ML17037D017
| ML17037D017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/2017 |
| From: | Entergy Operations |
| To: | Keegan E Division of License Renewal |
| ELINE KEEGAN, NRR/DLR, 415-8517 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17018A143 | List:
|
| References | |
| Download: ML17037D017 (164) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:*LOUISIANA POWER*& LIGHT
*Demonstration Under Section . 316(b) of the Clean Water Act IATERIDRD STEAM ElECTRIC STATION
~. UNIT ND. 3
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DEMONSTRATION UNDER SECTION 316(b) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
- WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT NO. 3
- April, 1979
- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1-1
- 1. 0 Purpose and Scope 2.0 Introduction 2-1 3.0 Site and Plant Description 3-1 3.1 Site Location 3-1 3.2 Meteorology 3-1 3.3 Hydrology 3-1 3.4 Ecology of the Mississippi River 3-4 3.5 Pre-Existing Environmental Stresses 3-12 3.6 The Waterford 3 Circulating Water System 3-14 4.0 Biological Community Impact Potential 4-1 4.1 Phytoplankton 4-1 4.2 Zoo plankton 4-1 4.3 Shellfish/Macroinvertebrates 4-2 4.4 Fish 4-2 s.o Entrainment Effects 5-1
- s.1 Stresses During Entrainment 5-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) 5-2 5.2 Waterford 3 Entrainment Effects 6-1 6.0 Impingement Effects 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-2 Factors Affecting the Analysis of Impingement 6.2 6-3 General Methodology for Prediction of Impingement 6.3 6-9 Prediction of Impingement at Waterford 3 6.4 6-19 The Effect on the Mississippi River of Impingement 6.5 by Waterford 3 Appendix A - Methods - Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program
LIST OF TABLES Table Title 3-1 Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Selected Stations in the New Orleans Area 3-2 Average Monthly Cross-Sectional Velocity at tne Waterford 3 Site 3-3 Montnly Water Temperature Data from tne Mississippi River near Westwego, Louisiana (19)1-19bY) 3-4 Sediment Concentrations in tne Mississippi River at Luling Ferry, Louisiana 3-5 Sampling Stations for Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program for Surface Waters 3-b Species List of Phytoplankton Collected in tne Mississippi River in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 From June 19/J to September 19/b 3-7 Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Col-lected in the Mississippi River in the Waterford Vicinity from June 19/J tnrough May lY/4 (Year I) 3-H Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Col-lected in the Mississippi River in the Waterford Vicinity from June 1914 tnrough February 19/5 (Year II)
I
- Table LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Title 3-Y Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Collected in the Mississippi River in the Waterford Vicinity from October 19/~ through September 19/b (Year III) 3-10 Zooplankton Collected in tne Vicinity ot Waterford 3 from June 19/3 through September 19/6 3 3-11 Average Densities, Numbers per M , of Dominant Zooplankton Taxa in Samples Collected in the Vicinity ot Waterford 3
- 3-lZ Average Zooplankton Densities, Number per M3 , by Station by Date in Samples Collected in tne Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-13 Species of Fish Collected in tne Vicinity of Waterford 3 April 19/3 through September 1976 3-14 Total Numbers and Weights ot Fish Collected by All Gears During Years I, II, and III, in tne Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-15 Total Numbers and Weights of Fish Collected per Unit Effort Each Month During Years I, Il, Ill in tne Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-lb Average Number and Weight per Unit Eftort of Representative Species of Fish Collected Each Month During Years I, 11, Ill in tne Vicinity of Waterford 3
I~.*
- ~
- LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Title Table 3-17 Total Number and Weight of All Fish Species Captured per Unit Effort At Each Station During Years I, 11, Ill in tne Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-18 Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null Hypothesis (H0 ) of Equal Catch/Effort at 5 Waterford Stations (Year I) 3-19 Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null Hypothesis (H0 ) of Equal Catch/Effort at 5 Waterford Stations (Year Ill) 3-20 Habitats, Spawning Areas, Migration Routes and Foods of Some Fish Species Present in the Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-21 Average Densities by Station of Ichthyoplankton in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-22 Average Ichthyoplankton Densities by Species in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-23 Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance;
- Testing the Null Hypothesis (H0 ) of Equality of Ichthyoplankton Concentrations (Number per Cubic Meter) at 5 Waterford Stations During Year III
- LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Title 3-24 Commercial Catches from Mississippi ~iver between Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the Mouth of River, 1911-191~ 3-25 Velocities in Circulating Water System 3-20 Average Velocities and Travel Times in Circu-lating Water System 3-27 Summary ot Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi
- 5-1 River for Average Summer Flow Conditions from Discharge* by Waterford J Estimated Phytoplankton Entrainment by Waterford 3 5-2 Estimated Average Number of Zooplankton Entrained by Waterford 3 5-3 Estimated Ichthyoplankton Entrainment by Waterford 3 5-4 Percent of Mississippi River Flow Entrained by Waterford J
f. LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Table Title 6-1 Location, Design and Operation of Intakes at the Eleven Study Stations 6-2 Mean Impingement per 100,000 gallons With Standard Deviation and Standard Error of Estimate By Species 6-3 Number of Shad Impinged as a Percentage of Total Impingement 6-4 Estimated Number of Organisms to be Impinged at Waterford 3 6-5 Economic Costs of Predicted Impingement by Waterford 3
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 3-1 The Region Within 10 miles of Waterford 3 3-2 Waterford 3 Site and Nearby Structures 3-3 Mississippi River Flow Duration Curve 3-4 Mississippi River Cross-Section at Little Gypsy Generating Station 3-5 Monthly Variation in Water Temperature in the Mississippi River Near St Francisville, LA (1954-1968) 3-6 Duration Curve of Suspended-Sediment Con-centration Mississippi River at Red River Landing, LA (1949-1963) 3-7 Sampling Areas in the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 3-8 Waste Sources in the Lower Mississippi River 3-9 Circulating Water System General Plan 3-10 Circulating Water System Intake Canal 3-11 Circulating Water System Intake Structure 3-12 Circulating Water System Discharge Structure and Canal
- LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Title 6-1 Location of Electric Generating Facilities Included in the Impingement Analysis 6-2 Number of Fish and Crustaceans Impinged per 24 hours at All Stations 6-3 Average Number of Fish and Crustaceans Impinged per 24 Hours 6-4 Average Number of Fish and Crustaceans Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained
- 6-5 Average Number of Gizzards & Threadfin Shad Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained, Relative to Impingement of Other Species 6-6 Average Number of Blue Catfish Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained 6-7 Average Number of Channel Catfish Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained 6-8 Average Number of Freshwater Drum Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained
~9 Average Number of River Shrimp Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Water Entrained
- 6-10 Fishing Districts of Louisiana
SECTION l
- 1. 0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), Section 316(b), require cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
This document is submitted by Louisiana Power & Light Company to demon-strate its compliance with this requirement for the intake structure serv-ing the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3. In this report, relevant aspects of the design and operation of the Water-ford 3 Circulating Water System are described. The characteristics of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 are discussed, based on the information gathered during a comprehensive aquatic survey conducted in the area. A quantitative prediction of the extent of the entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms is made, and the methodology to derive each estimate is detailed. The anticipated environmental effects of the predicted entrain.- ment and impingement are evaluated
- 1-1
I SECTION 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3, owned by the Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L), is being constructed adjacent to the Missis-sippi River on a site previously dedicated to power generation. The site is the location of Waterford 1 and 2, which began operation in 1975. Di-rectly across the Mississippi River from Waterford 3 is Louisiana Power & Light's Little Gypsy Steam Electric Station. This report has been prepared in support of LP&L's application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Waterford 3 filed pursuant to 40 CFR 125 with the U S Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, on October 16, 1978. The report evaluates the Waterford 3 Cir-culating Water System and demonstrates that this system complies with the requirements of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 316(b), which state that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures shall reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. This report analyzes existing information on the biological communities of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 and predicts the entrainment and impingement effects of its Circulating Water System on these communities. Beginning in 1970 with studies of the Mississippi River near the site, LP&L has been evaluating the relationship of these generating units to the river water quality, thermal and ecological characteristics of this section of the river. A comprehensive analysis and discussion of these studies is contained in the Construction Stage Environmental Report (CPER) and the Operating License Stage Environmental Report (OLER). Other specific docu-ments related to thermal analysis and biological monitoring have also been prepared (Ebasco, 1974), (LP&L, 1972), (Geo-Marine, 1977). Entrainment effects for Waterford 3 are predicted by comparison of the ratios of river flow to water use. Impingement estimates are based on those described in the literature for other plants on the Mississippi, 2-1
- Ohio and Missouri Rivers, site-specific baseline monitoring results, and impingement mortality estimates from existing cooling water intakes in the vicinity of Waterford 3, 2-2
- 1.
CITATIONS - SECTION 2 Ebasco Services, Inc., 1974 "Waterford Steam Electric Station, Sum-mary of Hydrologic Studies Performed in the Mississippi River for Louisiana Power & Light",
- 2. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1977 "First Operational Hydrothermal Study, Water-ford S.E.S.", Sept-Oct, 1976. Conducted for Louisiana Power &
Light Co.
- 3. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1972 Environmental Report -
Construction Permit Stage, for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
- SECTION 3
I 3.0 SITE AND PLANT DESCRIPTION This section contains information concerning the environmental character-istics of the area surrounding Waterford 3, as well as a description of the Circulating Water System. 3.1 SITE LOCATION Waterford 3 is a 1154 MWe {Net) nuclear generating unit located on the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River at River Mile 129.6, be-tween Baton Rouge, and New Orleans, Louisiana. The site is in the north-western section of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, near the towns of Killona and Taft. The Mississippi River is the most prominent natural water body near Waterford 3; other important natural features include Lac des Alle-mends, about 5.5 miles southwest of the site, and Lake Pontchartrain, about 7 miles northeast of the site. Figure 3-1 shows the area within 10 miles of Waterford 3 *
- Waterford 3 is located adjacent to the Waterford 1 and 2 generating station and directly across the Mississippi River from the Little Gypsy generating station. The Waterford 3 site and plot plan with major station structures is shown in Figure 3-2.
3.2 METEOROLOGY Table 3-1 presents a summary of monthly and annual average meteorological data for the site area. Mean temperatures range from 53.6°F in January to 79.8°F in July. Average annual precipitation at New Orleans is 53.9 inches, varying from an average of 2.84 inches in October to 6.72 inches in July. 3.3 HYDROLOGY Of the regional surface water hydrologic characteristics, the flow regime of the lower Mississippi River is considered the principal concern, on a regional scale, to the description and evaluation of the Waterford 3 in-3-1
take withdrawal. In the area of the site, the river's bathymetry, current
- patterns, and thermal characteristics are important.
3.3.l FLOW VOLUME IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER Flow records have been maintained on the lower Mississippi at Red River Landing (1900-1963) and Tarbert Landing (1964-1976). Because there are no major tributaries below these points, these flows are characteristic of the lower reach of the river and the Waterford 3 site. For a 77 year period of record, starting in 1900, the mean annual discharge is 494,000 cfs. Flood season is from mid December to July, and typically, flows are generally above the mean from February to June, and below the mean for the remainder of the year. 3.3.2 LOW FLOWS The flow in the Mississippi River has substantial variations throughout the course of the year. Figure 3-3, based on 45 years of combined monthly data from Tarbert Landing and Red River Landing, shows the percent of the time that various river flows are exceeded. This figure indicates that, for approximately 85 percent of the time, flows are above 200,000 cfs. This is a typical low flow, which is estimated to occur about every four years during the summer and fall seasons. If all months of the year are consid-ered, the typical low flow would have a recurrence interval of about 6.7 years. This flow may be compared to seasonal average flows which have been calculated to be 580,000, 650,000, 280,000 and 240,000 cfs for winter, spring, summer and fall, respectively. 3.3.3 BATHYMETRY The Waterford 3 site is located on the outside bank of a bend in the Mis-sissippi River. The lowest elevation of the bottom, in this reach of the Mississippi, is approximately -119 ft MSL. Bathymetry for the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site is presented in Figure 3-4 *
- 3-2
RIVER CURRENT AT THE WATERFORD 3 SITE 3.3.4 The 39-year average current velocity calculated at the Waterford 3 site is 2.3 fps and the minimum is 1.1 fps, as given in Table 3-2. These values are cross-sectionally averaged velocities. The actual velocity distribu-tion is controlled by the channel geometry. It can be expected to vary along the cross-section; however, these approximations fall within the range previously recorded. The details of velocity calculations and actual velocity measurements are given in the Waterford 3 OLER, Section 2.2.3.4. 3.3.5 THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS Temperatures in the Mississippi River below St Francisville vary seasonal-ly. Seasonal variations in the thermal characteristics, including monthly minimum, average and maximum temperatures are included in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-5. 3.3.6 SEDIMENT Sediment is transported by the Mississippi River as either a bed load or a suspended load. The amount of material in suspension is generally a func-tion of river discharge, turbulence, and particle size. Whether or not the flow is increasing or decreasing also appears to influence suspended sedi-ment concentrations. During high flow, the sediment concentration general-ly increases downstream. The converse is true for low flows. Figure 3-6 gives the duration curve for suspended sediment concentration at Red River Landing, Louisiana. Table 3-4 presents typical suspended sediment levels at several river discharge levels. Sediment size varies with depth, river mile, and discharge. In general, the percentage of coarser particles in-creases with increasing depth and river discharge. At a given discharge rate and depth, particle size decreases with increasing distance downstream (LP&L, 1978) *
- 3-3
- 3.4 ECOLOGY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER The Mississippi River is a highly turbid waterbody, with high current ve-locity and low habitat diversity. The productivity of the system is limited by light penetration and the high suspended solids concentration, as well as the stability and habitability of the substrate. The Missis-sippi River food chain is considered to be detrital based, because phyto-plankton occur in low densities and do not seem to be the major energy source that they constitute in more lake-like environments. This is typ-ical of larger southeastern and midwestern rivers.
In April, 1973, the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, an intensive aquatic ecological sampling program to study the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford 3, was initiated in order to establish baseline data characterizing the site area. Five sampling stations repre-senting low-current, soft-bottomed, shallow areas, and high-current, dense clay sediment areas, were established between River Miles 132 and 126, as
- shown in Figure 3-7. (A sixth station was established to replace an earli-er station in the second year of sampling).
areas is presented in Table 3-5. A description of the sampling Appendix A (attached) presents a detailed description of the sampling methodologies utilized in the aquatic portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program. A detailed compilation of the data collected in these programs is contained in the Waterford 3 OLER Section 2.2.2.1 and Appendix 2-4. The discussion below is divided into four sections, describing four biotic communities which may be affected due to river water withdrawal by Water-ford 3. These are: phytoplankton zooplankton macroinvertebrates fish and ichthyoplankton 3-4
3.4.l PHYTOPLANKTON In the lower Mississippi River, turbidity, turbulence and suspended solids limit the productivity of the primary producers (e.g. phytoplankton). High river suspended solids concentrations, as indicated by Figure 3-6, and tur-bidity limit light penetration to very shallow depths. Also, shallow areas with substrate suitable for benthic (attached) algae production are rare. Therefore, production of "tychoplankton" (ie, algae which find their way into the plankton community by sloughing off of various substrates on which they grow) is limited. The system may be considered a detrital based one, typical of large, commercially travelled rivers such as the Mississippi. Recent estimates of primary productivity suggest that the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford is less productive than other rivers which have been studied and substantially less productive than most lakes (Geo-Marine, 1979). A list of phytoplankton species collected at the Waterford 3 site is pre-sented in Table 3-6. The dominant plankton genera found in the Mississippi near Waterford 3 are generally similar to those listed by Hynes (1972) as being the most frequently encountered true plankton in larger rivers. The genera present also are similar to those found in other studies on the Mississippi River (U.S. Army Corp. of Eng. 1976), (Bryan, et al, 1973). During the period 1973 through 1976, phytoplankton densities measured in the Environmental Surveillance Program ranged from 24.6 to 1,446.8 cells/ 3 cm in the Mississippi River near Waterford. The mean (average) and median (50th percentile) densities were 260 and 150 cells/cm3 , respec-tively. These densities, given in Tables 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, can be compared to those found in lakes, where phytoplankton usually occur in much higher densities and consequently make a more significant contribution to the food web than in rivers. For example, phytoplankton densities typically range from 500-8000 cells/cm 3 in some lakes which have been studied *
- 3-5
3.4.2 ZOOPLANKTON An inventory of the zooplankton species found during the Waterford 3 Envi-ronmental Surveillance Program is presented in Table 3-10. Average densities of the dominant zooplankton taxa sampled from 1973 through 1976 are shown in Table 3-11. Rotifers, usually numerically domi-nant in river systems (Bryan et al, 1973) were poorly represented in sam-ples of zooplankton taken near the Waterford site. In view of the large number of rotifers sampled elsewhere in the lower Mississippi River, (Bry-an, et al, 1973) and the small mesh-sized net normally required to sample members of this phylum (Likens and Gilbert, 1970), it is suspected that the densities found during the Environmental Surveillance Program were biased downwards because of the relatively large mesh-size (0.243 mm) utilized. Nevertheless, the 0.243 mm mesh size is well suited for sampling zooplank-ton large enough to serve as prey for many juvenile and adult fish. Gal-braith (1967) found that yellow perch and rainbow trout usually fed on zoo-plankton larger than 1.3 mm. Lyakhnovich, et al, (1975) found that simi-larly-sized zooplankton were preferred by carp. Also, Vineyard, et al, (1975) found that bluegill sunfish responded towards daphnids ranging from 0.75 mm to 3.75 mm with a preference exhibited for the larger sizes. Allan (1974) reported that yellow perch were most interested in prey 1.3 mm or larger, and least interested in prey less than 0.5 mm; comparable values for rainbow trout were 1.6 mm and 0.9 mm. Alewives, which are planktivores, showed most and least interest, respec-tively , in zooplankton 0.7 mm and 0.2 mm in length. Thus, the above find-ings suggest that estimates of zooplankton abundance presented in this document provide a measure of the potential contribution of zooplankton as forage for the fish community near Waterford. The significance of this contribution can be assessed by comparing the den-sities of large zooplankton in the Mississippi River to densities reported for other ecosystems. Zooplankton are generally regarded to be an impor-tant component of quiet water systems. Zooplankton were reported to range 3-6
3 3 between 2000 and 24,000/m3 , 2000 and 55,000/m , and 200,000/m in
- Lakes Huron, Ontario and Erie, respectively {Watson, 1974). In a survey of 340 lakes and ponds in the Canadian Rockies, Anderson (1974) found a mean density of crustacean zooplankton in "sparsely populated" water bodies to be 28,000/m3 , and the mean of "densely populated" water bodies to be 170,500/m3
- The densities of cladocerans and calanoid copepods sampled by Lane (1975) in Gull Lake, Michigan; Cranberry Lake, New York; and Lake 3 3 George, New York were 6,000 to 13,000/m , 20,000 to 26,000/m and 15,000/m3 respectively. In contrast to these reported values, average 3
annual zooplankton densities at Waterford 3 did not exceed 2500/m and the average monthly density over all stations, as shown in Table 3-12, did 3 not exceed 3500/m
- 3.4.3 PELAGIC MACROINVERTEBRATES The river shrimp, Macrobrachium ohione, has been consistently found in high numbers at the Waterford site during the Environmental Surveillance Program and during impingement sampling at Waterford 1 and 2 {Epsey-Huston, 1977).
Both females "in berry" and decapod larvae, probably river shrimp, were ob-served during the Waterford 3 sampling program indicating that spawning takes place near the site. 3.4.4 FISH AND ICHTHYOPLANKTON 3.4.4.1 Fish A listing of the fish species collected, and the numbers and weights of each species caught during each of the 3 years of sampling near the Water-ford site, are given in Table 3-13 and 3-14, respectively. A summary of the numbers and weights of common species and total fish collected each month per unit effort (per 48 hr gill net set, per 1 hr electrofishing effort) is given in Tables 3-15 and 3-16. The number and weight of the dominant fish and all fish captured per unit effort during each year, at each station utilized, is given in Table 3-17 *
- 3-7
Sixty-one species of fish were collected during the 3 year study at Water-
- ford. The number of species represented in fish collections during Yearq I, II, and III was 45, 34, and 49, respectively. Dominant species (among the fish most abundant in at least 2 out of 3 sample years) were the gizzard shad, threadfin shad, blue catfish, freshwater drum and the striped mullet. These were similar to the dominant species collected during other studies of the lower Mississippi River.
Table 3-16 presents the number of fish caught per unit effort by month, by station for each of the five dominant species given above. Seasonal trends in the abundance of gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and striped mullet were either nonexistent, or were obscured by high month-to-month variability in the numbers of these species caught by gill netting and electroshocking. In two of the three sampling years, the number of blue catfish caught by electroshocking was usually higher during the fall and winter months than during the spring and summer. This trend was consistent among all stations. In the other yesr, blue catfish were in low abundance throughout the year. The number of threadf in shad caught by electroshocking appeared to decrease
- during the winter months.
Differences in the catch of fish among stations and between years were tested for statistical significance using Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (Siegel, 1956). Friedman's two-way analysis of variance is a statistical test which analyzes the variability in observations between types of stations in relation to the variability within a single type of station. For this, ranks were assigned from one through five to the five sampling stations according to the yearly catch per unit effort for a given species of that station. Five such sets of ranks were assigned, one for each of the five common species: blue catfish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, threadfin shad and striped mullet. For the purpose of Friedman's analysis of variance, the five species were considered independent trials and the stations were considered treatments. The hypothesis that differen-ces among stations in Year I were not significant could not be rejected. The same test for Year II data yielded similar results (Table 3-18 and 3-19). Again, the hypothesis that the abundance of dominant fish species does not differ spatially could not be rejected. These results imply that 3-8
- there is either no difference in fish abundance between stations in the river near Waterford, or that differences could not be detected from the samples taken.
Thermal data suggest that sampling station At experienced, during Year III, elevated temperatures due to Waterford l and 2. However, the applica-tion of Friedman's test to data from this station suggests that it did not experience a change in the abundance of fish relative to other stations between Year I and Year III. This hypothesis of no difference between Years I and III at Station At was examined using the sign test (Siegel, 1956). Catch per unit effort for Year I was subtracted from that for Year III at Station At for each of the five common species. Given that no difference between Years I and III existed, the occurrence of plus and minus signs were equally likely. These signs did occur in approximately equal numbers, suggesting no differ-ence in the abundance of common species between Year I and III; that is the
- hypothesis of no difference between Years I and III could not be rejected at accepted levels of significance.
In summary, significant differences in the distribution of dominant fish species among stations within years could not be detected. The relation-ship between stations did not vary between Years I and III. Catch per unit effort at Station At was not found to vary significantly between Years I and when the station had experienced thermal influences by Year III. 3.4.4.2. Ichthyoplankton The Mississippi River at Waterford does not provide habitat suitable for spawning by many fish species. It lacks the riffle areas preferred for spawning by many catfish (ictalurids) and most suckers (catastomids), the shallow back-waters and flood areas preferred by pikes (esocids) and some of the shads (clupeids) and sunfishes (centrarchids), and the vegetated areas preferred by other sunfishes and perch (percids) (see Table 3-20).
