anomalies Only eleven (0.4%) of the 2577 fish collected (combined methods), exhibited one or more forms of DELT (deformations, erosions, lesions, and tumors) anomalies in 2011 (Table 3-6). Emerald shiner (three fish), channel catfish (two fish), smallmouth bass (three fish), and freshwater drum (two fish) had more than one individual afflicted with some form of DELT anomaly. A single specimen of flathead catfish was the only other species that exhibited a DELT anomaly in 2011.In addition, external parasites were noted on 27 fish collected during the current study. Fish with the greatest number of DELT anomalies were collected at R3R (four fish), followed by R2L and R4L (three fish each) and S5 (one fish). The presence of deformations, erosions, lesions, and tumors can indicate environmental stress when a large percentage of the population is afflicted.
Conversely, parasitic infestations (anchor worm, black spot, leeches, fish lice, etc.) are not generally indicative of poor water quality. The low incidence of DELT anomalies observed in the local fish community during the course of these studies does not suggest any obvious environmental stress. Fish collected from this portion of the Rock River during August 2011 were generally in good condition.
3.1.4 Relative
Weight Inherent in the development of standard weight (Ws) equations used to calculate relative weight (Wr) of fish is the objective of modeling the growth form of a species for individuals in better-than-average condition for management purposes.
A mean Wr value close to 100 for a broad range of size groups may reflect optimal health and utilization of food resources for a given population (Anderson and Gutreuter 1983). Mean Wr values considerably less than 100 may suggest low food availability and/or disruption of feeding relationships or the presence of various environmental stressors.
However, relative weights can also be influenced by several factors including sex, fish size, and spawning condition.
A total of 152 fish (13 species) that met the minimum length criteria of the Wr equations was collected (Table 3-7). Only three of the 13 species collected were represented by more than 10 specimens.
Relative weights by species, as well as by individuals within a species, were highly 3-3 variable.
Mean relative weights by species ranged from 86 for northern pike to 123 for largemouth bass. Two of the 11 species collected had mean Wr values of less than 90. All of the species collected in 2002 had mean Wr scores of >85.9. Seven species exhibited mean Wr scores of greater than or equal to 100 (river carpsucker, shorthead redhorse, white bass, green sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, and freshwater drum), indicating that they were in excellent condition.
The range in Wr values indicates that these species, with the exception of a few individuals, were in average or better than average condition, which suggests no significant health, food availability, and/or feeding relationship problems exists for these species in this portion of the Rock River.No identifiable change in the fish community occurred in 2011 due to the operation of the Byron Station intake and discharge.
3.2 BENTHOS
During 2011, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at five locations on the Rock River near the Byron Station: R2L, R3L, R3R, R4L, and R4R (Figure 2-1). Due to development along the east bank of the Rock River near the pre-operational location R4L, the HD samples for that location were deployed in an area downstream of the development.
HD samples were retrieved from each of the five locations.
In addition, Ponar or kick net samples were collected successfully at all five locations.
Overall, the benthos collections yielded 57 total taxa (Table 3-8). Chironomidae was the most taxa rich group with 20 taxa followed by Ephemeroptera with I 1 taxa and Trichoptera with eight taxa.3.2.1 Hester-Dendy The five HD samples yielded a combined 34 total taxa (Table 3-9). Ephemeroptera and Chironomidae were the most taxa rich groups with eight taxa while Trichoptera contributed seven taxa to the total HD richness.
Total taxa richness was highest among Locations R3L, R3R, and R4R (21-22 taxa) and slightly lower at Locations R2L and R4L with 17 tol8 taxa (Table 3-9). As with total taxa, EPT richness was highest among Locations R3L, R3R, and R4R (10-12 taxa) and slightly lower at Locations R2L and R4L with eight taxa (Table 3-9).Total density (no./m 2) was similar and substantially higher at Locations R3R, R4L, and R4R compared to Locations R2L and R3L (Table 3-9). The higher densities observed among Locations R3R, R4L, and R4R were due to high numbers of Glyptotendipes, which composed 50 percent or more of the total density at each of the five locations (Table 3-9). Overall, dominant taxa among the five locations exhibited some similarities but no longitudinal trends.HD Dominant Taxa in Order of Percent Abundance R2L R3L R3R R4L R4R Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes Gl)ptotendipes Thienemanninyia grp.Parachironoinus M. terminatum Turbellaria P. flavuin Turbellaria Turbellaria 3-4 Stenacron D. simpsoni Tricorythodes Rheotanvtarsus Rheotanvtarsus Thienemnannimyia grp.Tricorythodes P. flavuin Stenacron Thienemannimrnia grp. Stenacron Rheotanytarsus Caenis Turbellaria Tricorythodes M. exiguum Based on the environmental tolerance values developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA 1987), the only tolerant taxon among the dominants was Glyptotendipes.
In contrast, the remaining dominant taxa are considered facultative.
The Chironomidae taxon Glvptotendipes was dominant at all five locations.
In addition, Turbellaria was among the dominant taxa at four of the five locations while Stenacron, Tricoryihodes, and Thienemannimyia grp. were common at three of the five locations.
3.2.2 Ponar
and Kick Net Samples Due to the abundance of coarse substrate, kick net samples were substituted for Ponar samples at Location R3R while Ponar grab samples were collected at Locations 2L, R3L, R4L, and R4R.Combined, the Ponar grab and kick net samples from the five locations yielded 41 total taxa and 10 EPT taxa (Table 3-10). Chironomidae was the most taxa rich group with 18 taxa while eight Ephemeroptera taxa were also observed.
Total taxa richness was highest among Locations R2L, R3R, and R4R (21-28 taxa) and noticeably lower at Locations R3L and R4L with 10 to13 taxa (Table 3-10). As with total taxa, EPT richness was highest among Locations R2L, R3R, and R4R (five to seven taxa) and lower at Locations R3L and R4L with zero and one EPT taxon, respectively (Table 3-10).Total density (no./m 2) was similar and noticeably higher at Locations R2L, R4L, and R4R compared to Locations R3L and R3R (Table 3-10). The higher densities observed at Location R2L was largely due to a high number of Tubificidae.
In addition to Tubificidae, density was also affected by a high number of Polypedilum halterale grp. at Location R4L and Glyptotendipes at R4R. Tubificidae was among the dominant taxa at all five locations while Glyptotendipes was among the dominants at four of the five locations, and Corixidae, Cryptochironomus, and Polypedilum halterale grp. were common among three of the five locations.
Ponar and Kick Net Dominant Taxa in Order of Percent Abundance R2L Ponar R3L Ponar R3R Kick Net R4L Ponar R4R Ponar Tubificidae Tubificidae Corixidae Tubificidae Tubificidae Cryptochironomnus Cryptochironomus Tubificidae P. halterale grp. Glyptotendipes Corixidae P. halterale grp. Glyptotendipes Chironomus Cryptochironomus Glyptotendipes Procladius Caenis Glyptotendipes P. halterale grp.Procladius Chironomus Dubiraphia Corixidae Dubiraphia Based on IEPA environmental tolerance values (IEPA 1987), relatively tolerant taxa such as Tubificidae, Procladius, Chironomus, Cryptochironomus, and Glyptotendipes composed the majority of the benthos at all locations.
Intolerant facultative taxa were generally less abundant among the locations.
3-5 Overall, the spatial differences in terms of total and EPT richness differed primarily by substrate composition.
The single kick net sample was collected from Location R3R, which was dominated by coarse substrate (i.e., cobble, and gravel), whereas Ponar grabs were collected in areas dominated by fine substrate (silt and sand).Kick Net and Ponar Percent Substrate Composition Substrate R2L R3L R3R R4L R4R Cobble 40 Gravel 20 5 40 5 40 Coarse Sand 5 15 20 10 20 Fine Sand 5 5 10 15 Silt 50 70 60 20 Detritus 20 5 15 5 The lowest total and EPT taxa richness were observed at Locations R3L and R4L (Table 3-10).As indicated by the substrate composition at each location, the higher total and EPT taxa richness at Locations R2L, R3L, and R4R generally corresponded with the higher percentage of coarse substrate such as cobble and gravel. Locations R3L and R4L were dominated by silt with relatively little gravel and no cobble. In the absence of water quality impacts, benthic community quality generally increases with habitat and substrate complexity.
Coarse substrate increases complexity related to surface area, cover, and flow. Intolerant EPT taxa generally prefer areas with good exchange associated with flow as well as coarse and clean substrate while tolerant taxa will often dominate relatively poor habitat with primarily depositional sediment.
As such, it appears the spatial differences observed among the Ponar and kick net samples are attributable to changes in habitat quality.3-6
- 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 FISH Baseline ecology studies were conducted in the Rock River near the Byron site in 1972-1974 (Commonwealth Edison 1973, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1974). Construction of Byron Station began in 1975. A five year construction/pre-operational biological monitoring of the Rock River in areas upstream and downstream of the river intake screenhouse and discharge location also began in 1975 and ended in 1979. Another five-year program to monitor fish and the occurrence of Aeromonas hydrophila (a pathogenic bacteria) during the August time period was conducted from 1983-1987.
During this time period commercial operation of Byron Unit 1 began on 16 September 1985 followed by Unit 2 on 2 August 1987. Based on the date of commercial operation, pre-operational studies were conducted from 1975-1979 and 1983-1985.
Operational fish and Aeromonas studies were conducted in 1986-1987.
Operational fish surveys were conducted in August from 1988-2002.
The most recent fish study was conducted in August 2011 and the results are presented in Section 3.1 of this report. Fish were examined for external anomalies, species composition, and relative abundance were determined, and catch-per-unit-effort (CPE) and relative weights were calculated.
4.1.1 Operational
Studies Including the 2011 fish survey, 15 annual operational fish surveys have been conducted at the Byron Station. All surveys were conducted during August with similar electrofishing and seining gear. The 14 consecutive surveys (1988-2002) sampled the same locations, as did the 2011 survey, with the exception that only one creek mouth was sampled in 2011.The number of fish species collected from 1986 through 2002 ranged from 34 in 1991and 2002 to 43 in 2001 (Table 3-1, Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers 2001 and 2003). Twenty-eight species were collected in 2011. Differences in species composition between years were typically associated with incidental catches of less common or occasional species. Exceptions to this were the increased abundance of walleye beginning in the mid-1980's due to a fingerling stocking program, the occurrence of sauger beginning in 1992 as a result of introductions to the Rock River drainage in Wisconsin, the occurrence of gizzard shad beginning in 1990 (presumably due to escapement from privately owned impoundments in the drainage), and the recent occurrence of goldfish in some years also beginning in 1990.Electrofishing catch-per-effort (CPE) varied during the 14 consecutive annual surveys from 65.3 to 406.5 fish per hour (Table 3-3, LMS 2003). The lowest and highest CPE was obtained over a short time period: 1986 to 1989. High numbers of cyprinids (minnows) and YOY of several taxa, particularly catostomids (suckers) characterized the 1988 and 1989 catches. Electrofishing CPE from 1990 to 2002 was less variable ranging from 81.4 to 281.3 fish per hour. In 2011, the CPE for the combined locations was within this range; 224.0 fish per hour. Catches in 1991 and 1992 declined to 115.2 and 81.4 fish/hr, respectively, due to an unusually low contribution of cyprinids to the catch. Catch rates from 1993 to 1999 were similar to or slightly higher than those reported in 1990 (205.5 fish/hr).
The decline in CPE observed in 2000 was likely due to the relatively high river flows that occurred during the August sampling period. The increase in 4-1 CPE in 2001 was attributed to an increase in the numbers of cyprinids, gizzard shad, and freshwater drum collected.
Low cyprinid and very low gizzard shad numbers contributed to the lower CPE (157.0 fish/hour) in 2002, along with high winds which hampered sampling in shallow waters. Much of the annual variability in electrofishing CPE can be attributed to the collection of cyprinid species, and perhaps to a lesser extent, catostomids (LMS 2003).Modifications to the river channel at Locations R2R and R2L were made in the fall of 1993.These modifications included the construction of two wing dams within the boundaries of Location R2R and the placing of several Iowa Vanes in front of the Byron Station intake (downstream extent of Location R2L). These structures were designed to divert stream flow and to prevent sediment deposition at the intake. Both structures altered flow direction, current velocity, and substrate composition while providing additional cover at those sites, alterations that could influence the biotic community.
Consequently, special attention was given to those locations from 1994 to 2002 to determine if any notable changes in the fish assemblage had occurred.
Catch rates at these locations since 1996 have typically been higher than those of previous years; however, the increase in CPE during the last few years of the program was attributed primarily to gizzard shad, which dominated the catch at both locations.
Since 1990, gizzard shad abundance has increased substantially, particularly in the vicinity of Byron Station's intake and discharge.
With the exception of gizzard shad, there has been no notable consistent change in species richness at either of these two locations through 2002 (LMS 2003).A total of 1,352 fish was collected by seine from sampling locations near Byron Station in 2002 and 1,794 in 2011. These numbers are similar to the 1,537 and 1,644 fish that were collected at these locations in 2001 and 2000, respectively.
Since 1993, the total number of fish collected by seining has ranged from 766 fish in 1999 to 4,336 fish in 1996; however, species richness has been relatively consistent during all nine survey years. The number of species collected by seine from 1993-2001 ranged from 22 to 30. The 15 species collected in 2002 and the 14 species collected in 2011 were the lowest recorded in this 11 -year seining data set (1993-2002, 2011).Part of this difference could be attributed to rough water conditions due to high winds during sampling, especially in 2002.No species listed as endangered or threatened by Illinois were observed in during the operational fish surveys (IESPB 2011).Episodic occurrences of infections caused by Aeromonas had occurred in the Rock River prior to the construction and operation of Byron Station. The IDNR was concerned that the thermal discharge from Bryon Station could increase infections.
Increases in bacterial infections caused by Aeromonas were not observed.4.1.2 Pre-Operational Studies The baseline ecology studies 1972-1973 (EAI 1973) and 1973-1974 (EAI 1974-75) were conducted by Environmental Analysts Inc (EAI). Seasonal fish sampling was conducted by seining and electrofishing.
In 1974, hoop netting was added to the gear utilized to sample fish.Each river station was electrofished for 15 minutes on each side of the river. The electroshocking surveys utilized a 230-V, 2,000 W, 3-phase AC generator.
Seine samples were 4-2 collected with either a 10-ft or a 50-ft beach seine with 1/4-inch mesh. The seine catch was expressed in numbers of fish caught per square foot of net coverage.
Condition factors for 10 individuals of each of the five most important species were calculated to provide indices of physical condition.
All fish collected were examined for external parasites.
A total of 1,102 fish was collected by electrofishing, seining, and hoop nets from sampling locations near Byron Station during the 1973-1974 program. Thirty-one species, representing eight families of fish, were collected, compared with a total of 42 species collected during the 1972-1973 baseline study (Commonwealth Edison 1978). Carpsuckers (Carpiodes sp.) were the predominant species collected during the 1973-1974 program, accounting for 40.3% (river carpsucker 25.0% and quillback 15.3%) of the total number of fish collected.
Channel catfish, most of which were collected by hoop nets that were only used from 1974 through the early operational studies), accounted for 19.1% of the total catch, and common carp accounted for 13.0%. The greatest differences between the 1973-1974 and the 1972-1973 baseline studies were the greater numbers and higher relative abundance of channel catfish collected during the 1973-1974 program and the greater variety of minnows (Pimephales sp.), catfishes, and sunfishes (Lepomis sp.) collected during the 1972-1973 study. Commercial/rough fish accounted for 62.7% of the total number of fish collected during the 1973-1974 monitoring program (Commonwealth Edison 1978).Of the 31 species of fish collected during the 1973-1974 sampling program, 14 were game species. Although game fish accounted for over 30% of the total number of fish collected, 62%of the game fish (or 19% of the total number of all the species caught) were channel catfish. The composition of fish samples taken from river stations R-2, R-3, and R-4 did not differ substantially by station in terms of the number of species or fish. The percentage of forage fish in samples from river Stations R-1 through R-5 was only 7.6% during the 1973-1974 monitoring program, as compared with 47.8% forage fish reported in the 1972-1973 baseline study. The decrease in the relative abundance of forage fish was due in part to a decrease in seining effort at a variety of shallow areas and to the increase in the relative abundance of channel catfish in the 1974 river samples that resulted from the addition of hoop netting to the sampling program (Commonwealth Edison 1978).Seasonal changes in the distribution of fish within the study area may be indicated by the sampling results; however, daily fish movements due to weather and river flow conditions also influences sample size and composition.
Since all fish sampling was conducted in shoreline areas, the absence or decline in the number of a fish species may be attributable either to local movements from shallow to deep water or to movements to upstream or downstream areas of the river for purposes such as spawning or feeding. Carp and carpsuckers were generally present at the sampling stations throughout the 1973-1974 study. Game fish, other than channel catfish, were not collected in sufficient numbers to indicate seasonal changes in distribution.
Channel catfish appeared to inhabit deeper mid-channel areas of the river during the cooler months and to inhabit shoreline areas or the entire river during the warmer months (Commonwealth Edison 1978).Condition factors (K) were determined for individuals of 14 species of game fish collected from the river and creek stations from September 12, 1973 through November 1, 1974. As does the 4-3 relative weight (Wr) calculation used in the operational studies, differences in values can be caused by a variety of environmental factors and biological factors (e.g., food availability and standing crop). Changes in condition can indicate that a factor or combination of factors have altered the growth characteristics of an individual.
Condition factors were reported by season and by the total length range for each species; however, the low number of fish collected within each season and of the length range for most species made valid interpretations of condition factor data difficult.
Other than channel catfish, fish species were not collected in sufficient numbers to allow for a discussion of the condition of the fish. During the spawning season (March and April), more variability in condition factors would be expected within each length group because of probable groupings of gravid males, gravid females, and spent fish. In most length groups, channel catfish collected in March and April 1974 had the greatest range in K values for all months represented.
In the Rock River, mean K values for channel catfish were higher in October and November 1974 than in September and October 1973. Seasonal trends in mean K values were not indicated for channel catfish collected in this study. The mean of K factors for collections where 10 or more individuals were collected ranged from 0.70 to 0.90 (Commonwealth Edison 1978). The values are in the range reported in the literature (Carlander 1969).Information on external parasites on fish prior to plant operation was obtained from the construction/
pre-operational studies. Espey Huston &Associates, Inc annually conducted construction/pre-operational sampling near Byron Station from 1975-1979.
Fish sampling was conducted in May, August, and November, using a variety of collection techniques (electrofishing, seining, and hoop nets) at a number of locations including river locations R2, R3, and R4 and creek mouth location S5. Of the fish collected during the 1977 study, 2.7% (229)were infested.
The parasites included Neascus (black spot disease), unidentified leeches, and the parasitic copepod, Lernaea. Six species represented 71.6% of the infested specimens:
spotfin shiner (76), silver chub (25), emerald shiner (24), spottail shiner (15), bullhead minnow (14), and channel catfish (10) (Espey, Huston, and Associates 1978).4.1.3 Summary The fish community in the Rock River is comprised of forage, game/sport, and commercial/
rough fish as would be expected in a midwestern stream. Fish species richness was similar for the pre-operational sampling periods 1972-1974, 1975-1979, and 1983-1985 and the operational sampling period 1986-2002 and 2011. During the 1972-73 and 1973-74 baseline studies, 42 species, and 31 species were collected, respectively.
During the 1975-1979, and 1983-1985 pre-operational studies the number of species collected ranged from 25 to 38 and during the operational studies the range was 28 to 43 species (Table 3-1, LMS 2003). The number of species was slightly higher during the operational studies partly due to the planned or accidental introductions into the Rock River sauger, goldfish, and gizzard shad, which were not present during the early study years.The pre-operational and operational fish assemblages were similar. They included forage fish such as emerald shiner, spottail shiner, spotfin shiner, sand shiner, and bluntnose minnow, and gizzard shad; game species such as channel catfish, bluegill, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and walleye; and rough/commercial species such as common carp, river carpsucker, quillback, 4-4 and other sucker species (buffalo and redhorse).
There were differences in abundance for some species, some likely the result of the use of baited hoop nets in the pre-operational studies beginning in 1974. This gear is efficient for collecting catfish and sucker species like redhorse and buffalo. Gizzard shad, which has been collected since 1990, has become one of the dominant species. During the 1973-74 survey, a number of crappie and white crappie were collected, which was not the usual case during the other pre-operational or operational surveys as low numbers were collected most years (LMS 2003).The mean electrofishing CPEs for the operational studies were within the historical pre-operational ranges, although the operational annual rates were often higher. Mean electrofishing CPE for fish collected at all locations combined for the pre-operational sampling periods 1975-1979 and 1983-1985 periods was 75.48 fish/hr (Table 3-3, LMS 2003). The mean CPE value varied from 18.8 fish/hour in 1976 to 145.3 fish/hour in 1978. The mean electrofishing CPE for the operational sampling period 1986-2002 and 2011 was higher at 200.5 fish/hour (varied from 65.3 in1986 to 406.5 fish per hour in 1988).Fish with external DELT anomalies and external parasites in 2011 remained low, 1.4%, whereas in 1977, 2.7% had external parasites, of which black spot disease was the most prevalent.
Black spot disease was observed on five individuals in 2011. Low numbers of channel catfish and smallmouth bass had external parasites in both pre-operational and operational studies.No species on the Illinois list of endangered and threatened species have been recorded throughout the monitoring history for Byron Station.The NPDES permit for Byron Station was renewed in January 2011 by the IEPA. After agency review of the renewal application and other data available to agency staff, it was determined that Byron Station as operated was in compliance with environmental regulations, in particular thermal and intake issues. Special Condition 3 states, "Byron meets the allowed mixing criteria for thermal discharges pursuant to 35 IAC 302.102. No reasonable potential exists for the discharge to exceed thermal water quality standards".
Special Condition 20 states, "Exelon Generation Company's demonstration for the Byron Nuclear Power Station in accordance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act was approved by IEPA by a letter dated May 15, 1989. It is determined that no additional intake monitoring or modification is being required for reissuance of this NPDES Permit". Followed by Special Condition 21 that states "Exelon Generation Company's Byron Nuclear Power Station has been deemed to have met the applicable national performance standards and will not be required to demonstrate further that the Rock River Intake Structure meets the specified impingement mortality and entrainment performance standards pursuant to 40 CFR 125.94(a)(1)(1).
This determination was made because of the use and operation of the cooling towers".It is reasonable to expect that if the operation of Byron Station was adversely affecting fish populations, then it would be manifested in consistently lower catches and/or reduced species diversity during the operational studies conducted near Byron Station and that has not been observed.4-5
4.2 BENTHOS
4.2.1 Pre-Operational Studies As with the fisheries studies, benthic sampling was a component of the pre-operational aquatic monitoring program that was conducted by EAI from 1973 to 1974 (Commonwealth Edison 1978) and Espey, Huston, & Associates, Inc. from 1977 to 1978 (Espey, Huston, & Associates 1978). Although the pre-operational monitoring programs were more extensive, the sampling methods (i.e., Ponar dredge and HD artificial substrates) and locations were similar to the 2011 survey.In the 1973-1974 sampling year, HD samples were collected monthly compared to six Ponar sampling events between September 1973 and October 1974 (Commonwealth Edison 1978). For the year, 115 taxa were collected in the HD samples while 101 taxa were observed in the Ponar samples. Ponar taxa richness was highest among samples dominated by coarse gravel while samples dominated by silt yielded nearly 50 percent fewer taxa. Among the HD samples, Chironomidae and Ephemeroptera were the most taxa rich groups whereas Chironomidae, Coleoptera, Ephemeroptera, and non-Chironomidae Diptera were the most taxa rich groups among the Ponars. Combined, Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera, and Tubificidae dominated the 1973-1974 benthos collections in terms of abundance; however, Tubificidae was the dominant group in six of the 12 sampling months.In the 1977-1978 sampling year, HD samples were collected bi-monthly between April and September while Ponar sampling was conducted quarterly (Espey, Huston, & Associates 1978).Although taxa richness was characterized as being high at all locations, data were not available to quantify that assessment.
September HD mean total density ranged from 3,329 to 11,004 organisms/mi 2 whereas mean Ponar total density from August was much lower ranging from 397 to 1,512 organisms/m 2.In terms of abundance, Chironomidae dominated the HD collections throughout the year while Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera were the most abundant groups in September.
Tanytarsus and Glyptotendipes were the two most abundant taxa collected in the HD samples during 1977-1978.
In the Ponar samples, Tubificidae and Chironomidae dominated the collections overall while Tubificidae, Chironomidae, and Ephemeroptera were most abundant groups in August and November.
Tubificidae and Chironomus were the most abundant taxa collected in the Ponars throughout the year. Overall, no effects related to pre-operational activities were observed among the HD and Ponar samples results in the 1977-1978 sampling year.4.2.2 Summary Comparisons between the pre-operational and 2011 benthos surveys are challenging due largely to variations in sampling methods such as different types of modified HDs (four round plates 0.061 m 2 [rarely used now] versus five square plates 0.093 mi 2), number of sampling events, and differences in taxonomic resolution among studies. In addition, although the general locations are known, the exact locality of where the HDs were deployed and the benthic grabs were collected during pre-operational studies compared to 2011 is unknown. Although the 2011 samples were treated separately by bank, some of the pre-operational data combined these 4-6 results. Finally, the effects of inherent changes that have occurred in the Rock River and watershed over the past 30+ years are not completely understood.
Despite these differences and challenges, the pre-operational and 2011 results exhibited some similarities.
For the HD results, Chironomidae was the dominant group in terms of richness and abundance in both the pre-operational studies as well as the 2011 survey (Espey, Huston, & Associates 1978).In addition, Glyptotendipes was among the most dominant taxa identified from HD samples collected during the 1977-1978 pre-operational surveys and was also the most dominant taxon among each of the five HD locations in 2011.Among the Ponar results, Tubificidae and Chironomidae were among the two most abundant groups during both pre-operational studies (Commonwealth Edison 1978; Espey, Huston, &Associates 1978). Specifically, Tubificidae and Chironomus were the two dominant taxa in the 1977-1978 Ponars. In 2011, Tubificidae was the dominant taxon among four of the five locations and Chironomus was among the dominant taxa at two of the five locations.
In addition, sometrends were consistent among years. In both the 1973-1974 and the 2011 Ponars, samples with abundant coarse substrate (cobble and gravel) tended to exhibit the highest taxa richness while samples with fine substrate (silt) as the primary component had lower richness.Although some differences in the benthic community were evident between years, overall, the 2011 benthic community in the Rock River near the Byron Station was rather similar to the pre-operational benthic community observed.
Community structure remained generally consistent as evidenced by the dominant taxa among studies. In addition, trends observed 30+ years ago were evident in the 2011 collections.
In both surveys, longitudinal changes appeared to be due to differences in substrate quality rather than construction or operation of the Byron Station. Just as the 1977-1978 benthic surveys showed no effects related to pre-operational activities, the 2011 survey suggests that there are also no operational effects.4-7 0 5. REFERENCES Anderson, R.O. and S.J. Gutreuter.
1983. Length, Weight, and Associated Structural Indices.Pages 283-300. In Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson (Eds.). Fisheries Techniques.
Southern Printing Company, Inc., Blacksburg, VA.Anderson, R.O. and R.M. Neumann. 1996. Length, Weight, and Associated Structural Indices.Pages 447-482. In (Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis, Eds.) Fisheries Techniques, 2 nd Edition. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.Baumann, P.C., W.D. Smith, and W.K. Parland. 1987. Tumor frequencies and contaminant concentrations in brown bullhead from an industrialized river and a recreational lake.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116(1):79-86.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes in Wisconsin.
The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.Bister, T.J., D.W. Willis, M.L. Brown. 2000. Proposed standard weight (Ws) equations and standard length categories for 18 warmwater nongame and riverine fish species. N. Am.Jour. Fish. Mgt. 20:570-574.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Vol. 1. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Commonwealth Edison Company. 1973. Byron Station Environmental Report -Construction Permit Stage, Vol I & II, NRC Docket NOs.STN 50-454 and STN 50-455.Commonwealth Edison Company. 1978. Byron Station Environmental Report -Operating License Stage, Vol I & 1I, NRC Docket NOs.STN 50-454 and STN 50-455.Environmental Analysts, Inc. 1973. Baseline ecological studies and impact projections for the proposed Byron Station. For Sargent and Lundy Engineers.
Chicago Illinois..1974-5. Byron Station ecological monitoring program. Quarterly reports 1-6. For Sargent and Lundy Engineers.
Chicago Illinois.Espey, Huston, and Associates.
1978. Construction and pre-operational aquatic monitoring program, Byron Station, Third Annual Report. Volume One. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board (IESPB). 2011. Checklist of Endangered and Threatened Animals and Plants of Illinois.
Effective 11 February 2011. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, IL.http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/ESPB/Documents/ETChecklist2011 .pdf 5-1 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 1987. Field and Laboratory Methods Manual: Section C, Macroinvertebrate Monitoring.
55 pp.Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 2001. Byron Nuclear Station Fish Monitoring Program, 2000. Prepared for Exelon Corporation, Chicago, IL.2003. Byron Nuclear Station Fish Monitoring Program, 2002. Prepared for Exelon Corporation, Chicago, IL Murphy, B.R., D.W. Willis, and T.A. Springer.
1991. The relative weight index in fisheries management:
status and needs. Fisheries 16(2): 30-28.Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987 (Updated November 8, 2006). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Vol. II. Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assess., Surface Water Sect., Columbus, OH.Ohio Environmental Protection Agenc'y. 1989 (Updated November 8, 2006). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Vol. 1I1. Standardized field and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities.
Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assess., Surface Water Sect., Columbus, OH.Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri.
Missouri Department of Conservation.
Jefferson City, Missouri.Post, G. 1983. Textbook of fish health. TFH Publication, Inc. Neptune City. 256 pp.Smith, P. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois.
Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus.
782 pp.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1974. Final Environmental Statement related to the proposed Byron Station Units I and 2. Commonwealth Edison Company. Docket Nos.STN 50-454 and STN 50-454.Wege, G.J. and R.O. Anderson.
1978. Relative weight (Wr): A new index of condition for largemouth bass. Pages 79-91 in Novinger G.D. and J.G. Dillard, eds. New approaches to the management of small impoundments.
North Central Division, Am. Fish. Soc., Special Publication 5.5-2 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Sampling locations in the Rock River near Byron Station TABLES
- Table 2-1. Intercept (a) and Slope (b) Parameters for Standard Weight (Ws) Equations with Minimum Total Lengths (mm) Recommended for Application(a).
Minimum Length Species Longnose gar Gizzard shad Rainbow trout (lentic)Brook trout Chinook salmon Northern pike Common carp Golden shiner Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker White sucker Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish.Flathead catfish White perch White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Hybrid Morone Rock bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Warmouth Bluegill Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Black crappie White crappie Sauger Walleye Yellow perch Freshwater drum Intercept (a)Slope (b)-6.811-5.376-4.898-5.085-4.661-5.437-4.639-5.593-5.069-5.298-4.839-4.755-4.841-4.974-5.374-5.076-5.800-5.542-5.122-5.066-5.142-4.924-5.201-4.827-4.915-5.179-5.180-5.374-5.316-5.329-5.618-5.642-5.492-5.453-5.386-5.419 3.449 3.170 2.990 3.043 2.901 3.096 2.920 3.302 3.118 3.208 2.992 2.940 2.962 3.085 3.232 3.105 3.294 3.230 3.136 3.081 3.133 3.007 3.139 3.074 3.101 3.237 3.241 3.316 3.191 3.200 3.345 3.332 3.187 3.180 3.230 3.204 200 180 120 130 200 100 200 50 150 200 130 100 100 130 60 130 70 130 80 115 70 150 115 80 60 50 80 80 150 150 100 100 70 150 100 100 Reference or developer Bister et al. (2000)Anderson and Gutreuter (1983)Simpkins and Hubert (unpublished)
Whelan and Taylor (1984)Halseth et al. (1990)Willis (unpublished)
Bister et al. (2000)Liao et al. (1995)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Brown et al. (1995)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Brown and Murphy (1991)Bister et al. (2000)Brown and Murphy (1991)Brown and Murphy (1991)Bister et al. (2000)Bister et al. (2000)Liao et al. (1995)Bister et al. (2000)Hillman (1982)Wege and Angerson (1978)Kolander et al. (1993)Neumann and Murphy (1991)Neumann and Murphy (1991)C.S. Guy (unpublished)
Murphy et al. (1990)Willis et al. (1991)Blackwell et al. (1995)(a) Sources: Bister et al. 2000, Anderson and Neumann 1996, and Murphy et al. 1991.
TABLE 3-1. LIST OF COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISH TAXA COLLECTED NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.COMMON FAMILY NAME HERRINGS CARPS AND MINNOWS SUCKERS NORTH AMERICAN CATFISHES PIKES NEW WORLD SILVERSIDES TEMPERATE BASSES SUNFISHES PERCHES DRUMS AND CROAKERS COMMON NAME GIZZARD SHAD SPOTFIN SHINER COMMON CARP COMMON SHINER EMERALD SHINER SAND SHINER Notropis sp.BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW RIVER CARPSUCKER QUILLBACK ICTIOBINAE sp.BIGHOUTH BUFFALO SILVER REDHORSE BLACK REDHORSE GOLDEN REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE CHANNEL CATFISH FLATHEAD CATFISH NORTHERN PIKE BROOK SILVERSIDE WHITE BASS GREEN SUNFISH ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH BLUEGILL Lepomis sp.Lepomis HYBRID SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER WALLEYE FRESHWATER DRUM SCIENTIFIC NAME Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinella spiloptera Cyprinus carpio Luxilus cornutus Notropis atherinoides Notropis stramineus Notropis sp.Pimephales notatus Pimephales vigilax Carpiodes carpio Carpiodes cyprinus Carpiodes sp. &/or Ictiobus sp.Ictiobus cyprinellus Moxostoma anisurum Moxostoma duquesnei Moxostoma erythrurum Moxostoma macrolepidotum Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Esox lucius Labidesthes sicculus Morone chrysops Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis humilis Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis sp.Lepomis HYBRID Micropterus dolomieu Micropterus salmoides Etheostoma nigrum Sander vitreus Aplodinotus grunniens Table 3-2. Summary of Fish Collected by Electrofishing and Seining in the Rock River near Byron Station, August 2011.Electrofishing Seining Gears Combined Minimum Maximum Species No. % Kg % No. % Kg % No. % Kg % Length (mm) Length (mm)GIZZARD SHAD NORTHERN PIKE COMMON CARP EMERALD SHINER COMMON SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER Notropis sp.BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW RIVER CARPSUCKER QUILLBACK BIGMOUTH BUFFALO SILVER REDHORSE BLACK REDHORSE GOLDEN REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE ICTIOBINAE sp.CHANNEL CATFISH FLATHEAD CATFISH BROOK SILVERSIDE WHITE BASS GREEN SUNFISH ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH BLUEGILL Lepomis HYBRID Lepomis sp.SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER WALLEYE FRESHWATER DRUM 108 13.8 0.862 1.1 1 0.1 2.050 2.6 10 1.3 12.737 16.0 20 2.6 0.032 0.0 1 0.1 0.001 0.0 148 18.9 0.083 0.1 24 3.1 0.007 0.0 1 0.1 0.001 0.0 28 3.6 0.029 0.0 103 13.2 0.077 0.1 5 0.6 4.980 6.3 12 1.5 9.377 11.8 1 0.1 2.150 2.7 12 1.5 10.545 13.2 1 0.1 0.420 0.5 4 0.5 4.252 5.3 6 0.8 5.170 6.5 28 3.6 10.588 13.3 2 0.3 2.220 2.8 2 0.3 0.002 0.0 3 0.4 0.311 0.4 28 3.6 0.516 0.6 33 4.2 0.123 0.2 1 0.1 0.022 0.0 82 10.5 1.653 2.1 18 2.3 0.269 0.3 1 0.1 0.002 0.0 1 0.1 0.024 0.0 99 12.6 11.095 13.9 17 1 17 889 189 1 81 540 7 9 2 14 2 20 3 2 0.9 0.079 8.6 125---I 0.1 0.002 0.2 11 0.9 0.003 0.3 37 49.6 0.299 32.7 1,037 10.5 0.051 5.6 213 0.1 0.001 0.1 2 4.5 0.038 4.2 109 30.1 0.213 23.3 643-- -- -5.. ..- 12---1---12---1.... 4 0.4 0.008 0.9 7 0.5 0.010 1.1 37---2.... 2---3... .28 0.1 0.002 0.2 2 0.8 0.019 2.1 47 0.1 0.002 0.2 2 1.1 0.116 12.7 102 0.2 0.067 7.3 21 0.1 0.005 0.5 3... .- 1... .99 4.9 0.941 0.0 2.050 0.4 12.739 1.4 0.035 0.0 0.001 40.2 0.382 8.3 0.058 0.1 0.002 4.2 0.067 25.0 0.290 0.2 4.980 0.5 9.377 0.0 2.150 0.5 10.545 0.0 0.420 0.2 4.252 0.2 5.170 0.3 0.008 1.4 10.598 0.1 2.220 0.1 0.002 0.1 0.311 1.1 0.516 0.1 0.002 1.8 0.142 0.0 0.022 0.1 0.002 4.0 1.769 0.8 0.336 0.1 0.007 0.0 0.024 3.8 11.095 100.0 80.513 1.2 2.5 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 6.2 11.6 2.7 13.1 0.5 5.3 6.4 0.0 13.2 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 13.8 100.0 43 704 43 374 96 504 228 336 139 293 39 42 403 110 46 29 25 14 49 63 148 98 165 704 576 498 452 504 543 336 543 463 52 543 512 224 121 37 89 19 395 173 148 406 TOTAL FISH 783 100.0 79.598 100.0 TOTAL SPECIES 27 Note: 0.0 denotes values less than 0.05.1,794 100.0 0.915 100.0 2,577 14 28 TABLE 3-3. FISH CAPTURED AT EACH ELECTROFISHING AND SEINING LOCATION IN THE ROCK RIVER NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.ELECTROFISHING LOCATIONS COMBINED R2L R2R R3L R3R R4L R4R S5 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD NORTHERN PIKE COMON CARP EMERALD SHINER COMON SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER Notropis sp.BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW RIVER CARPSUCKER QUILLBACK BIGQOUTH BUFFALO SILVER REDHORSE BLACK REDHORSE GOLDEN REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE CHANNEL CATFISH FLATHEAD CATFISH BROOK SILVERSIDE WHITE BASS GREEN SUNFISH BLUEGILL Lepomis HYBRID SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER WALLEYE FRESHWATER DRUM TOTAL FISH TOTAL SPECIES CPE (FISH/HOUR)
No. __No. -_No. -_No. -_No. -_No. -_No. No. %_8 26 29 13 18 9 5 108 13.79.. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 0.13-- 2 4 2 -- 2 -- 10 1.28 4 -- 12 1 2 -- 1 20 2.55 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 0.13 37 1 48 3 42 11 6 148 18.90 3 -- 12 -- 9 .. .. 24 3.07.. .. .. .. -1 .. .. 1 0.13 8 -- 3 1 12 4 -- 28 3.58 16 2 36 5 15 17 12 103 13.15.. .. 1 3 -- 1 -- 5 0.64.. .. 2 1 3 -- 6 12 1.53.. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 0 .13 1 1 -- 1 2 2 5 12 1.53.. .. .. 1 -.. ... 1 0.13.. .. .. .. .. .. 4 4 0 .51-- 1 -- 3 1 1 -- 6 0.77 2 5 2 11 4 3 1 28 3.58-- 1 .. .. 1 .. .. 2 0.26 1 .. .. .. .- 1 -- 2 0.26.. .. 2 .. .. 1 -- 3 0.38 1 5 3 13 3 1 2 28 3.58-- 1 11 6 13 2 -- 33 4.21.. .. .. .. -1 .. .. 1 0 .13 2 18 7 21 10 17 7 82 10.47.. .. 8 1 6 1 2 18 2.30 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 0 .13.. .. .. .. 1 .. .. 1 0 .13 2 4 54 3 10 15 11 99 12.64 87 67 234 89 154 88 64 783 100.00 14 12 16 17 17 16 14 27 174 134 468 178 308 176 128 224 SEINING SPECIES R2L R2R R3L R3R R4L R4R S5 LOCATIONS COMBINED GIZZARD SHADCARP EMERALD SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER Notropis sp.BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW ICTIOBINAE sp.CHANNEL CATFISH ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH BLUEGILL Lepomis sp.SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER No.- -No.- -No.- -No.- -No.- -No.- -No. No. %_-- 3 1 2 -- 1 10 17 0.95-- 1 .. .. .. .. .. 1 0.06-- 1 16 .. .. .. .- 17 0.95 62 139 557 7 94 5 25 889 49.55-- 33 98 2 25 6 25 189 10.54.. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 0 .06 7 10 27 3 7 13 14 81 4.52 22 60 251 4 57 52 94 540 30.10.. .. 2 -- 2 -- 3 7 0.39.. .. 9 .. .. .. .. 9 0 .50.. .. 1 1 -. .. .. 2 0.11 2 .. .. 4 -- 1 7 14 0.78.. .. .. .. .. .. 2 2 0 .11 1 1 3 1 4 6 4 20 1.11-- 1 .. .. .. .. 2 3 0.17 1 1 .. .. .. .. .. 2 0.11 95 250 965 24 189 84 187 1,794 100.00 6 10 10 8 6 7 9 14 TOTAL FISH TOTAL SPECIES TABLE 3-4. LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHANNEL CATFISH, GREEN SUNFISH, BLUEGILL, SMALLMOUTH BASS, AND LARGEMOUTH BASS COLLECTED FROM THE ROCK RIVER NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.LENGTH (nun) CHANNEL CATFISH GREEN SUNFISH BLUEGILL SNALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS 20-29 .... 2 ....30-39 -- -- 9 ....40-49 5 3 11 1 --50-59 4 -- 19 27 --60-69 -- -- 4 33 1 70-79 -- 5 -- 24 2 80-89 -- 5 2 6 5 90-99 -- 5 -- 4 6 100-109 -- 7 -- 1 4 110-119 -- 2 ..-- 1 120-129 -- 1 -- 1 1 130-139 ..-- -- --140-149 ..-- -- --150-159 ...--. 1 --160-169 ..-- -- --170-179 ...-- -- 1 180-189 ..-- -- --190-199 .....-- --200-209 ..-- -- --210-219 1 .... 2 --220-229 --.... 1 --230-239 .....-- --240-249 .......--.
250-259 .......--.
260-269 .......--.
270-279 .......--.
280-289 1 .....--.290-299 --........
300-309 1 ........310-319 2 ........320-329 1 ........330-339 6 ........340-349 3 ........350-359 5 ........360-369 1 ........370-379 2 ........380-389 2 ........390-399 --.... 1 --400-409 --........
410-419 2 ........420-429 --........
430-439 ..........
440-449 ..........
450-459 ..........
460-469 ..........
470-479 ..........
480-489 ..........
490-499 ..........
500-509 ..........
510-519 ..........
520-529 ..........
530-539 --........
540-549 1 ........TOTAL 37 28 47 102 21 TABLE 3-5. SUM4MARY OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA COLLECTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ELECTROFISHING IN THE ROCK RIVER NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.LOCATION R2L R2R R3L R3R R4L R4R S5 TEMPERATURE (C)22.4 22.6 24.9 22.7 22.9 23.1 23.0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm)8.8 12.7 9.1 10.6 10.1 11.7 11.6 DISSOLVED OXYGEN SPECIFIC Percent Saturation CONDUCTANCE (IiS/cm) SECCHI (cm)102 787 55 148 758 49 108 1143 51 130 760 35 118 849 50 136 753 40 140 853 47 TABLE 3-6.