- To the extent that sheltered locations are available (including cans, snags, etc), a limited number of catfish may spawn near Waterford. Other 3-9
species that may be capable of spawning in this portion of the river in-
- clude freshwater drum, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, river carpsucker and shipjack herring.
densities found. However, the spawning habitat appears not to be optimal even for these species. This is supported by the low ichthyoplankton Average densities for all stations ranged from a low of 0.002/m3 to 0.106/ m3 over the three years of sampling (see Tables 3-21 and 3-22). No ich-thyoplankton were found in the period September to February. Spatial variation by station in total ichthyoplankton concentration was examined by Friedman's two-way analysis of variance using Year III data, since they were the most complete. For each date, ranks are assigned to each station according to the average ichthyoplankton concentration observed there (Table 3-23). These ranks are then summed, and an overall rank is assigned to each station. It was found that the five stations did not differ sig-nificantly. Therefore, these data indicated no significant spatial dif-ferences in ichthyoplankton densities in the Mississippi in the Waterford vicinity
- At St. Francisville, Louisiana, 10 species of ichthyoplankton were found to be common in the Mississippi River mainstem. These included Dorosoma sp (March - July), Cyprinus capio (May - August), Poxomis sp (April - June) and Aplodinotus grunniens and Hybopsis sp. Ichthyoplankton were found only in the mainstem. Densities during May, June and early July are ranged from 0.5 to 0.9/m 3 in the main channel of the Mississippi near St. Francis-ville. Densities were generally lower in the Waterford area, probably be-cause the backwater areas present at St. Francisville, which provide spawning habitat, are not available at Waterford.
3.4.4.3 Commercial Fisheries Commercial fish species in the lower Mississippi River include buffalo fish, freshwater catfish, freshwater drum and gar. The commercial catches from the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the mouth are shown in Table 3-24 (in both pounds and dollar values) for the period 1971 to 1975. This information shows that freshwater catfish had the highest dollar value of 3-10
all commercial species, reaching a high of $401,903 in 1975. The only com-
- mercial species which were common in the Waterford area were the freshwater catfish and freshwater drum. Commercial catches of river shrimp in the lower Mississippi River from 1971 to 1975 are shown (Table 3-24) to have ranged from 900 to 4,200 pounds to be valued from $297 to $2,940.
3.4.4.4 Sport Fisheries Fish sought by sport fishermen in the River Bend area of the Mississippi River include blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white bass, yellow bass, white crappie, sauger and freshwater drum (U S Atomic Energy Commission, 1974). Although all these species are present in the Waterford area, the only ones that can be considered common (more than 200 collected during any sampling year during the Waterford study) are blue catfish and freshwater drum. Largemouth bass, another valued sport fish, was collected only occasionally during the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program *
- 3.4.4.5 Endangered Species None of the fish species actually found in the area sampled in the Water-ford study, or expected to be present in the Waterford area, are included in the January 1979 Fish and Wildlife Service's List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USDI, 1979).
There are some species which were found in the Waterford area which may be considered locally rare, or whose number have been recently decreasing. These include the pallid sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon and paddlefish. The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (1977) has indicated, however, that the shovelnose sturgeon and paddlefish are still relatively common in the State of Louisiana. Of the species listed by Miller (1972) as threat-ened and/or rare in the State of Louisiana, only the brown bullhead, pallid sturgeon and suckermouth minnow were found in the Waterford area. However, the suckermouth minnow and brown bullhead do not appear to be endangered when their entire range, and not just the State of Louisiana, is con-sidered. 3-11
3.4.4.6 River Habitat Utilization in the Waterford Area
- From the life histories information of the fish species that occur in the Waterford area (Table 3-20), it appears that most species spawn in shallow areas, sheltered areas, smaller streams, backwaters, areas of aquatic vege-tation, or over gravel and sand bottoms. The only abundant (A), commercial (C), sport (S), or threatened (T) species that might spawn over the clay or mud substrate in the waters found in the vicinity of the Waterford area are threadfin shad (A), gizzard shad (A) and possibly blue catfish (C). These were the most abundant groups of ichthyoplankton captured during the Water-ford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program.
Based on the length distribution of the abundant, commercial, sport or threatened fish species collected in the Waterford area, it would appear that blue catfish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad and threadfin shad juven-iles utilize the area ss s nursery area during specific times of the year. Life history information on sport (S), commercial (C), abundant (A), or
- threatened (T) species in the Waterford area suggests that some species may undertake spring or summer migrations through the Waterford area.
These include longnose gar (C), gizzard shad (A), bigmouth buffalo (C), channel catfish (C), and striped mullet (A). Actual data collected in the Waterford area indicated, however, that longnose gar and bigmouth buffalo apparently do not pass though the area in sizeable numbers. Comparison of Waterford data to other studies of fishery resources in the lower Mississippi River and fish collected in the area, suggests that the Mississippi River st Waterford is not unique fish habitat. 3.5 Pre-Existing Environmental Stresses The populations of aquatic organisms in the lower Mississippi River appear to be limited mainly by the poor spawning habitats and the effects of high turbidity, high concentrations of total suspended solids, high current velocities, and fluctuating water levels
- I-The high turbidities (49-625 JTU during the Waterford study) restrict phy-
- toplankton and periphyton growth due to very limited light penetration.
Productivity of the phytoplankton is further limited by the high turbulence and mixing in the Mississippi, which may prevent phytoplankton from re-maining in the zone of light penetration for sufficient lengths of time to effectively photosynthesize. High concentrations of suspended solids (reaching values as high as 345 ppm in the Waterford study) and high cur-rent velocities (2.78 to 7.01 fps in the April 1973 to September 1976 study period) result in scouring of fish eggs and larvae (in nests or attached to submerged objects), scouring of benthic and periphyton communities, clog-ging of fish gills and filter-feeding mechanisms of invertebrates, and shifting bottom sediments. Resultant sediment deposition in areas with slower currents smother fish eggs and larvae as well as benthic organisms (both fauna and flora), further limiting their composition and density. The variation of the flow regime in the lower Mississippi River appears to make it a difficult habitat for fish. (The total river discharge during the Waterford Environmental Surveillance Program excluding those values
- reached during the spring 1973 flood, ranged from 222,000 to 1,086,000 cfs). High water after spawning may lead to the displacement or mortality of eggs and larvae.
Other stresses placed on the aquatic organisms in this reach of the Missi-ssippi include the effects of waste water discharges. According to a 1969-1971 Environmental Protection Agency study of the lower Mississippi River (US EPA, 1972) sixty industrial plants between St. Francisville, Louisiana and Venice, Louisiana (Figure 3-8) discharged wastes containing quantities of heavy metals and organics into the river. As a result of its unstable substances, high turbidity, high concentrations of suspended solids, high current velocities, and industrial discharges along its banks, the lower Mississippi River mainstream would be expected to be an area with relatively low productivity. The Waterford studies seem to support this assumption of low productivity for certain communities. The Waterford Environmental Surveillance Program has found extremely low concentrations of phytoplankton and attached algae, low zooplankton 3-13
densities, and an absence of macrophytes. The dominant benthic inverte-brates collected, i.e., Corbicula and oligochaetes, are prey for fish and also play a role in processing organic matter. However, their numbers are so low as to make their contribution minimal, although river shrimp (Macro-brachium ohione) , is probably an important pelagic forage species (Williams, 1965). 3.6 The Waterford 3 Circulating Water System Below is a description of the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System struc-ture and operation, including the intake canal, intake structure and discharge structure. Velocities, residence times, and temperature changes are also presented. The Circulating Water System withdraws water from the river though an in-take canal, and intake structure which contains the travelling water screens and the circulating water pumps. Water is transported from the
- pumps through the condenser and to the discharge structure.
view of the system is shown in Figure 3-9. The circulat-ing water is then returned to the river through a discharge canal. A plan The system is a once-through system, and has negligible consumptive water loss (i.e. evaporation). 3.6.1 System Operation The equipment specifications for the circulating water pumps were developed from an estimated operating schedule, based on optimum steam cycle condi-tions. The operation of the Circulating Water System, described in this section, is predicted from this preliminary schedule. Water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River at a design summer rate of 1,003,404 gpm, which includes 1,003,200 gpm of circulating water. Of the 1,003,200 gpm, 975,100 gpm passes through the main condenser where its tem-perature is raised about 16.4° F. The Turbine Closed Cooling Water Sys-tem heat exchangers and the Steam Generator Blowdown System heat exchangers
- use the remaining 28, 100 gpm, which undergo 'a temperature increase of about 3-14
7.6 0 F. The resultant temperature rise of the combined flow of 1,003,200
- gpm is approximately 16.1° F. Therefore, during full load and design flow conditions, the circulating cooling water discharged to the river is an average of approximately 16.1° F above the intake water temperature.
When the station is operating, it is anticipated that all four circulating water pumps will be utilized whenever the intake water temperature exceeds 70°F. This is estimated to occur approximately 34 percent of the time on an annual basis. The system design flow rate for four pump operation is 1,003,200 gpm, with a temperature rise at this rate of 16.1°F. Three pump operation will occur during approximately 25 percent of the time, when the intake water temperature ranges between SS°F and 70°F. The flow rate during this condition is approximately 84 percent of the design four-pump flow rate. The full load temperature rise at this flow rate is about 19.2°F. When the intake water temperature is below 55°F, it is anticipated that two circulating water pumps will be utilized. This condition is expected to occur about 30 percent of the time. The flow rate
- during this mode is about 62 percent of the design flow rate when four pumps are operating , and this mode has a corresponding temperature rise of approximately 26°F.
is shut down. The remaining 11 percent of the time, the unit There are no provisions for backf lushing or de-icing anywhere within the Circulating Water System. 3.6.2 Intake Canal Water is drawn from the river through a sheet pile formed intake canal, which is illustrated in Figure 3-10. The overall length of the canal is about 162 ft. At the river end of the canal, its width is approximately 37 ft and the bottom elevation is at -35.0 ft.MSL. Average low water level (ALWL) and average high water level (AHWL) in the river are 0.90 ft and 18.60ft MSL, respectively. The canal width increases uniformly over the first 122 ft to approximately 120 ft. That width is maintained over the
- last 40 ft to the intake structure.
3-15 The bottom of the canal slopes upward
over the first 52 ft to an elevation of -24.0 ft MSL, which is maintained for the remaining 110 ft. At the river entrance to the canal, a skimmer wall extends down to elevation -1.0 ft to prevent the entrance of large debris and to draw water from a depth below the surface of the river. 3.6.3 Intake Structure The dimensions of the intake structure base are approximately 120 ft in width and 73 ft in length. The bottom of the base slab is set at -28.0 ft MSL and the slab is 4.0 ft thick at the river face. The top of the deck is at 27.0 ft MSL. The intake structure is illustrated in Figure 3-11. A skimmer wall is provided at the river face of the intake structure to prevent the entrance of large debris. This wall on the intake structure extends down to -4.0 ft MSL, leaving a clear opening 20 ft high. Water entering the intake passes through a coarse screen (trash rack) of 1/2 in. diameter bars on six inch centers and enters into eight bays, each equipped with atravellingwater screen with 1/4 in. clear openings. Each bay is 11 ft. 2 in. wide. Slots are provided for inserting a fixed screen of similar mesh downstream of any travelling screen which may fail. Fish and other organisms removed from the cooling water by the travelling screens will be washed to a trough and then sluiced to the river at a point downstream of the Waterford 3 intake. 3.6.4 Zone of Intake Withdrawal The opening of the intake canal to the river is set at -35.0 ft MSL. At the entrance to the canal a skimmer wall extends down to elevation -1.0 ft. Water withdrawal for Waterford covers essentially the whole water column between these depths. Below this, river depth drops off sharply to an elevation of -119 ft MSL, as indicated in Figure 3-4. Therefore, with-drawal of intake water for Waterford 3 will be concentrated within the upper portion of the river water column with very little influence in the deeper offshore river portions. During periods of high river flow, when stage height is above +16.0 ft, the entire intake canal sheet piling and 1-16
skimmer wall will be below high water level (AHWL) of 18 ft. At this stage, withdrawal will also include withdrawal from the river surface. 3.6.5 Piping and Condenser Four steel pump discharge lines run below the intake deck horizontally to a common, cast-in-place, concrete transition block. These lines have an ex-ternal diameter of 8 ft. From the transition block, two steel pipes of 11 ft external diameter cross over the levee, beneath Louisiana Highway 18, and join two reinforced con-crete pipes, with internal diameters of 11 ft. The concrete pipes are in-stalled below grade and carry the flow from the end of the 11 ft steel pipes to the cast-in-place, concrete condenser intake block within the Tur-bine Building. The condenser is connected to both the condenser intake block and discharge block by six, 7 ft diameter vertical steel pipes. A three-shell, single pass, divided water box condenser is provided with tubes at right angle to the turbine generator. These stainless steel tubes are 52 ft long, one inch outer diameter and 22 Bwg. From the cast-in-place condenser discharge block, two, 11 ft internal dia-meter reinforced concrete pipes, installed below grade, carry the flow to a cast-in-place concrete transition block. Four, 9 ft external diameter steel pipes convey the water from the transi-tion block in the Turbine Building, under Louisiana Highway 18, over the levee, and into the discharge structure. The levee is crossed with steel lines in accordance with requirements previously applied by the Corps of Engineers. 3.6.6 Discharge Structure and Canal The discharge structure, illustrated in Figure 3-12, consists of a concrete seal well with outer dimensions approximately 52 ft by 45 ft. Cooling 3-17
water enters the seal well from four 9 ft diameter steel pipes. It leaves the seal well by overflowing about 95 ft of weirs which run around three of the four sides of the discharge structure. The height of water above the weirs at full design flow is about 3.4 ft. Elevation of the weir crests (highest point) is adjustable between elevations 6.0 ft and 11.0 ft. The elevation selected at a given time depends on the Mississippi River water level. The discharge structure design selected is typical of those pre-sently in use at other LP&L plants on the Mississippi River. A sheet pile formed discharge canal carries the water from the discharge struct.ure to the river. The bottom is constructed at elevation -5.0 ft MSL. At the shore end, the discharge canal is 81 ft wide. The width is constant over the first 81 ft of the canal length. From this point, the width contracts symmetrically over a distance of about 95 feet, to a width of 50 feet at the river end. The discharge canal is concrete lined to pre-vent erosion. The design criteria are for a discharge velocity into the river of about 7 ft per second at ALWL during four pump operation. The purpose of this high discharge velocity is to promote rapid mixing of the
- discharge with ambient river water. The top of the sheet pile is at ele-vation 15.0 ft where the canal is 81 ft.wide and at elevation 10.0 ft where the canal is contracting.
3.6.7 System Velocity and Residence Times Average velocities at selected locations within the intake canal and intake structure have been calculated for high and low river stages during various pumping modes. The results are summarized in Table 3-25. This table shows that the velocity varies under the skimmer wall at the entrance of the in-take canal, from a maximum of 1.78 feet per second, during operation of all four pumps, to a minimum of 1.09 feet per second when two pumps are opera-ting. The average velocity through the travelling screens, based on net clear openings, ranges from a maximum during low river flow of 1.82 feet per second, to a minimum of 1.06 feet per second at high river stages. The velocity through the travelling screens does not depend upon the number of pumps operating because each pump is served separately by two tra-
- velling screens.
3-18
Travel times have been calculated for the various portions of the Circuia-
- ting Water System for high and low river stages during various pumping modes. The times and corresponding average velocities are presented in Table 3-26. During operation of all four pumps, the total travel time of the circulating water after the addition of heat varies from 330 seconds to 238 seconds at AHWL and ALWL, respectively. With two pumps operating, the travel times after heat addition are 532 seconds with AHWL and 383 seconds with ALWL.
3.6.8 Chemical and Biocide Systems During operation of Waterford 3, several classes of chemical wastes will be generated from systems and processes such as water treatment, corrosion control, and the sanitary water system. These additions may affect the ability of entrained planktonic organisms to survive passage through the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System, although the increases in the concen-trations in the circulating water are extremely slight when compared to the concentrations occurring in the river, as indicated in Table 3-27 *
- The major impact of chemical treatment to the ability of entrained organisms to survive is likely to come from chlorine applications to the Circulating Water System. Although the chlorination facilities will be available at Waterford 3 if needed, it has been found at Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy that the high suspended solid levels scour the condensers to such a degree that chlorination is not routinely necessary *
- 3 CITATIONS - CHAPTER 3
- 1.
2. Allan, J.D., 1974 "Balancing Predation and Competition in Cladocerans", Ecology 55: 622-629. Anderson, R.S., 1974 "Crustacean Plankton Communities of 340 Lakes and Ponds In and Near the National Parks of the Canadian Rocky Mountains", J. Fish Res Board Can 31 (5): 855-869.
- 3. Bryan, C.F., J.V. Connor, and D.J. DeMont. 1973 "Second Cumulative Summary of An Ecological Study of the Lower Mississippi River and Waters of the Gulf States Property Near St. Francisville, Louisiana" 1973. In: Environmental Report, River Bend Station Units 1 and 2, Construction Permit Stage Volume III, Gulf States Utilities ,Company, Appendix E.
- 4. Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. 1976 - 1977 Quarterly Data Reports - Waterford Environmental Studies.
- 5. Galbraith, M.G., 1967 "Size-Selective Predation on Daphnia by Rainbow Trout and Yellow Perch, Trans Amer Fish Soc 96 (1): 1-10
- 6. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1979, Personal Communication, Richardson, Texas
- 7. Hynes, H.B.N., 1972 The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press.
- 8.
9. Lane, P., 1975 "The Dynamics of Aquatic Systems: A Comparative Study of the Structure of Four Zooplankton Communities", Ecol Monogr 45: 307-376. Likens, G.E. and J .J. Gilbert., 1970 "Notes on Quantitative Sampling of Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers". Limnology and Oceanography 15 (5), 817-820.
- 10. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1978 Environmental Report -
Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
- 11. Lyakhnovich, V.P., G.A. Galkovskala and G.V. Kazyuchits, 1975 "The Age, Composition and Fertility of Daphnia Populations in Fish Rear-ing Ponds", Tr. Beloruss. Navchno-Issled Inst Rybn. Khoz. 6:33-38 (Cited by Archibold, C.P. "Experimental Observations on the Effects of Predation by Goldfish (C Auratus) on the Zooplankton of a Small Saline Lake", J Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32:1589-1594.
- 12. Miller, R.R., 1972 "Threatened Freshwater Fishes of the U.S." Trans Am Fish Soc., Volume 101, No. 2.
- 13. Personal Communication, 1977, Chief, Division of Fish, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, July 7, 1977.
- 14. Siegel S., 1956 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc
- CITATIONS - CHAPTER 3 (Cont'd)
- 15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976 "Final Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana".
- 16. U.s. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974 "FES Related to Construction of River Bend Nuclear Power Station Units 1 & 2. Gulf States Utilities Company". Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-459.
- 17. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979 Fish and Wildlife Service.
"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants". Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 12.
- 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972 Industrial Pollution of the Lower Mississippi River in Louisiana. Dallas, Texas office.
- 19. Vineyard, G.L. and J. O'Brien, 1975 "Dorsal Light Response as an Index of Prey Preference in Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)", J. Fish Res. Board Can 32 (10): 1860-1863.
- 20. Watson, H.H.F., 1974 "Zooplankton of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes -
Species Composition, Distribution and Abundance". Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vol. 31, No. 5., May, 1974.
- 21. William, A.B., 1965 "Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas",
Fishery Bulletin. Volume 65, No. 1
- TABLE 3-1
- AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED STATIONS IN THE NEW ORLEANS AREA New Orleans, La - New Orleans International Airport June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May 80 .1 81.6 81.9 78.3 70.4 60.0 55.4 68.6 Temp (°F) 54.6 57.l 61.4 67.9 74.4 4.43 6. 72 5.34 5,03 2,84 3,34 4.10 53.90 Precip (in.) 3,84 3.99 5.34 4.55 4.38 New Orleans, La - Audubon Station July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 81.l 82 .6 82 .5 78.9 71. l 61.0 56.6 69.5 Temp (°F) 55.5 57.7 62.l 68.9 75.7 8.12 6.64 6.41 3.15 3.51 4.59 62.96 Precip (in.) 4.29 4.35 5.91 5.54 4.86 5.59 Reserve, La - Cooperative Observer July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 80.0 82 .5 82.3 78.7 70 .4 59.8 54.6 68.5 Temp (°F) 53.8 55.9 60.6 67.8 75.l 1.00 5.74 5.14 2. 96 3. 77 5.54 60.57 Precip (in.) 4.49 5.16 5.64 4.92 4.90 5.31
TABLE 3-2 AVERAGE MONTHLY CROSS-SECTIONAL VELOCITY AT THE WATERFORD 3 SITE Cross Sectional Month Flow* Staae (ft) Area** Velocitl'.: Avera8:e Minimum Average Minimum Average Minimum Average Minimum J~nuary 455 116 7.6 0.2 18.4 16.2 2.5 0.7 February 577 118 10. 25 !. 6 18.9 16.7 3.1 I. I March 700 296 12. 9 4.3 19.5 17.6 3.6 1.7 April 773 302 14.6 4.3 19.7 17.6 3.9 I. 7 May 590 303 10.6 4.3 19.0 17.6 3.1 1.7 June 474 247 8.2 3.3 18.5 17.2 2.6 1.4 July 384 198 6.3 2.2 1e.o 16.8 2.1 1.2 August 243 154 3.1 1.1 17. 2 16.5 1.4 0.9 September 194 133 1.9 0.6 16.8 16.4 1.2 0.8 October 212 93 2.4 0. I 16.9 16.2 1.3 0.6 November 225. 95 2.7 0.1 17.0 16.2 1.3 0.6 December 294 105 4.3 0.2 17.6 16.2 1.7 0.7 Average 2.3 I.I
*Flow (Q) in 1,000 cfs
- Cross sectional area (CA) in 10,000 sq. ft.
I TABLE 3-3
- MONTHLY WATER TEMPERATURE DATA FROM THE
- MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WESTWEGO, LOUISIANA Month (1951-1969)
Maximum 0 TemEerature ( F) Minimum Mean January 50 41 46 February 50 40 46 March 56 46 51 April 63 57 59 May 78 67 71 June 83 77 79 July 87 81 84 August 90 81 86 September 87 76 83
- October November December 78 71 57 71 57 47 74 63 52
*Measurements taken at Ninemile Point Generating Station, 25.6 miles downstream from Waterford 3.
Source: Louisiana Power & Light Company, Envi-ronmental Report Operating Licens-e~ Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Sta-tion, Unit 3, 1978
- TABLE 3-4 SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT LULING FERRY~
Sand Discharge at Red River Total Suspended Silt Landing cfs x 1,000 Date Sediment (mg/!) (mg/l) ( mg/l) 602 April 7, 1976 386 290 96 304 June 19, 1976 135 122 13 221 Aug. 18, 1976 58 49 9 174 (2/10) Feb, 9, 1977 68 61 7 420 (5/5) May 4, 1977 250 232 18 Source: Personal Communication, US Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, La. 1977. Preliminary Data, Subject to Revision.
TABLE 3-5
- Station Identification SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FOR SURFACE WATERS Location Rationale for Location Station is not expec-Behind an island on the west ted to be directly A bank (right hand descending) c affected by discharg-of the Mississippi River, in es from Waterford a shallow back-water area 1, 2, or 3; and upstream of Waterford 1 therefore, has been and 2. designated as a con-trol station.