SUMMARY
OF DELT (Deformity, Erosion, Lesion, and Tumor) ANOMALIES ON FISH CAPTURED BY ELECTROFISHING AND SEINING IN THE ROCK RIVER NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.LOCATION LOCATIONS COMBINED R2L R2R R3L R3R R4L R4R S5 DELT DELT DELT DELT DELT DELT DELT DELT EXAM DELT__f __f __i if if #_f __f #_i if _SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD NORTHERN PIKE COMMON CARP EMERALD SHINER COMMON SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER Notropis sp.BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW RIVER CARPSUCKER QUILLBACK BIGMOUTH BUFFALO SILVER REDHORSE BLACK REDHORSE GOLDEN REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE ICTIOBINAE sp.CHANNEL CATFISH FLATHEAD CATFISH BROOK SILVERSIDE WHITE BASS GREEN SUNFISH ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH BLUEGILL Lepomis HYBRID Lepomis sp.SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER WALLEYE FRESHWATER DRUM-- 2 --.. .. .. .. ..- -- 125 --1 .. .. .. 3 11 27.3.. .. .. ..-- 37 --.. .. .. .. ..- -- 1037 --.. .. .. .. ..- -- 213 --.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. ..- -- 109 --.. .. .. .. ..- -- 643 --.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. ..- -- 12 --.. .. .. .. ..- -- 12 --.. .-. .. .. ..- 1 --.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -2 --. .. .- 2 37 5.4-- 1 -.. .. 1 2 50.0.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. -1 1 --. -. 3 102 2.9.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. --- 1 -- 1 2 99 2.0 4 3 -- 1 11 2577 0.4 3.5 0.9 0.0 0.4 TOTAL FISH -- 3 --PERCENT DELT ANOMALIES 0.0 0.9 0.0 TABLE 3-7. MEAN RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED FROM THE ROCK RIVER NEAR BYRON STATION, AUGUST 2011.SPECIES N (Wr) MINIMUM MAXIMUM NORTHERN PIKE 1 86 -- --COMMON CARP 7 89 79 97 RIVER CARPSUCKER 5 101 78 121 BIGMOUTH BUFFALO 1 94 -- --SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 6 103 94 113 CHANNEL CATFISH 28 91 73 115 FLATHEAD CATFISH 2 93 91 95 WHITE BASS 2 108 107 110 GREEN SUNFISH 25 117 101 132 BLUEGILL 2 119 106 133 SMALLMOUTH BASS 5 93 84 100 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1 123 -- --FRESHWATER DRUM 67 121 94 148 SPECIES COMBINED 152 110 73 148 Table 3-8. Benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected from the Rock River in the vicinity of Byron Station, August 2011.TURBELLARIA (flatworms)
ANNELIDA Oligochaeta (aquatic worms)Tubificidae Hirudinea (leeches)Helobdella stagnalis CRUSTACEA Amphipoda (sideswimmers)
Gammarus INSECTA Ephemeroptera (mayflies)
Isonychia Baetis intercalaris Maccaffertium exiguum Maccaffertium integrum Maccaffertium terminatum Stenacron Tricorythodes Brachycercus Caenis Hexagenia limbata Anthopotamus myops Odonata (damselflies and dragonflies)
Argia Stylurus Plecoptera (stoneflies)
Pteronarcys Hemiptera (true bugs)Corixidae Trichoptera (caddisflies)
Brachycentrus Cheumatopsyche Potamyia flava Hydroptila Nectopsyche Oecetis Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropus Coleoptera (beetles)Dineutus Ancyronyx variegata Coleoptera (cont.)Dubiraphia Macronychus glabratus Stenelmis Diptera (true flies)Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae (midges)Procladius Ablabesmyia mallochi Thienemannimyia grp.Nanocladius crassicornus/rectinervis Chironomus Cryptochironomus Dicrotendipes simpsoni Glyptotendipes Harnischia Microchironomus Parachironomus Phaenopsectra obediens grp.Polypedilum aviceps Polypedilum flavum Polypedilum halterale grp.Polypedilum illinoense Polypedilum scalaenum grp.Stenochironomus Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi grp.Rheotanytarsus MOLLUSCA Gastropoda (snails)Pleurocera Bivalvia (mussels & clams)Pisidium Leptodea fragilis Quadrula pustulosa w Table 3-9. Density (#/m2 ) and relative abundance
(%) for benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected in Hester-Dendy samples from the Rock River near Byron Station -August 2011.R2L R3L R3R R4L R4R TAXA #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2%Turbellaria Tubificidae Gammarus Isonychia Baetis intercalaris Stenacron Maccaffertium integrum Maccaffertium terminatum Maccaffertium exiguum Tricorythodes Caenis Argia Stylurus Pteronarcys Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropus Cheumnatopsyche Potamyia flava Brachycentrus Nectopsyche Oecetis Dineutus Ancyronyx variegata Dubiraphia Macronychus glabratus Stenelmis Thienemannimyia grp.Nanocladius crassicornus/rectinervis Dicrotendipes simpsoni Glyptotendipes Parachironomus Polypedilum flavum Polypedilum halterale grp.Rheotanytarsus TOTAL BENTHOS (no./m 2)TOTAL TAXA RICHNESS EPTTAXA RICHNESS a Taxon absent.682.1 6.44 a 34.1 0.32 1967.4 18.54 17.1 0.16 70.3 0.25 25.6 0.09 2.1 0.01 1076.4 3.57 2131.5 7.06 835.6 7.89 110.8 1.04 34.1 0.32 57.6 0.54 1091.3 10.31 294.2 2.77 38.4 0.36 2.1 0.02 790.8 7.47 283.5 2.67-- -- 343.2 3.23 106.6 1.01 144.9 1.37-- -- 4.3 0.04.. .. 2.1 0.02.. .. 70.3 0.66 83 27 32 4 85 6.3 U.UL --.1 0.30 110.8.7 0.10 223.8.0 0.12 91.7.3 0.02 --.3 0.31 407.1.4 0.02 136.4-- -- 74.6-- 2.1 0.01 0.37 920.8 3.05 0.74 49.0 0.16 0.30 29.8 0.10-- 292.0 0.97 1.35 168.4 0.56 0.45 2.1 0.01 0.25 42.6 0.14 2.1 0.02 74.6 0.70 38.4 0.36 29.8 0.28 53.3 0.50 55.4 0.20 2.1 0.01 21.3 0.08 2.1 0.01.. .... .. 2.1 0.01.. .... .. 2.1 0.01-- -- 34.1 0.32 -- --4.3 0.04 36.2 0.34 51.2 0.18 34.1 0.32 -- -- 17.1 0.06 68.2 0.64 409.3 3.86 272.8 0.98 181.2 0.60 14.9 0.05-- -- 2.1 0.01 6.4 0.02 6.4 0.02 27.7 0.09 51.2 0.17.. .. 272.8 0.90.. .. 2.1 0.01 14.9 0.05 14.9 0.05 2.1 0.01 17.1 0.06 545.7 1.81 272.8 0.90-- -- 272.8 0.90.. .. 272.8 2.57.. .. 477.5 4.50 5866.0 55.41 68.2 0.64 136.4 1.29 682.1 6.44 5388.5 50.77 26465.2 95.27 25919.5 85.88 24282.5 80.37-- -- 272.8 0.98 -- -- -- --409.3 3.86 272.8 0.98 272.8 0.90 .. ..-- -- -- -- 272.8 0.90 .. ..204.6 1.93 .. .. 818.5 2.71 1364.2 4.52 10587.3 100 10612.9 100 27778.2 100 30182.6 100 30212.4 100 18 22 22 17 21 8 10 11 8 12
- Table 3-10. Density (#/m 2) and relative abundance
(%) for benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected in Ponar and kick net samples from the Rock River near Byron Station -August 2011.R2L R3L R3R R4L R4R PONAR PONAR KICK PONAR PONAR TAXA #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2%Turbellaria Tubificidae Helobdella stagnalis Stenacron Maccaffertium terminatum Tricorythodes Brachycercus Caenis Anthopotamus myops Hexagenia limbata Argia Stylurus Corixidae Polycentropus Hydroptila Nectopsyche Dubiraphia Stenelmis Ceratopogonidae Procladius Ablabesmyia mallochi Thienemannimyia grp.Chironomus Cryptochironomus Glyptotendipes Harnischia Microchironomus Parachironomus Phaenopsectra obediens grp.Polypedilum aviceps Polypedilum flavum Polypedilum halterale grp.Polypedilum illinoense Polypedilum scalaenum grp.Stenochironomus Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi grp.12.8 0.28 3195.6 69.58 6.4 0.14 6.4 0.14 6.4 0.14 6.4 0.14 31.9 0.69 401.8 8.75 a -- 19.1 0.96 -- -- --280.6 50.57 376.3 18.97 3240.2 54.04 1856.1 33.37-- -- 6.4 0.32 -- -- -- --.. .. 38.3 1.93 ...-- --.. .. 70.2 3.54 .. .. 19.1 0.34 6.4 1.15 6.4 0.32 .. .. 6.4 0.11-- -- 108.4 5.47 .. .. 6.4 0.11.. .. 19.1 0 .96 ...-- --.. .. 25.5 1.29 .. .. 19.1 0.34.. .. 12.8 0.64 ...-- --19.1 3.45 -- -- 25.5 0.43 -- --6.4 1.15 465.6 23.47 108.4 1.81 38.3 0.69-- -- 6.4 0.32 -- -- -- --6 12 102 12 12 12 421 114-- --..... .... .. 6.4 0.11.4 0 .14 .. .... .... .-- --.8 0.28 .. .. 102.1 5.14 82.9 1.38 159.5 2.87-- --.. .82.9 4.18 -- -- 6.4 0.11.-- -- -- -- 25.5 0.43 -- --.1 2.22 44.6 8.05 -- -- 25.5 0.43 51.0 0.92.8 0.28 -- -- 6.4 0.32 -- -- 102.1 1.83.8 0.28 -- -- 38.3 1.93 -- -- -- --.8 0.28 19.1 3.45 44.6 2.25 433.7 7.23 153.1 2.75.0 9.17 82.9 14.94 51.0 2.57 102.1 1.70 1020.5 18.35.8 2.50 12.8 2.30 242.4 12.22 153.1 2.55 1173.6 21.10-- -- -- -- -- -- 76.5 1.28 51.0 0.92.. .... .-- -- 25.5 0.43 -- --.. .... .. 25.5 1.29 -- -- 51.0 0.92 R 02R ..... -- --. ...12 25.5 0.56 63.8 1.39 25.5 0.56 89.3 1.94 12.8 0.28.. .. 19.1 0.96 ...-- --.. .. 44.6 2.25 .. .. 102.1 1.83 76.5 13.79 19.1 0.96 1683.9 28.09 561.3 10.09-- -- 38.3 1.93 -- -- -- --.. ..- 19.1 0.96 .. .... .... .. 6.4 0.32 Table 3-10 (cont)R2L R3L R3R R4L R4R PONAR PONAR KICK PONAR PONAR#/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2% #/m 2%TAXA Rheotanytarsus Pleurocera Pisidium Quadrula pustulosa Leptodea fragilis.. .. 82.9 4.18.. .. 6.4 0.32.. .. 153.1 2.75 6.4 1.15.. .... ..- 19.1 0.34...-- -- 6.4 0.11.. .. 12.8 0.21 -- --TOTAL BENTHOS (no./m 2)TOTAL TAXA RICHNESS EPT TAXA RICHNESS a Taxon absent.4592.4 100 554.9 100 1983.7 100 5995.7 100 5561.9 100 22 10 28 13 21 5 1 7 0 5 APPENDIX A BYRON STATION FISH DATA APPENDIX A -Byron Station Fish Data SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R2R SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 510 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:09:40 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:10:10 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD COOION CARP COMION CARP SPOTFIN SHINER BULLHEAD MINNOW SILVER REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH.CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH FLATHEAD CATFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH BLUEGILL SNALLNMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SNALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SNALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLDOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM Wr 97 87 112 91 81 88 80 81 95 132 118 114 115 129 86 106 104 119 106 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS (mm) (g) COUNT 165 53 100 12 92 9 76 5 119 19 97 10 83 7 74 5 90 9 76 5 100 13 71 4 71 4 97 11 76 5 91 8 96 9 96 10 99 10 106 13 111 15 69 4 75 5 68 3 73 5 79 6 491 1610 519 1690* 2 504 1180 462 1260 335 300 352 315 382 445 412 520 376 390 512 1540 121 46 79 11 72 8 82 12 83 14 50 3 395 820 52 2 56 2 55 2 52 2 63 3 75 5 76 6 93 10 55 2 77 7 80 8 84 8 77 7 65 4 56 3 66 4 69 5 403 900 314 395 335 560 110 14 BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 Slight Erosion Slight Erosion ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 Deformed Fin Rays Slight Erosion Regen. Scales 1 1 Parasite Parasite Parasite SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R2L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 543 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:10:45 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:11:15 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD.GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS Wr (ums) (g) COUNT 76 5 72 4 77 5 84 7 68 4 89 9 BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 A-1 APPENDIX A (cont.)GIZZARD SHAD.GIZZARD SHAD EMERALD SHINER EMERALD SHINER COM4MN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW SILVER REDHORSE CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH BROOK SILVERSIDE GREEN SUNFISH SMALIMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM 73 72 5 5 2 2 1 4 27 5 1 1 11 9 2 1 1 5 9* 1 3 18* 12 73 112 378 331 213 47 63 54 630 230 83 2 4 2 4 1 1 2 118 312 440 118 117 19 SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R3R SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 470 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:13:20 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:13:50 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD.GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD COMO4N CARP COMMON CARP EMERALD SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW RIVER CARPSUCKER RIVER CARPSUCKER RIVER CARPSUCKER QUILLBACK SILVER REDHORSE BLACK REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE SHORTHEAD REDHORSE CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH.GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH GREEN SUNFISH BLUEGILL LENGTH WEIGHT Wr (mm) (g)149 40 102 11 103 12 87 8 87 8 104 11 97 10 95 10 85 7 82 7 88 7 98 12 99 11 79 564 1960 90 493 1510 PLUS COUNT BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 Slight Erosion 1 5 2 Blackspot 2 4 1 ANOMALY 3 110 78 103 101 96 100 77 80 79 102 88 101 96 91 94 85 97 120 118 124 101 124 122 110 119 114 112 123 124 109 395 498 394 384 425 336 424 421 414 412 334 346 387 306 543 336 345 354 335 347 92 74 86 104 117 108 115 109 92 78 99 84 76 62 940 1330 870 790 890 420 880 820 810 500 260 290 540 215 1640 320 330 370 280 360 18 9 15 22 39 30 33 30 17 10 23 14 9 5 Regen. Scales Parasite Parasite Parasite Parasite Slight Erosion Parasite Parasite Parasite Eroded barbels Parasite Eroded barbels A-2 APPENDIX A (cont.)BLUEGILL 46 1.BLUEGILL 54 4 BLUEGILL 58 4 BLUEGILL 48 3 BLUEGILL 42 1 SMALLMOUTH BASS 99 212 129 Moderate Erosion Deformed Fin Rays SMALLMOUTH BASS 98 229 164 Parasite SMALLMOUTH BASS 76 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 64 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 103 16 SMALLMOUTH BASS 62 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 74 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 74 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 63 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 91 9 SMALLMOUTH BASS 69 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 80 8 SMALLMOUTH BASS 56 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 67 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 54 3 SMALIMOUTH BASS 56 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 58 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 66 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 65 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 54 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 64 4 LARGEMOUTH BASS 63 4 FRESHWATER DRUM 103 387 770 FRESHWATER DRUM 102 374 680 FRESHWATER DRUM 123 133 30 SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R3L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 505 SAMPLING DURATION (msn): 30 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:12:05 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:12:35 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH SPECIES Wr (uss) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 GIZZARD SHAD 69 4 GIZZARD SHAD 76 5 GIZZARD SHAD 71 4 GIZZARD SHAD 74 5 S GIZZARD SHAD 70 4 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 74 5 GIZZARD SHAD 75 5 GIZZARD SHAD 67 3 GIZZARD SHAD 75 5 GIZZARD SHAD 70 4 GIZZARD SHAD 72 5 GIZZARD SHAD 78 6 GIZZARD SHAD 74 5 GIZZARD SHAD 70 4 GIZZARD SHAD 65 3 GIZZARD SHAD 73 5 GIZZARD SHAD 73 4 GIZZARD SHAD 70 4 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 76 5 GIZZARD SHAD 66 4 GIZZARD SHAD 64 3 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 68 4 GIZZARD SHAD 71 4 GIZZARD SHAD 69 4 GIZZARD SHAD 78 5 COMMON CARP 91 503 1620 COMMON CARP 89 12 COMMON CARP 78 8 COMMON CARP 73 7 EMERALD SHINER 3 9 EMERALD SHINER 9 2 SPOTFIN SHINER 1 5 SPOTFIN SHINER 47 21 SAND SHINER 12 4 BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 3 1 BULLHEAD MINNOW 36 21 RIVER CARPSUCKER 93 374 670 Regen. Scales QUILLBACK 96 13 QUILLBACK_
96 14 CHANNEL CATFISH 80 372 370.CHANNEL CATFISH 115 354 455 WHITE BASS 110 224 165 WHITE BASS. 110 21 GREEN SUNFISH 125 106 29 A-3 APPENDIX A (cont.)GREEN SUNFISH 110 101 22.GREEN SUNFISH 46 2 BLUEGILL 106 89 13 BLUEGILL 58 4 BLUEGILL 57 4 BLUEGILL 51 3 BLUEGILL 63 5 BLUEGILL 58 4 BLUEGILL 57 4 BLUEGILL 60 5 BLUEGILL 54 3 BLUEGILL 55 4 BLUEGILL 35 1 SMAILMOUTH BASS 63 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 66 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 65 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 73 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 75 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 51 2 SMALLMOUTH BASS 58 3 LARGEMOUTH BASS 104 15 LARGEMOUTH BASS 87 8 LARGEMOUTH BASS 99 11 LARGEMOUTH BASS 87 9 LARGEMOUTH BASS 93 10 LARGEMOUTH BASS 92 8 LARGEMOUTH BASS 93 12 LARGEMOUTH BASS 85 9 FRESHWATER DRUM 125 214 140 FRESHWATER DRUM 122 216 140 FRESHWATER DRUM 19 480 FRESHWATER DRUM 137 120 24 FRESHWATER DRUM 137 130 31 FRESHWATER DRUM 98 10 FRESHWATER DRUM 132 ill 18 FRESHWATER DRUM 124 138 34 FRESHWATER DRUM 118 129 26 FRESHWATER DRUM 120 125 24 FRESHWATER DRUM ii 121 20 FRESHWATER DRUM 137 135 35 FRESHWATER DRUM 133 130 30.FRESHWATER DRUM 141 119 24 FRESHWATER DRUM 131 132 31 FRESHWATER DRUM 125 135 32 FRESHWATER DRUM 134 127 28 FRESHWATER DRUM 136 122 25 FRESHWATER DRUM 134 124 26 FRESHWATER DRUM 143 117 23 FRESHWATER DRUM 127 142 38 FRESHWATER DRUM 118 117 19 FRESHWATER DRUM 137 123 26 FRESHWATER DRUM 125 135 32 FRESHWATER DRUM 131 137 35 FRESHWATER DRUM 11 202 SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R4R SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 650 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 START DATETI4E:
30AUG11:14:20 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:14:50 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH SPECIES Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 G IZZA R D .... .......... ... .... .. .. SHAD- - --5-- ---.--. ---.--.---.
--. ------. --- ---.... .. ... ... ... .. ....... ... ...GIZZARD SHAD 74 5 GIZZARD SHAD 64 3 GIZZARD SHAD 98 12 GIZZARD SHAD 99 11 GIZZARD SHAD 98 11 GIZZARD SHAD 116 18 GIZZARD SHAD 93 9 GIZZARD SHAD 101 12 GIZZARD SHAD 93 9 COMM4ON CARP 93 576 2450CARP 85 541 1870 Deformed Fin Rays SPOTFIN SHINER 1 3 SPOTFIN SHINER 9 4 SPOTFIN SHINER -BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 4 BULLHEAD MINNOW 17 13 RIVER CARPSUCKER 121 412 1170 SILVER REDHORSE 228 145 SILVER REDHORSE 386 620 Regen. Scales SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 94 463 1070.CHANNEL CATFISH 106 283 200 CHANNEL CATFISH 93 324 275 CHANNEL CATFISH 94 314 250 BROOK SILVERSIDE A-4 APPENDIX A (cont.)WHITE BASS 107 207 125.GREEN SUNFISH 1il 105 25 BLUEGILL 60 4 BLUEGILL 42 1 SMALLMOUTH BASS 98 15 SMALLMOUTH BASS 85 9 SMALLMOUTH BASS 72 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 73 6 SMALLMOUTH BASS 76 6 SNALLMOUTH BASS 72 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 59 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 62 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 71 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 60 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 53 2 SMALLMOUTH BASS 49 2 SMALLMOUTH BASS 61 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 72 6 SMALII4OUTH BASS 54 3 SMALALMOUTH BASS 54 3 Parasite SMALLMOUTH BASS 60 3 LARGEMOUTH BASS 87 10 FRESHWATER DRUM 125 306 440 FRESHWATER DRUM 112 312 420 FRESHWATER DRUM 99 326 425 FRESHWATER DRUM 112 312 420 FRESHWATER DRUM 100 387 745 FRESHWATER DRUM 95 364 580 FRESHWATER DRUM 108 219 130 FRESHWATER DRUM 118 117 19 FRESHWATER DRUM 127 126 26 FRESHWATER DRUM 129 134 32 Parasite FRESHWATER DRUM 130 131 30 FRESHWATER DRUM 124 130 28 FRESHWATER DRUM 117 119 20 FRESHWATER DRUM 148 133 36 FRESHWATER DRUM 127 137 34 Parasite SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
R4L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 500 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:15:35 END DATETIME:
30AUG11:16:05 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH SPECIES Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 GIZZARD SHAD 87 8 GIZZARD SHAD 86 7 GIZZARD SHAD 96 10 GIZZARD SHAD 82 6 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 99 12 GIZZARD SHAD 73 5 GIZZARD SHAD 93 9 GIZZARD SHAD 95 9 GIZZARD SHAD 78 5 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 77 5 GIZZARD SHAD 84 7 GIZZARD SHAD 72 4 GIZZARD SHAD 73 4 GIZZARD SHAD 76 5 GIZZARD SHAD 77 5 GIZZARD SHAD 68 4 EMERALD SHINER 2 10 SPOTFIN SHINER 16 6 SPOTFIN SHINER 23 8 SPOTFIN SHINER 3 1 SAND SHINER 9 2 Notropis sp. 1 1 BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 12 20 BULLHEAD MINNOW 15 15 QUILLBACK 371 680 QUILLBACK 374 780 Regen. Scales QUILLBACK 436 1080 SILVER REDHORSE 472 1140 Regen. Scales SILVER REDHORSE 424 880 SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 113 293 330 CHANNEL CATFISH 96 316 260 Parasite CHANNEL CATFISH 81 357 330 CHANNEL CATFISH 79 364 340 Parasite CHANNEL CATFISH 101 354 400 Parasite FLATHEAD CATFISH 91 403 680 Slight Erosion.GREEN SUNFISH 110 104 24 GREEN SUNFISH 46 2 GREEN SUNFISH 113 94 18 BLUEGILL 133 83 13 A-5 APPENDIX A (cont.)BLUEGILL 54 3 BLUEGILL 52 3 BLUEGILL 48 3 BLUEGILL 50 3 BLUEGILL 51 3 BLUEGILL 48 2 BLUEGILL 57 4 BLUEGILL 49 3 BLUEGILL 46 2 BLUEGILL 42 2 BLUEGILL 54 3 BLUEGILL 53 3 Lepomis HYBRID 1 22 SMALLNOUTH BASS 84 216 116 Body Deformity SMALLMOUTH BASS 77 7 SMALLMOUTH BASS 63 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 54 3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 66 4 SMALIMOUTH BASS 95 12 SMALLMOUTH BASS 77 7 SMALLMOUTH BASS 75 7 SMALLMOUTH BASS 72 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 83 7 LARGEMOUTH BASS 123 173 82 LARGEMOUTH BASS 116 22 LARGEMOUTH BASS 107 19 LARGEMOUTH BASS 78 7 LARGEMOUTH BASS 81 8 LARGEMOUTH BASS 72 6 Parasite WALLEYE 148 24 FRESHWATER DRUM 97 406 840 Slight Erosion FRESHWATER DRUM 125 214 140 FRESHWATER DRUM 107 107 13 FRESHWATER DRUM 135 125 27 FRESHWATER DRUM 124 127 26 FRESHWATER DRUM 121 116 19 FRESHWATER DRUM 139 101 14 FRESHWATER DRUM 112 117 18 FRESHWATER DRUM 124 134 31 FRESHWATER DRUM 116 128 25 S SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: ELECTRO LOCATION:
55 SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): 448 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 30 START DATETIME:
30AUG11:16:25 END DATETINE:
30AUG11:16:55 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH SPECIES Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 GIZZARD SHAD 97 11 GIZZARD SHAD 73 5 GIZZARD SHAD 98 10 GIZZARD SHAD 95 10 GIZZARD SHAD 145 40 NORTHERN PIKE 86 704 2050 EMERALD SHINER 1 1 SPOTFIN SHINER 5 2 SPOTFIN SHINER 1 1 BULLHEAD MINNOW 3 6 BULLHEAD MINNOW 9 6 QUILLBACK 378 720 QUILLBACK 436 1090 QUILLBACK 387 920 QUILLBACK 442 1030 Regen. Scales QUILLBACK 436 1120 QUILLBACK 452 1140 Regen. Scales BIGMOUTH BUFFALO 94 504 2150 SILVER REDHORSE 543 1740 Regen. Scales SILVER REDHORSE 474 1130 SILVER REDHORSE 482 1120 SILVER REDHORSE 346 440 SILVER REDHORSE 377 630 Regen. Scales GOLDEN REDHORSE 543 1520 GOLDEN REDHORSE 506 1440 Regen. Scales GOLDEN REDHORSE 506 1260 Parasite GOLDEN REDHORSE 139 32 CHANNEL CATFISH 98 334 320 Parasite GREEN SUNFISH 119 97 21 GREEN SUNFISH 113 80 11 SMALLMOUTH BASS 100 152 45 SMALI24OUTH BASS 65 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 70 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 66 4 O SNALLMOUTH BASS 63 4 SMALLMOUTH BASS 71 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 69 5 LARGEMOUTH BASS 106 15 A-6 APPENDIX A (cont.)LARGEMOUTH BASS FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM FRESHWATER DRUM 118 117 94 113 124 124 125 128 115 117 97 314 296 234 196 127 98 117 111 108 136 121 14 450 370 140 95 26 11 20 17 16 30 21 Blackspot Lesion Regen. Scales Fungus SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:16:20 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD COMMON CARP EMERALD SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW SMALLMOUTH BASS LARGEMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:15:53 LOCATION:
R2R SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:16:33 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 13 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 91 10 73 5 71 4 43 2 1 100 27 12 29 4 10 59 1 1 1 26 7 1 7 1 4 10 1 4 69 102 5 16 LOCATION:
R2L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:16:06 SAMPLING DURATION (rain): 13 SPECIES O SPOTFIN SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BLUEGILL BLUEGILL SMALLMOUTH BASS JOHNNY DARTER LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 62 20 7 3* .22 10 45 32 57 2 1 3 1 1 SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:17:45 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH BLUEGILL BLUEGILL BLUEGILL BLUEGILL SMALLMOUTH BASS SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:17:21 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD EMERALD SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW LOCATION:
R3R SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:17:57 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 12 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 49 1 43 1* .5 4 2 1 2 1 3 1 S* 4 1 37 51 36 34 31 56 1 3 1 1 1 3 LOCATION:
R3L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:17:36 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 15 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS BATCH Wr (mm) (g) COUNT WEIGHT ANOMALY I ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 74 5 *16 100 430 22 5 80 18 26 2 33 142 4 1 23 3 11 A-7 APPENDIX A (cont.)BLUNTNOSE MINNOW O BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW ICTIOBINAE sp.ICTIOBINAE sp.CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH CHANNEL CATFISH ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS 1 100 147 3 1 1 45 66 1 1 40 52 57 49 42 47 53 52 46 48 50 29 77 79 68 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 4 SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:18:48 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BLUEGILL SMALLMOUTH BASS SNALIMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SNALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:18:15 SPECIES SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER SAND SHINER BLUNTNOSE MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW BULLHEAD MINNOW ICTIOBINAE sp.ICTIOBINAE sp.SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALIMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS SITE: ROCK RIVER GEAR: SEINE START DATETIME:
29AUG11:19:08 LOCATION:
R4R SAMPLING DISTANCE (i): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:18:56 SAMPLING DURATION (min): 8 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS Wr (mm) (g) COUNT 73 5 4 6 13 52* 54 3 53 3 68 5 57 3 56 3 52 2 54 2 BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 4 2 2 6 26 LOCATION:
R4L SAMPLING DISTANCE (m): END DATETINE:
29AUG11:18:27 SAMPLING DURATION (mini): 12 LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS Wr (mm) (g) COUNT 78 9 7 24 1 7 2 41 13 1 BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 23 1 1 7 1 3 2 14 2 1 40 39 79 67 89 58 1 1 7 4 9 3 LOCATION:
S5 SAMPLING DISTANCE Cm): END DATETIME:
29AUG11:19:20 SAMPLING DURATION (miin): 12 SPECIES GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD GIZZARD SHAD SPOTFIN SHINER.SPOTFIN SHINER SPOTFIN SHINER SAND SHINER SAND SHINER LENGTH WEIGHT PLUS Wr (mm) (g) COUNT 93 8 73 5 72 4 66 4 68 4 78 6 68 4 69 4 69 4 72 5 12 11 2 19 6 BATCH WEIGHT ANOMALY 1 ANOMALY 2 ANOMALY 3 26 2 1 5 1 A-8 APPENDIX A (cont.)Notropis ap. 1 1 O BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 1 1 BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 1 4 Parasite BLUNTNOSE MINNOW 12 4 BULLHEAD MINNOW 93 32 BULLHEAD MINNOW 1 1 Blackspot ICTIOBINAE sp. 42 1 ICTIOBINAE sp. 41 1 ICTIOBINAE sp. 41 1 BLUEGILL 42 1 BLUEGILL 32 1 BLUEGILL 34 1 BLUEGILL 33 1 BLUEGILL 33 1 BLUEGILL 29 1 BLUEGILL 25 1 Lepomis sp. 19 1 Lepomis sp. 14 1 SM4ALLMOUTH BASS 129 33 Blackspot SMALLMOUTH BASS 67 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 65 5 SMALLMOUTH BASS 64 4 LARGEMOUTH BASS 93 13 Blackspot LARGEMOUTH BASS 129 38 A-9 APPENDIX B BYRON STATION MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA APPENDIX B -Byron Station Macroinvertebrate Data GEAR=HESTER-DENDY, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R2L TAXA # #/m2 %Turbellaria 320 682.1 6.44 Gammarus 16 34.1 0.32 Stenacron 392 835.6 7.89 Maccaffertium integrum 16 34.1 0.32 Maccaffertium terminatum 512 1,091.3 10.31 Maccaffertium exiguum 18 38.4 0.36 Tricorythodes 371 790.8 7.47 Argia 50 106.6 1.01 Cheumatopsyche 1 2.1 0.02 Potamyia flava 35 74.6 0.70 Nectopsyche 18 38.4 0.36 Macronychus glabratus 2 4.3 0.04 Stenelmis 16 34.1 0.32 Thienemannimyia grp. 32 68.2 0.64 Glyptotendipes 2,752 5,866.0 55.41 Polypedilum flavum 32 68.2 0.64 Polypedilum halterale grp. 64 136.4 1.29 Rheotanytarsus 320 682.1 6.44 TOTAL BENTHOS 4,967 10,587.3 100.00 GEAR=HESTER-DENDY, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R3L TAXA # #/m2 %Turbellaria 923 1,967.4 18.54 Garimarus 8 17.1 0.16 Stenacron 52 110.8 1.04 Maccaffertium integrum 27 57.6 0.54 Maccaffertium terminatum 138 294.2 2.77 Maccaffertium exiguum 1 2.1 0.02 Tricorythodes 133 283.5 2.67 Caenis 161 343.2 3.23 Argia 68 144.9 1.37 Stylurus 2 4.3 0.04 Pteronarcys 1 2.1 0.02 Cyrnellus fraternus 33 70.3 0.66 Potamyia flava 14 29.8 0.28 Brachycentrus 25 53.3 0.50 Dubiraphia 16 34.1 0.32 Macronychus glabratus 17 36.2 0.34 Thienemannimyia grp. 192 409.3 3.86 Nanocladius crassicornus/rectinervis 128 272.8 2.57 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 224 477.5 4.50 Glyptotendipes 2,528 5,388.5 50.77 Polypedilum flavum 192 409.3 3.86 Rheotanytarsus 96 204.6 1.93 TOTAL BENTHOS 4,979 10,612.9 100.00 GEAR=HESTER-DENDY, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R3R TAXA # #/m2 Turbellaria 33 70.3 0.25 Tubificidae 12 25.6 0.09 Gammarus 1 2.1 0.01 Isonychia 2 4.3 0.02 Stenacron 39 83.1 0.30 Maccaffertium integrum 13 27.7 0.10 Maccaffertium terminatum 15 32.0 0.12 Maccaffertium exiguum 2 4.3 0.02 Tricorythodes 40 85.3 0.31 Caenis 3 6.4 0.02 Cyrnellus fraternus 26 55.4 0.20 Cheumatopsyche 1 2.1 0.01 Potamyia flava 10 21.3 0.08 Nectopsyche 1 2.1 0.01 Dineutus 1 2.1 0.01 Ancyronyx variegata 1 2.1 0.01 Macronychus glabratus 24 51.2 0.18 Stenelmis 8 17.1 0.06 Thienemannimyia grp. 128 272.8 0.98 Glyptotendipes 12,416 26,465.2 95.27 Parachironomus 128 272.8 0.98 Polypedilum flavum 128 272.8 0.98 TOTAL BENTHOS 13,032 27,778.2 100.00 B-1 APPENDIX B (cont.)GEAR=HESTER-DENDY, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R4L TAXA # #/m2 %Turbellaria 505 1,076.4 3.57 Stenacron 52 110.8 0.37 Maccaffertium integrum 105 223.8 0.74 Maccaffertium terminatum 43 91.7 0.30 Tricorythodes 191 407.1 1.35 Caenis 64 136.4 0.45 Argia 35 74.6 0.25 Cyrnellus fraternus 85 181.2 0.60 Cheumatopsyche 3 6.4 0.02 Potamyia flava 13 27.7 0.09 Macronychus glabratus 7 14.9 0.05 Stenelmis 1 2.1 0.01 Thienemannimyia grp. 256 545.7 1.81 Glyptotendipes 12,160 25,919.5 85.88 Polypedilum flavum 128 272.8 0.90 Polypedilum halterale grp. 128 272.8 0.90 Rheotanytarsus 384 818.5 2.71 TOTAL BENTHOS 14,160 30,182.6 100.00 GEAR=HESTER-DENDY, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R4R TAXA # #/m2 %Turbellaria 1,000 2,131.5 7.06 Baetis intercalaris 1 2.1 0.01 Stenacron 432 920.8 3.05 Maccaffertium integrum 23 49.0 0.16 Maccaffertium terminatum 14 29.8 0.10 Maccaffertium exiguum 137 292.0 0.97 Tricorythodes 79 168.4 0.56 Caenis 1 2.1 0.01 Argia 20 42.6 0.14 Cyrnellus fraternus 7 14.9 0.05 Polycentropus 1 2.1 0.01 Cheumatopsyche 3 6.4 0.02 Potamyia flava 24 51.2 0.17 Oecetis 128 272.8 0.90 Dubiraphia 1 2.1 0.01 Macronychus glabratus 7 14.9 0.05 Stenelmis 8 17.1 0.06 Thienemannimyia grp. 128 272.8 0.90 Nanocladius crassicornus/rectinervis 128 272.8 0.90 Glyptotendipes 11,392 24,282.5 80.37 Rheotanytarsus 640 1,364.2 4.52 TOTAL BENTHOS 14,174 30,212.4 100.00 B-2 APPENDIX B (cont.)GEAR=KICK NET, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R3R TAXA # #/m2 %Turbellaria 3 19.1 0.96 Tubificidae 59 376.3 18.97 Helobdella stagnalis 1 6.4 0.32 Maccaffertium termnnatum 6 38.3 1.93 Tricorythodes 11 70.2 3.54 Brachycercus 1 6.4 0.32 Caenis 17 108.4 5.47 Anthopotamus myops 3 19.1 0.96 Hexagenia limbata 4 25.5 1.29 Argia 2 12.8 0.64 Corixidae 73 465.6 23.47 Polycentropus 1 6.4 0.32 Dubiraphia 16 102.1 5.14 Stenelmis 13 82.9 4.18 Ablabesmyia mallochi 1 6.4 0.32 Thienemannimyia grp. 6 38.3 1.93 Chironomus 7 44.6 2.25 Cryptochironomus 8 51.0 2.57 Glyptotendipes 38 242.4 12.22 Parachironomus 4 25.5 1.29 Polypedilum aviceps 3 19.1 0.96 Polypedilum flavum 7 44.6 2.25 Polypedilum halterale grp. 3 19.1 0.96 Polypedilum illinoense 6 38.3 1.93 Polypedilum scalaenum grp. 3 19.1 0.96 Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi grp. 1 6.4 0.32 Rheotanytarsus 13 82.9 4.18 Pleurocera 1 6.4 0.32 TOTAL BENTHOS 311 1,983.7 100.00 GEAR=PONAR, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R2L TAXA # #/m2 8 Turbellaria 2 12.8 0.28 Tubificidae 501 3,195.6 69.58 Stenacron 1 6.4 0.14 Brachycercus 1 6.4 0.14 Caenis 1 6.4 0.14 Hexagenia limbata 1 6.4 0.14 Stylurus 5 31.9 0.69 Corixidae 63 401.8 8.75 Nectopsyche 1 6.4 0.14 Dubiraphia 2 12.8 0.28 Procladius 16 102.1 2.22 Ablabesmyia mallochi 2 12.8 0.28 Thienemannimyia grp. 2 12.8 0.28 Chironomus 2 12.8 0.28 Cryptochironomus 66 421.0 9.17 Glyptotendipes 18 114.8 2.50 Phaenopsectra obediens grp. 2 12.8 0.28 Polypedilum aviceps 4 25.5 0.56 Polypedilum halterale grp. 10 63.8 1.39 Polypedilum illinoense 4 25.5 0.56 Polypedilum scalaenum grp. 14 89.3 1.94 Stenochironomus 2 12.8 0.28 TOTAL BENTHOS 720 4,592.4 100.00 GEAR=PONAR, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R3L TAXA # #/m2 %Tubificidae 44 280.6 50.57 Brachycercus 1 6.4 1.15 Stylurus 3 19.1 3.45 Corixidae 1 6.4 1.15 Procladius 7 44.6 8.05 Chironomus 3 19.1 3.45 Cryptochironomus 13 82.9 14.94 Glyptotendipes 2 12.8 2.30 Polypedilum halterale grp. 12 76.5 13.79 Pisidium 1 6.4 1.15 TOTAL BENTHOS 87 554.9 100.00 B-3 APPENDIX B (cont.)GEAR=PONAR, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R4L TAXA # #/m2 %Tubificidae Stylurus Corixidae Dubiraphia Ceratopogonidae Procladius Chironomus Cryptochironomus Glyptotendipes Harnischia Microchironomus Polypedilum halterale grp.Leptodea fragilis TOTAL BENTHOS 508 3,240.2 4 25.5 17 108.4 13 82.9 4 25.5 4 25.5 68 433.7 16 102.1 24 153.1 12 76.5 4 25.5 264 1,683.9 2 12.8 54.04 0.43 1.81 1.38 0.43 0.43 7.23 1.70 2.55 1.28 0.43 28.09 0.21 940 5,995.7 100.00 GEAR=PONAR, DATE=AUG 2011, and LOCATION=R4R TAXA Tubificidae Tricorythodes Brachycercus Caenis Hexagenia limbata Corixidae Hydroptila Dubiraphia Stenelmis Procladius Ablabesmyia mallochi Chironomus Cryptochironomus Glyptotendipes Harnischia Parachironomus Polypedilum flavum Polypedilum halterale grp.Rheotanytarsus Pisidium Quadrula pustulosa TOTAL BENTHOS# #/m2 %291 3 1 1 3 6 1 25 1 8 16 24 160 184 8 8 16 88 24 3 1 1,856.1 19.1 6.4 6.4 19.1 38.3 6.4 159.5 6.4 51.0 102.1 153.1 1,020.5 1,173.6 51.0 51.0 102.1 561.3 153.1 19.1 6.4 33.37 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.34 0.69 0.11 2.87 0.11 0.92 1.83 2.75 18.35 21.10 0.92 0.92 1.83 10.09 2.75 0.34 0.11 872 5,561.9 100.00 B-4 Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-1 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: Provide the following information:
- b. (ESI 2011) Ecological Specialist, Inc. 2011. Unionid Communities near Byron Station, Rock River. ESI Project No. 11-003a. O'Fallon, Missouri.
November 2011.Response: The requested information is attached.List Attachments Provided: 1. (ESI 2011) Ecological Specialist, Inc. 2011. Unionid Communities near Byron Station, Rock River. ESI Project No. 11 -003a. O'Fallon, Missouri.
November 2011.10 Unionid Communities near Byron Station, Rock River Prepared for: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Warrenville, IL Prepared by: Ecological Specialists, Inc.O'Fallon, Missouri November 2011 (ESi Project no. I I-003a)
I 1-003a Byron Station November 2011 Acknowledgments Exelon Generation, LLC (Exelon) provided funds for this study. Mr. John R. Petro coordinated the project for Exelon.Ms. Heidi Dunn was the project manager and primary author of this report. Mr. Kendall Cranney, Mr. Nathan Badgett, and Mr. Eric Rahmn assisted with fieldwork.
Mr. Badgett also assisted with this report.i 11-003a Byron Station November 2011I Table of Contents 1.0 In tro d u ctio n ............................................................................................................................................................................
1 2 .0 M e th o d s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
2 3 .0 R e su lts ....................................................................................................................................................................................
3 4 .0 D iscu ssio n ..............................................................................................................................................................................
5 5 .0 L iteratu re c ited .......................................................................................................................................................................
7 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Rock River unionid sample locations within Ogle County ..............................................................................
9 Figure 2-1. Unionid samples near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 .......................................................................
10 Figure 3-1. Temperature
('C) along transects near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ...........................................
12 Figure 3-2. Substrate composition along transects near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ....................................
14 Figure 3-3. Unionid distribution near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ................................................................
16 Figure 3-4. Species accumulation curve, Rock River near Byron Station, June 2011 ......................................................
18 Figure 4-1. Species accumulation curve comparison, Rock River near Byron Station, 1993 vs. 2011 ...........................
19 Figure 4-2. Comparison of quantitative samples near Byron Station, Rock River, 1993 and 2011 ...............................
20 Figure 4-3. Comparison of qualitative samples near Byron Station, Rock River, 1993 and 2011 .................................
21 List of Tables Table 1-1. Unionid species recorded from Rock River, Illinois .......................................................................................
22 Table 1-2. Unionid community characteristics near Byron Station, Rock River, May 1993 .........................................
23 Table 2-1. Sample effort near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ..............................................................................
24 Table 3-1. Temperature and dissolved oxygen near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ..........................................
25 Table 3-2. Average depth, substrate and number of live unionids per 10m section along semi-quantitative transects, R o ck R iv er, June 20 11 .........................................................................................................................................
26 Table 3-3. Comparison of unionid abundance in semi-quantitative samples, Rock River, June 2011 ...........................
27 Table 3-4. Quantitative sample habitat characteristics and no. of live mussels, Rock River, June 2011 .......................
28 Table 3-5. Unionid species collected near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ...........................................................
29 Table 3-6. Age and length of unionids near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011 ......................................................
30 Table 4-1. Unionid community characteristics near Byron Station, 1993 vs. 2011 ........................................................
31 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 ii I11-003a Byron Station November 2011 1.0 Introduction Exelon Generation, LLC (Exelon) operates the Byron Nuclear Station (Byron Station) on the Rock River near Byron, IL (Figure 1-1). The two units at Byron Station have a generation capacity of 2336 megawatts and began operation in 1985 and 1987, respectively.
Cooling is primarily provided by two natural draft cooling towers. Byron's intake is approximately 3.2km (2mi) east of the station on the Rock River at approximately river mile 115. The discharge flume enters the river approximately 195m (640ft) downstream of the intake. The Oregon Dam (built in early 1990's), approximately 6.4km (4mi) downstream of Byron Station, controls the water level at the intake. In 1993, Bryon Station installed two wing dikes upstream and across from the intake and Iowa Vanes in front of the intake to prevent accumulation of sediment.The Rock River historically supported a species rich unionid community.
Baker (1927) recorded 35 species in the Rock River (listed 48 in his paper, but 13 have since been synonomized
[Parmalee and Bogan, 1998]) from the headwaters in Wisconsin to its confluence with the Mississippi River near Moline, IL. Within Illinois, 37 species have been recorded (Table 1-1), Of these 37, Lanipsilis higginsii is federally endangered, Plethobasus cyphvus is proposed for federal endangered status, Alasmidonta viridis and Ptychobranchusfasciolaris are listed as endangered in Illinois, and Cvclonaias tuberculata, Elliptio dilatata, Fusconaia ebena, Ellipsaria lineolata, and Ligumia recta are listed as threatened in Illinois.Unionid mussel species records in Ogle County include Baker (1927), OSU (1969), Illinois Department of Conservation (ILDC, W. Fritz, per. comm., 1993), ESI (1993), and INHS (2009). A total of 28 species have been reported in this reach, however 10 of these (over one third) were last reported by Baker (1927) or collected as weathered shells in 1993 (ESI, 1993) or 2009 (INHS, 2009). The only survey near the Byron Station intake/discharge was conducted by ESI (1993.). This survey was conducted to determine if unionids would be affected by construction of sediment control structures.
Substrate throughout the study area was a mixture of sand and gravel, with silt accumulation near the intakes.Unionids were found primarily in sand and gravel substrate, with scattered unionids in loose sand throughout the study area. Weathered shells were abundant, and 10 of the 21 species were collected only as shell material (Table 1-2), suggesting this area once supported a more species rich unionid community.
Since almost 20 years have passed since the last unionid survey in this area, Exelon contracted ESI to characterize the current unionid mussel communities upstream and downstream of Byron station in 2011. The survey was conducted June 29 and 30, and July 1,2011.I 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 2.0 Methods A combination of semi-quantitative, qualitative, and quantitative sampling was used to determine the status of unionid communities near Byron Station in 2011 (Table 2-1). Twenty-five (25) 100m semi-quantitative transects were established perpendicular to the bank at approximatelyl00m intervals between 800m (0.5miles) upstream and 1600m (1 mile) downstream of the Byron Plant discharge (Figure 2-1). Transects were staggered between banks. Upstream of the discharge flume TI, T3, T5, T7, T9, TI0, and THi were along the right descending bank, and T2, T4, T6, and T8 were along the left descending bank. Downstream of the discharge flume T12, T14, T16, T18, T20, T22, T24, and T25 were along the left descending bank and T13, TI5, T17, T19, T21, and T23 were along the right descending bank. GPS coordinates were recorded at the shoreward and riverward end of each transect.
A diver traversed each transect line, collecting all encountered unionids within one meter (arms reach) of the line. Each 10m interval was considered a separate sample and was searched for a minimum of three minutes. Samples were retrieved, and depth, substrate constituents, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen were recorded at each lOin interval.
Live unionids were identified, counted, and classified as adults or young (<5 years old). A representative sample (up to 25 individuals) of each species was also be measured (length in mm) and aged (external annuli count). Shells were designated as freshly dead (FD; nacre shiny, shells attached, hinge line flexible; probably died within the past few months), weathered (WD;nacre chalky, valves attached or separated, hinge line brittle; died more than a few months ago to several years ago) or subfossil (SF; nacre chalky, periostracum missing or severely worn, valves separate; died several years to decades ago), and as adults or young and counted.Once the distribution of unionids was established, a series of quantitative and qualitative samples were collected within areas of unionid concentrations to estimate density and species richness.
Ten points were selected for sampling; seven upstream (QI to Q7), and three downstream (Q8 to Q 10; see Figure 2-1). Depth, substrate, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen, as well as GPS coordinates were recorded at each point, and one quantitative and one qualitative sample was collected.
For each quantitative sample, a diver excavated all substrate within a 0.25m 2 quadrat down to 10cm into an attached mesh bag with mesh size of 6mm. The sampler was retrieved, and unionids separated from substrate and debris. All unionids in quantitative samples were classified as live, FD, WD or SF, and live unionids were identified, measured (length in mm) and aged (external annuli count). For each qualitative sample, a diver collected as many unionids as possible within a 5min interval.
Unionids were identified, classified as live, FD, WD, or SF, and live and FD unionids were counted and recorded as adults or young.All live unionids were returned to the substrate near their collection location.Systat vl0.0 was used for statistical analysis.
Student's t-test was used to test for differences in density, and a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences in abundance in semi-quantitative samples. EstimateS v8.2.0 (Colwell, 2009) was used to calculate species accumulation curves.2 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 3.0 Results IPater quali'y and substrate characteristics The discharge flume did not appear to affect water temperature within the study area. Water temperature (measured at the river bottom) during sampling averaged 23.5'C and ranged from 21.5' to 26.30 (Table 3-1). Temperature was warmest near the bank on all transects, where water was shallowest (Figure 3-1). The coolest temperatures were recorded at the upstream three transects, TI, T2, and T3. Although maximum water temperature near the bank downstream of the discharge flume (TI 2, 25.3°C) was greater than upstream (T8, 24.2°C), this difference was only i.I C. Additionally, water temperature seemed to increase with distance from the flume along both banks between T12 and T20. The highest water temperature was recorded near the bank at T20 (26.3°C), which was approximately 700m downstream of the discharge flume. With the exception of the water temperature within 10m of the bank, temperature was warmer upstream of the intake along T8 and across the river along T9 and TI0, than downstream of the discharge T12 (see Figure 1-1 and Table 3-1).Dissolved oxygen (DO) also did not appear to be affected by the discharge flume. DO averaged 8.0mg/L (94.4%saturation), ranged from 7.0 to 9.6mg/L, and was greater than 85% saturation throughout the study area (see Table 3-1).DO seemed to steadily decline between the discharge flume and the downstream most transect.
DO averaged 8.Omg/L (93.1% saturation) at TI 2 and decreased to 7.2mg/L (86.8% saturation) at T22 (see Table 3-1).Substrate throughout the study area consisted of either consolidated substrate (outside bend areas) or depositional silt (inside bend areas) near the bank, and transitioned to 100% sand with pockets of silt and clay mid-river (Figure 3-2). In general, substrate along the right descending bank contained more cobble and gravel, and substrate along the left descending bank contained more silt and clay (Table 3-2). Depth ranged from 0.3 to 3.Om mid-river (Appendix A), and averaged between 1.9 and 2.7m (see Table 3-2). Outside bends were deeper and inside bends were more sloping. The river became more of a straight reach downstream of Byron Station, and depth increased.