Back eddy current On the west bank of the results in transpor-A Mississippi River, in a tation of heated dis-shallow area characterized charge from Waterford by low-velocity currents. 1 and 2 upstream to Immediately upstream of this station. Waterford 1 and 2, in a back eddy current. Intended as unaf fec-On the east bank of the Bc ted control station Mississippi River opposite for deep, fast velo-Waterford 1, 2, and 3. It city current environ-is also upstream of LP&L's Little Gypsy Power Plant. ment. Station located in Immediately downstream of area of river influ-B Waterford 3 discharge. t enced by heat dis-charge from Waterford 3. Abandoned after first Along the west bank, near L t_ 1 year of sampling, aud River Mile 127. replaced by Station Btl** Replaced Station On the west bank near River B in second year Mile 127.8. of 1 sampling. Loca-tion is just upstream of an adjacent ther-mal discharge, and further downstream from the discharge of Waterford 3 than Sta-tion Bt.
TABLE 3-6
- SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet l of 5)
Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Volvocales Volvocaceae Eudorina Pandorina Gonium pectorale Chlorococcales Cocystaceae Ankistrodesmus
- Ankistrodesmus f alcatus Scenedesmaceae Actinastrum Actinastrum hantzschii Coelastrum Scenedesmus sp Scenedesmus acuminatus Scenedesmus armatus Scenedesmus dimorphus Scenedesmus obliquus; Scenedesmus quadricauda Tetrastrum Hydrodictyaceae Pediastrum Pediastrum duplex
TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)
- SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 5)
Chlamydomonadaceae Chlamydomonas sp Chrysophyta Chrysophyceae Chrominales Chrysococcaceae Chrysococcus Ochromonadales Dinobryaceae Dinobryon
- Bacillariophyceae Centrales Coscinodiscaceae Coscinodiscus Coscinodiscus rothu Melosira Melosira distans Melosira granulata Melosira herzogii Melosira ambigua Melosira variens Melosira islandica Cyclotella
- Cyclotella meneghiniana
TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)
- SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 Stephanodiscus (Sheet 3 of 5)
Stephanodiscus astrea Pennales Cymbellacea Amphora Cymbella Fragilariaceae Fragilaria Synedra Diatoma sp
- Asterionella formosa Eunotiaceae Eunotia Achnanthaceae Achnanthes Cocconeis Naviculaceae Gyrosigma sp Gyrosigma kutziingii Navicula Navicula exigua Pinnularia sp Pleurosigma
- Stauroneis
TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)
- SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 4 of 5)
Gomphonemaceae Gomphonema Gomphonema constrictum Nitzschiaceae Nitzschia Surirellaceae Surirella Cyanophyta Chroococcales Chroococcaceae
- Anacystis Merismopedia Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Oscillatoria sp Nostocales Nostocaceae Anabaena Euglenophyta Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglena sp Euglena acus
- Trachelomonas
TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)
- SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 5 of 5)
Trachelomonas hispida Trachelomonas lacustris Trachelomonas volvocina
TABLE 3 -
- AVERAGE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH MAY 1974 (YEAR I)
Avg Total Density Number of Month (No./Liter} Dominant Taxa
- Genera June, 1973 27,200 Cyclotella, Melosira 4 July, 1973 57,800 Cyclotella, Melosira, Scenedesmus 5 August, 1973 299,200 Coscinodiscus 15 September,1973 719,100 Coscinodiscus, Melosira 11 October, 1973 59,500 Coscinodiscus, Scenedesmus, Cyclotella, Melosira 4 November, 1973 52,700 Coscinodiscus, Cyclotella, Melosira 5 December, 1973 34,000 Cyclotella, Melosira 3 February, 1974 40,800 Cyclotella 1 Melosira 4 March, 1974 51,000 Cyclotella, Melosira 5 April, 1974 45,960 Melosira, Trachelomonas 5 May, 1974 28,900 Cyclotella, Melosira 3 Average 128, 742
*20% or greater of average total density or most abundant Source: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
*TABLE 3-8 AVERAGE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY FROM JUNE 1974 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1975 (YEAR II)
Avg Total Density Number of Month ( No,/Liter) Dominant Taxa
- Genera June 1974 230,814 Chrzsococcus Melosira 13 August 1974 479,417 Coscinodiscus 15 April 1975 348,098 Chrzsococcus 9 February 1975 501,201 Chrisoccoccus 12 AVERAGE 389,882
- 20% or greater of average total density or most abundant.
Source: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-9 AVERAGE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY FROM OCTOBER 1975 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (YEAR III) Avg. Total Density Number of Month (No ,/Liter) Dominant Taxa* Genera October 1975 56,751 Melosira 12 November 1975 24,541 Coscinodiscus; Melosira, Scendesmus quadricauda 9 December 1975 59,816 Coscinodiscus 6 January 1976 152,349 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 7 February 1976 119,636 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 11 March 1976 162,574 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 8 April 1976 1,446,815 Melosira 19 May 1976 320,548 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 9 June 1976 326,699 Melosira 15 July 1976 440,189 Coscinodiscus 12 September 1976 608,919 Coscinodiscus; Cyclotella; Melosira: 14 September 1976 162,579 Melosira; Cyclotella 14 AVERAGE 323,451
- 20% or greater of average total density or most abundant.
Source: Waterford 3 Environment Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-10
- Hydrozoa ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Rotif era Class Monogononta Order Ploima Asplanchna sp. Brachionus sp. Keratella sp. Platyias quadricornis Platyias sp. Nematoda Arthropoda Class - Crustacea Subclass - Brachiopoda Order - Anostraca Order - Cladocera Sub Order - Calyptomera Daphnia longiremis Daphnia magna Daphnia sp. Ceriodaphnia recticulata Ceriodaphnia sp. Moina brachiata Moina sp
- TABLE 3-10 (Cont'd)
- ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 Bosmina longirostris (Sheet 2 of 3)
Bosmina coregoni Bosmina sp. Alona sp. Alonella rostrata Alonopsis sp. Camptocercus rectirostris Chydorus sp. Diaphanosoma branchyurum Diaphanosoma sp *
- Subclass - Ostracoda Subclass - Copepoda Order - Eucopepoda Suborder - Calanoida Eurytemora affinis Diaptomus pallidus Diaptomus siciloides Diaptomus stagnalis Diaptomus sicilis Diaptomus sp.
Suborder - Cyclopoida Cyclops bicuspidatus Cyclops vernalis
- Order - Harpacticoida
( TABLE 3-10 (Cont'd) ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 3) Subclass - Malacostraca Order - Decapoda Larvae Order - Amphipoda Family - Gammaridae Class - Arachnida Order - Acarina Family - Pionidae Order - Hydracarina Class - Insecta (Larvae) Order - Ephemeroptera Order - Coleoptera Order - Odonata Order - Plecoptera Order - Diptera Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
11 3 AVERAGE DENSITIES* 2 NUMBERS PER H ,OF DOMINANT ZOOPLANKTON TAXA IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 e ZOO PLANKTON GROUP DIAPHANOSOMA SUBORDER SUBORDER CERIODAPHNIA DE CAPO DA SP, MOINA SP. CALANOIDA CYCLOPOIDA YEAR DATE BOSHINA SP. SP, DAPHNIA SP* LARVAE
.ooo .ooo 820.476 862.410 I 73 JUN 08** 85.278 101.692 228.935 9.091 68,962 33.027 .ooo ,000 39.033 73 JUL 17 .ooo 1.025 .993
.ooo .ooo 66,486 60.195 73 AUG 22** .ooo .ooo .ooo 7. 771
.ooo 185.701 412.575 73 SEP 28 591.511 109,854 259.865
- 720 .ooo 34.682 73 OCT 25** 1. 770 .360 2,446 .ooo .ooo .ooo 220.801
.ooo .ooo 99.607 62.183 73 NOV 30 44.785 8.145 29.868 .ooo 70.577 44.423 12.975 44.842 .ooo .ooo .ooo 79, 72 7 73 DEC 19 .ooo .ODO 214.031 325,845 74 FEB 13 68.815 38.909 103.283 .ooo 585.786 74 MAR 27 119.268 56.026 84.571 .ooo .ooo .ooo 680.059
.ooo .ooo 81.812 220.428 74 APR 20 61,025 4.881 9,588 .ooo 323.532 722.367 48, 577 .ooo ,000 .ODO 74 APR 23 138.744 37.867 848,203 1006.413 74 HAY 17 299.345 15.592 237.192 1.212 .ooo .ODO
.ooo .ooo 97. 714 99.979 II 74 JUN 04 .ooo 1.798 7.425 II. 990 19.223 38.277 2,873 .ooo ,000 37.397 74 JUN 24 .860 .687 13.804 2961.953 74 AUG 22 139.324 232,268 135,890 ,867 .ooo ,000 402 .44 7
.ooo 10.627 ,000 2207.900 74 NOV 13 146,515 11.969 19.369 270,836
.ODO ,187 ,000 88.171 75 FEB 26 88.771 70, R2 l 6.903 94.815
- 37. 728 5 7 ,007 9.475 .ooo 2,083 .ooo 31.052 75 APR 23** 36,442 .ooo 56. 724 205.923 75 AUG 08 !.609 7.158 ,ODO 1.516
- l. 284 .ooo 39.736 32.127 75 OCT 30 127.194 1,146 6,023 .ODO 22.429 III
.459 7.056 .ODO .ODO .ooo 16.861 75 NOV 20 7.937 .ODO 16.166 41.009 75 DEC 22 13.409 .003 4.230 .ooo .ODO
,402
.ooo .ooo 4 .131 .ooo .ooo .ooo 3,208 76 JAN 30 ,000 .486 .656 76 FEB 26 .040 .165 ,447 .ooo .000 133.386 41.992 7.526 27.146 .ooo .567 .ooo 62.310 76 HAR 25 .ooo .ooo 18.877 33.791 76 APR 39 .660 .145 7,656 .ooo 135.513 29**
7,941 1,137 5 ,631 .ooo .410 .ooo 18. 921 76 MAY 27 .ooo 57.615 49.072 76 JUN 24 .ooo 1. 581 .213 .ooo 11.551 17.088 31.480 1.539 .ooo 6.403 456.646 76 JUL 29 .ooo 4.552
.ooo 2,436 164.476 25.917 1093.319 76 SEP 10 124.016 ,274 9.861 12.567 II !.096 45.346 .ooo 2.158 155.645 76 SEP 26 413.466 2.247
- Densities do not include exoskeletons
** Samples on more than one sampling day Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-12 AVERAGE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES*, NUMBER PER M3 , BY STATION BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 STATION Average Ac At Be Bt Btl Density YEAR DATE I 73 JUN 08** 2151.734 1580.130 1803,907 2005.236 2679.522 2044 .106 73 JUL 17 126,281 140,528 97 .441 214.526 158,607 147.477 73 AUG 22** 62.817 99. 730 73.826 295.303 272.853 160.906 73 SEP 28 647.594 1385,887 1944.685 2087.479 1901.405 1593.410 73 OCT 25** 210.468 77.352 460.079 336.389 223.060 261.469 73 NOV 30 201.474 314.514 239.250 221.261 248.244 244.949 73 DEC 19 250.441 229. 720 314.981 225.287 252.158 254. 518 74 FEB 13 980.525 744.519 701.260 873.192 459.180 751. 735 74 MAR 27 1475.952 1528,514 1384.779 1806.556 1448.072 1528.774 74 APR 20 478,675 227.956 319 .404 391.012 488, 194 381.048 74 APR 23 1181. 860 1284. 395 1576.604 1214.239 1118,899 1275.199 74 MAY 17 3890,018 1991. 789 743.248 3291.852 2133. 284 2410.038 Averas.e Year I 971.487 800.420 804.96 1080,194 948.623 II 74 JUN 04 282.044 229. 545 223.501 225.018 150.570 222 .136 74 JUN 24 95 .196 100.219 148 .189 79.112 77 .409 100.025 74 AUG 22 1727.880 4398.961 2395.663 7689. 520 928.038 3428.012 74 NOV 13 483.673 1189.501 508,609 7873.902 2774.520 2566.041 75 FEB 26 756,809 24 7.172 399.953 416.015 825.766 529 .143 75 APR 23** 100.409 263,693 160. 395 439. 766 214.347 235. 722 75 AUG 08 268.163 168.986 297.409 443.718 380.032 3!1 ,662 Average Year II 530.596 942.582 590.531 2452,436 764.383 III 75 OCT 30 123.350 52.613 436.986 314.618 38.785 193. 2 70 75 NOV 20 62.821 83,003 44.854 20.066 75,966 57.342 75 DEC 22 32.400 108,214 59.537 28.711 208.136 87.400 76 JAN 30 5 .173 18,819 5,151 9.339 3.593 8.415 76 FEB 26 .ooo 5.505 1.033 3.156 !. 746 2.288 76 MAR 25 327.820 233,666 402.086 407.337 7.238 275.629 76 APR 29** 19.055 132.969 109.459 83,841 141. 732 97 .411 76 MAY 27 113.404 225.532 197.259 153.344 182.504 174.408 76 JUN 24 68.690 150.226 157.960 103,963 150.243 126.217 76 JUL 29 225 .149 69 .174 632,122 92 5. 233 504.507 471.237 76 SEP 10 1434.406 527.145 1985.596 1571.616 1297.066 1363.166 76 SEP 26 622.113 528.958 792.617 706,768 951. 573 720.406 Avera~e Year III 252.865 177 .985 402.055 360,666 296.921
- Densities do not include exos ke 1etons or fish larvae
- Sampled on more than one sampling day Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-13
- Osteichtyes SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet l of 4)
Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus albus (Pallid Sturgeon) Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Shovenlose Sturgeon) Polyodonitidae Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish) Semionotiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus (Spotted Gar) Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar) Lepisosteus platostomus (Shortnose Gar)
- Lepisosteus Amiiformes Amiidae spatula (Alligator Gar)
Amia calva (Bowfin) Elopiformes Elopidae Elops saurus (Lady Fish) Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata (American Eel) Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chysochloris (Skipjack Herring) Brevoortia patronus (Gulf Menhaden) Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad)
- TABLE 3-13 (Cont'd)
SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 4) Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy) Osteoglossiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides (Goldeye) Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye) Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio (Carp) Hybognathus nuchalis (Silvery Minnow) Hybopsis aestivalis (Speckled Chub) Hybopsis amblops (Bigeye Chub) Hybopsis storeriana (Silver Chub) Notemigonus crysoleucas (Golden Shiner) Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner) Notropis blennius (River Shiner) Notropis emiliae (Pugnose Minnow) Notropis fumeus (Ribbon Shiner) Notropis shumardi (Silverband Shiner) Notropis venustus (Blacktail Shiner) Pimephales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow) Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio (River Carpsucker) Carpiodes cyprinus (Quillback) lctiobus bubalus (Smallmouth Buffalo) lctiobus cyprinellus (Bigmouth Buffalo) Siluriformes lctaluridae lctalurus furcatus (Blue Catfish) lctalurus melas (Black Bullhead) lctalurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead) lctalurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead)
- lctalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish)
Pylodictis olivaris (Flathead Catfish) Atherinif ormes
- TABLE 3-13 (Cont'd)
SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 4) Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis (Mosquito Fish) Atherinidae Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside) Perciformes Percichthyidae Morone chrysops (White Bass) Marone mississippiensis (Yellow Bass) Marone saxatilis (Striped Bass) Centrarchidae Elassoma zonatum (Banded Pygmy Sunfish)
- Lepomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish)
Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth) Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) Lepomis megalotis (Longear Sunfish) Lepomis microlophus (Redear Sunfish) Micropterus punctulatus (Spotted Bass) Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass) Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie) Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie) Percidae Percina sciera (Dusky Darter) Stizostedion canadense (Sauger) Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater Drum) Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet) Pleuronectiformes
- Bothidae
TABLE 3-13 (Cont'd) SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 4 of 4) Paralichthys lethostigma (Southern Flounder) Soleidae Trinectes maculatus
* * (Sheet 1 of 2)
TABLE 3-14 TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED BY ALL GEARS DURING YEARS 1 1 11 1 AND Ill, IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEAR YEM YEAR I II Ill COMMON NAME NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT ALLIGATOR GAR 2 856.1 0 2 9,706.2 AMERICAN EEL 7 3,444.3 2 276.3 2 363,3 BAY ANCHOVY I 2.5 0 133 301,4 BIGEYE CHUB 3 3. 7 0 0 BIGMOUTH BUFFALO 5 2,755.2 7 3,415,0 1 1,866.0 BLACK BULLHEAD 1 33,8 6 552.4 0 BLACK CRAPPIE 10 871 ,6 6 763.3 12 2,324.2 BLACKTAIL SHINER 0 0 1 ,6 BLUE CATFISH 553 66,320.4 76 20,708.1 1451 142,947,8 BLUEGILL 40 1,305.4 20 1,045.7 42 1,024.8 BOWFIN 1 1,918.0 0 0 BROWN BULLHEAD 5 2,202,8 0 0 BULLHEAD MINNOW 1 3.4 0 1 1. 7 17 12,933.6 34 50,575.6 20 37 ,230.1 CARP CHANNEL CATFISH 82 12,140.2 15 2,984.8 41 9,192.B DUSKY DARTER 1 259.6 0 0 EMERALD SHINER 0 1 6, l 2 4.9 FLATHEAD CATFISH ID 7,468.4 8 2,528.4 11 6,948.3 FRESHWATER DRUM 368 9,336.9 24 2,624.9 403 25,381.3 GIZZARD SHAD 2451 97,214.6 799 75,096.6 1111 199,627.3 GOLDE YE 10 320.7 3 763.7 5 647.9 GREEN SUNFISH 0 35 764.4 0 6 168,l 0 91 3,163,1 GULF MENHADEN HOGCHOKER 0 0 3 9.5 IMMATURE SUCKER 0 0 2 1.2 LADYFISH 0 1 86,4 4 675.8 LARGEMOUTH BASS 8 1,957.7 9 4,000,8 7 3,873.9 LONGEAR SUNFISH 1 13. 9 0 5 162.1 LONGNOSE GAR 5 1,481.3 5 2,647.2 5 S,951.7 MISSISSIPPEE SILVERS IDE 0 2 6.4 1 4.7 MOONEYE 1 4.1 0 0 MOSQUITOFISH 0 1 .7 0 PADDLEFISH 6 261.1 0 1 1,289.1 PALLID STURGEON 3 360.4 0 1 144.4 PUGNOSE MINNOW 0 0 I 0,7 PYGMY SUNFISH 1 0.1 0 0 QUILLBACK CARPSUCKER 0 0 I 274.2 REDEAR SUNFISH 1 45,0 0 0 RIBBON SHINER 0 0 3 2.9 50 9,918,6 7 1,758.5 13 5,567.l RIVER CARPSUCKER 0 0 3 4,0 RIVER SHINER 8 683.8 0 3 1,238,8 SAUGER 3 3,371.0 3 l,816.5 3 1,620.5 SHORTNOSE GAR
TABLE 3-14 (Cont'd) TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED BY ALL GEARS (Sheet 2 of 2) WATERFORD 3 DURING YEARS t, 11 1 AND III, IN THE VICINITY OF YEAR YEAR YEAR Ill I II WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT* NUMBER COMMON NAME 2.0 5 1,796.310 22 1,954.3 2 43.800 SHOVELNOSE STURGEON 92.4 l 9.9 7 SILVER CHUB 20 l 2.000 3 4.8 0 5.230 SILVERBAND SHINER 0 3 SILVERY MINNOW 0 71 9,227.530 13,697 .4 48 5,364.0 SKIPJACK HERRING 130 10,229.0 10 12,950.270 24 7,802.2 14 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 10 7,157.790 0 0 .400 SOUTHERN FLOUNDER 4,1 0 l SPECKLED CHUB 3 1. 9 0 0 l SPOTTED BASS 1,991.9 8 3,837.600 4 4,237.7 5 10,626.680 SPOTTED GAR 3,589,7 6 3,685.5 10 20 467 84,013.085 STRIPED BASS 49,229.2 497 75,656.2 STRIPED MULLET 233 2,078. 7 222 2,796.610 1058 6,434.5 387 6, 770 THREAD FIN SHAD l 38.6 l 0 1,044.l 14 4,036.290 WARMOUTH 10 782.0 7 156.670 WHITE BASS 4 226.6 l 19 2,200.2 111. 900 WHITE CRAPPIE 94. 7 2 203.7 l YELLOW BASS 2 0 l 1.3 0 YELLOW BULLHEAD
- Expressed in grams Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-15
- TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED PER UNIT EFFORT*
EACH MONTH DURING YEARS I, II AND III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEAR AND MONTH AVERAGE NUMBER** AVERAGE WEIGHT*** 73 APR(l) 1. 0 379.7 73 JUN 14.3 9,741.8 73 JUL( 2 ) 12. 6 897.1 73 AUG 25.4 4,875.9 73 SEP 92 .4 12,754.4 73 OCT 32.2 3,955.6 73 NOV 62. 7 9,119.4 73 DEC 27 .1 5,968.7 74 JAN 19. 5 4,687 .8 11.8 2,637.6 74 FEB ( l) 74 MAR 34 .3 8,791.2 74 APR 96.6 10,572.5 74 JUN 41.4 8,209.7 74 AUG 33 .4 11,743.6 74 NOV 139.4 16,274.4 75 FEB 100.4 14,158.5 75 JUN 10.2 1,423.1 75 AUG 8.4 2,210.0 75 OCT 48.2 9,845.2 75 NOV 25.0 6,699.7 75 DEC( 2 ) 57 .1 15,681.8 76 JAN 14.0 4,038.4 76 FEB 65.2 16,922.2 76 MAR 80.4 15,330.l 76 APR 42.5 11,375.3 76 MAY 26.1 5,945.5 76 JUN 15 .1 5,953.5 76 JUL 21. 9 6,301.9 76 AUG 54.6 12,150.0 76 SEP 40 .1 8,143.3
- In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting
** Number of individuals *** Expressed in grams Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program (1) 48 hrs gill netting only (2) 2 hrs electroshocking only
TABLE 3-16 (Sheet 1 of 2) PART I AVERAGE NUMBER AND WEIGHT PER UNIT EFFORT* OF REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED EACH MONTH DURING YEARS I, II AND III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 STRIPED MULLET THREADFIN SHAD GIZZARD SHAD AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE FRESHWATER DRUM AVERAGE AVERAGE WEIGHT YEAR BLUE CATFISH AVERAGE AVERAGE WEIGHT NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER and NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER** WEIGHT** MONTH (3) 23.1 J ,3 11.4 379,1 416,8 .1 5.1 73 APR(!) J,D 26.4 4.0 2.6 253.3 2.4 926.4 ,3 254.0 1.1 73 JUN 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 821.0 1.6 73 JUL ( 2 ) .8 1.2 .8 12.0 1,387.5 6.0 48.3 1.5 832.6 19.4 4,680.4 73 AUG .5 457.9 53.4 3,926.1 1,039.8 2.0 12.6 741.2 .4 120.6 637.2 3.6 .9 73 SEP 3.0 ,8 122. 7 9.8 4.0 983.4 .2 73 OGT 6.6 322.6 49.6 4,952.4 55.4 .4 1.3 692.9 ,3 46.6 2.584.0 1.2 .1 73 NOV J.8 ,2 .2 15.4 ,6 81.3 .2 73 DEC 8.3 3,200.9 12.3 2,306.1 .4 1. 3 74 JAN 5.2 1,134.8 1.4 1,239.0 16.3 1,033.1 2.4 415.1 1. 1 288.6 2,382.S 15.2 274.3 14 FEB(!) 542,8 2,010.3 13.0 74 MAR 2.0 47.5 2,300.3 1,8 29.8 1.0 36.3 837.6 12.0 74 APR 5.0 2,269.8 11.4 5,996.4 1.6 4.1 799.2 .8 118.0 206.6 20.2 33.3 14 JUN .4 116 ,3 3,8 38.8 4,931.2 4.4 1,251.3 ,6 67.6 4,433.1 74 AUG .8 96. l 26.4 1,633.1 1.2 1,055.6 1.0 65.0 9,264.1 4.8 21.2 74 NOV 1.0 99.2 R6,4 1.6 221.1 15 FEB .2 45.3 1.0 42.4 .4 4.1
.2 46.3 155.5 .4 24.1 15 JUN ,8 298.0 1.6 3,104.8 1.8 625.1 5,475.5 11. 0 75 AUG 2,4 21.6 2 .2 365.5 15 OCT 1.6 669.5 15.4 1,849.l 1,366.7 .2 1.5 601.9 4,534.3 5.8 75 NOV 1.2 196.3 30.6 4,473.l 1.4 13,8 3,768.3 1.0 6.9 15 DEC( 2) 10.2 .2 117.8 76 JAN ,3 210.1 50.6 11,932.l 304.9 7.2 129.2
.8 227.8 7,834.2 2.6 76 FEB 7. 2 2,838.0 56.2 2,008.6 6.9 124.9 4,480.6 .6 204.l 727 .3 15.0 63.1 76 MAR 9.0 619.1 8. 3 6.6 705.3 6.2 2,661.6 1.9 4.0 672.9 .3 76 APR 4.3 331.6 6,2 789.0 ,5 65.4 l ,3 3.1 569.1 26.9 76 MAY 1.4 ,2 50.3 12.0 1,801.l 2.8 2.5 2,174.5 1. 1 253.6 4.2 58.2 76 JUN ,5 88.8 23.2 4,812.6 1.1 1,621.5 4.4 1,340.4 3.0 78.9 76 Jtn. 1.0 421,8 12.0 1,830.l 3.2 2,855.4 5.4 2,045.4 76 AUG 2.0 462.0 4,3 2,065.1 76 SEP netting
*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill
**Number of individuals
***Expressed in grams (I) 48 hrs gill netting only (2) 2 hrs electroshocking only (3) Species not found during sampling Waterford 3 Envirotlmental Surveillance Program Source of data:
TABLE 3-16 (Cont'd) (Sheet of 2 of 2) PART 2 NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF REPRESENTATIVE FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT* AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I I II AND III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 GIZZARD SHAD STRIPED MULLET THREADFIN SHAD BLUE CATFISH FRESHWATER DRUM YEARLY AVERAGE YEARLY AVERAGE YEARLY AVERAGE YEARLY AVERAGE YEARLY AVERAGE WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT WEIGHT*** NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER STATION YEAR NUMBER** 1974.0 2.4 527.3 J.5 16.5 Ac I 5.4 898.3 *5 141.4 24.5 7,2 452.7 9,8 2465.4 J.O 16.6 II .3 138,2 ,2 35.2 1911.8 9.0 1901.0 3,0 40.7 III 5.0 1612.6 .4 76.2 20.1 1814.4 4.1 974,3 7,8 224.7 At I 5,2 1050,0 ,3 84. 7 15.4 14.5 1646,4 10.2 1239. 2 4.0 28.5 II 2.3 601.8 ,8 113. 7 10,6 2484.5 2.5 989.8 3,9 39.4 III 7.4 4979.7 ,9 296. 5 25.9 2681,8 3.6 712.9 3,6 42.1 Be I 4.1 1768.5 .3 67.5 II .7 463.9 . (I) 63.3 5342,5 12.3 2707.I 1,7 17.8 164,4 37. 2 8346,1 9.9 1470.0 3.6 82.9 III ,9 561.5 .5 23.4 2140,8 12.0 2457.3 4.3 193.7 Bt I 2.4 958.1 1.0 311.8 2780.8 30.8 3245.7 3.0 12.8 II 5.7 1657.6 ,7 73. I 28.0 2320.8 I I. I 1779.9 3. I 45.0 III 6.0 2444.0 .9 223.5 14.8 21.6 1737,5 3. I 645.6 2.9 94.6 8t I I I. 7 218. 2 .5 2.6 17.3 2264.3 19. 7 2952.0 1.2 7.5 II ,8 534.0 I. 3 174.6 2748,4 7,6 1194.9 .9 6,8 III 1.8 1936.5 J.6 420,3 11.4
*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting **Number of individuals ***Expressed in grams (1) Species not found at this station Source of data: Waterford 3 Enviromnental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-17 TOTAL NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT* AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I, II AND III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEARLY YEARLY AVERAGE AVERAGE STATION YEAR NUMBER** WEIGHT*** I 43.7 6. 924.4 II 25.3 8,243.7 III 50.6 10,585.l At I 39.5 5,202.l II 35.5 5,014.6 III 37.4 11,071.2 Be I 46.8 8,562.3 II 95.5 11,981.2 III 55.6 12,051.5 Bt I 47.9 9,229.0 II 74.0 9,731.7 III 39.3 7,893.9 Bt 1 I 34 .o 3,463.2 II 47.3 10,044.8 III 26.7 9,198.6
*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting **Number of individuals ***Expressed in grams Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
- TABLE 3-18 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) OF 0
EQUAL CATCH/EFFORT* AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS (_YEAR I) Catch/Effort* STATION At Be Bt Bt 1 Blue Catfish 5.429 5.233 4.089 2.375 1.700 Freshwater Drum .486 .322 .322 1.042 .500 Gizzard Shad 24.543 15.411 24. 944 23 .403 21.550 Striped Mullet 2.443 4.100 3.600 12.000 3.075 Threadfin Shad l. 500 7.800 3.600 4.431 2.900 Rank** Blue Catfish 5 4 3 2 l Freshwater Drum 3 l. 5 l. 5 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 l 5 3 2 Striped Mullet l 4 3 5 2 Threadfin Shad l 5 3 4 2 Sum of Ranks 14 15.5 15.5 19 11 Sum of Ranks 196 240.25 240.25 361 121 Squared x2r * = 2.68 Fail to reject H ; ie, stations were not significantly 0 different with respect to catch/effort
*Per 48 hour gill net set and 1 hour electroshocking effort **Stations ranked according to catch/effort for species listed (ties were averaged).
Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956
- TABLE 3-19 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) OF 0
EQUAL CATCH/EFFORT* AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III Catch/Effort STATION Ac At Be Bt Bt 1 Blue Catfish 5.015 7.389 .875 6.000 1. 773 Freshwater Drum .432 .889 .458
- 917 1.573 Gizzard Shad 20.697 10.622 37.167 14.845 11. 355 Striped Mullet 9.030 2 .456 9.917 11.083 7. 600 Threadfin Shad 3.008 3.900 3.583 3.083
- 909 Rank**
Blue Catfish 3 5 1 4 2 Freshwater Drum 1 3 2 4 5
- Gizzard Shad Striped Mullet Threadfin Shad Sum of Ranks Sum of Ranks 4
3 2 13 169 15 225 1 1 5 16 256 5 4 4 5 19 361 3 3 2 2 1 12 144 Squared x 2 = 2.40 r Fail to reject H ; ie, Stations were not significantly different 0 with respect to catch/effort.
*Per 48 hour gill net set and 1 hour electroshocking effort **Stations ranked according to catch/effort for species listed (ties were averaged)
Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavorial Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956
TABLE 3-20 (Sheet 1 of 3) HABITATS, SPAWNING AREAS, MIGRATION ROUTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3* Migrat 100 Routes Foods Habitat Spawning Area and Egg Type Species Move into shallow bays Bottom feeder; also fil-Widely distributed but most Shallow bays; sloughs; wait ter feeder on plankton Bigmouth until water levels rise in and up tributary Buffalo commonly found in larger streams to spawn. rivers, lakes, oxbows and the spring. Eggs are adhe-sloughs. sive and are deposited in dead vegetation on the bottom. Zooplankton (for fish Prefer large lakes and Construct Nests under 125 mm); larger Blue Catfish** deeper portions of major fish feed on insect rivers where a notice- larvae (benthic), or-able current is present anic detritus and fish Adults feed on fish, Usually found in clear, Shallow weedy areas; a de- crustaceans; young Bowfish pression is built in 2-3 sluggish waters of bayous, feed on insects, small borrow pits and back- feet of water. Eggs are shrimp, vegetable waters of rivers where adhesive. Young cling to matter. aquatic vegetation is vegetation at the bottom present. of the nest for 7-9 days ost hatchin
- Fish up to 75 mm feed Clear, weedy lakes, muddy Build nexts adjacent to on zooplankton and chi-Brown stones, logs, or other shel-Bullhead pools of intermittent drain- romids; adults eat in-ageways, slow moving streams ter, on sand or mud bottoms sects, fish, fish eggs, with abundant vegetation and in water up to 2 feet deep. molluscs and plants sand to mud bottoms. Eggs are adhesive.
There is frequently Bottom fauna, chiromids Widely distributed but pre- Shallow areas - Eggs are plant material, small Carp adhesive and are scattered a migration to the fers quiet shallow waters shallow water spawning molluscs, small crusta-of rivers and impoundments. at random over plant beds, ceans, organic detritus debris and rubble. areas.
- All information and sources can be found in the Life Histories of Important Species, Appendix 2-3.
** Dominant species
TABLE 3-20 (Cont'd) (Sheet 2 of 3) HABITATS, SPAWNING AREAS, MIGRATION ROUTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3* Migration Species Habitat Spawning Area and Egg type Routes Foods Channel Found in streamsJ rivers, Under overhanging ledges, Migration into rivers Omnivorous - feed on aquatic Catfish lakes and ponds but prefer hollow logs or in similarly during spawning periods. insects or other fish. In the moderate to swiftly flowing sheltered areas. Also River Bend study *** they were streams with warm water and spawn in lakes and ponds: found to feed on detritus, oligo-bottom of sand, gravel or They wi 11 not spawn in chaetes, microcrustacea, crayfish, rubble. During daytime, in clear ponds, Eggs depos- mayfly larvae, caddisfly larvae streams, adults inhabit pool ited in a gelatinous mass. and dipteran larvae. areas and remain near cover; at night they move into stronger, deeper, riffle areas for feedin
- Freshwater Lakes and large rivers, Spawn on mud and sand bottom Bottom feeding foods include may-Drum** especially in the shallow generally in areas where flies, amphipods 1 fish, crayfish, areas of the Red and Missi- aquatic vegetation is pre- small molluscs and detritus ****
ssippi Rivers. sent. Eggs are buoyant. Gizzard Successful in both streams Pond bottoms; shallow 11iere may be a spawning migra- Young feed on zooplankton and later Shad** and lakes. water, Eggs are demer- tion upstream in the lower on bottom organisms, Adults are sal and adhesive, Mississippi River. filter feeders - Strain detritus from the bottan and plankton from the water, Largemouth All types of freshwater Sheltered bays among aquatic Young feed on zooplankton, Adults Bass bodies from small creeks vegetation in 6 inches to 6 feed on insects, crawfish 1 small to large lakes but is most feet of water over bottoms turtles and frogs. Cannibalism is common in non-flowing water which vary from gravelly common. characterized by abundant sand to marl and soft mud .. aquatic vegetation and soft bottoms. Longnose Sluggish pools, backwaters, Shallow open sloughs and Spawning is often preceded by Young feed at the surface on small Gar oxbows; adults usually found backwaters, Eggs are upstream. migrations into smaller insects, crustaceans and fish; in large deep pools. Often adhesive; larvae attach streams. adults are pisc ivorous. inhabit brackish water and themselves to stones and sometimes saltwater. other objects by means of a suckin disc, Paddlefish Seem to be generally con- Over sand and pebbles and In the Osage River, an upstream Plankton, fish, insects (mayfly fined to large rivers and gravel bars in strong cur- migration follows the warming of naiads). impoundments. rents; generally spawn in the waters to 50°F, schools.
- Dominant species
- Bryan CF, JV Conner, and DJ Demont, "An Ecological Study of the Lower Mississippi River and Alligator Bayou near St. Francisville, Louisiana" In: Environmental Report, River Bend Station Units 1 and 2, Construction Permit Stage, Volume III, Appendix E, Gulf State Utilities Company, 1973
- Dominant species
TABLE 3-20 (Cont'd) (Sheet 3 of 3) HABITATS, SPAWNING AREAS, MIGRATION ROUTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3* Migration Species Habitat Spawning Area-=*=*=*c..:E~gug'-'T~y~p~*"-~~~~~~~~R~o~u~t~e~*"-~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'F~o~o~*~*'-~~~~~~~~~~ Pallid Largest, muddiest rivers Sturgeon of the Missouri-Mississ-ippi System. Bottom in-habitant, usually living in strong currents over firm sand bottoms. River Streams and rivers. Pre- 1-3 feet of water in lakes Indiscriminate omnivore; bottom Carpsucker ferred habitat is quiet silt- and reservoirs over a firm feeder. bottomed pools, backwaters, sand bottOTD; in silty shoals; and oxbows or large streams in shallow silty bays; on silt deltas at the mouth of tribu-taries extending upstream; and over tree roots and vegetation in moderate! dee water. Short nose Lakes, oxbows, backwaters Eggs deposited in small masses Doesn't appear to be any Young feed on ostracods, worms Gar but prefer the mainstreams held together by a clear particular spawning migration. and aquatic insects; adults are of large muddy rivers. gelatinous substance which piscivorous but sometimes feed attaches to weeds. on crawfish and shrimp. Shovel nose Larger rivers of Mississi- Rocky bottoms in swift water. Upstream migrations precede Insects, algae, aquatic vegeta-Sturgeon ppi Basin and Rio Grande, spawning. Enters tributaries tion (bottom feeder). Lives on the bottom in for spawning when water is high. areas characterized by stron currents. Skip jack Deep swift waters - usually In Louisiana-spring migration Other fish; invertebrates. Herring avoiding high turbidities. when it travels to the head-waters or larger streams and in-to connecting lakes. Smallmouth Oxbow lakes, backwater Areas of aquatic vegetation Bottom feeder, indiscriminate Buffalo areas of large rivers, or innundated terrestrial omnivore. swift sh al low riffles, plants, and sloughs. creeks. Striped Marine waters - some- They do not seem to spawn Schools of mullet are known Miscroscopic organisms includ-Hul let** times come up into waters in fresh water .. to come up the Atchafalaya ing diatoms and formanifera, of the Gulf States and River in the spring ss far detritus. California and up the as Avoyelles Perish. Mississi i River. fhreadf in Prefers large bodies of Open water; under brush and Plankton, Chaoborus, Tendipedids. Shad** water and is most abun- floating logs. Spawns in dant where strong current schools. Eggs are adhesive is found - Pela ic
** Dominant Species
- TABLE 3-21 AVERAGE DENSITIES* BY STATION OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 STATION Ac At Be Bt Btl Average DATE 74 NOV 13 .ooo .122 .ooo .ooo .ooo .024 75 FEB 26 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 75 APR 24 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .010 .002 75 AUG 08 .ooo .ooo ,005 .054 .077 .027 75 OCT 30 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 75 NOV 20 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 75 DEC 22 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 76 JAN 30** .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 76 FEB 26 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 76 HAR 25 .ooo .010 .009 .023 .004 .009 76 APR 30** .ooo .OBI .007 .026 .015 .026 76 MAY 27 .020 ,009 .06.9 .ooo .007 .021 76 JUN 08 .127 , 176 .030 .139 .058 .106 76 JUN 24 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .008 .002 76 JUL 07 .003 .034 .013 .017 .017 .011 76 JUL 29 .ooo .ooo .ooo .011 .ooo .002 76 AUG 12 .ooo .ooo .006 .ooo .001 .003 76 SEP 10 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo 76 SEP 27 .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo
- Densities expressed in number/m3
- Samples collected over two sampling days Source of Data: Waterford 3 Erivironmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-22 AVERAGE ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES* BY SPECIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 Unidenti- Centrar- Cyprin- Icta- Sciaen-fiahle chidae Clue:eidae idae Esocidae luridae idae Date Nov 13 74 .019 Feb 26 75 Apr 24 75 .002 Aug 8 75 .015 .005 .004 .004 Oct 30 75 Nov 20 75 Dec 22 75 Jan 30 76 Feb 26 76 Har 25 76 .002 .008
.004 .008 .005 .002 .002 .003 Apr 30 76 Hay 27 76 .ooJ .001 .012
.002 .. 003 .065 .029 Jun 8 76 Jun 24 76 .002
.004 .012 Jul 7 76 Jul 29 76 .003
.003 Aug 12 76 Sep 10 76 Sep 27 76 3
- Densities expressed in number/m Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program
TABLE 3-23 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) OF EQUALITY OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS iNUMBER PER CUBIC METER) AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS DURING YEAR III NUMBER PER CUBIC METER STATION Date k. At Be Bt Bt 1 March 25, 1976 .ooo .010 .009 .023 .004 April 30, 1976 .000 .081 .007 .026 .015 May 27, 1976 .020 .009 .069 .000 .007 June 8, 1976 .127 .176 .030 .139 .058 June 24, 1976 .ooo .ooo .000 .ooo .008 July 7, 1976 .003 .034
- 013 .017 .107 July 29, 1976 .ooo .ooo .ooo .Oll .000 August 12, 1976 .ooo .000 .006 .ooo .007 RANKS*
March 25, 1976 1 4 3 5 2 April 30, 176 1 5 2 4 3 May 27, 1976 4 3 5 1 2 June 8, 1976 3 5 1 4 2 June 24, 1976 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 July 7, 1976 1 5 2 3.5 3.5 July 29, 1976 2.5 2.5 2. 5 5 2.5 August 12, 1976 2 2 4 2 5 Sum of Ranks 17 29 22 27 25 Overall Rank 1 5 2 4 3 x2 4.40 r Fail to Reject H ; ie, Stations were not significantly 0 different with respect to ichthyoplankton densities.
*Stations ranked according to ichthyoplankton densities (ties were averaged)
Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956 *
- TABLE 3-24 e
COMMERCIAL CATCHES FROM MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA AND THE MOUTH OF RIVER 1 1971 - 1975 (IN POUNDS, ROUND OR LIVE WEIGHT AND DOLLAR VALUE) 1971 1972 1973 19 4 1975 se;ecies Pounds $ Value Pounds $ Value Pounds $ Value Pounds $ Value Pounds $ Value Bowfin 1,000 oU 1,000 *0 900 03 Buffalofish 10,700 1,317 28,900 3, 749 60,800 8,289 88,400 13,054 138,600 20,992 Carp 10,200 836 10,900 1,064 9,300 8,079 7,300 474 16,200 944 Catfish, F W llt,500 71,372 190,200 Sb,428 3&0,000 111,883 818,000 259,504 1,198,400 401,903 Garf iah 13,500 1,746 34,000 4,479 53,700 6,385 42,900 4,572 42,800 6,755 Paddle fish 3,000 295 200 ,9 ,uo 14 Gaspergou 3,500 392 11,600 l, 364 57,600 7,341 46,700 5,986 80, 300 11, 763 (Freshwater drUD1) Crawf ish 14,100 2,826 lb,700 3, 725 45,600 11,400 35,000 11,200 54,200 16,260 River Shrimp 900 297 1,900 855 2,700 1,005 3,500 1,400 4,200 2,940 DrWll: Black 200 .8 Red 1,400 291 Sea Trout: Spotted 2,300 569 White 100 11 Turtle, Snapper 885 .ou 176 700 258 4,100 <UO Source: Personal C0tnmunication 1 Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., 1976
J, TABLE 3-25
- VELOCITIES IN CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM*
Water Velocity - Feet per Second 4 Pump 3 Pump 2 Pump Location Level Operation Operation Operation Intake Canal Entrance (under AHWL 1.78 1.52 1.09 Skimmer) ALWL 1.78 1.52 1.09 Narrow Section AHWL 1.13 0.96 0.69 (River End) ALWL 1.69 1.44 1.03 Wide Section AHWL o.45 0.38 0.27 (Intake Structure End) ALWL 0.76 0.65 0.46 Intake Structure** Entrance (under AHWL 1.25 1.25 1.25 Skimmer) ALWL 1.25 1.25 1.25 Unobstructed Bay AHWL 0.59 0.59 0.59 ALWL 1.01 1. 01 1.01 Through Trash Racks AHWL 0.64 0.64 0.64 ALWL 1.10 1.10 1.10 Through Traveling AHWL 1.06 1.06 1.06 Water Screens ALWL 1. 82 1. 82 1. 82
*Average velocities based on cross-sectional flow area. **Velocity is zero in bays in which no pumps are running.
TABLE 3-26
- AVERAGE VELOCITIES AND TRAVEL TIMES IN CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM*
(V in Feet per Second, T in Seconds) 3 Pump Operation 2 Pump Operation 4 Pump Operation v T v T v T Intake Canal AHWL .59 275 .so 325 .37 443 ALWL 1.00 163 .83 195 .62 261 Intake Struc- AHWL .59 101 .59 101 .59 101 tu re ALWL 1.0 60 1.0 60 1.0 60 Piping Up- AHWL 11. 80 99 9. 94 117 7.37 158 stream of ALWL 11.80 99 9. 94 117 7 .37 158 Condenser Condenser AHWL 8.0 7 6.7 8 4.9 11 ALWL 8.0 7 6.7 8 4.9 11 Piping Down- AHWL 11.1 189 9.31 226 6.92 304 stream of ALWL 11.1 189 9.31 226 6.92 304 Condenser Discharge AHWL 1.43 134 1. 21 159 .88 217 Structure ALWL 4. 57 42 3.84 50 2. 82 68 and Canal Total Time AHWL 330 393 532 After Addition ALWL 238 284 383 of Heat
- Averages based on volume and length of each portion of the system.