Although not measured, current velocity appeared to be slower in the downstream portion of the study area.Unionid distribution and abundance Unionids were most abundant in thin strips within the transition zone between the consolidated cobble, gravel, sand and sand substrates throughout the study area along the right descending bank. Fewer unionids were found along the left descending bank where current velocity was slower and substrate contained more silt and clay. Average number of unionids per 10m transect section was significantly higher along the right (1.5 unionids/10 x Im section) than along the left bank (0.6 unionids/10 x Im section; p<0.10) (Table 3-3). Unionids were also more abundant upstream of the Byron Station intake/discharge (1.8 unionids/l0 x In section) than downstream (0.5 unionids/10 x Im section; p_<0.05).However, this did not appear to be temperature related. The discharge plume was limited to the area near the left bank, and abundance in semi-quantitative samples did not differ significantly between upstream (0.9 unionids/l0 x Im section)and downstream (0.4 unionids/10 x I m section, p>0.10) along the left bank. Abundance did vary significantly between upstream (2.3 unionids/l0 x Inm section) and downstream (0.6 unionids/I0 x Im; p<0.05) along the right bank, which 3 I1I-003a Byron Station November 2011 was not affected by the discharge plume (see Table 3-3).Unionid abundance was related to local hydraulic and substrate conditions.
Along TI, T2, T3 unionids were abundant toward mid channel (see Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3). Only a few unionids were collected along T4, T6 and T8 upstream of the intake along the left descending bank. In the middle of the study area, unionids occurred between 40 and 60m along the right bank (T7, T9, TI 1, T13, TI5). Only a few scattered unionids (52 unionids /10 x Im of transect) were collected along TI0, most likely due to the higher current velocity and more consolidated cobble substrate.
Downstream of TI 5, the river was more of a straight reach and unionids appeared to be less abundant, although a few unionids were found along most transects (see Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3).Within the thin strip ofunionids that occurred along the right bank, unionids were abundant, although many were buried under sand. Unionids were most abundant in sand and gravel substrate, at 2.1 to 3.0m deep (Table 3-4). Unionid density within this strip averaged 12.0 unionids/m 2 (see Table 3-4).Species composition and community characteristics A total of 21 species were found in the study area in 2011, however only eight species were collected live (Table 3-5).The abundance of weathered and subfossil shells and the number of species, including threatened and endangered species, represented as shells indicates the area once supported a more species rich unionid community.
Most of the species that are still alive within the study area were likely collected, as all eight species were collected within 215 unionids; 174 unionids were collected with no new species (Figure 3-4). Quadrula p. pustulosa (93.1%)overwhelmingly dominated the unionid community.
Lampsilis cardium (4.1%) was the second most abundant (see Table 3-5). Quadrulap.
pustulosa, Fusconaia flava, and L. cardium were found upstream and downstream of Byron Station. Pleurobemna sintoxia, Leptodeafi'agilis, and Potamnih/s ohiensis were also collected upstream but not downstream.
Lasmigona
- c. complanata and Lampsilis siliquoidea were also collected downstream but not upstream.
No Illinois or Federal threatened and endangered species were collected alive, although C tuberculata, E. dilatata, P.cvphvus, E. lineolata, and L. recta were all collected as shells.Even though the unionid community lacks species richness, density was high, mortality was low, recruitment was good, and both young and old individuals were present. Density averaged 12.0 unionids/m 2.Recent mortality was very low, as only 3.2% of the unionids collected in quantitative samples were freshly dead shells. Half (50%) of the individuals collected in quantitative samples were <5 years old, and at least one individual of 50% of the species was <5 years old (see Table 3-5). Age ranged from two to 21 years old based on external annuli counts (Table 3-6).4 I1I-003a Byron Station November 2011 4.0 Discussion W Species composition near Byron Station was historically similar to other sites within the reach of the Rock River from Byron, IL to Oregon, IL (Table 4-1). Twenty-six (26) species have been reported in Ogle County between 8km upstream of Byron, IL to Oregon Dam. Baker (1927) reported 19 species near Oregon, IL. Ohio State University mollusk museum database reported only three species from sites 8km upstream of Byron and upstream of the Oregon Dam (OSU, 1969). Illinois Natural History Survey (2009) sampled one site 1.6km downstream of Byron and found eight species either live or as freshly dead shells. Illinois Department of Conservation sampled downstream of Byron Station in 1986, but found only five species (W. Fritz, ILDC, pers. comm., 1993). However, all of these studies were either conducted while wading in shallow water or brailling.
Sampling in 1993 and 2011 was more intensive than other studies and was conducted primarily while diving. Twenty-four (24) species were recovered in either the 1993 or 2011 surveys near Byron Station (see Table 4-1). Species not found near Byron that were previously reported between Byron and Oregon, IL include F. ebena (Baker, 1927) and Toxolasmaparva (Baker, 1927; INHS, 2009). Species found near Byron Station but not recovered in other areas include Pyganodon grandis (live in 1993, WD in 2011), E. lineolata (SF in 2011), L. siliquoidea (live in both 1993 and 2011), Pi'chobranchusfasciolaris (WD in 1993), and Truncilla donaciforins (live in 1993). Since most unionids occurred within a narrow band in 2 to 3m of water near Byron Station, few if any live unionids would have been recovered if only wading or brailling was used as the collection method.The study area likely supported a more species rich community than currently exists, however other areas of the Rock River also seem to have lost many of the species that historically occurred in the river. INHS (2009) found only eight species either live or as fresh shells near Byron, IL. Similar results of few live species, but numerous relic shells was recorded for eight other sites in Ogle County (INHS, 2009).A comparison of the 1993 and 2011 studies near Byron Station suggests that species richness has declined, but unionid abundance has increased.
In 1993, 14 species were found either live or as freshly dead shells, compared to nine in 2011 even though total number of unionids was 235 compared to 389 in 1993 and 2011, respectively (see Table 4-1). A comparison of the species accumulation curves indicates fewer species would be collected with the same level of effort in 2011 compared to 1993 (Figure 4-1). With the collection of 200 individuals, 9.9 to 11.6 species would have been found in 1993, compared to 2.7 to 8.8 species in 2011 (see Table 4-1). Species collected live in 1993 but only found as shells in 2011 include Alasinidonta inarginata, P. grandis, Strophiitus undulatus, Actinonaias ligamentina, and L. recta.However, P. sintoxia and P. ohiensis were collected live in 2011 but not in 1993.Even though nine species were collected either live or a freshly dead shells in 2011, many of these species (except Q. p.pustulosa) appear to be declining in abundance.
In 1993, Q. p. pustulosa comprised 35.7% of the collected individuals, whereas it comprised 93.1% in 2011. A similar pattern of persistence, but decline in population size of all but the most abundant species has also been observed in the Little South Fork Cumberland River (Warren and Haag, 2005), and was 5 I11-003a Byron Station November 2011 also cited as a common pattern in declining unionid mussel communities by Strayer (2008). This pattern of declining unionid species richness was observed both upstream and downstream of Byron Station (see Table 3-5) and is also likely occurring in other parts of the Rock River based on the number of relic species compared to live/freshly dead species found by INHS (2009). However, despite the decline in species, recruitment was similar between studies with 46.3%and 50% of unionids <5 years old in 1993 and 2011, respectively (see Table 4-1).Although species richness is declining near Byron Station, unionids were similarly distributed in 1993 and 2011, and unionid abundance appears to have increased since 1993. In both studies, most unionids were collected within a thin strip along the right descending bank in sand/gravel substrate, and unionids were scattered throughout the remainder of the area in loose sand substrate.
In both years, most of the quantitative and qualitative samples were collected in areas of unionid abundance (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Quantitative and qualitative samples collected in close proximity in both years yielded a higher abundance of unionids in 2011 than in 1993 (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Catch per hour averaged 26.3 unionids in 1993 compared to 110.4 in 2011, and density averaged 1.0/m 2 in 1993 compared to 12.0/M 2 in 2011 (see Table 4-1). The only difference in distribution may be along the right descending bank in front of the intake structure.
Before construction 11 to 60 unionids/hour were found in this area (see Figure 4-3). No quantitative or qualitative samples were collected in front of the intakes in 2011 due to the presence of the sediment control structures that were constructed in 1993. Recolonization of this area could not be assessed due to dangerous diving conditions.
The Rock River unionid community near the Byron Station seems to be declining with respect to species composition, but may be increasing in abundance.
Most unionids currently occur in a thin strip within the transition zone between consolidated and loose substrate along the right descending bank. Unionids seem to be less abundant downstream of Byron Station than upstream, but this appears to be due to differences in habitat rather than discharge from Byron Station. The declines in species composition seem to be occurring river wide, as surveys by INHS (2009) in Ogle County also yielded primarily weathered shells and few live unionids.6 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 5.0 Literature cited 0 Baker, F. C. 1927. The naiad fauna of the Rock River system: a study of the law of stream distribution.
Transactions Illinois .4cademy of Science 19:103-112.
Colwell, R. K. 2009. EstimateS:
Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species fiom samples. Version 8.2.0. Persistent URL <purl.oclc.org/estimates>
Ecological Specialists, Inc. (ESI). 1993. Unionidsurvey of the Rock River near Commonwealth Edison's Byron Station.Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL. ESI project no.93-003. 1 'pp.Ecological Specialists, Inc. (ESI). 200 1. Summaiy letter report. Unionid survey near Sterling.
IL. Prepared for Willett, Hofmann & Associates, Inc. Dixon, IL. 7pp.Ecological Specialists, Inc. (ESI). 2005. Final report: Unionid relocation in Rock River near Sterling, IL. Prepared for Willett., Hofmann & Associates, Inc. Dixon, IL. 13pp. and Appendices.
Ecological Specialists, Inc. (ESI). 2008. Final report: Unionid survey in the Rock River near Rock Falls, WIhiteside County, Illinois.
Prepared for: Willett, Hofmann & Associates, Inc. Dixon, IL. 10pp.Illinois Department of Natural Resources (ILDNR). 2009. Checklist of endangered and threatened animals and plants of Illinois.
Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, October 30, 2009. l8pp.Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2009. INHS mollusk collection records, Rock River, Ogle County.Ohio State University (OSU). Division of molluscs, bivalve collection.
Rock River, Ogle County. Accessed October 2011. fmp4.austinmichael.com/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=Bivalves%2OWeb&-loadframes.
Parmalee, P. W. and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The fieshwater mussels of Tennessee.
The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 328pp.Strayer, D. L. 2008. Freshwater mussel ecology. A multifactor approach to distribution and abundance.
Freshwater Ecology Series, University of California Press. 204pp.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Threatened and Endangered Species list from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/pub/listedAnimals.isp 7
I11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Warren, M. L., Jr. and W. R. Haag. 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1383-1400.
8 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 ECOLOGICAL Figure I -1. Rock River unionid sample locations in Ogle County, IL. T~ 5~T SPECIALISTS, INC. IJ I 1 3 1 9 11l-003a Byron Station November 2011 10 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 0 Legend N-Transects s* Quantitative/qualitative points m o 100 200 400 ECOLOGICAL Figure 2-l b. Unionid samples near Byron Station, Rock River, it v l SPECIALISTS INC June 2011. 6 11 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 rr I ECOLOGICAL I Figure 3-la. Temperature (IC) along transects SPECIALISTS.
INC. Station, Rock River, June 2011.12 11l-003a Byron Station November 2011 ECOLOGICAL Figure 3-lb. Temperature (IC) along transects near Byron SPECIALISTS, INC. Station, Rock River, June 2011.EYn 13 11l-003a Byron Station November 2011 m ECOLOGICAL SPECIALISTS.
INC.Figure 3-2a. Substrate composition along transects near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011. 1 XI'IQIA 14 11l-003a Byron Station November 2011 m ECOLOGICAL Figure 3-2b. Substrate composition along transects near Byron SPECIALISTS, INC. Station, Rock River, June 2011.13,111 15 1 1-003a Byron Station November 2011 ECOLOGICAL Figure 3-3a. Unionid distribution near Byron Station, Rock River, SPECIALISTS, INC. IJune 2011. X1I1 16 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 0 ECOLOGICAL SPECIALISTS.
INC.Figure 3-3b. Unionid distribution near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011.X1EQ0 0 17 0 2011 Species Accumulation Curve 12 10 M Z 8 6 4 x 2011 Actual 032011 Rarefaction eQ 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Cumulative Species 400 450 ECOLOGICAL Figure 3-4. Species accumulation curve, Rock River near Byron Station, June 2011. TF SPECIALISTS, INC. I 1993 vs 2011 Species Accumulation Curve 12 10 8 S6 4 2 0 0 1993 Rarefaction O3 2011 Rarefaction 03 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Cumulative Species 400 450 z 0 CD 0o 0 0 I11-003a Byron Station November 2011 ECOLOGICAL I Figure 4-2. Comparison of quantitative samples near Byron Station, SPECIALISTS.
INC. Rock River, 1993 and 2011.XIt 3 20 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 ECOLOGICAL Figure 4-3. Comparison of qualitative samples near Byron Station, SPECIALISTS.
INC. Rock River, 1993 and 2011.m 21 I 1-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 1-1. Unionid species recorded from Rock River, Illinois.Ogle Co Rock River Byron to Downstream of Last year Status' Illinois'"'"'
Near Byron, IL". Oregon, ILc"t Oregon Dam"' reported alive Aurbleminae Amblemnaplicata X 09 (WD)7 27,93 09 (WD) 93 C(,clonaias twherculata ILT X 09 (WD) 27,93 (WD) 09 (WD) 27 Elliptio Silatata ILT X 09 (WD) 27,93 (WD) 09 (WD) 27 Fusconata ebena ILT X 27 Fusconataflava X 69, 09 27, 86, 93 09 09 Plethobasus cyphyuts FPR ILE X -27,93 (WD) 09 (WD) 27 Pleutwhemna ruhruan X --09 (WD) ?Pleuroarema sintoxia X 69 27,93 (WD) 09 09 Quadrl/a inetanevra X -Quadrula nrohdata X ----Quadrulap.
pustuhssa X 09 27, 86,93 09 09 Quadrula quadlraa X --Tritogonia verrucosa X 27,93 (WD) 09 (WD) 27 Anodonminae A1asmnidonta vwridis ILE X ----Alasmntodnta marginata X 69, 09 (WD) 27. 86, 93 09 09 Lasmnigona
- c. comphanata X -27, 93 09 09 Lasmnigona casta0 X 27,93 (WDI) 27 Pyganodon grandhs X 93 69, 09 09 Stro/ph/us tauuhlatus X -27, 93 09 09 Utterhackia inibecillis X 09 93 09 09 Lampsilinae Acttnonaias ligamentina X 09 (WD) 27,86,93 09 09 Ellipsuria lineolata ILT X --09 (WD) I Lampsilis canhum X 09 27, 86, 93 09 09 Lampsilis higginsii FE. ILE X -Lanipsilis siliquoidea X 93 09 (WD) 93 Lampsi/hs teres X ---Leptodeafragilis X 09 27.93 09 09 Ligwnta recta ILT X 09 27.93 09 09 Ob/iquaria refiexa X ----Ohovarma olivaria X ---Potamilus ahtats X -27 09 09 Potamnih" ohiensis X 09 -09 09 Pen.chohranchusfasciolaris ILE X -93 (WD) ?Toxotasna parvus X 09 27 -09 Tracilla dotnacformis X 93 09 09 Trunculla truncata X -
el/ipjsrformts X --09 (WD) ?Total species 9 37 14 24 24 28'FE= federally endangered, FP= proposed for federal endangered status (USFWS, 2011 I, tLE=llhnois endangered.
ILT=tllinois threatened (ILDNR, 2009):Baker (1927)'OSU 11969, 1970, 1985, 19931'INHS (2009)'ILDC (1986)'ESI (1993. 2001, 2005. 2008)'Year collected, (WD) indicates collected only as a weathered or subfossil shell, year only indicated collected live or as a fresh shell 22 I11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 1-2. Unionid community characteristics near Byron Station, Rock River, May 1993.Age (years)2 Length (mm)No. live' % Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max.Ambleminae Aniblenia plicata Cyclonaias tuberculata Elliptio dilatata Fusconaiaflava Plethobasus cyvphylus Pleurobema sintoxia Quadrula pustulosa Tritogonia verrucosa Anodontinae Alasmidonta marginata Lasmigona complanata Lasmigona costata Pvganodon grandis Strophitus undulatus Utterbackia imbecillis Lampsilinae Actinonaias ligamentina Lampsilis cardium Lampsilis siliquoidea Leptodeafr'agilis Ligutmia recta Ptvychbranchusfasciolaris Trucilla donaciformis Total no. live Live species Total species ES_200 'CPU (catch/hour)
Density (no./M 2)FD WD WD -5 2.1 WD -WD -84 35.7 WD -2 0.9 68 28.9 WD 11 4.7 2 0.9 FD -7.0 8.3 3.0 6.2 3.5 3.0 5 3 3 2 2 1I 16 3 11 6 4 58.8 54.4 46 34 75 78 67.0 63 132.7 54 114.0 59 76.5 70 71 157 173 83 140 128 128 126 37 FD 13 1 41 2 WD 6 5.5 0.4 17.4 0.9 2.6 3.8 3.4 6.5 2.3 2 2 6 2 7 6 7 3 98.2 73 128.0 128 95.2 62 124.5 123 25.3 20 235 II 21 9.9-11.6 26.3 1.0% <5 years old%FD 46.4 35.1'No. Live or best condition; FD=freshly dead shell, WD=weathered shell 2 Based on external annuli count 3 Expected species with collection of 200 individuals 23 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 2-1. Sample effort near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011.Method Location No. samples Effort/sample Total effort Semi-quantitative Upstream TI to T1i 100m I100m Downstream TI 2 to T25 100m 1400m Quantitative Upstream QI to Q7 0.25m 2 1.75m 2 Downstream Q8 to QIO 0.25m 2 0.75m 2 Qualitative Upstream Q1 to Q7 5rain 35min Downstream Q8 to Q1O 5min 15min 24 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 3-1. Temperature and dissolved oxygen near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011.Temperature
(°C) DO (mg/L)Site Transect Ave. Min. Max. DWO Ave. '/ saturatiol Min. Max.UP TI 21.8 21.5 22.5 1.0 8.5 97.3 8.4 8.6 T2 22.5 22.1 23.2 1.1 8.5 97.7 8.3 8.9 T3 22.5 22.0 23.0 1.0 8.6 99.3 8.5 9.6 T4 22.8 22.7 23.4 0.7 8.4 98.0 8.3 8.6 T5 22.9 22.6 24.3 1.7 8.4 98.2 8.3 8.9 T6 23.2 23.1 23.9 0.8 8.4 97.5 8.3 8.7 T7 23.5 23.2 24.2 1.0 8.3 97.4 8.2 8.5 T8 23.8 23.7 24.2 0.5 8.3 99.0 8.2 8.6 T9 23.9 23.7 24.1 0.4 8.3 98.0 8.2 8.4 TIO 24.1 23.9 24.3 0.4 8.3 98.0 8.2 8.3 TII 22.7 22.5 23.2 0.7 8.1 93.1 7.9 8.1 UP total 23.1 21.5 24.3 2.8 8.4 97.9 7.9 9.6 DN T12 23.1 22.9 25.3 2.4 8.0 93.1 7.8 8.1 T13 22.9 22.7 23.6 0.9 8.1 94.4 8.0 8.3 T14 23.4 23.1 25.0 1.9 8.0 94.0 7.9 8.2 T15 23.2 23.0 24.0 1.0 8.0 93.6 7.9 8.2 T16 23.8 23.5 25.3 1.8 8.0 95.6 7.9 8.8 T17 23.7 23.4 24.7 1.3 8.0 93.9 7.9 8.0 T18 24.3 23.9 25.9 2.0 7.9 94.9 7.8 8.3 T19 24.1 23.9 25.0 1.1 8.0 94.9 7.9 8.0 T20 24.7 24.3 26.3 2.0 7.8 93.6 7.7 7.9 T21 24.4 24.3 24.9 0.6 7.9 94.6 7.8 7.9 T22 24.6 24.2 25.4 1.2 7.2 86.8 7.1 7.3 T23 24.1 23.9 24.5 0.6 7.2 86.1 7.1 7.3 T24 24.4 24.0 24.8 0.8 7.2 86.4 7.0 7.3 T25 24.3 24.0 24.7 0.7 7.2 86.7 7.0 7.3 DN total 23.9 22.7 26.3 3.6 7.8 92.2 7.0 8.8 Total 23.5 21.5 26.3 4.8 8.0 94.4 7.0 9.6 Bolded transects are along the left descending bank'Difference between maximum and minimum 25 0 0 Table 3-2. Average depth, substrate and number of live unionids per 1Om section along semi-quantitative transects, Rock River, June 2011.Site 1 UP-R UP-R UP-R UP-R UP-R UP-R UP-R DN-R DN-R DN-R DN-R DN-R DN-R UP-L UP-L UP-L UP-L DN-L DN-L DN-L DN-L DN-L DN-L DN-L DN-L Transect TI T3 T5 T7 T9 TIO T1l T13 TI5 T17 TI9 T21 T23 T2 T4 T6 T8 T12 T14 T16 T18 T20 T22 T24 T25 Ave. depth (m)2.3 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.5%Bo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%Cb 5.5 7.3 0.0 3.2 5.9 20.5 4.5 14.5 21.4 1.8 2.7 9.1 11.4 1.8 0.0 4.5 1.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.8 9.5 10.0%Gr 26.8 45.5 23.2 22.7 24.5 15.9 20.0 17.7 10.9 43.6 34.1 30.0 9.1 7.3 0.0 18.2 3.6 2.3 2.3 1.8 9.1 11.8 9.1 16.8 37.7 Ave. % substrate constituents 2%Sd 67.7 46.4 61.8 71.4 67.7 60.9 66.4 60.9 63.2 49.5 62.7 60.9 60.9 79.1 83.2 68.2 76.4 72.7 81.8 87.3 65.5 67.7 84.5 66.4 49.5%St 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.3 0.0 0.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.1 3.6 10.5 1.8 15.5 2.7 0.0 5.5 17.3 20.5 0.0 5.5 1.8 Ave. % substrate constituents2
%Ci 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 6.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 8.2 6.4 7.3 0.0 13.6 15.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0%Shell 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%Dt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%WD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 Ave. no. live unionids 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.6 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0 (j~0'UP=upstream.
DN=downstream of discharge flume; R=right descending bank, L=Ieft descending bank 2 Bo=Boulder, Cb-Cobble, Gr=Gravel, Sd=Sand, St=Silt, CI=Clay, Shell=Unionid shell, Dt=Detritus, WD=Woody debris z 0 0..0 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 3-3. Comparison of unionid abundance in semi-quantitative samples, Rock River, June 2011.No. of samples Ave./lOim 2SE' Significance 2 Right bank 130 1.5 0.7 b Left bank 120 0.6 0.3 a Upstream 110 1.8 0.9 A Downstream 140 0.5 0.2 B Upstream L 40 0.9 0.9 A Downstream L 80 0.4 0.2 A Upstream R 70 2.3 1.3 A Downstream R 60 0.6 0.4 B'2SE=2 standard error units (95% confidence interval)2 Main-Whitney U-test, different small case letters indicate significant difference p<O.10, different upper case letters indicate significant difference p<0.05 27 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 3-4. Quantitative sample habitat characteristics and no. of live mussels, Rock River, June 2011.Ave. depth % Substrate constituents' Replicate (M) %Cb %Gr %Sd No. live 1 3.4 20 30 50 0 2 2.7 80 10 10 2 3 2.7 0 50 50 6 4 2.1 0 60 40 6 5 2.1 0 20 80 3 6 3.0 0 50 50 9 7 3.0 0 80 20 1 8 3.0 25 25 50 3 9 2.7 20 40 40 0 10 2.7 0 10 90 0 Average 2.8 14.5 37.5 48 12.0 +/- 7.82'Cb=Cobble, Gr=Gravel, Sd=Sand INo./m 2 (average no. live x 4 +2SE)28 I1I-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 3-5. Unionid species collected near Byron Station, Rock River, June 2011.Subfamily Species Status' Upstream Downstream Total %Ambleminae Amblema plicata Cyclonaias tubetrculata Elliptio dilatata Fusconaiaflava Plethobasus cyphyus Pleurobema sintoxia Quad-ula p. pustulosa Tritogonia verrucosa Total Ambleminae Anodontinae Alasmidonta marginata Lasmigona
- c. complanata Lasmigona costata Pyganodon grandis Strophitus undulatus Total Anodontinae Lampsilinae Actinonaias ligamentina Ellipsaria lineolata Lampsilis cardium Lampsilis siliquoidea Leptodeafragilis Ligumia recta Potanhlus alatus Potamilus ohiensis Total Lampsilinae Total no. live Ave. no./1 x 10m SQ section Ave. no./5min No./mr, 2 FD ILT WD ILT WD 3 FP, ILE WD 1 284 SF 288 WD WD WD S SF SF 78 SF 79 WD I WD WD WD I WD FD SF WD 0 FD WD WD 4 WD 1 362 SF 367 WD I WD WD WD I WD SF 16 2 2 WD WD 1 21 1.0 0.3 93.1 94.3 0.3 0.3 WD ILT SF 14 1 2 ILT WD WD 1 18 306 1.8 11.1 15.4 + 9.8 A WD 2 1 FD WD WD 3 83 0.5 4.7 4.0 +/- 8.OA 5 19 17 0 0 8 3 100.0 40.0 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 5.4 No. species live Total no. species ES 2003 No. FD total No. FD (quan only 4)% FD (quan only)No. <5 years old (total)No. <5 years old (quan only)%<5 years old (quan only)% species <5 years old (total)7 20 22 I 3.7 44 12 44.4 57.1 389 1.1 9.2 12.0 + 7.8 8 21 2.7-8.8 39 1 3.2 52 15 50.0 50.0 FD=freshly dead shell, WD=weathered shell, SF=subfossil shell TFE= federally endangered, FP= proposed for federal endangered status (USFWS, 2011); ILE=illinois endangered, ILT=lllinois threatened (ILDNR, 2009)2 Same letter within this row indicates no significant difference among sites (students t-test, p >0.10)3 Expected species with collection of 200 individuals 4 Quan only indicates only quantitative data was used in calculations 29 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 3-6. Age and length of unionids near Byron Station', Rock River, June 2011.Age (years 2) Length (mm)Species Ave. Min Max Ave. Min Max Ambleminae Fusconaiaflava 7.5 7 8 5(0.5 45 58 Pleurobema sintoxia 14.0 14 14 82.0 82 82 Quadrula p. pustulosa 8.3 3 17 46.6 12 74 Anodontinae Lasinigona
- c. complanata 15.0 15 15 134.0 134 134 Lampsilinae Lampsilis cardiunz 6.5 2 14 85.8 42 125 Lampsilis siliquoidea 14.5 8 21 102.5 85 120 Leptodeafiragilis 3.5 3 4 74.5 68 81 Potamilus ohiensis 3.0 3 3 65.0 65 65 Total 8.1 2 21 54.3 12 134'All methods 2 Based on external annuli count 30 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Table 4-1. Unionid community characteristics near Byron Station, 1993 vs. 2011.Byron to 1.6km SW 1993 2011 Oregon, IL' Byron (2009)2 No. live 2 % No. live2 %Ambleminae Amblemaplicata 27 WD FD FD Cvclonaias tubetrculata 27 WD WD WD Elliptio dilatata 27 WD WD WD Fusconaia ebena 27 -----Fusconaiaflava 27, 69, 86 3 5 2.1 4 1.0 Plethobasus cvphyus 27 -WD -WD -Pleurobema sintoxia 27, 69 -WD -1 0.3 Quadrula pustulosa 27, 86 23 84 35.7 362 93.1 Tritogonia vertutcosa 27 -WD -SF -Anodontinae Alasmidonta maiginata 27, 69, 86 WD 2 0.9 WD -Lasmigona
- c. complanata 27 -68 28.9 1 0.3 Lasmigona costata 27 -WD -WD -Pyganodon grandis --11 4.7 WD -Strophitus undulatus 27 -2 0.9 WD -Utterbackia imbecillis
-I FD --Lampsilinae Actinonaias ligamentina 27, 86 WD FD WD -Ellipsaria lineolata
SF -Lampsilis cardium 27,86 15 13 5.5 16 4.1 Lampsilis siliquoidea
--1 0.4 2 0.5 Leptodeafr-agilis 27 FD 41 17.4 2 0.5 Ligumia recta 27 1 2 0.9 WD -Potamilus alatus 27 ---WD -Potamilus ohiensis -1 1 0.3 Ptychbranchusfasciolaris
--WD --Toxolasma patrus 27 1 --Truncilla donaciformis
--6 2.6 -Total no. live 45 235 389 Live/FD species 8 14 9 Total species (26) 19 13 21 21 ES_200 9.9-11.6 2.7-8.8 CPU (catch/hour) 11.3 26.3 110.4 Density (no./m 2) 1.0 12.0 +/- 7.8% <5 years old 46.4 50.0% FD 35.1 3.2'From 8km (5mi) upstream of Byron to Oregon Dam, Year collected, Baker (1927), OSU (1969 [specimens reported with both valves were considered to have been either live or freshly dead when collected]), ILDC (1986)2 No. Live or best condition; FD=freshly dead shell, WD=weathered shell (INHS, 2009; relic is listed here as WD, Dead is listed here as FD)3 Expected species with collection of 200 individuals 31 11-003a Byron Station November 2011 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects.
Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (0 C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %C1 %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids UP TI-R' 0 0.6 22.5 8.5 -10 45 45 10 1.2 21.6 8.4 -10 45 45 --0 20 1.5 21.5 8.5 -10 45 45 --0 30 1.8 21.5 8.5 -10 45 45 --0 40 2.1 21.6 8.5 -10 45 45 ----0 50 3.0 21.8 8.5 --50 50 -----0 60 3.0 21.9 8.6 -10 20 70 -----0 70 3.0 21.6 8.5 ---100 -----1 80 3.0 22.0 8.5 --100 -----11 90 3.0 22.0 8.5 --100 -----2 100 2.7 22.1 8.5 --100 -----0 UP T2-L 0 0.3 22.6 8.9 --70 30 ----10 0.9 22.1 8.3 ---10 90 ---0 20 1.5 22.1 8.3 --100 --1 30 1.5 22.1 8.4 ---100 --0 40 1.8 22.1 8.4 ---100 -----1 50 2.1 22.2 8.4 ---100 -----17 60 2.1 23.2 8.4 ---100 -----3 70 2.1 23.2 8.5 ---100 -----1 80 2.4 22.2 8.5 ---100 -----0 90 2.7 22.2 8.5 --50 50 -----3 100 2.7 23.2 8.5 -20 30 50 -----4 UP T3-R 0 1.2 22.9 9.6 --80 20 -----10 1.5 23.0 8.5 -80 20 -----0 20 1.8 22.0 8.5 --80 20 -----0 30 2.4 22.2 8.5 -20 50 30 -----0 40 2.1 22.3 8.5 -20 50 30 -----0 50 2.4 22.3 8.5 -20 50 30 -----0 60 2.4 22.4 8.5 -20 50 30 -----0 70 2.4 22.4 8.5 ---100 -----29 80 2.7 22.5 8.5 -60 30 --10 --6 90 3.0 22.5 8.5 --100 ----2 100 3.0 22.5 8.5 -100 ---0 ,00 z 0 0 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (0 C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %CI %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids UP T4-L 0 0.3 23.4 8.6 -50 40 10 10 0.6 23.1 8.4 --25 25 50 0 20 1.5 22.7 8.4 ---60 30 10 1 30 2.1 22.7 8.4 ---90 10 --0 40 2.1 22.7 8.4 ---90 10 -0 50 2.1 22.7 8.4 ---100 ---0 60 2.1 22.7 8.3 ---100 ----0 70 2.4 22.7 8.4 ---100 ----0 80 2.4 22.7 8.4 ---100 ----0 90 2.7 22.7 8.4 ---100 ----0 100 2.4 22.7 8.4 ---100 ----I UP T5-R 0 0.3 24.3 8.9 ---80 10 10 --10 0.9 23.2 8.3 ---10 10 80 --3 20 1.5 22.6 8.4 --25 40 10 25 --1 30 2.1 22.6 8.4 --50 50 --0 40 2.1 22.6 8.4 --40 60 0 50 2.1 22.6 8.4 --50 50 0 60 2.4 22.7 8.4 --50 50 -1 70 2.4 22.8 8.4 --40 40 20 1 80 2.4 22.8 8.4 --100 -0 90 2.4 22.9 8.4 -100 0 100 2.1 22.9 8.3 --100 0 UP T6-L 0 0.6 23.9 8.7 -75 25 10 1.5 23.3 8.3 --75 25 0 20 2.7 23.1 8.3 -30 30 40 0 30 2.7 23.1 8.4 -20 20 60 --0 40 2.7 23.1 8.4 ----20 80 1 50 2.7 23.1 8.4 --100 ---0 60 2.4 23.1 8.3 --100 -0 70 2.1 23.2 8.3 --100 -0 80 2.1 23.1 8.3 --100 -0 90 1.8 23.2 8.3 --100 -0 100 1.8 23.2 8.3 --100 -0 0 0 0L z 0--t CD Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (°C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %CI %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids UP T7-R 0 0.3 24.2 8.5 --20 80 -10 1.2 23.3 8.2 -10 60 20 10 -2 20 2.1 23.2 8.3 -5 75 15 5 --0 30 3.0 23.2 8.4 -20 60 20 1- ---40 2.7 23.3 8.3 --10 80 10 ---4 50 2.4 23.4 8.3 -10 90 ----16 60 1.8 23.4 8.3 -10 90 ----22 70 1.8 23.5 8.2 -5 90 ---5 9 80 1.8 23.5 8.2 --100 --2 90 1.5 23.6 8.2 -100 -0 100 1.5 23.6 8.2 -100 ---0 UP T8-L 0 0.3 24.2 8.6 --100 ---10 1.5 23.8 8.5 ---30 50 --20 0 20 2.7 23.7 8.4 -10 10 50 20 --10 2 30 2.7 23.7 8.3 ---100 ----0 40 2.1 23.7 8.3 -10 30 60 --0 50 2.4 23.7 8.3 ---100 -- 1 60 2.4 23.7 8.3 ---100 --0 70 2.1 23.8 8.4 ---100 --0 80 1.8 23.8 8.2 ---100 --0 90 1.5 23.8 8.2 ---100 ----I 100 1.8 23.8 8.2 ---100 ----0 UP T9-R 0 0.6 23.9 8.4 -15 70 15 ----10 1.5 23.7 8.2 -30 50 20 ----2 20 2.1 23.7 8.3 --80 20 ----3 30 3.0 23.8 8.3 -20 50 10 --20 --2 40 2.4 23.8 8.3 ---100 ----18 50 2.4 23.9 8.3 --100 ----10 60 1.8 24.0 8.2 ---100 ----0 70 2.1 24.0 8.2 --10 90 ----0 80 1.8 24.0 8.2 --10 90 ----1 90 1.5 24.1 8.2 ---100 ----0 100 1.5 24.1 8.2 --100 ----0 0 0z 0 CDJ 0D 0 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station. June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (-C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %C1 %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids UP TIO-R 0 0.3 24.1 8.2 100 -10 1.2 23.9 8.2 50 50 -- 0 20 1.8 23.9 8.2 -25 50 25 ---1 30 2.1 23.9 8.3 -25 50 25 ----0 40 2.7 24.0 8.3 -25 25 50 ----2 50 2.7 24.1 83 ---100 ----1 60 2.4 24.2 83 ---100 ----1 70 2.1 24.2 8.3 ---100 ----0 80 2.4 24.2 8.3 ---100 ----0 90 1.8 24.3 8.2 ---100 -----I 100 1.5 24.3 8.2 ---70 10 20 ---0 UP TI I-R 0 0.6 23.2 8.1 -25 25 25 25 --10 1.2 22.7 7.9 -25 25 --0 20 1.8 22.5 8.1 --80 20 --0 30 2.7 22.5 8.1 -90 10 1 40 2.1 22.5 8.1 --100 ----8 50 3.4 22.6 8.1 -100 -----0 60 3.4 22.7 8.1 ---100 -----0 70 3.0 22.7 8.1 ---100 -----0 80 3.0 22.8 8.1 ---100 -----0 90 3.0 22.8 8.0 ---100 -----0 100 1.5 22.8 8.0 ---100 -----0 DN T12-L 0 0.6 25.3 7.8 -20 60 --10 1.5 23.1 8.0 -75 25 -----0 20 1.5 23.0 8.0 ---100 -----0 30 1.5 22.9 8.0 -100 -----1 40 1.5 22.9 8.0 ---100 -----0 50 1.5 22.9 8.0 ---100 -----0 60 1.5 22.9 8.0 ---100 -----70 1.8 22.9 8.0 ---100 -----0 80 2.1 22.9 8.0 ----10 90 ---0 90 2.4 22.9 8.0 ---100 ----0 100 2.4 22.9 8.1 ---100 -00 z ,.9 U, Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxvgen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (-C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %CI %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids DN T13-R 0 0.3 23.6 8.3 80 20 10 1.5 22.8 8.0 --25 75 0 20 1.5 22.7 8.0 -80 20 ---0 30 2.4 22.7 8.1 --80 20 -- 0 40 3.0 22.7 8.1 --50 50 --50 3.0 22.7 8.1 ---100 -9 60 3.0 22.8 8.1 ---100 -0 70 3.0 22.9 8.1 ---100 ---1 80 3.0 22.9 8.1 ---100 ----0 90 2.4 22.9 8.1 ---100 ----0 100 2.4 23.0 8.1 ---100 -----0 DN T14-L 0 0.9 25.0 8.2 ---50 --10 1.8 23.5 8.0 --25 50 --0 20 1.8 23.4 7.9 ---100 ---0 30 1.8 23.3 8.0 ---100 ---0 40 1.8 23.1 7.9 ---100 ---0 50 2.1 23.1 8.0 ---100 -1 60 1.8 23.1 7.9 ---100 -1 70 2.4 23.1 8.0 ---50 0 80 2.1 23.1 8.0 ---100 ---0 90 2.4 23.1 8.0 ---100 ---0 100 3.4 23.1 8.0 ---50 0 DN T15-R 0 0.9 24.0 8.2 50 -25 25 --10 1.2 23.3 7.9 -50 25 25 -1 20 1.8 23.1 7.9 -75 25 ---0 30 2.7 23.0 8.0 -50 25 25 ---0 40 3.0 23.0 8.1 -60 20 20 ----0 50 3.0 23.0 8.1 ---100 ----1 60 3.0 23.0 8.1 --100 -----5 70 3.0 23.2 8.0 ---100 -----0 80 3.0 23.2 8.0 ---100 -----0 90 3.0 23.2 8.0 ---100 -----0 100 3.0 23.2 8.0 ---100 -----0 M 0 0 U..7 t0 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station. June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (°C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %CI %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids DN T16-L 0 0.6 25.3 8.8 --50 50 10 1.5 24.2 8.0 --90 10 1 20 2.1 23.9 7.9 --100 --0 30 1.8 23.8 7.9 --100 --0 40 2.1 23.7 7.9 --100 ---0 50 2.7 23.6 7.9 --100 ---0 60 2.7 23.5 8.0 --100 ---0 70 2.7 23.5 8.0 --100 ----0 80 3.0 23.6 8.0 --100 ----0 90 3.0 23.5 8.0 --100 -----100 3.0 23.5 8.1 -20 20 --0 DN T17-R 0 0.6 0 24.7 8.0 -100 ----10 1.2 10 24.0 7.9 5 95 1-20 1.8 20 23.6 7.9 5 95 -----0 30 2.7 30 23.5 8.0 5 90 5 ----0 40 3.0 40 23.4 8.0 5 90 5 -----0 50 3.0 50 23.4 8.0 -5 90 ----0 60 2.7 60 23.5 8.0 -100 -----2 70 3.4 70 23.6 8.0 -100 ----0 80 3.0 80 23.7 8.0 5 95 ----0 90 3.0 90 23.7 8.0 -100 ----I 100 2.7 100 23.7 8.0 --50 0 DN T18-L 0 0.3 0 25.9 8.3 20 --30 ---10 1.5 10 24.7 7.8 20 60 --0 20 1.8 20 24.4 7.8 --90 10 ---0 30 2.4 30 24.3 7.8 -40 20 40 ---0 40 2.1 40 24.1 7.9 --100 ----0 50 2.4 50 24.0 7.9 --100 ----0 60 2.7 60 23.9 7.9 --10 90 ---0 70 2.7 70 23.9 7.9 --100 ----0 80 2.7 80 23.9 7.9 --100 ----0 90 2.7 90 23.9 7.9 --100 ----0 100 3.0 100 23.9 8.0 --100 ----0 0 0 a 0" z'0.0m Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (M) (°C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %C1 %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids DN T19-R 0 0.3 25.0 8.0 -100 --10 1.2 24.4 7.9 -10 90 -----0 20 3.0 24.0 8.0 -10 90 -----0 30 3.0 23.9 8.0 -10 90 -----0 40 3.4 23.9 8.0 --5 90 5 ---0 50 3.0 23.9 8.0 ---100 --0 60 3.7 23.9 8.0 ---100 --1 70 3.0 24.0 8.0 ---100 -----0 80 3.0 24.0 8.0 ---100 -----0 90 3.0 24.0 8.0 ---100 -----0 100 3.0 24.1 8.0 ---100 -----DN T20-L 0 0.3 26.3 7.8 --10 80 10 ---10 1.2 25.1 7.7 --40 30 30 ----0 20 1.5 24.8 7.7 --45 10 45 ----0 30 1.8 24.7 7.8 --15 15 70 ----0 40 1.8 24.6 7.7 ---100 ----0 50 2.4 24.5 7.8 --20 10 70 --1 60 2.1 24.3 7.8 ---100 ---2 70 2.4 24.3 7.9 ---100 -----1 80 2.7 24.3 7.9 ---100 -----0 90 3.0 24.3 7.9 ---100 -----0 100 3.0 24.3 7.9 ---100 -----0 DN T21-R 0 0.6 24.9 7.9 -80 10 10 ----10 2.4 24.5 7.8 -10 80 10 -----0 20 2.4 24.3 7.9 -5 85 10 -----0 30 2.4 24.3 7.9 -5 75 20 -----0 40 3.0 24.3 7.9 --80 20 -----1 50 3.0 24.3 7.9 ---100 -----0 60 2.7 24.3 7.9 --100 -----0 70 3.4 24.4 7.9 --100 -----0 80 3.0 24.4 7.9 --100 -----0 90 2.7 24.4 7.9 --100 -----0 100 2.7 24.4 7.9 --100 -----0 0 0 uJ M 0 0n z 0 en 0 en NJ 0 0 Appendix A. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth, substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station, June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (0 C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %CI %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids DN T22-L 0 0.3 25.4 7.3 10 10 80 -10 1.5 25.1 7.1 10 40 50 -1 20 1.5 24.8 7.2 -50 50 --2 30 2.] 24.7 7.2 50 3 40 2.1 24.5 7.2 ---100 --0 50 2.1 24.5 7.2 ---100 -3 60 2.1 24.3 7.2 ---100 -0 70 2.1 24.3 7.3 ---100 --2 80 2.7 24.3 7.3 ---100 --0 90 2.7 24.2 7.3 ---100 --0 100 2.7 24.2 7.3 ---100 --0 DN T23-R 0 0.3 24.5 7.1 -100 --10 1.5 24.1 7.2 -25 50 25 0 20 1.5 24.0 7.2 --50 50 1- -30 2.4 23.9 7.3 --25 25 50 -6 40 2.4 23.9 7.3 --80 ---20 4 50 2.4 24.0 7.2 --100 ----0 60 2.1 24.0 7.2 --100 ---1 70 2.7 24.0 7.3 --100 ----0 80 2.7 24.1 7.3 ---80 20 ---0 90 2.7 24.1 7.3 ---10 -0 100 2.4 24.1 7.3 ---100 ----0 DN T24-L 0 0.3 24.8 7.0 ---60 40 -10 1.2 24.7 7.1 -10 30 20 20 20 0 20 1.5 24.6 7.1 -10 50 40 --0 30 1.5 24.6 7.1 -20 40 40 --0 40 1.5 24.5 7.2 -20 40 40 ---0 50 2.4 24.3 7.3 70 1- --60 2.4 24.2 7.3 -15 15 70 ----0 70 3.0 24.1 7.3 ---100 ----0 80 2.7 24.1 7.3 ---100 ----0 90 3.0 24.0 7.3 --5 95 1- ---100 2.7 24.0 7.3 --5 95 ----0 7 0 0 z 21 0 Appendix A. Temperature.
dissolved oxygen, depth. substrate and number live unionids along transects, Byron Station. June 2011 Dist from Depth Temp. DO Substrate No. live Site Trans. bank (m) (m) (°C) (mg/L) %Bo %Cb %Gr %Sd %St %Cl %Shell %Dt %WD Unionids DN T25-L 0 0.6 24.7 7.0 30 40 20 -10 10 1.2 24.7 7.1 20 20 40 20 2 20 2.1 24.6 7.2 -20 40 40 -1 30 2.4 24.5 7.2 -10 45 45 0 40 2.4 24.3 7.2 -10 70 20 0 50 2.7 24.1 7.3 -10 70 20 1 60 3.0 24.1 7.3 -10 70 20 -0 70 3.4 24.0 7.3 --60 40 -----2 80 3.0 24.0 7.3 --100 -----0 90 3.0 24.0 7.3 -100 -----0 100 3.0 24.0 7.3 ---100 -----0 Ave. 2.2 0 6 18 67 4 4 0 0 0 1.1 Bo=Boulder, Cb=Cobble.
Gr-Gravel, Sd=Sand, St=Silt, Cl=Clay, Shell=Unionid shell, DtrDetritus, WD=Woody debris ITI-R= Transect I, Right bank 0, 0 z (D 0 t-Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-1 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: Provide the following information:
- c. (Exelon Nuclear 2003a) Exelon Nuclear. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan -Byron Nuclear Power Station. June 2003.Response: The Byron Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been updated. The most recent version dated January 2013 is attached to the Request for Additional Information Response WR-SW-1 b.List Attachments Provided: None Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-1 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: Provide the following information:
- d. (Exelon Nuclear 201 1c) Exelon Nuclear. 2011. WHC Wildlife Management Plan -Byron Generating Station. Byron, IL.Response: The requested information is attached.List Attachments Provided: 1. (Exelon Nuclear 201 1c) Exelon Nuclear. 2011. WHC Wildlife Management Plan -Byron Generating Station. Byron, IL.
egrov,- Olc)WHC WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXELON NUCLEAR Byron Generating Station WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 Prepared by: David Starke Zoe Cox TABLE OF CONTENTS Sum m ary ................................................................................
2 1. B ackground
....................................................................
3 1.1. Corporate Environmental Stewardship
...............................
3 1.2. Facility Description
....................................................
3 1.2.1. Wildlife Team ........................................................
4 1.2.2. Ecological Background
.............................................
4 1.2.3. Watershed Description
...............................................
5 1.2.4. Climate Conditions
...................................................
5 2. Developm ent ..............................................................
6 2.1. Facility Inventory
......................................................
6 Tables of Flora and Fauna Identified at Byron Station Property ........ 6 2.2. Timeline of Completed Activities and Goals ......................
16 3. Implementation
.........................................................
17 3.1. Mission of the Byron Station's Wildlife at Work Program .........
17 4. Evaluation and Project Status .........................................
19 4.1. New Projects ...........................................................
20 5. Documentation
.........................................................
20
SUMMARY
The Exelon Nuclear Byron Generating Station is located in Byron, Illinois, which is in Ogle County, in northern Illinois.
The station consists of a two unit nuclear electric generating station capable of generating approximately 1,200 net megawatts per unit.Together they can produce enough power to support the electricity needs of more than two million average American homes. Its massive twin cooling towers reach 495 feet into the air, overlooking the scenic Rock River Valley.The property was purchased in the 1970's and is situated approximately in the center of the county in a predominantly agricultural area. The Rock River makes the western boundary of the property and is about 2.2 miles from the actual plant location.
The local area has many state parks and park district lands and much of the property's woods and meadows are very similar to those public habitats.To assist in the development of a biodiversity assessment and wildlife habitat management plan, representatives from the Byron Generating Station invited a WHC biologist to visit the site on August 15, 2006. Since then Byron employees have looked at the ecological communities around the Byron Generating Station, focusing on a cavity nesting birds such as, tree swallows, eastern bluebirds, wood ducks and bats that are in need of critical habitats.