- TABLE 3 - *
SUMMARY
OF CHEMICAL WASTE CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FOR AVERAGE SUMMER FLOW CONDITIONS* FROM DISCHARGE BY WATERFORD 3 Estimated Increase Estimated Increase Estimated Increase in Avg. Concentra-in Avg. Concentra- in Avg. Concentra-tion at 10 F above tion at 5 F above tion at 3.6 F above Ambient Temperature Ambient Temperature Ambient Temperature Applicable EPA Estimated Increase Isotherm (Diluf~jn Effluent Limitations in Average Concentra- Isotherm (Dilu~i~n Factofgj 0,526 8 Isotherm (Diluf 8ijn
, Factofgj 0,263 , Factoni 0.190 Chemical and or State Water tion of Circulating 0,224 ) (ppm)
Water (ppm) 0,621 ) (ppm) 0,311 ) (ppm) Waste Source Pollutant Content Quality Standards
- 8. lxl0- 6 4.0xl0- 6 2.9xl0- 6 l ,3xl0- 5 Boron Management System Boron 4.7xl0- 6 2.4xl0- 6 l.7xl0- 6 TSS-Avg-30 7.6xl0- 6 Waste Management System Detergent, Dirt I.6xl0- 4 7.Bx 10- 5 S.6xl0- 5 Laundry, Showers Detergent, Dirt TSS-Avg-30 2.5xl0-4 Max-100 Hydrazine(c) 2.4 1. 2 0.9 Steam Generator Total Dissolved 4.6 Slowdown System Sol ids 1.2 0.6 0,4 Regenerative Sulfates 2.3 No Change No Change 6.0-9.0 No Change No Change Solutions pH Steam Generator Blowd.own System Electromagnetic Total Suspended J.Bxl0- 3 J.3xl0- 3 Solids 30 6,9 3 3.6xl0-J Filter Flush 3.7xl0-B 2.7xl0-B Ammonia l.2xl0- 7 7.5xl0-B Condenser Feedwater Drains 2.0 1.0 o. 7 Total Dissolved 3.8 Dem.ineralizer Makeup Solids 0,5 0,4 1.9 1.0 Sulfates No Change No Change 6,9 No Change Pretreatment System pH 9.3xl0-S 4.7xl0-s 3.4xl0- 5 Residual Chlorine Cl-Avg-0.2 Max-0.5
-6 J.5x!0_ -6
-6 2.Jx!0-4 Sewage Treatment Residual Chlorine 4.2xl0-4 l.2xl0_ 8,9xl0_ 5 Avg-30 2.5xl0_ 4 4 System BOD 4 l.9xl0 1. 3xl 0 Hax-45 1.7xl0 TSS
-4 -4 -4 7,Bxl0-4 -s 4xlxl0_ Avg 2.2xl0-4 J,Jxl0-4 HVAC Cooling TSS Avg-30 3 3. 7xl0 2.7xl0 Hax-100 l .4xl0 Max 7.4xl0 Tower Blowdown
*(a) River flow 280,000 cfs.
Dilution factor for Waterford l and 2 point discharge. (b) Dilution factor Waterford 3 point discharge. (c) Hydrazine originates from radioactive equipment machine shop drains.
., I f7 I; I .. j *I , Il ~I I I _, ~- i I
I I I I I I - * *.*:
~: .... _:
I UTTLE GYPSY STATION
- WATERFORO I 8 2 ...
I WATERFORD 3 SITE
~
I URBAN ROADS AREAS I RAILROADS LEVEES -**********- .." I WATER BODIES c-'-**" .,,
.. PARISH BOUNDARY -*-*-*-*-
I Bi*,i*t *. {* *-*~ WETLANDS I 0 2
"' MILES I 0 I(
2 ILOMETERS'
- 5 I
I LOUISIANA I POWER a LIGHT Co. Watilrford Steam E~ctrlc Station THE REGION WITHIN 5 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FIGURE 3-1 I
\
--~ \
R1vcR
---1--,-
1: !:,:"~~*
- TOW
- ..-;;..~:\
<LC
,," 1:
...........°' :*
"""° .:
"::'.it
//
"":1 (lUSTUHil TllAMIMIS!ION 11
""II I
""" ,-i:,:----- '"":;!
i ""
""*r.::::=::-===
------------ 11
\\
II "",,,,
"" "I,,
II II
!\
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- :.J'
""" ;l LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. WATERFORD 3 SITE AND Waterford Steam NEARBY STRUCTURES .3-2 Electric Station
1200 NOTE: COMBINED DATA FROM TARBERT LANDING ANO RED RIVER LANDING 1930- 1975 1100 DATA UTILIZED FOR THIS CURVE IS BASED ON MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS 1000 900
...iii
(.) 100
§
*-! 700
"'"a: '*
c 600 Q c
!500
- I 400 300 200 100 0 10 20 30 40 !50 60 70 80 90 100 DURATION ('JI'. TIME)
EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED -*UWUILl911D .._,,.,..... D"'lil* - 11.1, -.c;i:MCAL ...-1. MTtI
~TO
~.
.v1*0N I.A. !IM LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVE Waterford Steam 3-3 Electric Station
DISTANCE ACROSS RIVER, FT. IOCI 1000 1IOCI 0 20
-EL.+ 2.3 FT. IMSL)
WATER SURFACE 0
. ZONE OF INTAKE WITHDIAW-.1 20 !: *o t:
z!2
~
60 80 100
- EL. *111 FT. (MIL) 120 RIVER FLOW: 200,000 cfs
~
RIVER CROSS.SECTION CONSTRUCTED FROM OONTOUR MAP FROM U.1. COR'5 Of ENGINE!"I NEW ORLEANS, LA. "MISSISSIPPe RIVER ' HYDROGRA'"IC IURVEY - 1t7:J.1t719LACK HAWK LA. TO HEAD Of .PASSES LA. 1111 Figure LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSS-SECTION POWER & LIGHT CO. AT LITTLE GYPSY GENERATING STATION Waterford Steam 3-4 Electric Station
90 30
..,::c 80 I-z I 25
"'a:::c
"- 70 iii
..J
(.)
"'..,.., 20 ..,"'
a:
"'a:..,<!>
"'0 0 z 60 z 15
..,a: "'a:::>
I-a: I-
..,a:
Cl.
- i; I-a:
I-
,. 40 50 r Mo<1mum Average Minimum 10 5
Cl. I-a: I-0 J F M A M J J A s 0 N 0
- IVIMTT... ~-OUolLl'n
~""'1CSOI'
..,---~-
... ~---"'
~--
TMI ..-11 LOUISIANA MONTHLY VARIATIONS IN WATER TEMPERATURE Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR Waterford Steam ST. FRANCISVILLE, LA., 1954-68. 3-5 Electric Station
2000 a:
"'...~1000 a:
~ 800 I
.,:II I a:
600 I
- 500 I j 400 I 300 I
~ I iia: I
... 200 I
~ I
...'-'z I
- II 100 I
.,i5"' llO I 0
"'z 0
I 60 I
.,~::>
!IQ I
40 I 30 0.5 I 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 llO 90 95 911 99 99.5 PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED SUSPENDED SEDIMENT WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED I t II
~~ llMITio!, A. I. *~L -.-.n'A,.IOfll IMO I i:MllOlllMO~.-..i l.~8UL~COAIT ..._~."
ltl\lllt M1iO l'llOC'llD1tt81 Of n- 'IDIUL INTlll* I I I
~ICY 11...,.ATIOfll COllPlllllllCl.
1U. Ol'1'. Of .....CULT\IM, ..C. ~* TIOJllt711 . . . - - - . , . . . LOUISIANA figure POWER & LIGHT CO. DURATION OJRVE OF SUsP!NDEO.SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION Waterford Steam MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT RED RIVER LANDING, LA., 1949-63 3-6 Electric Station
Acl v** .~ f QJ
~l I
80MtET CARRE flOOOWA'f' LEGEND Ac Station ..--- __........... e
- Benthos Gi 11 Nets La Hwy. 18 I
1/2
.t. Water Chemistry 1/4 Scale IR Mtles Otter Trawls
- - - - Midwater Trawls
************** Surface Trawls & Zooplankton LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO.
SAMPLING AREAS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WATERFORD 3 Waterford Steam Electric Station 3-7
I
+
+ +
- --p ---p *--1
't-p
.r-Y'>---- .=.:. /V
. c; ,-/._::: *~+..::.... .
\
\ '<if'".;~l~nr-* *. * ,....
i I
- N I
'lz_, ,
-F*Df-IVlllP'T.111..__lc::_CllMiLrnr CKAllACTllllPICSOfn.:~
- 1 1 1 ¥ 1 1 .. Nt..-cAi..-f MO. I. . . _ ... ,,...,_.,Of"'--~
-1.m1 LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. WASTE SOURCES IN THE Waterford Steam LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 3-8 Electric Station
f'; I* I ' I t_: J
'* I I'* I ~ii ' _, r.:
I I I( '; r ; **. J I I I I I 0 100 200 300
~~-~------"
I FEET I I I I Tlt.l* .. TIOll
*lOClt 110 I I
I .t.ClllUllllTIUITIOll llUILOINt I I I I
.~
I S£11YIC£ 11111.0lllt I I LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co Waterf team CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM FIGURE Elect tion GENERAL PLAN -9 I
- I rf".:"i I ' I ., ~ .. I 1
. I I .. ~* J I
l I. .;
*- I ... I 1 . I "'"'
l1 ' I
, I t* ' '
' I -1 I
I I Slllllll(ll WAH. I I r-* 'f------"l' r..... \\ ----*------- .. I L Ji I *- 'I I ELEV. L-L
' L---
I 1:1 '" I 1
- II~:::.
. llL, ..
I *;:' I*** I I S~lllUl(ll WALL PLAN 0 00 I MISSISSIPPI RIV£R r.:..-- FEET I .. **,
!1 I .. i:
qi I~! I --------------- - -------------------------- ------------------____llit~ ELEV. A-A I LOUISIANA FIGURE I POWER & LIGHT Co Waterf Steam CIRCULATING INTAKE WATER CANAL SYSTEM
-10 Elect lion I
f' i ' I . i' J i ' l':' l
, I l1 r*.1 j I ' '
1 I-_ ' ' I I I
..5*
§
~)
i-+/-i I
~"
*c Cz
~c
"!_u n- u'-o u
(I
-=-=
1
~ -* *-
.= . - ~
I .* ~ I - -
.=* ---
!- =
". .. D D D D I 5 O*~
I ...
~
- ~~- --
...... 1.I
~~
*'-o g]
... L
~-
£~i !!~ D D D (TI I .. - - *-
I ..
~::#'--/
D
~ ~
- "'&Tl
~=
I p [ ::1: ~* D p D D
-~
' I J'*o I \
..***~
,/l'.ur - /
r-
*> =-
~~
L~J .i u* I ~ ' !
*"-- [l
~
- I#*
- .I I K.'_/'.'
l ___ _) - V1' I ' I I II b. r 1-.::_J:. ~.' 1-i r I
!-..::_ J::.::., SECT A-A I
I PLAN ~ I NOTE: TWO OF THE FOUR INTAKE PUMPS SHOWN .,.._ ...... - * - ~ T9-......... LOUISIANA FIGURE I POWER & LIGHT Co. Water. Steam CIRCULATING TAKE WATER STRUCTURE SYSTEM 3 - II Ele tat ion I
f-; ' I* I 1
. I ~ .. J ' '
t
~
r I 1*.1
~* ' ' -1 I MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW~
I J 4~-6" ... I --n
==
-\
OISOIARGE
-=
STA~
--~**-
~*-.*.
--=-
-===---
I I I DISCHARGE CANAL- o ~ L-.----'--*------' F ff T ro SECT A-A I I I I ,,
-I --~ *--*.... --- --- F--:_-=*--- ~
-= --=-=
0 *~ __ / -ir- --
~
0 : _- - E:_--
- -- =- *-
I ~ ."'
- !! !!J '-
I I
"'r
...... i
"'0 L___ - - - -
I ,..
~
I Ff[ T SECT B-B I I DISCHARGE STRUCTURE I PLAN (NOT TO SCALE) LOUISIANA FIGURE I POWER & LIGHT Co. Waterfor Steam CIRCULATING GE STRUCTURE WATER AND SYSTEM CANAL Electr' lion I
SECTION 4
- 4.0 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY IMPACT POTENTIAL Based on the site aquatic ecology description presented in Section 3.4 and the operating characteristics of the Circulating Water System presented in Section 3.6, it is believed that there is a low potential for significant impact to the aquatic communities of the lower Mississippi River due to in-take water withdrawal by Waterford 3. The considerations used in this evaluation include the low biological productivity and value associated with this section of the river, and the very low percentage of the river discharge which is withdrawn by the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System.
This percentage is usually less than l percent of the annual average flow (see Section 5.0). The combined total withdrawals for Little Gypsy and Waterford l and 2, and Waterford 3 do not exceed 3 percent of the typical low flow of 200,000 cfs. This section contains a community-by-community rationale for the conclusion that there is a low potential for impact from water withdrawal
- 4.1 PHYTOPLANKTON Turbidity, turbulence and suspended solids limit the phytoplankton com-munity of the lower Mississippi River. A major portion of the phytoplank-ton community present in the river is probably washed out of tributaries rather than originating within the mainstream itself. Primary production is low. The river food chain is detrital based; therefore phytoplankton are not the major energy source in the Mississippi that they are in more lake-like systems. The percentage of the community subjected to withdrawal is low, and percent survival of the species found at Waterford after passage through the condenser is expected to be substantial during most periods of the year (Gurtz and Weiss, 1974).
4.2 ZOOPLANKTON Zooplankton densities are low in the Mississippi, and the community is pro-bably dominated by rotifers which are not a major food source for the fish species present in the Mississippi. The percentage of the community
subjected to intake withdrawal is low. No commercially important or en-dangered species of zooplankton were found in the Waterford area. The relative importance of the zooplankton to the aquatic biological systems of the river as well as low relative volume of river flow entrained by Water-ford 3, leads to the conclusion of a low potential for impact to this com-munity. 4.3 SHELLFISH/MACRO INVERTEBRATES The species likely to be affected by intake withdrawal of Waterford 3 is the river shrimp, Macrobrachium ohione. The river shrimp supports a small fishery in the Mississippi and Atchafalya Rivers. River shrimp are found in high numbers throughout the lower Mississippi River and the Waterford 3 site is not unique in terms of habitat. River shrimp has a low potential for impact due to the low volume of river water involved, the non-unique-ness of the Waterford habitat, and the relatively insignificant commercial fishery for this species. No threatened or endangered species of macroin-vertebrates are found in the Waterford area. 4.4 FISH Species captured during the Environmental Surveillance Program were found in low numbers except for gizzard and threadfin shad, fresh water drum, striped mullet and blue catfish. None of the fish species found in the Mississippi River at the Waterford site are listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered. Several species found have commercial value. Between Baton Rouge and the river mouth freshwater drum, blue and channel catfish, and carp were taken from the Mississippi by commercial fisherman. The value of the regions commercial fishery is discussed further in Section 3.4. Sport fishing in the lower Mississippi River is not common (USAEC 1973). 4-2
4.4.1 FISH SPAWNING AND NURSERY POTENTIAL The Mississippi River at Waterford does not provide habitat suitable for spawning of many fish species. It lacks the riffle areas preferred for spawning by many catfish (ictalurids) and most suckers (catastomids), the shallow backwaters and flooded areas preferred by pike (esocids) and some of the shads (clupeids) and sunfishes (centrarchids), and the vegetated areas preferred by other sunfishes and perch (percids) (see Table 3-20). Some of the fish larvae sampled during the Environmental Surveillance Pro-gram must have been produced upstream of Waterford 3, since the habitat at Waterford does not meet their spawning requirements (e.g., sunfishes and pikes). Most of these washed out eggs and larvae are not adapted to the turbid, turbulent, and high velocity river conditions, and therefore, few would be expected to survive, regardless of entrainment by Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3, and Little Gypsy. However, increased mortality of fresh-water drum eggs, which are buoyant, might occur. In view of the low num-bers of drum eggs and larvae collected in the river and the high fecundity of this species (approximately 200,000 to 350,000 eggs per female), no significant reduction in the number of adults is expected. With the exception of freshwater drum, the eggs of those species expected to spawn near the Waterford site are demersal and/or adhesive. This ten-dency to adhere to substrates or to sink will eliminate them from possible entrainment by the Waterford 3 surface withdrawal. Summarizing the above information, it is concluded that impact potential is low because: a) Presence of commercial fish is not unique to the area and their importance as a resource will not be impaired by Waterford 3. b) No special spawning habitat is available in the Mississippi at Waterford 3
- 4-3
- c) d)
The intake withdrawal affects only a small portion of the typi-cal low flow river discharge. Threatened or endangered species were not found
- CITATIONS - SECTION 4
- 1. Gurtz, M.E. and C.M. Weiss, 1974 "Response of Phytoplankton to Thermal Stress," in Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Re-search Institute-RP-49. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening - Jones Hopkins University.
- 2. U.s. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973 "Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units l and 2.
Mississippi Power and Light Company." Docket Nos. 50-416, 50-417
- SECTION 5
5.0 ENTRAINMENT EFFECTS The organisms subject to entrainment by the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System .include phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and juvenile fish and invertebrates small enough to pass through the 1/4 inch clear openings of the traveling screens. These communities have been described in Section 3.4 and their potential for significant impact has been dis-cussed in Section 4.0. In the following analysis of entrainment effects, it has been assumed, for purposes of conservatism, that the organisms entrained in the Circulating Water System do not survive. In reality, mortality of entrained organisms will vary, with some groups of organisms experiencing 100 percent mortal-ity, and others experiencing significantly less mortality. Mortality fac-tors contributed by the Circulating Water System include thermal, chemical, and mechanical stresses. 5.1 STRESSES DURING ENTRAINMENT Temperature elevation ( ~ T) in the Circulating Water System will range from 29°F at two-pump operation to 16.1°F at four-pump operation. The frequency of these operating modes is described in Section 3.6.1. The total retention time of river water in the system, depending on the number of pumps operating and river water level, ranges from 238 to 532 seconds (4 to 9 minutes) after the addition of heat. The total retention time of river water in the Circulating Water System varies from 337 to 690 seconds. Stresses on entrained organisms from the chemicals placed in the circula-ting water from the operation of Waterford 3 are expected to be most signi-ficant from the addition of chlorine, which will not be used routinely, as described in Section 3.6.9. The proportion of total entrained organisms exposed to chlorine over the course of a year is therefore expected to be very small. The chemicals added periodically for water treatment and from other plant systems will occur in very dilute concentrations following dilution within the circulating water, as shown in Table 3-27. These would 5-1
- be anticipated to be relatively insignificant chemical stresses to en-trained organisms when compared to other sources of stress.
Mechanical stresses to entrained organisms consist of damages from the cir-culating water pumps, pressure changes within the system, abrasion, and other stress effects. The effects of the thermal, chemical, and mechanical stress can vary ac-cording to the organism entrained. However, in view of the simplifying assumption of complete mortality that is utilized in this analysis, the resultant influence of entrainment losses to the biological communities of the Mississippi is the criterion by which entrainment effects of Waterford 3 should be evaluated. The assessment of these effects is included in the following section. 5.2 WATERFORD 3 ENTRAINMENT EFFECTS As discussed in Section 3.4, phytoplankton, zooplankton and ichthyoplankton are present in relatively low numbers in the lower Mississippi River. Sec-tion 3.4 also identified the low primary productivity that has been found to occur in the river, and that energy flow in this aquatic system is de-trital based. These factors are indicative of the low biological produc-tivity of the Mississippi River in this area. When this is considered in combination with the low percentage of river flow to be utilized by Water-ford 3, it is indicated that the capacity of the Circulating Water System is suitable for minimizing the potential for significant adverse effects to the aquatic communities of the Mississippi. Assuming that entrainment is nonselective and the distribution of organisms in the river is homogeneous, then the relative number of organisms with-drawn from the community will be directly proportional to the amount of water withdrawn. This assumption is reasonable in view of the generally high current velocity and turbulence which occurs in the Mississippi, and the lack of differences in the distribution of organisms among the sampling
- stations utilized, which is described in Section 3.4.
5-2 Therefore, the rates
I of organisms entrainment have been calculated based on the average densi-ties of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton from samples col-lected in each month of the year. Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 contain the calculated numbers of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton, respectively, that are estimated to be entrained each month. The number of phytoplankton estimated to be entrain-3 3 ed ranges from 183 x 10 cells/second in November, to 4720 x 10 cells/ second in September. The number of zooplankton entrained range from 331/ second in January to 113,596/second in August. Average ichthyoplankton entrainment ranges from a low of 0.35/sec in March, to a high of 3.42/ second in June over the period of March to August when ichthyoplankton are present. While these entrainment numbers are considered only an approximation, their significance to the Mississippi River can only be determined by considering the portion of the aquatic communities actually entrained, and their abi-
- lity to reproduce. The percent of the Mississippi River monthly average flow entrained by Waterford 3 is given in Table 5-4.
during the month of September. This table shows that Waterford 3 will typically withdraw the highest percentage of river flow But, even during this month, Waterford 3 will only utilize about 1.0 percent of the river's average monthly flow, and only about 1.2 percent of the monthly minimum average flow. The low percentage of total river flow withdrawn by Waterford 3, even in view of the conservative assumption of 100 percent mortality to entrained organ-isms, indicates that there will be a correspondingly low percentage of the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton communities affected. Most groups of plankton have an innate capacity to reproduce quickly. Phy-toplankton have particularly short generation times. For example, the doubling time for Coscinodiscus sp is approximately 30 hours at 1B 0 c (64.4°F) and the doubling time for Asterionella formosa is 9.6 hours at 20°c (6B°F) (Fogg, 1965). Although these generation times are suffi-ciently long to preclude creation of blooms in the thermal plume (as
- discussed in 316(a) Demonstration for Waterford 3), they are short enough to anticipate that entrainment losses would be compensated for within a 5-3
- short distance of the Waterford 3 discharge. This combination of small percentages of river water withdrawn and high phytoplankton reproductive potential, suggests no adverse impact.
Zooplankton populations also have generally high reproductive capabilities. The relatively short generation times of most planktonic invertebrates al-low populations to recover rapidly from a stress such as entrainment. For example, studies conducted under natural conditions indicated relative rates of increase for rotif ers of 8 percent per day by Karatella aculeata and 35 percent per day by Asplanchna pridodonta (Colditz (1914) and Ahlstrom (1933), cited by Edmondson et al, (1962) and Hall (1964), cited hy Lauer, et al (1974)). The reproductive characteristics of the species of fish found in the Mississippi near Waterford 3 gives perspective to the significance of the predicted effect from entrainment of approximately 1 percent maximum of the ichthyoplankton community. The fish population of this area is not likely to be noticeably affected by this small loss of ichthyoplankton because of the characteristics of the eggs of the species expected to spswn near Waterford 3 and their relative fecundity (discussed in Section 4.4). Fur-thermore, in spring, when most fish spawn, river flows are at a maximum. The river flow used by Waterford 3, and consequently the estimated portion of the ichthyoplankton population, would be approximately 0.2 to 0.4 per-cent for April through June under average monthly flow conditions, as shown in Table 5-4. This is the period when the highest number of ichthyoplankton are present in the river, as shown in Tables 3-21 and 3-22. During September, when the ratio of withdrawal to river flow is highest, these tables indicate that no ichthyoplankton are likely to be present. In view of these factors, no adverse effects to the Mississippi River ichthyoplankton community sre expected from entrainment by Waterford 3 *
- 5-4
CITATIONS - SECTION 5.0
- 1.
2. Edmondson, W.T., 1946 "Factors in the Dynamics of Rotifer Populations". Ecol Mongr 16. Fogg, G.E., 1965 Algal Cultures and Phytoplankton Ecology. The University of Wisconsin Press.