The Byron Environmental Stewardship Team (BEST) have discussed and outlining opportunities for future enhancement from the WHC recommendations that are designed to augment food, water, cover, and space resources
-the four basic components for other species local to our area that require something different than what might presently be found in their habitat.
1. Background
Exelon Nuclear has been a WHC member since 2005, a standing that exemplifies its commitment to improving wildlife habitat through enrichment of pre-existing habitats and the establishment of new habitats on the company's holdings.
Induction into the Wildlife at Work program will enable Byron Station to get assistance from WHC in its efforts to improve the facility's wildlife habitat. The partnership with WHC will continue to provide Exelon Nuclear with an opportunity to demonstrate responsible corporate environmental stewardship by formulating and implementing a balanced and operative wildlife management program.1.1 Corporate Environmental Stewardship Exelon Nuclear is a leader in providing carbon-free electricity to the eastern half of the United States. As a leader in the local community, Byron Station has provide funding to projects such as CFL lighting for the local Boy & Girl Scout camps, sponsorship of the local animal rehabilitation facility, sponsorship of education programs for Ogle County's Soil Conservation district and the Solid Waste Management Department.
Also have been major sponsors of the local effort to cleanup the Rock River, called the Rock River Sweep. Byron Station also gives a yearly donation to a local group that cleans up the Pecatonica River. To achieve the goal of being a good neighbor, the station sponsors several of local events and organizations, including, the Byron Civic Theatre, the annual ByronFest, and Byron Police Department's DARE Program as well as a number of local sports teams, which are often coached by employees.
Byron employees give generously to the community through a variety of charitable activities.
Employees generously donate to local United Way chapters, sponsor blood drives, and also donate food, toys and clothes to non-profit community groups, especially during the holiday season. Byron Station has also provided donations to Hoo Haven which is a wildlife rehabilitation center and they provide educational program to anyone who might be interested.
Last year Byron Station paid for Hoo Haven to give presentations to 5 area schools.1.2 Facility Description Byron Station is on 1300 acres of land that was and is primarily agricultural and 750 acres of those acres are leased to local farmers. There are about 300 acres that are wooded and another 150 acres that is meadow or grassland.
The wooded and meadow areas have been essentially untouched by any management plan since the property was purchased back in the 1970s. The western portion of the property is the Rock River and it is connected to the other 1000 acres by a 1.5 mile corridor of 300 acres that is mainly wooded. Most of the new habitat projects are along the roadways and meadows that stretch from the building areas down to the river. The site is bordered to the south by agricultural lands and forested acres, to the east by German Church Road, and agricultural lands, also owned by the Byron Generating Station. These agricultural acres are leased to a local farmer, however, and are not available for habitat projects.
Land use on the site's northern border is also agricultural, with large areas of woodlands.
An unnamed tributary of the Rock River, locally referred to as Woodland Creek, passes 0 through the northeast quarter of the property and carries stormwater runoff from the station and German Church Road. The Byron Generating Station is a two-unit nuclear power facility that generates enough power to support the electricity needs of over two million average American homes. At this station, Exelon employs nearly 850 permanent employees.
1.2.1. Wildlife
Team The Byron Environmental Stewardship Team (BEST) has had up to 25 employees.
The team also enlists the help of volunteers, professionals and community members on a frequent basis.1.2.2. Ecological
Background
Exelon Corporation's Byron Generating Station lies within what Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment, published by Island Press, identifies as the Central Forest-Grassland Transition Ecoregion.
The Central Forest-Grassland Transition Zone encompasses much of Illinois, extending across Missouri into eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. According to information presented in Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment, the total area of the ecoregion is more than 146,718 square miles, making it one of the largest savannah-dominated areas in North America, although little of the acreage is preserved as native habitat.Uniquely situated between forested and grassland ecoregions, this ecoregion's soil and climate conditions allow woodlands to develop, often in conjunction with an understory of tallgrass prairie species. Throughout the region, oaks and hickories are the most dominant species in the canopy. The vast diversity of habitat types and conditions in the transition zone supports select species that have adapted to the neighboring Great Plains and hardwood forests. This significance of habitat is further demonstrated through the ecoregion's rank among the top ten for diversity of bird, reptile, butterfly, and tree species.The Central Forest-Grassland Transition Zone separates the forested regions of the east from the tallgrass, mixed prairies of the plains, and therefore exhibits some of the characteristics of each of the ecoregions that surround it. Regional habitats within this transition zone are distinct, however, in that they display a higher density of trees and shrubs than the prairies and savannahs to the west, as well as a more diverse mosaic of savannah and prairie habitats than the hardwood forested zone to the east. In addition, the ecoregion is unified in soil type and general climate conditions.
The mix of native grassland, forestland, and wetland habitats in this ecoregion was historically maintained by regular disturbances from periodic droughts and fires. Precipitation throughout the ecoregion reportedly ranges between approximately 20 to 45 inches annually.
Areas that receive greater precipitation naturally support a greater diversity and density of tree and shrub species, while drier areas support a greater diversity of grassland savannah species and fewer woody plants.In addition to the aforementioned classification, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service adopted its own policy and subsequent classification of ecosystem types in the publication Ecoregions of the United States, which was compiled by Robert G. Bailey and revised in March 1995; this publication classifies land based on forest cover types, grasslands, and other data from ongoing research programs.
This classification of ecoregions is a hierarchical system based on elements of climate, geology, topography, and vegetation.
This widely recognized system divides a country into large domains, followed by divisions, and then provinces.
Under the Forest Service's classification, the Byron Station lies within the Prairie Parkland Province, near the border of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province.
This province is further divided into specific sections, which include the Central Loess Plains, South Central Great Lakes, Central Dissected Till Plains, and Beech-Maple Sections.The Central Loess Plains Section, which includes the Byron Station, is characterized by the Forest Service as having both irregular and smooth rolling plains naturally covered by bluestem prairie grasses and floodplain forests along the drainages.
1.2.3 Watershed
Description In addition to being located in the Central Forest-Grassland Transition Zone, Exelon Corporation's Byron Generating Station is situated within the Lower Rock Watershed.
A watershed, or catchment, is an area of land where water drains to a common point. These regions are controlled and defined by topography, bedrock, and soil permeability.
Knowledge of watersheds is necessary for industrial development, as the contamination of groundwater at one site affects the water for wildlife and human consumption in the entire drainage area. The Lower Rock Watershed is comprised of 2,180 square miles and drains into the Rock River and its tributaries, which include Pine Creek, Elkhorn Creek, Rock Creek, Stillman Creek, and the Kyte River. This watershed is part of the Rock subregion of the Upper Mississippi drainage region. Watershed management should be a community effort, as the regions are so intricately connected.
1.2.4 Climate
Conditions The Central Forest-Grassland Transition Zone lies within what scientists have termed the Humid Temperate Domain. Climatic conditions in this region are generally classified as humid continental, with hot and humid summers and often severely cold winters. Last year, the city of Bryon reported approximately average temperatures of about 32 degrees Fahrenheit during fall and winter months, and average temperatures of about 63 degrees Fahrenheit during the spring and summer months. The tornado activity level in the region is below the state's average; it is, however, 47 percent greater than the overall U.S.average. While it is important to understand and consider area temperatures, the diversity of vegetative communities will also depend on precipitation amounts. The state of Illinois typically receives 35 to 45 inches of precipitation each year. However, the annual averages are widely varied throughout the state. The city of Byron, which has an average annual precipitation of 37.5 inches, receives the greatest amount of precipitation during the summer months, particularly in June and August.
- 2. Development
2.1. Facility
Inventory A through assessment of the station plants and animals was conducted in the 1970's by a team of biologists and those documents form the basis for most of the inventories.
These multi year inventories were include in the Environmental Report that was generated for the operating license that was submitted to the NRC. Further work was done when the BEST group consulted with the local University of Illinois County Extension agent who came out to assist in looking for a specific legume that is host to the Karner Blue Butterfly.
Also a member of the BEST group has a MS degree in Biology and is familiar with many of the area's plants.On August 15, 2006, Kathleen Koelbl-Crews (WHC Wildlife Biologist) met with Exelon Corporation representatives Jim Bolte, Zoe Cox, and Craig Walter to discuss site biodiversity and wildlife habitat opportunities at the Byron Generating Station. The meeting was held in the Byron Generating Station's training center at approximately nine a.m. on Wednesday morning. Following introductions, Mr. Bolte, Ms. Cox, Mr. Walter and, Ms. Koelbl-Crews conducted a comprehensive tour of the site. The group walked and drove a majority of the property, discussing the layout of the buildings and operations in relation to the undeveloped, potential habitat areas.Tables of Flora and Fauna Identified at Byron Station Property Amphibians Alligator Snapping Turtle Macroclemys temminckii Western Chorus FrogI Pseudacris triseriata American Toad Bufo americanus Smooth Softshell Turtle Apalone mutica Springer Peeper Hyla crucifer Reptiles[ Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Red Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila Bull Snake Pituophis melanoleucus Birds American Goldfinch Spinus tristis American Woodcock Philohela minor American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 0 Bald Eagle Haliacetus leucocephalus Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Black-and-white Warbler Miriotilta varia Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Black-throated Green Warbler Dendoica virens Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptilla caerulea Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus Brewster's Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera x V. pinus Brad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris Brown-headed Cowbird Molathrus ater Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Canada Goose Branta Canadensis Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerine Crow Corvus brachyrynchos Common Grackle Quiscalus quisula Common Nighthawk Chodeiles minor Dickcissel Spiza Americana Downy Woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Meadowlark Stumella magna Eastern Phoebe Sayomis phoebe Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus virens Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax viresens Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Grasshopper Sparrow Ammondramus savannarum Gray-checked Thrush Catharas minima Gray Partridge Perdix perdix Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Great Homed Owl Bubo virginianus Hairy Woodpecker Dendrocopos villosus Hermit Thrush Catharus guttata Homed Lark Eremophila alpestris House Sparrow Passer domesticus House Wren Troglodytes aedon Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Kilideer Charadrius vociferus Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Myrtle Warbler Dendroica coronata Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Ovenbird Serurus aurocapillus Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Purple Martin Progne subis Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus carolinus Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red-winged Blackbird Agelarius pheoniceus Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Robin Turdus migratorius Rock Dove (Pigeon) Columba livia Rose breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Ruby crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Rofous sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Screech Owl Otus asio Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis Slate-colored Junco Junco hyemalis Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Sparrow Hawk Falco sparverius Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Starling Stumus vulgaris Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulata Swamp Sparrow Melospiza Georgiana Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrine Tree Warbler Spizella arborea Tree Swallow Sridoprocne bicolor Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Warbling Vireo Vireo gileres Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Wood Duck Aix sponsa Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Yellow-shafted Flicker Colaptes auratus Yellow-throat Geothlypis trichas Yellow-warbler Dendroica petechia Blue Heron Ardea herodias Insects Achilid Planthopper Ambush Bug Ant Anthomyiid Fly Aphid Assassin Bug Bee Blackfly Black Scavenger Fly Branonids Branch Borer Broad-headed Bug Brown Lacewing Butterfly
-Monarch Butterfly
-Swallow-tailed Chamaemyiid Fly Chinch Fly Clear-winged Moth Common Sawfly Common Thrip Cosmopterygid Moth Crab Spider Cricket Cuckoo Wasp Curtonotid Fly Cynipids Daddy Longlegs Damsel Bug Delphacid Planthopper Derbid Planthopper Dermstid Beetle Diastatid Fly Dragonfly Encyrtids Eulophids Eupelmids False Darkline Beetlw Fairyfly Firefly Flatid Planthopper Fly (Tephritidae)
Fly (Stratiomyidae)
Froghopper Fruit Fly Fulgorid Planthopper Fungus gnat Funnel-web Spider Gall Gnat Grasshopper Green Lacewing Ground Beetle Heliodinid Moth Horsefly Humpbacked Fly Ichneumon Issid Planthopper Katydid Lacewing Lady Beetle Lauxaniid Fly Leaf Beetle Leaf Bug Leafhopper Leaf Miner Fly Long-homed Beetle Long-homed Grasshopper Long-legged Fly March Beetle Milkweed Butterfly Minute Brown Scavenger beetle Minute Pirate Bug Mosquito Muscid Fly Narrow-winged Damselfly Noctid Moth Perilampids Picture-winged Fly Plant Bug Planthopper Plasterer Bee Platygasterid Platstomatid Fly Primitive Crane Fly Psyllids Pteromalids Pyralid Moth Robber Fly Rove Beetle Sap Beetle Scarab Beetle Seed Chalcid Shield-backed Bug Shining Flower Beetle Skipper Fly Snout Beetle Soldier Beetle Spear-winged Fly Spider Spider Squash Bug Stem Sawfly Stilt Bug Stinkbug Syrphid Fly Tachnid Fly Torymids Treehopper Trichogramatids Tumbling Flower Beetle Wasp (Ichneumonidae)
Wasp (Vespidae)
Wedge-shaped Beetle Weevil Water Strider Whitefly Fish American Eel Anquilla rostrata Ca Cyprinus carpio Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus White Crappie Pomoxis annularis Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens Goldfish Carassius auratus Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Pike Esox lucius N. Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus N. Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis Quillback Carpsucker carpiodes cyprinus Redhorse Moxostoma sp.Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus Silver Chub Hybopsis storeriana Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Spottail Shiner Notropis spilopterus Walleye Stizostedion vitreum White Bass Morone chrysops White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis Mammals Beaver Castor canadensis Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Coyote Canis latrans Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Mole Scalopus aguaticus 0 Fox Squirrel Sciurus nigir Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Groundhog Marmota monax House Mouse Mus musculus Meadow Vole Microtus ennsylvanicus Muskrat Ondata zibethica Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Raccoon Procyon lotor Red Fox Vulpes fulva Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Wood Mouse Peromyscus leucopus White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 13-lined Ground Squirrel Citeilus tridecemlineatus Herbs & Grasses Alfafa Medicago sativa Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum Aster Aster sp.Avens Geum aleppicum Beggar-ticks Bidens frondosa or Bidens comosa Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii Bicknell's Cranesbill Geranium bicknelli Black Nightshade Solnum nigrum Blackseed Plantain Plantago rugelii Blessed Thistle Cnicus benedictus Bluegrass Poa pratensis Blue Violet Viola papilionacea Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum Bristley Greenbriar Smilax hispida Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Butterfly Bush Buddleia davidii Canada Bluegrass Poa compressa Catnip Nepeta cataria Cattails Typha latifolia Chickory Cichorium intybus Cleavers Galium aparine Cocklebur Xanthium pennsylvanicum Common Burdock Arctium minus Common Mullen Verbascum Thapsus Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium Creeping Wood Sorrel Oxalis coriculata Curly Dock Rumex crispus Daisy Fleabane Erigeron strigosus Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Dutchman's Breeches Dicentra cucullaria European Horsemint Mentha longifolia Evening Primrose Genthera biennis Field Sorrel Rumex acetosella Giant Foxtail Setaria faberii Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida Goldenrod Solidago Canadensis Ground Cherry Physalis heterophylla Herb Robert Geranium robertianum Hoary Vervain Verbena stricta Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema atrorubens Kidneyleaf Buttercup Ranunculus abortivus Lambsquarters Chenopodium album Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esule Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium May Apple Podophyllum peltatum Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Pennsylvania Smartweed Polygonum pennsylvanicum Poison Ivy Rhus radicans Prairie Trillium Trillium recurvatum Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola Purple Avens Geum rivale Purple Violet Viola papilionacea Pussy Toes Antennaria plantaginifolia Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Rattlesnake Root Nabalus triffoliolatus Red Clover Trifolium pretense Redtop Agrostis alba Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum Rough-fruited Cinquefoil Potentilla recta Roundleaf Yellow Violet Viola rotundifolia Sandbur Cenchrus longispinus Self-heal Prunella vulgaris Star Chickweed Stellaria pubera Sulfur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta Swamp Buttercup Ranunculus septentrionalis Timothy Phleum pretense Trumpet Vine Campsis radicans Velvet Leaf Abutilon theophrasti Virginia Creeper Campsis radicans White Clover Trifolium repens White Heath Aster Aster pilosus White Sweetclover Melilotus alba White Vervain Verbena urticifolia Whorled Milkweed Ascepias verticillata Whorled Milk Wort Polygala verticillata Wild Carrot Daucus carota Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata Wild Oat Avena fatua Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Wintergreen Pyrola americana Yarrow Achillea millefolium Yellow Clover Trifolium procumbens Yellow Foxtail Setaria lutescens Yellow Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Yellow Toad Flax Linaria vulgaris Yellow Wood Sorrel Oxalis europaea Shrubs Blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Bristly Black Currant Ribes lacustre Bristly Dewberry Rubus hispidus Cat Briar Smilax glauca Flowering Dogwood Comus florida Frost Grape Vitis vulpina Cat Grape Vitis palmata Grape Vitis sp.Winter Grape Vitis cinera Northern Prickly-ash Xanthoxylum americanum Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Red Leaf Rose Rosa rubrifolia Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus Rose Rosa sp.Rose of Sharon Hibiscus syriacus Red-osier Dogwood Comus stolonifera Round-leaf Dogwood Comus rugosa Smooth Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra Stag Horn Sumac Rhus typhina Wild Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis Trees[American Crabapple Pyrus coronaria American Elm Ulmus americana American Hazelnut Corylus americana American Plum Prunus americana Apple Malus sp.Black Cherry Prunus serotina Blackjack Oak Quercus marilandica Black Locust Robina psuedoacacia Black Maple Acer nigrum Black Oak Quercus velutina Black Walnut Juglans nigra Box Elder Acer negunda Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana Cottonwood Populus deltoids Crabapple Malus coronaria Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Hawthorn Crataegus sp.Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana Jack Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Linden Tillia americana Mockernut Hickory Carya tomentosa Osage-orange Maclura pomifera Pin Oak Quercus palustria Prickly Ash Zanthoxylum americanum Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana Red Maple Acer rubrum Red Mulberry Morus rubra Red Oak Quercus rubra Red Pine Pinus resinosa Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Shellbark Hickory Carya laciniosa Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Sycamore Platanus occidentalis White Ash Fraxinus americana White Oak Quercus alba White Pine Pinus strobus Variable-thorn Hawthorn Crataegus punctata 2.2 Timeline of Completed Activities and Future Goals In spring of 2007 the BEST group started the Wildlife at Work program by first purchasing bird houses for Bluebirds, Woodpeckers, Wood Ducks and Owls as a way of providing habitats for local birds that were in need of nesting areas. Bat houses were also purchased in an attempt to encourage bats to feed on the plentiful insects found down at the River Screen House (RSH). Monitoring was performed on the houses every Spring and Summer and additional houses were purchased each year. In 2009 the BEST group was able to contact Ducks Unlimited and work with them to locate two new Wood Duck houses in good locations north of the RSH. Monitoring of the houses occurred in April and May of 2009. In September 2009 a local Girl Scout Troop made two bat houses from kits that the BEST group had provided.
In April and May 2010 it was time to clean up the houses and then monitor the houses to see who inhabited the houses. In October 2010 an employee asked the BEST group if there might be some project that could be done for an Eagle Scout. By December 2010 the project was approved and Nathan Schlagel and his troop worked to make houses, locate the existing houses and record GPS location which were posted on Google map, and erect the new houses around the Byron Station property while recording GPS locations.
This work finished at the end of March, 2011 and all the houses were cleaned for arrival of the seasonal occupants.
In February of 2010 during a BEST meeting it was noted that the area outside the training cafeteria needed to be replanted.
The decision was made to try and use the kits that were for sale from the Ogle County Soil Conservation group. Then in April of 2011 the old plant material that was outside the training building's cafeteria was removed and two of the Bird and Butterfly kits were planted. The patio looked much better and employees could see butterflies and some birds visiting the plants.Future timelines for the BEST group are to maintain current focus on cavity nesting birds and arrange houses in suitable locations on the property to extend the size of the bluebird trail for the foreseeable future. Byron Forest Preserve District had talked to BEST members about the possibility of using some of the station property as a location for prairie plants and these actions would be at least two years in the future.There have also been discussions that heron platforms could be set up along the edge of the Rock River. These activities for platform building could take place in the Spring of 2012. And there have been other discussions about retention ponds on Woodland Creek and on Kartheiser Creek where birds and animals would have increased access to water.These actions would take more time and equipment to occur and would most likely start some where after 2015.3. Implementation
3.1. Mission
of Byron Station's Wildlife at Work Program The mission of the Byron Station's Wildlife at Work program is to increase the facility's biological diversity.
Individual projects will be actively managed and monitored to ensure that they adhere to this plan. Additionally, the Byron Station program provides educational opportunities to BEST group members, Byron Station employees and the general public.Project 1. Enhance habitats for cavity-nesting birds The houses for the bluebirds and wood ducks have been successful in encouraging those species to utilize the habitats present around Byron Station. There is food available in this grouping of meadows, river side woods, and older hardwoods for the wide variety of nesting cavity birds we are trying to attract. Water is also nearby with an assortment of small creeks, the Rock River and several ponds. There is cover provided the birds by the placement of the houses in relation to the closest trees and branches which can allow the birds to first survey the area around their nest before returning.
There is plenty of space between houses so that the birds won't have to feel that they are competing with each other and both houses then end up empty or occupied by sparrows.The monitoring of the status of the houses was recorded in many cases by taking pictures of what we found during the inspections of the houses. It was always a surprise as to what would await us when we made our observation.
Sometimes the adult would just freeze on the nest and the next house might have a family of mice. We would start our observation early in the spring before the leaves would bud out on the trees. This was when we would find the majority of the mice since they found a house that was dry.We made observations as to what type of house was most often occupied with a nesting family and which ones fell apart after a couple of years. In some cases the smallest and cheapest house was continually occupied but it was hard to determine if it was the location to food or cover that provided the attraction.
It was nice that the cavity-nesting birds were the ones that we had the most outside volunteers to help us with our efforts to attract even more of these birds.Project 2. Enhance habitats for bats The houses for the bats have been successful in encouraging those species to utilize the habitats present around Byron Station. There is food available for these insectivores from the meadows, river side woods, and other aerial areas for these wide ranging feeders.Water is also nearby with an assortment of small creeks, the Rock River and several ponds. There is cover provided to the bats by the placement of the houses in relation to the closest trees and branches which can keep predators away form them. There is plenty of space between houses so that the bats can have one house for a nursery and another nearby house for bachelors.
The monitoring of the bats has been ongoing for several years ever since we noticed them roosting under awning and on a brick wall at the Main Access Building (MAB)where we enter and exit the plant. The bat houses were part of an effort to find these few bats a roosting place away from a walkway where they could be bothered.The monitoring of the bat houses is done while on rounds for other bird houses and while visiting the RSH area. So we have been successful in establishing more areas for bats to roost and have noticed a decrease in the number and times bats have used the MAB to roost in the past two years while also still noting bats flying around at dusk.Project 3. Establish butterfly garden The butterfly garden outside the training building cafeteria is very nice to look at with the flowers and helpful to the local fauna by allowing pollinators some other plants to forage from. Since this area is frequented by many people who attend training, this is by far the best opportunity to show our co-workers some of the benefits of supporting wildlife.The pollinators are attracted to the flowers present in the garden which provides them food and sheltered location since there are buildings on two sides. There is a local water source that is not more than 500 ft from the garden and the garden is close to trees and grasslands where cover could be found for the different pollinators.
The creation of this garden provides a space where a variety of species can thrive, due to the availability of food and cover. The area was previously much neglected and not a suitable environment for most pollinators.
- 4. Evaluation and Project Status The Byron Station's Wildlife at Work program started with a number of bird and bat houses being mounted in trees in 2007 and monitoring started then. The program has been expanding each year and we have noted increase numbers of bluebirds and wood ducks nesting in the houses that have been set up.Project 1.There appears to be very discernable trend that the number of bluebirds has increased in the immediate area. This can be documented by the increase in number of houses with active chicks that have fledged. This shows that Byron Station has created an active bluebird trail and with the bluebird trail established at the Byron Forest Preserve Property about two miles away that bluebirds in this area are on the rise.The Byron Station wood duck houses also have been successful as last year a dozen ducklings left one of the houses.Project 2.The Byron Station bat houses have been in place for over three years and there have been very few observations of actual bats in the houses. There has been indication of bats present in the houses by deposits on foliage below the houses but dusk or dawn observations have not been used to properly document the number of bats. The bat houses have been successful in having one roosting area near a high pedestrian traffic area to have been vacated. With more bat houses present the chances that the bats find and roost in our provided habitats is very high and with proper monitoring at dusk that fact can be documented.