- 3. Lauer, G.R., ~al, 1974 "Entrainment Studies on Hudson River Organisms". Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Research Institute RP-49. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening, Report No. 15 - John Hopkins University
- TABLE 5-1 ESTIMATED PHYTOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT BY WATERFORD 3 Average Average Average Average Phytoplankton Total Total Total Total Waterford 3 cells/sec Density Density Density Density #/ft! Intake Entr~ined Month Year I* Year II* Year III* #/liter x 10 cfs x 10 January ----- ------ 152,349 152,349 432 1388 600 February 40,800 501,201 119,636 220,545 625 1388 867 March 51,000 ------- 162,574 106,787 302 1388 419 April 45,960 348,098 1,446,815 613,624 1738 1756 305 May 28,900 ------- 320,548 174,724 494 1997 986 June 27,200 230,814 326,699 194,904 551 2236 1232 July 57,800 ------ 440,189 248,994 705 2236 1576 August 299 ,200 479,417 ------ 389,308 1103 2236 2466
------- 4720 September 719,100 385,749 745,299 2111 2236 October 59,500 ------- 56,751 58,125 164 2118 347 November 52, 700 ------ 24,541 38,620 109 1683 183 December 34,000 ------- 59,816 49,908 133 1388 185 *Average total density derived from Tables 2.2-3, 2.2-4, and 2.2-5 of Waterford 3 OLER.
Year I extends from June, 1973-May, 1974; Year II from June, 1974-August, 1975; and Year III from October 1975-September, 1976. Densities expressed as numbers per liter *
- Averag~Total
#/
TABLE 5-2 ESTIMATED AVERAGE NUMBER OF ZOOPLANKTON ENTRAINED BY WATERFORD 3
~/sec Intake Average #
Zooplankton Month All Years* Waterford 3 Entrained/sec January** 8.4 39.30 331 February 250 39.30 9825 March 901.8 39.30 35440 386.6 49.72 19221 April May 1292 56.55 73062 June 777 63.32 49199 July 309 63.32 19565 1794 63.32 113596 August September 1118 63.32 70791
- October November December 227 956 170.7 59 .98 47.66 39.30 13615 45563 6708
*Average #/M 3 for each month sampled. Three years pooled data. **Only one year sampled
- TABLE 5-3 ESTIMATED ICHTHYOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT BY WATERFORD 3 ll/M3 Average Total Density Most Total All Stations Abundant I~take Ichthyoplankton Month All Years Family M /sec Entrained/sec January .000 -------- 39 .30 -----
February .000 -------- 39.30 ----- March .009 Cyprinidae 39 .30 0.4 April .014 Centrarchidae 49.72 0.7 May .021 Cyprinidae 56.55 1.2 June .054 Clupeidae 63.32 3.4 July .009 Sciaenidae 63.32 .6 August .015 Sciaenidae 63.32 .9
- September October November
.000
.ooo
.000 63.32 59.98 47.66 December .ooo -------- 39 .30 -----
TABLE 5-4
- PERCENT OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW ENTRAINED BY WATERFORD 3 Average Monthly Average of Monthl~ Averages Station Average of Monthly Minimums Station Station Intake Intake Intake River Flow as River Flow as Flow* Flow** % River Flow % River Month cfs 1,000 cfs Flow 1,000 cfs Flow Jan 1,388 501 0.277 349 0.398 Feb 1,388 602 0.231 449 0.309 Mar 1,388 708 0.196 543 0.256 Apr 1,756 780 0.225 648 0.271 May 1,997 715 0.279 561 0.356 Jun 2,236 540 0.414 427 0.524 Jul 2,236 407 0.549 295 0.758
- Aug Sep Oct 2,236 2,236 2, 118 279 218 233 0.801 1.026 0.909 219 180 179 1.021 1.242 1.183 Nov 1,683 258 0.652 191 0.881 Dec 1,388 366 0.379 275 0.505
*Station flows based on pumping modes described in Section 3.4. **Flows based on 35 year record at Red River Landing (1942-1976)
- SECTION 6
6.0 IMPINGEMENT EFFECTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the anticipated impingement of aquatic organisms on the travelling screens of the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System intake. Organisms will become impinged because they are too large, or otherwise unable to pass through the 1/4 inch openings in the screen. Once impinged, the organisms are re111Dved by washing to a trough and sluiced to the river downstream of the Waterford 3 intake. Details concerning the intake struc-ture and the operation of the Circulating Water System are given in Section 3.6. Because the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System will not be placed into operation until 1981, actual measurements of the rates of impingement which occur are not possible. Therefore, in order to develop a predicted rate of impingement and an evaluation of its effect on the Mississippi River environment, it has been necessary to derive a method to calculate, as closely as possible, the rate of impingement which can be expected when Waterford 3 becomes operational. The conclusions which can be drawn from predictive studies such as this one have inherent limitations when compared to those based on actual measure-ments obtained at an operating intake. This report utilizes, however, an approach to the quantitative prediction of impingement that is based on conservative assumptions and presents an analysis of both the estimated maximum and average rates of impingement that can be expected at Waterford
- 3. The use of this range of anticipated effects and the conservatism in underlying assumptions can be expected to overcome the greatest limitations to a predictive study.
This section presents the analysis of impingement by Waterford 3. A description of the factors affecting impingement analysis is included and the general methodology utilized to calculate impingement rates is
- 6-1
detailed. The actual impingement expected to occur at Waterford 3 is described for each important species likely to be affected. A discussion of the influence of this impingement to the lower Mississippi River fish-eries resources as a whole, is included. This study has shown that the predicted environmental effects to the lower Mississippi River due to impingement by the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System, as presently designed, will be insignificant. Therefore, because of this insignificant effect and the demonstrated lower productivity of this portion of the Mississippi, the Waterford 3 intake can be considered to represent best available technology. 6.2 FACTORS AFFECTING THE ANALYSIS OF IMPINGEMENT Impingement can be significantly influenced by the location, design and capacity of intake structures (EPA, 1976). The variability in these influences to the expected rate of impingement have had an effect on the analysis that has been utilized to predict impingement by Waterford 3, and therefore should be noted. The most important locational factor influencing the effect of an intake is the nature of the water source from which the supply is taken (EPA, 1976). For purposes of this analysis, the ecological characteristics of the river have been shown to have significance on impingement rates and patterns. The combination of the species of organisms susceptible to impingement which are present, their abundance, and their behavior patterns can be very influencial to the analysis of impingement rates. The Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program indicated that there were no differences in fish abundance between the stations sampled, as dis-cussed in Section 3.4.4, and that the specific intake location selected for Waterford 3 appears to be optimal for this area, based on observations dur-ing sampling (Geo-Marine, 1979). However, when comparing the Waterford 3 intake to other intakes, it should be noted that variability in abundance
- of fish, in rivers such as the Mississippi, can be due, in part, to the configuration of the river in the location from which water is withdrawn.
64
- The placement of an intake on a meander, oxbow, shoal, etc, because of variations in fish abundance, can affect rates of impingement when compared to withdrawals from relatively staight shoreline or channelized rivers.
The physical structure of an intake is another major factor in predicting impingement rates. One principle aspect for *this analysis is the manner in which water is withdrawn from the water column. An intake relying upon withdrawal through a pipeline will remove water from a relatively restric-ted area, typically near the bottom. A structure utilizing a more open canal or shoreline intake withdraws water from a larger portion of the water column. The zone of withdrawal is considered to be significant in the analysis of impingement when some of the fish species present will have variable distribution by depth in the water column. Other physical factors influence the rate of impingement and consequently any prediction of the effects. Factors such as the direction of the inf low
- current at the point of withdrawal, the current velocity within the struc-ture, and other design features should be considered in an analysis of impingement {EPA, 1976).
6.3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY UTILIZED FOR PREDICTION OF IMPINGEMENT This section describes the general method which was utilized to derive a quantitative prediction for the number of aquatic organisms expected to be impinged by Waterford 3. Specific methods for predictions by species are included in the discussion in Section 6.4. 6.3.l BASIC METHODOLOGY The principle limitation on a predictive analysis of impingement is the availability of sufficient existing data which can be utilized as directly applicable to the intake being studied. The Waterford 3 Environmental Report, Operating License Stage presented an initial quantified estimate
- of impingement which was developed through data gathered at Waterford 1 and 2.
an~lysis of species impingement Recent investigations have shown that the prediction of impingement rates from similarly designed and proximally 6-3
located intakes are valid in some situations, but that any great deviation
- in design or localized fish productivity may invalidate the comparison (Gross, 1977; Astor, 1978). Because of this potential limitation to the use of data from Waterford 1 and 2, the methodology utilized in this anal-ysis was a continuation of the approach taken in the Environmental Report, but with a further refinement of these earlier estimates through evaluation of additional data from other intakes. It was felt that a continuation and refinement of the impingement prediction developed through comparison with impingement rates at other intakes withdrawing from the same types of bio-logical communities would be more effective than the use of a biological or eco-system model. Biological models for impingement prediction are con-sidered to be difficult to develop, use and test, to require very substan-tial data taken over long periods of time, and too frequently produce un-realistic results (EPA, 1977).
6.3.2 COMPARISON OF INTAKE To complete the predictive study for Waterford 3, existing intakes for which impingement data were available were identified and the data ob-tained. These intakes could be placed into two categories developed in re-ference to the applicability of their data to Waterford 3. The first was those intakes which located reasonably close to Waterford 3 in the lower Mississippi River. These intakes were assumed to be withdrawing water from essentially identical aquatic environments, as would Waterford 3. Because of limitations on the applicability of the data from the first group of intakes, as discussed below, the second category was developed. These were intakes of basically similar design to Waterford 3's, with existing data and located in the central Mississippi River Basin, but unavoidably a very substantial distance from the Waterford 3 site. Never-theless, it was felt that the dominant fish species present in this area were the same ones subject to impingement by Waterford 3. The intakes utilized in this analysis were obtained through a computerized search of the "Power Database", developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (AIF, 1978). The data utilized were derived from published impinge-6-4
ment studies, intake evaluations, and 316(b) documents. This data search yielded information on two power plants in the lower Mississippi and eight in the central basin which had sufficient data and information to use in this study. These ten power plants utilized a total of twelve intakes for which data was available. The general location of these power plants with-in the Mississippi River Basin is given in Figure 6-1. The design, operational and locational characteristics of interest to this analysis were the fallowing:
- 1) Intake location
- 2) Plant intake type
- 3) Stream m:>rphology at the intake
- 4) Operational data
- 5)
Intake temperature, including discharge recirculation This information is displayed in Table 6-1 for all of the intakes utilized in the analysis. Because the differences in these intakes, in either physical structure or location, have influence to the impingement prediction for Waterford 3, the capabilities of the two major categories to benefit or limit the analysis should be noted. 6.3.2.l Lower Mississippi River Intakes The operating intake closest to the Waterford 3 intake for which impinge-ment data are available is Waterford l and 2. As indicated in Table 6-1, Waterford .1 and 2 uses submerged, siphon pipes located offshore and ope-rates with smaller cooling water volumes than does Waterford 3. The prin-ciple benefit to the analysis from the use *of impingement data from Water-ford l and 2 is their location relatively close to Waterford 3, as ind!- 6-5
cated in Figure 3-2. Although Waterford l and 2 withdraw water from an area which has different current patterns than those occurring at the Waterford 3 intake, as well as withdrawing water from the edge of a shoal, the fish community was found to be generally similar by the Waterford 3 En-vironmental Surveillance Program. This similarity is described in detail in the Waterford 3 Environmental Report. However, there are substantial physical differences between the Waterford l and 2 intake and that designed and under construction for Waterford 3. These differences have a limiting effect on the direct extrapolation of data from Waterford l and 2 to Waterford 3, and they are explored in detail in the Waterford 3 Environmental Report. In summary, actual impingement at Waterford 3 could be higher because of: 1) the potential for fish to gather in the low current velocity area within the intake canal; 2) the po-tential withdrawal of heated water from the Waterford l and 2 discharge by Waterford 3, and; 3) the higher intake volume of Waterford 3. Waterford 3 could have lower impingement due to: 1) its withdrawal over the water column rather than from the bottom layers exclusively; 2) the greater po-tential for fish to escape the intake canal after their entrance, and;
- 3) the greater capabilities of fish to escape the horizontal current pat-terns of the Waterford 3 withdrawal. The Waterford l and 2 intake is also an offshore intake, compared to Waterford 3's shoreline position.
The second nearest plant to Waterford 3 studied is Willow Glen, several miles upstream of Waterford 3, as shown in Figure 6-1. The Willow ~len station has two intakes, designated Willow Glen l and Willow Glen 4. These are placed on the outer bank of a meander in the Mississippi, as indicated in Table 6-1, and withdraw water via pipeline. Willow Glen l has an off-shore, inverted pipe intake with an average intake capacity of 200 cfs. Willow Glen 4 is similar, but with a horizontal pipe and an average capa-city of 400 cfs. Neither Willow Glen l and 4 nor Waterford 1 and 2 recir-culate heated discharge water for ice control in the intake. These three intakes on the lower Mississippi River are most useful to this analysis for their location and consequently their withdrawal from the same general aquatic community. However, the physical and operation-6-6
- al dissimilarities with Waterford 3, as well as differences in pipeline withdrawal from the more restricted bottom area of the Mississippi River habitat, indicated that additional data were needed from intakes of similar design to Waterford 3's.
6.3.2.2 Central Mississippi Basin Intakes The attempt to secure additional data from intakes with a lll)re similar range of operating and design parameters identified eight power plants in the central Mississippi basin. These plants are the Sioux, Meramec, Wood River and Riverside stations, located on the Mississippi River; the Gallagher Generating Station on the Ohio River; and the Council Bluffs, Hawthorne, and Labadie Stations on the Missouri River. Locational, design and operational parameters for these plants are given in Table 6-1. The location of these stations is shown in Figure 6-1. These stations were located from the "Power Database" (AIF, 1978) on the basis of their with-drawal from the river system (the Mississippi or a major tributary) and the
- availability of impingement data. Two plants with data had to be elimina-ted from further use because of their intake withdrawal from saltwater and lake environments. One riverine plant was eliminated from use due to the incompatibility of the data with the format of that from the other plants.
While no attempt was purposely made to locate other plants in the areas more distant from Waterford 3 solely on the basis of similarities in design and operational characteristics, the central basin plants located did offer this benefit to the analysis. These eight plants, with nine operating in-takes, were the only central Mississippi River basin intakes with impinge-ment data available for this analysis. There was no reasonable method which could enlarge the data base beyond this without a corresponding decrease in the applicability of the data to Waterford 3. The intakes located in the central basin benefited the analysis not only because of the design and operation but also because of their withdrawal of water from the Mississippi. This assured that, generally, the major fish communities would be similar to that of the lower Mississippi River, and indicative of the susceptability predicted of these species at Water-ford 3. 6-7
However, the use of intakes at such a substantial distance from Waterford 3
- (i.e., at least 1,000 river miles) does have inherent limitations. This distance results in different environmental conditions, such as climate, water temperature and quality, as well as resulting dissimilarities to the lower basin in terms of relative fish abundance and seasonal dissimilari-ties in susceptability to impingement. Section 6 .4 discusses these dif-ferences further.
The impingement data from the eight central basin plants with similar in-takes and the information from those plants in the lower Mississippi offered a substantial data base for this predictive study of the Waterford 3 intake. The Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program also provided significant information on the aquatic community at Waterford which was critical to the evaluation. These two major sources of data, when used with a conservative predictive approach, provided a satisfactory basis upon which to estimate impingement by Waterford 3. 6.3.3 DATA ANALYSIS
- The operating and design variables from the intakes analyzed all required some standardization to allow for comparisons. Average intake velocities on impingement sampling dates were obtained directly from source documents for the Gallagher, Sioux and Meramec stations and were expressed in feet per second. Intake velocities at the other plants were calculated by dividing the intake flow (in cfs) by the cross-sectional area of the intake opening. Table 6-1 gives the results of this analysis for each intake. As this table indicates, the intake velocity of Waterford 3 is slightly below the average velocity of all the intakes evaluated. Because there was not significant variability in the range of velocities among the plants, a correlation between rates of impingement and velocity could not be drawn in this analysis. Therefore, velocity information did not affect the pre-diction of impingement by Waterford 3.
Impingement samples were all scaled to reflect a 24-hour sampling period. On dates when there were multiple samples at the intake, daily rates were
- calculated for each sample and averaged to yield one daily rate for that 6-8
(- date. Numbers of organisms impinged per unit volume of water withdrawn
- were also used to account for differing operating levels among the plants and to provide a basis for predicting impingement rates at the average Waterford 3 intake flow.
Impingement rates were, therefore, expressed in two forms: average numbers impinged per day and average numbers impinged per 100,000 gallons of water withdrawn. Average daily rates were used primarily to express the results of the analyses, and to calculate annual losses, as well as biomass losses, to the Mississippi River. The analysis established a list of dominant species, which in total, com-promised greater than 90 percent of the number of organisms collected during sampling. After an initial range for overall impingement at Water-ford 3 was determined, impingement rates were estimated separately for each of the dominant species. When applicable, differences between impingement collections and baseline monitoring collections were considered to estab-lish judgements of species susceptibility to impingement *
- To overcome the limitations inherent in a prediction based on comparison with other intakes, two estimates of impingement by Waterford 3 were deve-loped. The first, reflecting conservative underlying assumptions, is the likely expected maximum rate. The second is a rate judged to be more likely to actually occur. This range of impingement rates can be anticipa-ted to envelop a reasonable and realistic rate which can then be used to analyze the effect on the Mississippi River resources. The assumptions utilized for a particular species are discussed in the following section.
6.4 PREDICTION OF IMPINGEMENT AT WATERFORD 3 This section describes the estimated range of impingement which can be pre-dicted to result from the operation of the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System *
- 6-9
6.4.l AN OVERVIEW OF IMPINGEMENT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER An indication of the rate of impingement throughout the study area can be derived from the data gathered from the other Mississippi River generating stations used in this report. The number of fish impinged per day is shown in relation to the sampling period in Figure 6-2 for each of the generating stations studied. It is evident from this figure that impingement varies considerably over time and among stations. The only trend which is sugges-ted is that stations in the Ohio Basin and central Mississippi Basin experience their highest impingement during the colder portions of the year, from October through March (days 280-0-80); whereas lower Mississippi River stations have relatively more constant impingement rates. Since impingement at the 11Pre- northerly - located plants is dominated by shad, as discussed below, this may be explained by relatively greater suscepti-bility of the fish to impingement during the winter (Union Electric Com-pany, 1979, and Loar, et al, 1978). Winter recirculation of heated water for de-icing purposes at the northern plants may also play a role in increasing impingement by attracting fishes to the intake
- For purposes of estimating impingement at Waterford 3, as well as placing such estimates in perspective with actual impingement at other plants, the average number of fish and crustaceans impinged per day and per 100,000 gallons of water entrained were calculated for each plant. These are shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. These figures show that impingement ranges from about 2 to 3500 organisms per day, and between 0.00 and 1.03 fish per 100,000 gallons of water. The figures also indicate that some of the plants with high capacities, i.e., Waterford 1 and 2, Hawthorn , Labadie, do not necessarily have the highest impingement rates. It is believed that local abundance of fish, i.e. higher productivity, is largely responsible for the greater rates of impingement at Sioux, Riverside, Meramic, and Wood River (Upper Mississippi River Conservation Comm. 1979). The greater presence of sloughs, oxbows, shoals and backwaters in this portion of the Mississippi Basin is considered to contribute to this increase in produc-tivity in comparision with the lower basin. These factors, in addition to plant design and capacity, are considered later in estimating impingement at Waterford 3.
6-10
In the Waterford 3 Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, it was estimated that the organisms which should dominate impingement samples at Waterford 3 would be: (1) blue and channel catfish; (2) freshwater drum; (3) gizzard and threadfin shad, and; (4) river shrimp. That appraisal was based on their abundance at Waterford, and their impingement by Waterford 1 and 2, and, in general, their susceptibility to impingement at power plant intakes. It may be noted that striped mullet was identified as being a dominant species in the river at Waterford 3, as discussed in Section 3.4. It was not, however, impinged in high numbers at Waterford 1 and 2, which may be due, in part, to its greater abundance in the surface waters and, in part, by its strong swilllllling ability and tendency to respond effectively to in-take water currents (Rulifson and Huish, 1975). In situations where gene-rating stations, utilizing once-through cooling from surface water intakes, are located in areas of very high mullet abundance, this species has been found to comprise very small percentages of the impingement collection~ (Hogarth, 1979, MacPherson, 1977, Southwest Research Association, 1977). Therefore, because of its very low susceptibility to impingement, striped mullet is not considered to be a dominant species in this analysis although it occurs in relatively high abundance in the river. Table 6-2 presents point (mean) and interval (standard deviation) estimates of volumetric rates (per 100,000 gal) of impingement of the four suscepti-ble groups over all stations studied in this document. This table shows that, as an initial first approximation, impingement rates could be ex-pected to be approximately 700 organisms per day, plus or minus 600, for a plant located somewhere within these river systems. This would appear to be an oversimplification; however, as developed in the following analysis, the predicited impingement at Waterford 3 is estimated to average about 900 organisms per day as a reasonable estimate, and range upward to prob-able maximum of about 2000 organisms per day. ESTIMATED IMPINGEMENT AT WATERFORD 3 6.4.2 This section describes the prediction of impingement rates for fish and 6-11
shell fish species, and includes discussion of the characteristics of each species which were considered in deriving the predictions. 6.4.2.l Methods of Estimation The method of estimating impingement is based on appraisals of where, in a range of possible volumetric impingement rates, Waterford 3 impingement would be expected to lie. This has been done for each of the important species identified in the previous section, with total impingement repre-senting the sum of these species-rates, plus an amount of impingement expected to be associated with all "other species". These "other species," including striped mullet have been taken to compromise an average of 5% of the expected Waterford 3 impingement rate, based on Waterford l and 2 ex-perience, baseline data presented in the Waterford 3 Environmental Report, and knowledge of a species susceptibility to impingement. In order to predict the percent composition of impingement at Waterford 3 based on experience at other generating stations, it was first necessary to look at each of the other generating stations impingement rates as though the shads (gizzard and threadfin) were not present. This is because a species such as shad may be impinged in such high and variable numbers that it completely obscures patterns among other species. Figure 6-5 presents volumetric rates of shad impingement, versus impingement of all other species, at the stations studied. Table 6-3 presents similar infor-mation; in particular the percentages of shads impinged relative to the percentage of other species impinged at these stations. From Figure 6-5 and Table 6-3 it can be seen that the lower Mississippi stations impinge relatively much lower numbers of shad, compared to other species, than the central Mississippi and Ohio stations. As pointed out earlier, this is attributed to the greater susceptibility of shad in more northern waters, the design of the intakes (lower Mississippi River intakes draw primarily from bottom waters), and a greater productivity of the more northern waters, with the exception of the Missouri which is channelized significantly
- 6-12
- It is estimated that the impingement of the shad species will be about 45%
of the total impingement by Waterford 3. Forty-five percent is signifi-cantly higher than that experienced at the lower Mississippi Basin intakes (Waterford 1 and 2 and Willow Glen 1 and 4), which indicate shad to be im-pinged at a level of about 15%. However, it is within the lower end of the range of percent composition of shad by the remaining stations studied as shown in Table 6-3. This table shows that the other stations had a range of 37% to 93%. The estimate of 45% shad impingement by Waterford 3 is based on two assumptions:
- 1) Shad will be more susceptible to impingement by Waterford 3 than Waterford 1 and 2 or Willow Glen 1 and 4 because the Waterford 3 intake will draw from a geater portion of the water column, however;
- 2) Shad will be less susceptible to impingement at Waterford 3 than at the more northern stations due to higher water tem-
- peratures in the winter and a generally lower productivity of shad in the lower Mississippi.
In the following analysis, the blue catfish, channel catfish, and drum impingement rates were estimated independently on the basis of volumetric rates of impingement experienced at other stations. This estimate was modified by judgements about these species susceptibility to impingement by the Waterford 3 intake because of its design and because of the lower productivity of the Mississippi River in this area. This analysis leads the conclusion that these three species would account for approximately 50% of the total impingement by Waterford 3. This conclusion is based princi-pally on the fact that Waterford 3 will not draw river water solely from bottom layers, as does the Waterford 1 and 2 intake. The 50% proportion of the total impingement expected to be drum and catfish can then be added to the estimated 45% proportion for shad. The postulated ratio of 5% of the total for all "other species" can then be added to account for the total impingement by Waterford 3. Through the development of these ratios, calculation of the predicted impingement rate for catfish 6-13
- and drum will allow the derivation of the impingement rate for the remain-ing species.
dently. Impingement rates for river shrimp are determined indepen-6.4.2.2 Fish Impingement Rates l) Blue Catfish Blue catfish were the OllSt abundant species found in the Waterford l and 2 impingement study. Excluding shad, blue catfish comprised 55% of the total remaining specimens collected at Waterford l and 2; and 23% and 8% of the total remaining specimens at the two Willow Glen intakes. At the more northern intakes, it comprised only about 1% of the remaining specimens. These percentages suggest that similarities in the design and/or location of the lower basin intakes account for the relatively higher impingement rates for blue catfish. Blue catfish are Ollre abundant in the lower
- reaches of the basin then they are further north, and they generally dwell on or near the river bottom. Therefore, as the comparison of the percen-tages impinged indicate, blue catfish are relatively more susceptible to impingement by intakes of the design (inverted pipes) and locational characteristics of Waterford l and 2 and Willow Glen l and 4.
The volumetric rates of impingement of blue catfish are given for all of the study stations in Figure 6-6. Averages are shown to be 0.034 fish per 100,000 gallons for Waterford l and 2, 0.003 for Willow Glen l and 0.002 for Souix. A conservative rate of impingement for Waterford 3 can be pre-dicted as 0.030 fish per 100,000 gallons, based solely on its close pro-ximity to Waterford l and 2. This rate can be anticipated to be a likely maximum rate of impingement of blue catfish by Waterford 3, due to the lack of consideration of the design differences. At this rate, a likely maximum of 131,000 blue catfish per year can be predicted for Waterford 3, assuming an average withdrawal rate of 8 .3 xlO 5 gpm. When the design differences between Waterford l and 2 and Waterford 3 are considered, it is llllre likely that Waterford 3 will impinge approximately 0.02 blue catfish per 100,000 gallons withdrawn. This lower rate can be assumed to be due to the greater 6-14
- susceptibility of blue catfish to withdrawal and impingement by the upward extraction of bottom waters through the inverted pipe of the Waterford 1 and 2 in take.
If the average weight of 0.02 pounds per fish is assumed, based on data from the study at Waterford 1 and 2, the intake serving Waterford 3 will impinge an expected maximum of approximately 2600 lb/yr of blue catfish; however, a more likely rate is 1700 lb/yr. These estimates are shown in Table 6-4.
- 2) Channel Catfish The average rates of channel catfish impinged per 100,000 gallons entrained for the stations studied is shown in Figure 6-7. The rate for this species experienced at Waterford 1 and 2 was 0.003 fish per 100,000 gallons, which is too small to be indicated on the scale utilized in this figure. This low rate of impingement of channel catfish, given the assumption that the
- Waterford 1 and 2 intake would be selective for this species because of its design, indicates that channel catfish are relatively much less abundant in this area of the river.
The prediction for the range of impingement of this species by Waterford 3 can be derived in the same manner as the range for blue catfish. A con-servatively predicted maximum rate for Waterford 3 would be 0.003 fish per 100,000 gallons, or 13,100 fish per year. Using the average weight per fish, gained from the Waterford 1 and 2 study, a likely maximum weight of 650 lb/yr of channel catfish would be impinged by Waterford 3. A more realistic average rate can be expected to be approximately 0.002 fish per 100,000 gallons or 8700 fish per year. This would be equivalent to about 400 lb/yr, based on an average size of 0.05 pounds per fish. Table 6-4 includes these estimates.
- 3) Freshwater Drum The average numbers of freshwater drum impinged per 100,000 gallons at each of the stations studied is given in Figure 6-8. The relatively higher 6-15
rates of drum impingement which occurred at the Riverside intakes, when viewed in light of their relatively lower withdrawal (as shown in Table 6-1) indicate that a much higher abundance of drum occurs in the Missis-sippi near this station than at the others. Given this assumption , a likely maximum rate of drum impingement was predicted for Waterford 3 based on the average of all stations except Riverside* This average is 0.02 fish per 100,000 gallons of water, or 87,000 drum per year. The actual drum impingement rate observed at Waterford 1 and 2, which can be expected to be selective for drum because of its withdrawal from near the river bottom, is 0.01 fish per 100,000 gallons. The maximum rate predicted for Waterford 3 is greater than this, which is not likely to occur. A more realistic level of impingement of drum by Waterford 3 would be estimated to be 44,000 per year. At an average fish size of 0.09 pounds per fish, it can be predicted that Waterford 3 will impinge 4000 lb/yr under average circumstances. These figures are also given in Table 6-4 *
. 4) Shad It has been assumed that shad would comprise 45% of the total impingement by Waterford 3, and that combined catfish and drum impingement will con-stitute 50%. The sum of the maximum volumetric rates estimated above for catfish and drum is 0.053 fish per 100,000 gallons. Utilizing simple ratios, the maximum likely rate of shad impingement is predicted to be 0.048 shad per 100,000 gallons. This rate is derived as follows:
- o. 053 x 50 = 45 50(x) = (0.053) (45)
X m 0,0477 A similar computation for predicting the likely average rate for shad impingement results in 0.029 shad per 100,000 gallons withdrawn, given a likely average combined rate of 0.032 fish per 100,000 gallons for catfish and drum. 6-16
- The predicted likely maximum and average rates for shad impingement by Waterford 3 are higher than the 0.01 to 0.02 shad per 100,000 gallons calculated for Waterford 1 and 2 and Willow Glen. It can be anticipated that Waterford 3 will impinge shad at this higher rate due to its with-drawal from the entire water column. However, the Waterford 3 predicted rates are lower for shad than those experienced at the more northern stations, because of the warmer winter water temperatures and resultant lower susceptibility of shad to impingement during this portion of the year.
Table 6-4 shows that the impingement of shad can be conservatively pre-dicted to be between a maximum of 210,000 fish per year and an average of 125,000 fish per year. This would imply an estimated maximum annual loss of 17,000 pounds of shad or an average loss of 10,000 pounds, based on an average weight of 0.08 pounds per fish. This poundage of shad is based on an assumed impingement of equal proportions of gizzard and theadfin shad,
- with average weights of 0.15 and 0.01 pounds per fish, respectively.
- 5) Other Fish Species The method utilized to derive the volumetric impingement rate for shad can be applied to this group of species. This yields a prediction of an esti-mated maximum of 0.005 fish per 100,000 gallons and a more likely rate of 0.003 fish per 100,000 gallons. Table 6-4 presents the range of annual impingement rates for these species, as well as the number per year and the pounds per year which can be predicted.
6.4.2.3 River Shrimp Impingement Rates The river shrimp is a species of crustacean which is abundant at Waterford and in other areas of the lower Mississippi River. Impingement of river shrimp was not reported by any facilities other than Waterford 1 and 2 and Willow Glen, but its range is quite wide. Thus the prediction of impinge-
- ment for river shrimp at Waterford 3 is based upon a limited data base and upon the biology of the species.
6-17
- Average impingement of river shrimp was found to be less than 0.005 organims per 100,000 gallons at Willow Glen 4, about 0.08 per 100,000 gallons at Willow Glen 1, and approximately 0.08 per 100,000 gallons at Waterford 1 and 2. These rates are shown in Figure 6-9. These intakes draw water from near the bottom, where shrimp are more likely to occur, and are expected to result in higher rates of impingement than Waterford 3.
Nevertheless, a likely maximum rate of impingement of 0.06 shrimp per 100,000 gallons by Waterford 3 has been postulated from the average of the rates of Waterford 1 and 2 and Willow Glen 1 and 4. This rate, expressed on an annual basis, is equivalent to 260,000 shrimp per year or 1040 pounds per year, using an average weight of 0.004 pounds per shrimp. A more realistic rate of shrimp impingement can be estimated to be 0.01 individual per 100,000 gallons, which is equivalent to 44,000 shrimp or 180 pounds per year. This information is also included in Table 6-4 *
- 6.4.3 TOTAL IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFORD 3 From these estimates, a likely maximum rate of impingement by Waterford 3 can be predicted to be 0.106 fish per 100,000 gallons, or 463,000 fish per year, and 0.60 shrimp per 100,000 gallons, or 260,000 shrimp per year.
Thus a total maximum impingement of approximately 720,000 organisms per year can be expected. This prediction has been based on conservative assumptions, explained above, and can be considered to be an upper limit to the rate of impingement which can be expected. The more likely rate of impingement by Waterford 3 is anticipated to be 0.064 fish per 100,000 gallons, or 277,000 fish per year. R~ver shrimp are predicted to be impinged at 0.010 shrimp per 100,000 gallons, or 44,000 pounds per year. This range of impingement will not necessarily result in permanent loss of this weight of organisms from the Mississippi River each year. The sluice return system, incorporated into the intake structure design, can be anti-cipated to return some of the organisms to the river in a condition which 6-18
- would result in their survival. It should also be noted that, as discussed in Section 3.6.1, Waterford 3 is not expected to operate about 11% of the time on an annual basis. Nevertheless, to be consistent with the conserva-tive approach utilized above, the following analysis of the effects of impingement on the environment will utilize the rates predicted and assume that the organisms are lost to the Mississippi River.
6.5 THE EFFECT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER OF IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFORD 3 To evaluate the effect of the predicted range of impingement of aquatic organisms by Waterford 3 to the Mississippi River as a whole, the poundage estimated to be lost because of impingement can be compared to the commer-cial fish landings. This is one of the few measures available to quanti-fiably place the economic value of impingement losses in perspective, and has been utilized in other analyses of this type (Equitable Environmental Health, Inc, 1976a and 1976b). This comparison could be done both in terms of poundage and dollar value. However, the comparison of poundage of fish impinged to poundage of commercial catch is misleading. The average weight of each organism impinged is likely to be significantly below that of a commercial-sized specimen. Direct comparison of poundage of the smaller, younger impinged fish to the poundage of commercial landings overlooks the the natural and man-made mortality to the population that occurs as the fish mature. It is necessary, therefore, to establish a measure by which the value of the fish impinged can be effectively compared to commercial use of this resource. The American Fisheries Society has calculated the costs of raising an individual fish of a designated species to a specified size (AFS, 1975). This value may be termed the "replacement cost" for an individual fish, and has been utilized to determine the compensation for the loss of fish due to water pollution. For consistency, these costs are compared to the value of commercial landings for 1975 *
- 6-19
- Utilizing the average length of the individual impinged fish measured during the Waterford 1 and 2 impingement study, and the number per year of that species expected to be impinged, the total replacement cost for the species can be calculated. Table 6-5 lists these values for catfish, drum, and shad, which together, have been predicted to constitute 95% of the total fish impinged by Waterford 3. The remaining 5% in the impingement of "other species" of fish, and the replacement cost for this group is taken at 5% of the total costs for the catfish, drum and shad. A replace-ment cost for river shrimp, by length, could not be located. Therefore, to complete Table 6-5, the cost for shrimp was calculated from the 1975 dollar per pound value reported for shrimp taken in the Inland District of the State of Louisiana (NOAA, 1976). The fishing districts of the state are shown in Figure 6-10. Table 6-5 reports these costs for both the predicted likely maximum and coverage rate of impingement by Waterford 3.
Table 6-5 indicates that the total costs of the fish and shellfish expected
- to be impinged ranges from a high of approximately $19,000 per year to an average of $10,000 per year.
(NOAA, 1976). These values may be compared to the 1975 total value for the Inland District for fish and shellfish of $2.95 million Therefore, at the maximum predicted rate, the annual replacement costs for impingement is less than 0.7% of the value of this districts commercial landings. The replacement costs at the average rate would be less than 0.4% of this value. If the 1975 data included in Table 3-24 (Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the mouth) are used for comparison, the maximum replacement cost for impingement losses is only about 4.5% of the 1975 catfish, drum and shrimp commercial value alone. In evaluating the significance of this comparison, it is important to note that the fisheries resources of the Mississippi River make a very small contribution to the commercial landings in the Inland District. The Atchafalaya River and the surrounding bayous are the source of the great majority of the districts' commercial landings (National Marine Fisheries Ser., 1979) *
- *6-20
Therefore, even at the expected maximum rate, it is apparent that, impinge-ment by Waterford 3 will represent an insignificant economic effect to the fisheries resources of Louisiana and the Inland District. The loss contri-buted by Waterford 3 is also from a water source which has minimal contri-bution to these resources. The maximum replacement cost of less than 0.7% of the commercial value is easily obscured by the annual variation in the economic values of the district's landings, which between 1972 and 1977, ranged from an annual dollar increase of 43% to a decrease of 18% from the preceeding year. An evaluation of the ecological effect of the predicted rate of impingement is much more difficult than an analysis of effect to the commercial fish-eries resources. Sufficient information is not available to quantitatively define the fish population which occurs in this reach of the Mississippi, or to identify accurately the method of recruitment to that population. Therefore a quantified estimate of changes to the population is not pos-sible. Even if a quantification of the change were possible, it would be highly speculative to predict the long-term effects to the entire eco-system. The volumetric impingement rate predicted for Waterford 3 varies between 0.106 to 0.064 fish per 100,000 gallons. As can be seen from Figure 6-4,
- this range is within the lower rates that were determined for the other stations studied. In view of this, there is no reason to assume that the ecological effects of impingement by Waterford 3 will be significant.
6-21
CITATIONS - SECTION 6.0
- 1. American Fisheries Society, 1975. Monetary Values of Fish, The Pollution Committee, Southern Division. 1975.
- 2. Astor, P. H., 1978. "Forecasting Fish Impingement at Power Plant Intakes." Time Series and Eco.logical Processes, H.H. Shugart, Jr.
(Ed.) SIAM, Philadelphia.
- 3. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. 1978. "Power Database". Copyright, 1978.
- 4. Equitable Environmental Health, 1976a "Meramec Power Plant, Entrainment and Impingement Effects on Biological Populations of the Mississippi River." Prepared for Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
July, 1976.
- 5. , 1976b "Sioux Power Plant Entrainment and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Impingement Effects on Biological Populations of the Mississippi River." Prepared for Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, July, 1976.
- 6. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1979. Richardson, Texas., Personal Communication, 1979.
- 7. Gross, A.C., 1977. "Comparison and Prediction of Fish Impingement Rates at Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Sites," Env. Eng., LILCO, Hicksville, N. Y.
- 8. Hogarth, w., 1979. Carolina Power and Light Co., Personal Communica-tion, 1979.
- 9. Locer, S.M., J.S. Griffith, and K. Devakumar, 1978. "An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Impingement of Threadf in Shad at Power Plants in the Southeastern United States." In: L.D. Jensen (Ed), Fourth
- National <Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. E.A. Communications,
Div. Ecol. Anal. Inc., Melville, N.Y *
- 10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1976. "Louisiana Loadings, Annual Summary, 1975",
In cooperation with the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Comm.
- 11. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1979. Personal Communication, April 4 I 1979.
- 12. MacPherson,K., 1979. Impingement Studies at the Brunswick Steam Elec-tric Station, Southport, N.C., 1975-1976. Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, NC. March, 1977.
- 13. Rulifson,R., and M. Huish, 1975. "Temperature and Current Velocity Effects on Juvenile Striped Mullet, Spot, and Pinfish Swimming Perfor-mance." Report to Carolina Power and Light Co., Raleigh, N.C. December, 1975 *
- 14. Southwest Research Association, Inc., 1977. Unpublished impingement data for the Cedar Bayou Generating Station.
- 15. Union Electric Company, 1979. Personal Communication.
- 16. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Comm., 1979. Personal Communication.
- 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Development Document For Best Technology Available For the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures For Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. April, 1976.
- 18. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 1977. "Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment:
Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500" Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch. May 1, 1977
- LOCATION, DESIGN AND OPERATION OF INTAKES AT THE ELEVEN STUDY STATIONS AND AT WATERFORD 3 Facility Intake Type Location of Intake Average Intake Average Intake Water Recirculate4 Capacity (cfs) Velocity (fps) For Ice Control Waterford 1 and 2 Offshore (inverted pipe) Outer edge of shoal 870 1.3 No Straight shoreline 1840 1.3 **
l Waterford 3 Shoreline No Willow Glen 1 Offshore (inverted pipe) Outer bank of Meander 200 1.6 No Willow Glen 4 Off shore (horizontal pipe) 400 1.2 No Wood River Shoreline Straight shoreline 600 1.0 Yes Meramec Shoreline 760 1.4 Yes Sioux Canal 830 1.4 Yes l Riverside Old
.Riverside New Shoreline Shoreline 20 so 1.4 1.4 Yes Yes Labadie Shoreline Pooled River 1610 3.0 Yes Hawthorn Shoreline Straight River 580 0.3 Yes Council Bluffs Shoreline Outer bank of Meander 140 1.3 Yes Gallagher Shoreline Outer bank of Meander 410 0.9 Yes ** Under influence of discharge from Waterford 1 and 2
TABLE 6-2
- MEAN (i) IMPINGEMENT PER 100,000 GALLON WITH STANDARD DEVIATION (S.D.) AND STANDARD ERROR (SD/,,/Tl) OF ESTIMATE BY SPECIES SD I
-x s.n. y-;
Blue Catfish .003 .010 .003 Freshwater Drum .030 .038 .021 Channel Catfish .oos .013 .004 River Shrimp* .041 .040 .023 Shad .236 .290 .087 Total Organisms .30 .33 .10 Average Numbers/24 Hrs. 676 1030 286 (all stations) Mean Number/24 Hrs + 2 SD/~
- 104 to 1248/24 Hrs.
- Not recorded at sll stations
TABLE 6-3
- NUMBER OF SHAD IMPINGED AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IMPINGEMENT Capacity Avg Daily Shad*
Plant (cfs) Impingement _ill_ River Basin 412 321 71 Ohio Gallagher Council 137 2 75 Missouri Hawthorn 580 14 37 Labadie 1609 81 81 Wood River 515 1481 78 Central Mississippi
- Sioux Riversid"' (old) 826 17 3521 52 91 68 Riverside (new) 47 364 85 756 1708 93 Meramec Willow Glen 1 197 70 15 Lower Mississippi Willow Glen 4 395 14 15 Waterford 1 and 2 869 921 13
*Gizzard and/or threadfin
TABLE 6-4 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ORGANISMS TO BE IMPINGED AT WATERFORD 3 FISH - LIKELY MAXIMUM Vol. Rate per Species 100,000 Gal No./Yr* Lbs/Yr** Blue Catfish .030 131,000 2,600 Channel Catfish .003 13,000 650 Drum .020 87,000 8,000 Shad .048 210,000 17,000 Other .005 22,000 TOTAL .106 463,000 28,250
- FISH - LIKELY AVERAGE Blue Catfish Channel Catfish
.020
.002 87,000 8, 700 1,700 400 Drum .010 44,000 4,000 Shad .029 125,000 10,000 Other .003 13,100 TOTAL .064 277 800 16 100 Shrimp Likely Maximum .060 260,000 1,040
~L~ik~e~l~y'-"A~v~e~r~a~g~e'--~~~~~~~--'-'*010~~~~~~-.!4~4.>.o:.00~0~~~~~--=1~8~0~~
- At average intake rate of 8.3 x 10 5 gpm
**At average weights of individual commercially important fish impinged at Waterford 1 and 2.
- TABLE 6-5 ECONOMIC COSTS OF PREDICTED IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFORD 3 Average Replacement Length Cost No/Yr Pre- Total per per dieted to Replacement Species Specimen* Specimen** be Impinged Cost LIKELY MAXIMUM Blue Catfish 3.3 in. $0.05 131,000 $ 6,550 Channel Catfish 2.9 in. $0.05 13,100 $ 655 Drum 2.7 in. $0.06 87,000 $ 5,220 Shad 2.9 in. $0.02 210,000 $ 4,200+
Other Fish Species+ $ 831
- Shrimp tt
++
$1.43/lb
++
1,040 lb TOTAL
$ 1,487
$18,943
++
LIKELY AVERAGE Blue Catfish 3.3 in. $0.05 87,000 $ 4,350 Channel Catfish 2.9 in $0.05 8,700 $ 435 Drum 2.7 in $0.06 44,000 $ 2,640 Shad 2.9 in $0.02 125,000 $ 2,500+ Other Fish Species+ $ 496 Shrimp++ $1.43/lb++ 180 lb++ ($ 257++ TOTAL 10,704
- From Waterford 1 and 2 impingement study.
** Based on hatchery costs given in: American Fisheries Society, The Pollution Committee, Southern Division, "Monetary Values of Fish". 1975. + Calculated value as 5% of total replacement costs of catfish, drum, and shad; based on proportion of total fish predicted to be impinged. -++ A hatchery cost per shrimp is not available. Costs, therefore, are calculated on basis of 1975 values per pound for shrimp from the Inland District of Louisiana.
National Marine Fisheries Service, "Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6922, Louisiana Landings, Annual Summary 1975"
- MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN
~~
l I L_---, - - - J_ - COUNCIL BLUFFS _:::::;:==-..... ~ RIVERS~~~.> I I I I_______ _ I I I I I I AWTHORNE I I I r-,--- --- 1 I I
) I
( I
)
I I I I
')..,......._,.. T... ,.,..."""')..."< -{
{
....... ,-----J ~
' -...._ I Ir--...J
---L-i WILLOW GLEN WATERFORD LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co LOCATION OF ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES FIGURE Waterford Steam Electric Station INCLUDED IN IMPINGEMENT ANAL VSIS 6-1
~*"'
- -F--?'f.-
-':'°'-~'
m 0
-c ~-
0> c_ z
- E /-=::::,,....__ -
/
COUNCIL-]
~
m 0 3 ,. mm "2 ..
=*n r- "' Gl g
- D
- i:
() 0 J:~ I GALLAGHER HAWTHORN ' J ('--
~ LABADIE z
c: m
"'0 J J- RIVERSIDE INEWI J
~
... 0
~:'/~
m iii z RIVERSIDE
- i: 0 IOLDJ
> 0 z ~
0
- '.! 4
() ~
"'c:
3 *' ()
~
z m m 2 SIOUX m 0 z 0
"'3: 4 f
~
- !! 3 z
Gl 2 ME RAM EC m 0 m 0 N
~\/\/ ____ \
- f
- i:
0 WOODRIVER c: I 0 J ~---~ WILLOW GLEN J J z
~
WILLOW GLEN 1 I I
'°-.c:
(I) m I l 240 280 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 320 0 40 120 200 280 0 DAY 80 eo 160 240 320 40 120 200 280 OF YEAR 160 240 320 0
~
40 80 120 160 1&2 200 240 280 320 360 I\) 197,
... 1973 1974 1976
TOTAL AVERAGE.~U~~R~ 4,000 :NO.PER FACILITY , 24Hll COUNCIL 2 GALLAGHER 321 3,500 14 HAWTHORN LABADIE 81 MERAMEC 1,708 RIVERSIDEN 364 RIVERSIDEO 52 3,000 SIOUX 3,521 WATERFORD 1&2 921 70 (I) WILLOW *GLEN 1 a: WILLOW GLEN;4 14
- > WOODRIVER . 1,481 0
- c 2,500 N
a: w a: w 2.000 ID z w C!J
<( 1,500 a:
w
<(
1,000 500 0 c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 -R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 G G v E N D D R E R E E D L L R E E N 0 1 N N FACILITY 2 1 4 LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF FISH AND CRUSTACEANS IMPINGED Waterford Steam PER 24 HOURS 6-3 Electric Station
1.20 1.00 Cl) z 0
...I ...I .80 <I:
t.' 0 0 o.
...a:
0 0 w .60 ll. a: w Ill
- J z
w t.'
<I: .40 a:
w
<I:
.20 0
c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 v E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R N 0 E E 1 N N FACILITY 2 1 4 LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF FISH ANO CRUSTACEANS IMPINGED Waterford Steam PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 6-4 Electric Station
l{ LEGEND: 1.00 GIZZARD AND THREADFIN SHAD
~ OTHER SPECIES
.80 Cl) z 0
..J
..J
<(
Cl 0 0 0 .60 o* 0 ~ a: UJ c.. a: UJ co
- > .40 z
UJ Cl ~
.20
.00 c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 G G v
E N D D R E R E E E D L L R E E N 0 1 N N
& 1 2 4 FACILITY LOUISIANA AVERAGE NUMBER OF GIZZARDS & THREADFIN SHAD IMPINGED figure POWER & LIGHT CO. PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED, RELATIVE TO Waterford Steam IMPINGEMENT OF OTHER SPECIES 6-5 Electric Station
AVG
.04 NO.PER FACILITY 1116 GAL, COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .00 HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00 ME RAM EC .oo RIVERSIDEN .00 RIVERSIDEO .00
(/)
.03 SIOUX .00 z WATERFORDl1 &21.03 0 ....I WILLOW GLEN ,1 I .00 ....I <( WILLOW GLEN4 i .00 Cl WOODRIVER .00 0
0 o. 0 0 a: w .02 4- , a: w al z w Cl
<(
a: w
<(
.01 0
c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 v E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R E E N 0 1 N N 2 '1 4 FACILITY LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLUE CATFISH IMPINGED PER Waterford Ste am 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED ; 6-.6 Electric Station
AVG NO.PER
.04 FACILITY 105 GAL COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .DO HAWTHORN .DO LABADIE .00 MERAMEC .00 RIVERSIDEN .04 RIVERSIDEO .02
.03 SIOUX .00 en WATERFORD 1&2 .00 z
0 WILLOW GLEN 1 .DO
...I ...I WILLOW GLEN 4 .DO <( WOOD RIVER .00
(!) 0 0 o.
...8 a:
w II.. .02 a: w ID z w (!)
<(
a: w
<(
.01
.00 c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 v E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R N E E 0 1 *N N 2 1 4 FACILITY LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHANNEL CATFISH IMPINGED Waterford Steam PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 6-7 Electric Station
AVG
.12 NO.PER FACILITY 1o5 GAL COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .02 HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00
.10 ME RAM EC .01 RIVERSIDEN .10 RIVERSIDEO .10 SIOUX .05 Cl) z 'WATERFORD 1 & 2 .01 0
WILLOWGLEN'1 .01
<(
.08 WILLOW GLEN 4 .00 CJ WOOD RIVER .03 0
0 0 o* 0 a: w .06 Cl. a: w IXI z w CJ
<( .04 a:
w
<(
.02
.00 c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I 1 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 v E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R N E E 0 1 N N
- LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Waterford Steam FACILITY 2 AVERAGE NUMBER OF FRESHWATER DRUM IMPINGED PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 1 4 Figure 6-8 Electric Station
- AVG
.10 NO.PER FACILITY 1o5GAL /:
I COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .00 HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00
.08 MERAMEC .00 RIVERSIDEN .00 RIVERSIDEO .00
(/) SIOUX .00 z WATERFO.RD 1&2 .08 0
...J WILLOW GLEN 1
...J .04
<( WILLOW GLEN 4 .00 t:1 WOOD RIVER .00 Cl
- c. .06 Cl Cl Cl a:
w 11. a: w al
- !!E
- > .04 z
- !!E
w t:1
<(
a: w
<(
.02
.00 c G H L M R R s w w w w 0 A A A E I I I A I I 0 u L w B R v v 0 T L L 0 N L T A A E E u E L L D c A H D M R R x R 0 0 R I G 0 I E s s F w w I L H R E c I I 0 v E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R E E N 0 1 N N FACILITY 2 1 4 LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF RIVER SHRIMP IMPINGED PER Waterford Steam 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 6-9*
Electric Station
Source: U S Dept of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service In cooperation with the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission. Division of Oyster and Water Bottoms and Commercial Seafood. New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co. FIGURE Waterford Steam Electric Station FISHING DISTRlcTS OF LOUISIANA 6-10
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A Methods-Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program Prior to beginning the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, the effects of the operation of Waterford 3 on aquatic life were initially predicted on the basis of a literature review and a pilot sampling program which is described in the Construction Permit Environmental Report. The Environmental Surveillance Program is a more intensive sampling and analysis of the aquatic communities of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3, and is providing additional data necessary for a more accurate assessment of baseline conditions and environmental impact. This section describes the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, conducted by Gulf South Research Institute, New Iberia, La., between April 1973 and September 1976 *
- Sampling Schedule and Locations Preoperational aquatic ecology data were collected on a monthly basis from April, 1973 to May, 1974 (Year I), and from October, 1975 to September, 1976 (Year III), and on a seasonal basis from June, 1974 to August, 1975 (Year II).
The sampling locations are given in Figure A-1 which also summarizes the type of biological sampling conducted at each station. A description of each station and the rationale for its selection is given in Table A-1. The important characteristics of each station, relative to the aquatic biology portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program, can be further described as follows: a) Station Ac; Habitat characterized by shallow depths and low velocity currents; used as control station
- b) Station At Habitat characterized by shallow depths and low velocity currents; affected by heated discharge from Waterford 1 and 2 A-1
- c) Station Be Habitat characterized by deep, fast-current water; used as control station d) Station Bt Habitat characterized by deep, fast-current water; to be affected by heated discharge of Waterford 3 e) Station Bt or Btl* - Habitat characterized by deep, fast-1 current water; to be affected by heated discharge of Waterford 3 (small temperature changes). In discus-sions of Years II and III data, Btl* is referred to as Btl" Sampling Methodologies and Statistical Analysis for Years I-III The methodologies described below have been used in the sampling program
- completed to date. The schedule and methodologies of the aquatic ecologi-cal pcrtion of the Environmental Surveillance Program are summarized in Table A-2.
a) Algae
- 1) Attached Algae The benthic and attached algae were surveyed seasonally. Attach-ed algae were collected from naturally occurring solid substrates at each station, while the benthic forms were taken from shallow water sediments. The algae obtained from these collections were preserved, labeled, and transported to the laboratory for identi-fication.
- 2) Phytoplankton To sample phytoplankton, a 100 ml subsample was extracted from each of three whole water samples and a 300 ml composite was formed from these subsamples. Samples were preserved with 3 percent buffered formalin.
A-2
- In the laboratory, slides were prepared from the samples using the method described by Sanford~ al <3 >. Each slide was divided into forty fields, each with a diameter of 0.41 mm.
Phytoplankton were identified and counted using a Zeiss RA research microscope. Keys used for the identification of the algae included: Hustedt, F - 1930. Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae). In Pascher, A. ed. Die Susswasser. Flora Mittleuropas Heft,
- 10. G Fischer, Jena, 466 p.
Patrick, R and Reimer, CW - 1966. "The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, Vol. I. Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, Achmanthaceae, Naviculaceae". Acad Nat Sci Phil Monogr 13, 688 p *
- Patrick, R and Reimer, CW - 1975. "The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, Vol. II.
Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Gomphonemaceae, Epithe-miaceae". Acad Nat Sci Phil Monogr 13, 213 p. Numerically dominant organisms were identified to genus and/or species whenever feasible. Algae and phytoplankton identifications were verified by Dr. Richard A. Pecora, Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, La.
- 3) Productivity Productivity was measured using the Cl4 method (4) The primary productivity bottles were incubated in che laboratory
- for four hours under high intensity light and ambient water tem-perature, which probably overestimated actual productivity in the Mississippi River.
A-3
- b) Zooplankton Five-minute tows to sample zooplankton were taken at surface, mid-depth and near the river bottom with a metered number six net, which has mesh openings of 0.243 111111. Until February 1975, a net with a mouth diameter of 0.3 meter was used; thereafter a 1/2 meter diameter net was used.
A General Oceanics Model 2030 digital flowmeter, mounted eccentrically on the net, was used beginning in December 1974. However, since flowmeter data from the initial months were unavailable, the average reading for the other months sampled during 1973-1974 was applied to those initial samples. Each sample was preserved in a solution of 5 percent buffered formalin, labeled and transported to the laboratory. The analysis was conducted by examining ten 1/2 ml aliquots from each sample in Sedgwick-Rafter cells using a Wild compound microscope (12 Power magnification). Determinations of the density of the zooplankton in the samples were made. Identifications were made using the following references: Hyman, L H - 1940. The Invertebrates: Protozoa Through Ctenophora .Vol 3. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 726 p. Meglitsch, P A - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford Univ Press, NY. 834 p. Pennak, Robert W - 1953. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Co., NY. 769 p
- A-4
- c) Benthic Invertebrates Beginning in June, 1973, benthic invertebrates were sampled with a 2
Shipek sediment sampler (samples an area 0.04 m ). A Smith-2 Mcintyre grab sampler (samples an area of 0.1 m ) was used in addition to the Shipek during the Year II sampling program (June, 1974 - August, 1975). The Smith-Mcintyre was only used in August and November 1974, and in April and August 1975. In general, on each sampling date, six benthic samples were taken at each station. However, during August and November 1974, and in April and August 1975, 12 samples were taken (six with each sampler). The samples were preserved with 10 percent buffered formalin solu-tion, labeled and then transported to the laboratory. The macroin-vertebrate samples were filtered through a number 10 and/or 30 sieve, which have openings of 2 mm and 0.595 mm, respectively. Some samples were also filtered through a number 80 sieve (mesh openings of 0,177 mm) and used for microbenthic analysis. Invertebrate organisms were presorted with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Organisms were preserved in a 40 percent solution of isopropyl alcohol. They were then classified to the lowest identifiable taxon using the following references: Hyman, L H - 1940. The Invertebrates: Protozoa Through Ctenophora. Vol. 3. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 726 p. Meglitsch, PA - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford Univ Press, NY. 834 p. Pennak, Robert W - 1953. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Co., NY. 769 p *
- In those cases where positive identification could not be made, the organisms were shipped for verification to Dr. H. Dickson Hoese, a taxonomic specialist at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, La.
A-5
- The density of the benthic organisms in each sample was also deter-mined and the results were expressed as numbers per square meter.
d) Fish Fish populations at each station were sampled by surface trawl, otter trawl, electrofishing and gill net. Midwater (mid-depth) trawls were conducted at all stations, except At and Ac* because at these stations, during most seasons, the water was too shallow. In general, three five-minute otter (bottom), surface and midwater trawls were conducted at each sampling station (except at midwater depths at Ac and At) on each sampling date. In July, 1973, however, because fewer fish were being collected, the number of surface and otter trawls was increased to five trawls per station *
- Other exceptions in sampling frequency are noted in the OLER, Table 6.1.1-7.
The surface trawl was conducted using a circular net having a five foot opening. A 16 foot semi-balloon net was used for the otter trawl. The midwater trawl had a 64.56 ft 2 opening and was 47.2 ft. long. The body of the net had a 1 inch bar mesh (1.5 inch stretch mesh) and the bag had 0.25 inch bar mesh and a 1 inch stretch mesh. Experimental gill nets, consisting of five 25 foot panels of 1 inch, 1.5 inch, 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch bar mesh, were set for 48 hours at each station. Experimental gill nets, which trap different size fish by snagging their gill covers or other body parts with appropriately sized mesh openings, use panels of different mesh sizes to catch a representative sample of fish living in the area being sampled. Electrofishing, which sends an electrical current through the water, thereby shocking fish and permitting their collection, was conducted using a high-voltage, pulsating, D C electric shocker. The actual shocking time, 2 hours, was controlled by a timer that is an integral part of the unit. A-6
- Each specilllen was weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram and measured to the nearest millimeter. The data were recorded on survey sheets.
e) Ichthyoplankton During the 1973-1974 study (Year I), ichthyoplankton (drifting fish eggs and larvae) were collected in the zooplankton samples. However, during Year II and Year III sampling, ichthyoplankton were also collected using a number zero (0.571 DID mesh opening) plankton net with a 1/2 meter diameter mouth opening. Five minute tows were conducted at the surface and bottom of stations Ac and ~* and at the surface, bottom and mid-depth of stations Be, Bt and B. Additional ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted twice monthly from June-August 1976. The samples were preserved and the densities of the ichthyoplankton in the samples were determined in the same manner as were zooplankton densities. Identifications of ichthyoplankton were made using: A preliminary Key to the Identification of Larval Fishes of Oklahoma, with Particular Reference to Canton Reservoir, In-cluding a Selected Bibliography. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 42 pp. This was one of the few readily available keys at that time for identifying freshwater ichthyoplankton. Identification was made to the family level. Impingement Study at Waterford 1 and 2 In order to determine which species would be s~bject to impingement at Waterford 3 and to develop a first approximation of numbers and biomass of organisms which might be imPinged there, a screen wash study was conducted A-7
- at Waterford 1 and 2, which are operative.
1976 to January 1977. The study was done from February It involved semi-monthly monitoring at the intake screening structures of Waterford 1 and 2. A 24-hour period was sampled on each sampling date. The screens were rotated, washed and cleared at the outset of each period. Baskets were then placed in series within the sluiceway carrying impinged organisms back to the waterbody, as shown in Figure A-2. Two 1/4" expanded metal baskets were placed closest to the screens; a 1/2" hardware cloth basket was placed behind them as a backup. Collections were made when one or more screens were in operation during the 24-hour sampling period. All organisms collected during each sampling period were identified to species level, except when the organism's physical condition precluded identification. Physical injuries were noted. All fish and crustaceans were individually weighed and measured, with the exception of some bay anchovy and river shrimp samples. These were subsampled; i.e., measure-ments were taken on 25 randomly selected individuals. Total weights were computed for all species. Weights were measured on an 0 Haus Dial-0-Gram balance, with a precision of+ 0.1 gram. Lengths of organisms were measured to the nearest millimeter. Fish were measured in standard length; shrimp were measured from the tip of the rostrum to the tip of the telson; blue crab were measured by the carapace width. During the sampling periods, physical and chemical data were collected from the Unit 1 West and the Unit 2 East intake pump screen wells at approximately six-hour intervals. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature and conductivity were measured in situ. Water samples were collected from the appropriate wells, and pH was measured within 30 minutes of sample collection
- A-8
~ Methodology of Sampling - Program Continuation (1977-1979) During 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Environmental Surveillance Program of the aquatic ecology of the Mississippi River was and will be continued, utiliz-ing essentially the same sampling locations, techniques, and methodologies that are described above. However, there are some slight modifications in order to comply more closely with the sampling program described in Supple-ment 6 to the Construction Permit Environmental Report for Waterford 3, which has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A-9
TABLE A-1 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FOR SURFACE WATERS Station Rationale Identification Location for Location A Beh1nd an island on the west Station is not expec-c bank (right hand descending) ted to be directly of the Mississippi River, in affected by discharg-a shallow back-water area es from Waterford upstream of Waterford 1 l, 2, or 3; and and 2. therefore, has been designated as a con-trol station. On the west bank of the Back eddy current Mississippi River, in a results in transpor-
~hallow area characterized tation of heated dis-by low-velocity currents. charge from Waterford Immediately upstream of l and 2 upstream to Waterford 1 and 2, in a this station.
back eddy current. B On the east bank of the Intended as unaffec-c Mississippi River opposite ted control station Waterford 1, 2, and 3. It for deep, fast velo-is also upstream of LP&L's city current environ-Little Gypsy Power Plant. ment. Immediately downstream of Station located in Waterford 3 discharge. area of river influ-enced by heat dis-charge from Waterford 3. Along the west bank, near Abandoned after first River Mile 127. year of sampling, and replaced by Station Btl*" On the west bank near River ' Replaced Station Mile 127.8. B in second year of 1 sampling. Loca-tion is just upstream of an adjacent ther-mal discharge, and further downstream from the discharge of Waterford 3 than Sta-t ion Bt*
TABLE A-2 (Sheet 1 of 4) PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM - AQUATIC ECOLOGY SAMPLING SCHEDULE 1973 - 1974 1974 - 1975 1975 - 1976 Community Frequency Sampling Frequency Sampling Frequency Sampling Sampled Of Sampling Gear Of Sampling Gear Of Sampling Gear FISH Monthly (April-April); Otter Trawl (all Once during the months Same as Monthly (October - Same as five minute trawls stations), mid- of June, August, Novem- 1973-1974 September); same as 1973-1974 wster trawl (Bt, ber, February, April 1973-1974 Bt 1 , Be)' sur- and August-same as 1973-face trawl (all 1974 stations), gill net Monthly; 48 hours at each (all stations) station Monthly; 2 hours at Electroshocking each station (all stations) BENTHOS Monthly (June-April); 6 grab Shipek Sampler The Shipek was used Shipek Monthly (October - Shipek samples at each station All stations during the months of Sampler September) Sampler June, August, November, (all Sta-February, April and t ions) August. Smith-Mcintyre was used Smith Mc-only in August, November, Intyre April and August. (all sta-tions) ZOOPLANKTON Monthly (June-Dec. and Feb-May); 0,3 meter dia- Once during the months Until Feb- Monthly (October - Same as 2 samples were taken in April. meter #6 of August, November, ruary 1975 September); 1973-1974 Samples taken at surface, mid- (0.243 mm mesh) February, April and a 0.3 meter A stations - S and B depth and bottom plankton net August and 2 times in diameter B stations - S,M,B June net was used. From February 1975 on, a 1/2 Meter diameter
#6 (0.243) mm mesh) plankton net
TABLE A-2 (Shcot 2 of 4) PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM - AQUATIC ECOLOGY SAMPLING SCHEDULE -;;--~~-,--~~~~~~~~-:~~~~--'-'-1977 - 1978* 1978 - 1979* 1979 - 1980* Community Frequency Sampling Frequency Sampling Frequency Sampling _S_a_m.p~l_e_d~~~~~~~~~~~Of Sampling Gear Of Sampling Gear Of Sampling Gear FISH Once during the 3rd week of Trawls same as Same as 1977 - 1978 Same as Monthly Same as each of the following months, 1973 - 1974 1973-1974 1973 - 1974 July, September, January, April; five minute trawls for all trawls Two 24 hour periods at each Gill net station during each sampling (all stations) period Two hours at each station Electroshocking during each sampling period (all stations) BENTHOS Once a month during the Smith Mcintyre following months: July, Grab September, January and April At least 4 samples taken at Same as 1977 - 1978 Same as Monthly Same as each sampling station on 1977-1978 1977 - 1978 each sampling date ZOOPLANKTON Once a month during the 1/2 meter dia- Same as 1977-1978 Same as Monthly Same as following months: July, meter #6 (0,243 1974-1975 1974-1975 September, January and April tmn mesh) plankton A stations - S and B net (same as B stations - s, M, B 1974 - 1975)
*Not finalized at date of printing.
TABLE A-2 (Sheet 3 of 4)
~~~IONAL MONITORING PROGRAM - AQUATIC ECOLOGY SAMPLING SCHEDULE 197 5 - ~19'-'7~6 _ _ _ __
- - - = - - - - - - - - - - , , . - - - - . : . 1 9 7 3 - ~19'-'7-'4-~-~------~~---'-1974 - 1975 Frequency Sampling Community Frequency Sampling Frequency Sampling Of_!ampling Gear =S~a~m~p~l~e~d~~~~~~~~~~.o;.Of Sampling Gear O~ Sampling Gear Once during the months Whole Monthly (October - Same as PHYTOPLANKTON Monthly except January, 1974 Whole water of June, August, water September 1973 - 1974 and April, 1974 - near surface samples of each station; productivity February, April. samples also run (in vitro) Productivity also run (in vitro) ATTACHED ALGAE Seasonal Collected from Same as 1973 - 1974 Same as natural sub- 1973 - 1974 strates and sediment November, February l/2 meter Monthly Same as ICHTHYOPLANKTON See zooplankton See zooplankton April and August diameter ex:cept 1974 - 1975 (1973 - 1974) (1973-1974) llO (0.571 June, mm mesh) July and plankton August net when 2 monthly samples were taken
DATE 05/15/78, TYPIST: gw Page? TABLE A-2 {Sheet 4 of 4) PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM - AQUATIC ECOLOGY SA~PLING~~~E 1979 - 1980 .---.,..,---------.,,.------'-1977 - 1978_~-~-------~----'-1978 - 1979 Sampling COlllilluni ty Frequency Sampling Frequency Sam.pl ing Frequency Sample~._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Of Sampling Gear Of Sampling Gear Of2,ampling Gear PHYTOPLANKTON Once a month during the follow- Same as 1973 - Same as 1977 - 1978 Monthly Same as ing month*: July, September 1974 1973 - 1974 January and April just below Productivity the surface in vivo and in !..!.!!£. Productivity also run {in vivo and in vitro ) ATTACHED ALGAE Same as 1973 - 1974 Same as 1973 - 1974 Same as 1973 - 1974 ICHTHYOPLANKTON Once a month during the One meter dia- Same as 1977 - 1978 Monthly Same as following months: meter #0 (0.57 mm 1977 - 1978 July, September, January and mesh) plankton April net A stations - S and B B stations - s, M, B each tow at least 20 minutes duration
Ac, Station
- Benthos e Gill Nets
.A. Water Chemistry 1/4 SU le h1 Mtlft Otter Trawls
- - - - M1dwater Trawls
.............. Surface Trawls & Zooplankton LOUISIANA Fi9ure POWER & LIGHT CO.
SAMPLING AREAS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WATERFORO 3 A-I Waterford Ste am Electric Station
TO RIVER
..i~
@ SAMPLING BASKETS .......
~
~~
"V
~
SLUICEWAY SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 WEST EAST WEST EAST IOURCE: E-Y. HUSTON a ASSOCIATES, llllC, "ANNUAL DATA REl'ORT-WATERPORD POWER STATIOll UNITS 1 AND 2 SCREEN - - NT STUOIEa-FE*RUAllY 117... .IANUARY 1177". LOUISIANA Fipre POWER & LIGHT CO. Waterford Steam LOCATION OF SCREEN IMPINGEMENT SAMPLE SITES AT WATERFORD 1AND2 A-2 Electric Station}}