Project 3.The Byron Station butterfly garden was beautiful last summer and fall with many visits from birds and butterflies.
The employees and visitors to the station have commented that the garden was an improvement and thought the idea of a pollinator garden was very good. Several employees thought of buying their own kit of plants from the county soil and water district for a butterfly and bird garden.
0 4.1. New Projects There were discussions with Byron Forest Preserve and Byron Station about some of the station property being used to generate prairie seeds which could be used to further reestablish prairies in the local area. And there was discussion with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources about the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program but those discussions have been put on hold during the present state budget crisis.Another project that could be implemented is platforms at the Rock River's edge for herons.Another idea for a project is where retention ponds could be created on local creeks as a way to increase water habitats.Another thought for a project is to build or purchase a platform for Osprey to nest on to be located down by the Rock River.5. Documentation Examples of monitoring sheets, photographs taken while conducting monitoring, seed and plant mixes, receipts, emails, BEST group minutes and examples of what was displayed at employee fairs, correspondence with Eagle Scout, GPS coordinates.
Additional Documentation included in the application is found in: "Photograph Journal" folder contains folders of Bat Photos, Bluebird Photos, Eagle Scout Project, Foliage Photos, Mammals Photos, Other Birds Photos, Other Fauna Photos, Other Projects Photos, and Wood Duck Photos."Wildlife Management Plan Documents" folder contains folders such as Assorted Photos Not related to Projects, Other Projects, GPS Coordinates and Maps, and files such as BEST Meeting Minutes, Description of Bluebird Houses Locations, Monitoring Logs and Location Descriptions, Project List & Invites to Environmental Fair, and Purchases and Agreements."PSS Bats" contains the Project Summary Sheet and other documents for Bat Houses."PSS Bluebird" contains the Project Summary Sheet and other documents for Bluebird Houses."PSS Butterfly Garden" contains the Project Summary Sheet and other documents for the Butterfly and Bird Pollinator Garden."PSS Wood Duck" contains the Project Summary Sheet and other documents for Wood Ducks.Also included are documents such as several different maps and a Species Inventory List.
Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-2 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: The ER (Section 3.1.3.1, Page 3-6) states, "Byron has an agreement with the Illinois DNR[Illinois]
Department of Natural Resources]
to limit consumption of water from the Rock River for makeup to the Byron cooling systems to no more than 9 percent of total river flow during times when the river flow rate drops below 19,200 L/sec (679 cfs)." Is this a condition of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? If not, when was this agreement made and where is it documented?
Response: The agreement with Illinois DNR limiting consumption of water from the Rock River is not a condition of the NPDES permit.The agreement was made in 1977 during the process for obtaining a permit from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Division of Water Resources (now Illinois Department of Natural Resources) to construct the Byron intake and discharge structures.
It was documented in the IDOT Permit No. 15001, dated April 7, 1977, which is attached to the Request for Additional Information Response WR-SW-1e.
The agreement is implemented by Byron procedures, as described below.Byron procedure OBOA ENV-2 defines actions that Byron operating personnel must take during conditions of low water in the Rock River. If the National Weather Service forecasts that the Rock River level will remain above 698.68 feet MSL, then the river flow rate at the River Screen House is calculated weekly using data from USGS gage stations in accordance with Byron procedure OBOSR CW-Wi. If the calculated river flow rate at the River Screen House falls to 2,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less, the river flow rate calculation frequency changes to daily. If the calculated river flow rate at the River Screen House falls to 679 cfs or less, then the river consumption rate must also be calculated.
If the river consumption rate exceeds 9 percent of total Rock River flow at that time, then Byron procedure OBOL EPA 1 dictates that circulating water makeup and blowdown flows be reduced until the Rock River consumption rate is less than 9 percent of total Rock River flow. Byron procedure OBOL EPA 1 further dictates that, if necessary to meet this criterion, Unit 1 and Unit 2 MW outputs must also be reduced.List Attachments Provided: None Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-3 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: The ER (Section 3.1.3.1, Page 3-7) states that the river screen house is equipped with bar grills, traveling screens, and trash racks and that debris is collected in a trash basket and disposed of offsite.a. During the environmental audit conducted in September 2013, a written description of the flow path from when water enters the river screen house to the point at which it enters the pipelines that carry the water to the Byron site was provided and included details such as the spacing of the bar grills, size of traveling screen mesh, and periodicity of traveling screen and trash rack operation.
Response: Water pumped from the Rock River first encounters the trash rack grill bars, which are located outside the river screen house. These grill bars protect the circulating water makeup pumps and essential service water makeup pumps from floating ice and large debris. They extend at a slight angle from the floor of the intake channel to a vertical height of approximately 28 ft (8.5 m)[Byron ER-OL, Fig. 3.4-2] with a bar spacing of 3 inches [Sargent & Lundy Drwg S-415; Sargent& Lundy Standard 1743, p. 7, Dwg 43-1, Detail C5]. After passing through the trash rack at a speed between 0.43 and 0.55 fps [Byron ER-OL, p. 3.4-3], the river water enters the screen house where it encounters traveling screens composed of stainless steel wire screen cloth having 3/8-inch square openings [FMC Corp. Dwg. JK2242-2].
The design through-screen flow rate for the Byron traveling screens is 1.65 fps for a 100% clean screen at a low-water level of 671.0 ft (FMC Corp. Dwg. JK2242-2, Note A). During impingement monitoring at Byron in 1985-86 and 1987-88, the maximum intake through-screen velocity was measured at 0.91 fps ([IEPA 1989] Letter from IEPA (T. McSwiggin) to Commonwealth Edison Company regarding NPDES Permit No. IL0048313 Determination under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, May 15, 1989). The traveling screens typically operate automatically based on pressure differential setpoints and timer settings.
Absent actuation due to pressure differential, the timer setting actuates the traveling screens every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for 55 minutes (BOP CW-15, p. 2).After passing through the traveling screens, the water enters a chamber containing the circulating water makeup pumps and the diesel-driven essential service water makeup pumps.The circulating water makeup pumps direct water into one 48-inch pipeline, which supplies makeup water to the two natural draft cooling towers and during normal operation, to the essential service water cooling towers [Byron UFSAR, sections 2.4.8 (p. 2.4-16) and 2.4.11.6 (p. 2.4-22)].
The essential service water makeup pumps direct water into two 12-inch pipelines, which supply makeup water to the essential service water mechanical draft cooling towers during conditions in which makeup is not available from the circulating water system [Byron UFSAR, sec. 2.4.8 (p. 2.4-16) and 2.4.11.6 (p. 2.4-22)].
Blowdown water from the essential service water system is directed into the flume between the natural draft cooling towers, and the combined plant blowdown flows from the flume back into the Rock River through a 30-inch pipeline parallel to the makeup pipelines
[Byron UFSAR, sec. 2.4.8, p. 2.4-16].
List of Attachments Provided: 1. Byron ER-OL, Fig. 3.4-2 2. Sargent & Lundy Dwg S-415 3. Sargent & Lundy Standard 1743, Dwg 43-1 4. Byron ER-OL, p. 3.4-3 5. FMC Corp. Dwg. JK2242-2 6. Byron UFSAR, sec. 2.4.8, p. 2.4-16 7. IEPA 1989 IVSON NUCLEAR GINEUATINg STATION DNITS I & 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT -OPERATING LICENSE STAGE FIGURE 3.4-2 INTAKE STRUCTURE
SECTION A=ýA Detail C-i B'-3/4"Dia.
Bolts with 10" Dia.St'd Pipe 'Spacers.Provide Nut at* .~1 Each End of Bolt.A--"¢x 3%6 Gil IL L-BArns 5--LL. J6 31'a I ).9!6 SvacesQ T1',41 1 9%..2 (it 5 PC Cý3 ýLS &gses 0 3"- 21 --0" nl4.41 9%- I 0 Rn)me'4.,= 01--"4.M.1h III v fl--9!! '10 ELEVATIONs.,4_ gn-D.r -.Lme _._h SECTION B-B See Design Drawings.;.L.for Location of Grill I'--8GCcanInrrtment zr- 3'i en t Is "C I.- I~, -- I 8!-6" N'9 C2 V- IF C2 II~~ ~41 933 t 6 OC3"" F -- is'C 1029 N 7?'-3"C&4
- '-24 a________ n Z'3 C4 44 L ' 21'-3 2 C 4 3- 11 V-G"C!B V"2'O 6N " V--C9" ?CrGJ'GRILL. A1RRANGEWNT FFORR VAARIOUS CQCMP-A1VRT-iUNT WIDTHS i STANDARD 1743 CRIB HOUSE GRILL SCALE ..... ........DRAWN.. .I ...-.-
APPOVz ...........
APPROVED rri,,, t .... :..,........ ........ .., SANGENT a LUNDY CHICAGO DRAWING 43-1 m W I L STRUCTURAL J,-~4ALA we.v-1 TITOJ A-A fM B I h-' II *rr-II---3/4" Dia.Bolts with 1" Dia. Standard Pipe Spacers.Provide Nut at Each End of Bolt Detail C 7 Detail C 9 A 0?N i a5.x is Bare Grill I 4-Spaces I 1 1' -6" 5.51P-Spacem 0 4k So'3" J 7 Detail C10! B ELEVATION-CL _ _ S8 n.. L.. .raidngz for.Width...
For 9.1' -6wanpartment
_ -C7 '- C7 " C7 -G C7 9o 11'- "Compartme
,2"-S, ' -9 For 11'-" -01ompartment 4.Pb _lO'6"Ci 2'3"Ce "7 -0 " O 12r1U -Q'Cornpartrnents' e ~ .1 ' -:- -0 GRILL ARANGEMENT FOR VARIOUS COMPARTMENT WIDTHS SECTION B-B See Design Drawings for Location of Grill STANDARD 1743 CRIB HOUSE GRILL i AnwW....K
......APPTROVEI
...........
VATIC ... .... .O' :........o.........o....
IAMORNT 41 LUNDIY I[NOINK6118 CHICAaO DRAWING 43-2 STRUCTURAL Byron ER-OLS The mean annual flow and 1-day low flow at the intake are 4730 and 400 cfs, and the corresponding water surface elevations are 672 and 670.4 feet MSL. The pump invert elevation of the intake channel is 663.6 feet and the velocity in the intake channel is between 0.43 and 0.55 feet per second. The structure contains three circulating water pumps, two for normal operation and one for standby, each of which has a capacity of about 53.5 cfs. The structure also contains two diesel-engine-driven essential service water makeup pumps, one for each mechanical draft tower.Each pump has a capacity of about 3.5 cfs.The intake is protected by bar grills and traveling screens. The velocity at the intake is between 0.43 and 0.55 feet per second and decreases considerably with distance toward the center of the river. This velocity exists from the mouth of the intake at the bar racks to within a few feet of the traveling screens. The velocity through the traveling screens increases approximately two-fold because of the presence of the screens themselves.
Debris removed from these screens is disposed of off the site by an independent contractor.
These heat dissipation systems are summarized in the plant water usage diagram, Figure 3.3-1.3.4-3
BYRON-UFSAR flood on the Rock River at Rockton. More recently, in the early spring of 1971, there was major ice flooding approaching the magnitude of the 1937 ice floods; ice jams occurred all the way from Rockford downstream to Grand Detour, 15 miles below the site area. However, the 1937 flood stage was 0.94 feet lower than the second largest recorded flood of March 1975 at Rockton. The computed March 1975 flood reached an elevation of 679 feet at the intake. Since the safety-related equipment at the river screen house is at elevation 702.0 feet, ice-induced high flood levels will not have an adverse effect on the performance of the river screen house. Similarly, ice jams cannot create low water levels at the river screen house since the water level at the screen house is controlled by the downstream dam at Oregon.2.4.8 Cooling Water Canals and Reservoirs The only canal associated with the plant is an open flume which returns the circulating water from the natural draft cooling towers to the circulating water pumphouse.
The flume is not safety-related and has a 2-foot freeboard.
There are no reservoirs for the plant.Makeup water is withdrawn from the Rock River and is pumped uphill to the plant in three pipelines.
Two 12-inch essential service water makeup lines supply makeup to the essential service water cooling towers and one 48-inch circulating water makeup line supplies makeup to the intake bay of the circulating water pumphouse.
Plant blowdown water from the circulating water system is discharged back into the Rock River in a 30-inch pipeline parallel to the makeup pipelines.
2.4.9 Channel
Diversions Due to the great width of the Rock River and the relatively flat surrounding terrain, there is little possibility that rock falls, ice jams, or subsidence could completely divert the flow away from the makeup water intake. The minimum daily flow of record (1915-1971) in the Rock River at the intake is estimated to be 400 ft 3/sec. Low flows are usually associated with the months of August, September, and October. No ice-induced low flow levels at the intake were reported.
The intake is designed to prevent ice jamming against it and cutting off inflow. In order to prevent blockage of the intake structure by the accumulation of floating sheet ice, a floating boom and sheet piling are installed to deflect sheet ice away from the intake structure bar grills, allowing the river current to carry the sheet ice downstream.
The upstream sheet piling provides a continuous shoreline to increase the river current past the intake, minimizing the potential for an ice jam at the bar grills. Even if the river flow were temporarily cut off, makeup for the essential service cooling towers would still be available from groundwater wells at the plant site.2.4-16 REVISION 7 -DECEMBER 1998 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency P. 0. Box 19276. Springfield.
IL 62794-9276 217/782-1696 Commonweal'th Edi son Company Byron Nuclear Power Station NPDES Permit No. 1L0048313
..Determination under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act May 15. 1989 /Commonwealth Edison Company 2 North LaSalle Post Office Box 767 Chicago" Illinois 60690-0767 Gentlemen:
On November 5' 1986 and September 2, 1988' Commonwealth Edison Company submitted to the IEPA documents titled Impingement Monitoring at Bryon Generating Station 1985-1986 and Impingement Monitoring at Byron Generating Station 1987-1988 respectively.
The objective of the documents was to satisfy the test established by Section 316(b) of the CWA and 35 Ill. Admin. Code 306.201.Byron Nuclear Power Station consists of two pressurized water reactors with a rated capacity of 2240 MW. A closed-cycle cooling water system using two natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers is used to dissi pate heat from the condensation of steam formed in the secondary cycle by the steam generator'.
The source for make-up water to the system is the Rock River; The two intake pumps operated at a maximum of 45,000 gpm (100.3 cfs) during the study. The 7QIO of the Rock River at the location of the station intake is estimated at 1100 cfs. Intake velocity was a maximum 0.91 ft./sec. measured during the study" The number and species of fish impinged on the revolving intake screens at Byron Station have been recorded for two periods July 9' 1985 to July 18, 1986 and November 3* 1987 to April 29' 1988; Twenty four hour samples were collected twice per week during these periods. Extrapolation of the catch is required in order to estimate weekly impingement.
The available data established which fish species are likely to be impinged and their seasonal occurance.
Data for the period of study shows that the estimated number of fish impinged is low (11 fish/day 1985-1986; 37.8 fish/day 1987-1988) and impingement is dominated by Juvenile fish (Appendix B List of Raw Fish Data).Based on the low numbers of fish impinged during the study and the fact that impinged fish are dominantly Juvenile channel catfish, Juvenile bluegill and cyprinid (minnow) species' the operation of Byron Station cooling water intake will have no measurable impact on the Fishery of the Rock River.The effects of construction of the Byron Station intake were limited to the immediate shoreline where the structure is located. No detrimental impacts on fish were anticipated due to construction'.
6* Illinois Environmental Protection Agency p. 0. Box 19276. Springfield.
IL 62794-9276 Page 2 Intake design alternatives include other structurally or mechanically different intake systems which could be constructed at the location.
In review of the general layout of the existing system being an on shoreline structure (flush mounted screen system) which is designed to minimize funneling of fish toward the intake acording to the available literature, the existing intake structure is designed and is providing minimal adverse environmental impact'The intake capacity is subject to station water requirement to replace evaporative losses plus the necessary blowdown to maintain cooling water quality in the closed-cycle system' The closed cycle cooling system is Best Available Technology (BAT) reducing the total intake volume to approximately 5 percent of what a plant of equivalent size would require under open cycle operation.
The IEPA herein determines that the Demonstration Documents satisfactorily show that the location, design, construction and capacity of the Byron Station intake structure reflects the best available technology for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The NPDES Permit for this Facility' IL0048313.
will be modified to reflect this determination when the permit is reissued;Should you have any questions or comments regarding the Agency's.
review of this matter' please advise, Ve 0 ,-romas G McSwiggin P'Manager' Permit Section Division of Water Pollution Control TGM: GC: dl s/1 585k 84-85 cc: IEPA-RU Rockford Regional Office Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: AQ-3 Category:
Aquatic Statement of Question: The ER (Section 3.1.3.1, Page 3-7) states that the river screen house is equipped with bar grills, traveling screens, and trash racks and that debris is collected in a trash basket and disposed of offsite.b. Does the Byron intake include a fish return system? If not, are impinged fish disposed of offsite along with the debris collected in the trash basket?Response: The Byron intake traveling screen has no fish return system. The small number of impinged fish is disposed offsite with debris collected in the trash basket.List Attachments Provided: None Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: EJ-1 Category:
Environmental Justice Statement of Question: To help address the provisions of Section 4-4 "Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife" in Executive Order 12898, the following information is needed to assist the NRC in its environmental justice review: a. Information about current or past wildlife sampling and testing of game animals such as deer, squirrel, turkey, pheasant, duck, fish and other game birds and animals that may have been conducted in the vicinity of Byron. Wildlife sampling and testing may have been conducted before, during, and after plant construction and in the early days of plant operation, but was discontinued after determining that tissue samples consistently showed no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment from plant operations.
Response: The Byron Station FES, Section 5.9.3.4 describes the preoperational and operational radiological environmental monitoring programs.
Neither wildlife sampling nor testing of terrestrial game animals was included in either program. Fish sampling was included in both programs and continues to be conducted as part of the current annual radiological environmental monitoring program. Results of the fish sampling program as reported in the Byron Station Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2006 through 2012 are summarized in the table below. Fish samples were collected at two locations (BY-29 and BY-31) semiannually.
Location BY-29 (control) is located approximately 3 miles north from the Byron site and upstream from the river discharge.
Location BY-31, which could be affected by Byron Station's effluent releases, is located approximately
2.2 miles
west-north-west from the Byron site and at the river discharge.
Gamma Spectrometry Analysis was performed on the edible portion of fish samples from both locations.
Year Species in Samples Results of Gamma Spectrometry Analysis 2006 smallmouth bass, channel catfish, The edible portion of fish samples from freshwater drum, golden redhorse, both locations was analyzed for river carpsucker gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.2007 smallmouth bass, channel catfish, river The edible portion of fish samples from carpsucker, freshwater drum, silver both locations was analyzed for redhorse gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.2008 Smallmouth bass, channel catfish, river The edible portion of fish samples from carpsucker, common carp both locations was analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.
J Year Species in Samples Results of Gamma Spectrometry Analysis 2009 common carp, freshwater drum, river The edible portion of fish samples from carpsucker, shorthead redhorse both locations was analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.2010 channel catfish, freshwater drum, The edible portion of fish samples from golden redhorse, quillback, shorthead both locations was analyzed for redhorse, common carp gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.2011 golden redhorse, quillback, river The edible portion of fish samples from carpsucker, smallmouth bass, common both locations was analyzed for carp gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.2012 shorthead redhorse, quillback, The edible portion of fish samples from freshwater drum, common carp both locations was analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides.
No nuclides were detected, and all required LLDs were met.List Attachments Provided: None Byron Environmental Audit -Request for Additional Information Response Question #: EJ-2 Category:
Environmental Justice Statement of Question: Provide copies of any interviews or reports related to investigation of subsistence consumption near Byron conducted by Exelon.Response: The requested information is provided.List Attachments Provided: 1. Compilation of Telephone Logs Investigating Potential Existence of Subsistence-Like Populations In Ogle County, Illinois, July 18, 2013
.7 -Compilation of Telephone Logs Investigating Potential Existence of Subsistence-Like Populations in Ogle County, Illinois July 18, 2013 Tetra Tech, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina called selected government agencies and private social welfare organizations to determine if there is positive or anecdotal evidence of populations exhibiting subsistence-like living. No such populations were identified by those called.Those called were:* Ogle County office of Illinois State University Extension" Ogle County office of Illinois Department of Human Services" Ogle County Health Department (both environmental and medical departments)
- Ogle County Office of United Way Byron Station License Renewal Environmental Report Project 112C03617 TELEPHONE LOG Date/Time:
12 July 2013 10:15 am Topic: subsistence living in Ogle County, Ilhinois Involved Parties (name, company or agency, title, phone number): Tetra Tech: Steve Connor, Tetra Tech, environmental justice analyst, 803 641-4939 Vicky Broos, County Director for Minois State University Extension, 815 732-2191 Summary of Conversation:
Ms. Broos states that Rochelle has a concentration of minorities and also perhaps Mt. Morris, but she was not able to be more specific about the communities.
She is not aware of any subsistence living activities in Ogle County.Follow-up:
Tetra Tech Representative Signature:
-W N Byron Station License Renewal Environmental Report Project 112C03617 TELEPHONE LOG Date/Time:
15 July 2013 1030 Topic: subsistence living in Ogle County, Illinois Involved Parties (name, company or agency, title, phone number): Tetra Tech: Steve Connor, Tetra Tech, environmental justice analyst, 803 641-4939 Illinois Department of Human Services (Ogle County Office): Cindy (last name lost), 815 723-2166 x223 Summary of Conversation:
Cindy responded that their function is to hand out food stamps so that people do not need to engage in subsistence living. Therefore, she has no knowledge of subsistence living patterns in Ogle County.Follow-up:
Tetra Tech Representative Signature:
V Byron Station License Renewal Environmental Report Project 112C03617 TELEPHONE LOG Date/Time:
16 July 2013 11:45 Topic: subsistence living in Ogle County, Illinois Involved Parties (name, company or agency, title, phone number): Tetra Tech: Steve Connor, Tetra Tech, environmental justice analyst, 803 641-4939 Ogle County Health Department, Cindy Gehrke, Administrative Assistant, 815 732-7330, ext 282 Summary of Conversation:
Not aware of subsistence populations but states there are low-income people living in tents in county parks.Follow-up:
Paul, ext 363 Environmental Department, will call back with his viewpoint.
Tetra Tech Representative Signature:
4.l A t 9/
Byron Station License Renewal Environmental Report Project 112C03617 TELEPHONE LOG Date/Time:
July 17,2013 11:15 Topic: subsistence living in Ogle County, Illinois Involved Parties (name, company or agency, title, phone number): Tetra Tech: Steve Connor, Tetra Tech, environmental justice analyst, 803 641-4939 Ogle County Health Department, Linda Johnson, Administrative Assistant, 815 732-7330, ext 279 Summary of Conversation:
Ms. Johnson is aware of one family but not any subpopulation engaged in subsistence living.Follow-up:
Will give more consideration and email any new information Tetra Tech Representative Signature:
Byron Station License Renewal Environmental Report Project 112C03617 TELEPHONE LOG Date/Time:
16 July 2013 1045 Topic: subsistence living in Ogle County, Illinois Involved Parties (name, company or agency, title, phone number): Tetra Tech: Steve Connor, Tetra Tech, environmental justice analyst, 803 641-4939 Jennie Beckman, Ogle County Director for United Way, 815 986-4812 Summary of Conversation:
Ms. Beckman requested time to consider the question on subsistence living and to check some sources.She called back later in the day and left a voicemail which stated that although many people in the county hunt and fish for recreation and food, she believes there are very few with a subsistence living lifestyle.
Follow-up:
Tetra Tech Representative Signature: