ML19329C300
| ML19329C300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Reutter J OHIO STATE UNIV., COLUMBUS, OH |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329C282 | List: |
| References | |
| 108, NUDOCS 8002121009 | |
| Download: ML19329C300 (20) | |
Text
__ -
CLEAR TECHNICAL REPORT NO.108 1
/
ILdTHY0 PLANKTON STUDIES FROM LAKE ERIE NEAR THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
~
DURING 1978 Environmental Technical Specifications Sec. 3.1.2.a.4 Ichthyoplankton Prepared by Jeffrey M. Reutter Prepared for Toledo Edison Company Toledo, Ohio O
THE OHIC STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR UKE ERIE AREA RESEARCH COLUMBUS, OHIO February 1979 800212 p f
--.-_..----,.,y.
...w-#mv-
-r w-
---w
~
3.1.2.a.4 Ichthyoplankton Procedures Duplicate ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) samples wef e collected from the surface and bottom of Stations 3 (control station), 8 (intake),13 (plume area), 29 (control station), and Toussaint Reef (Figures 1 and 2) using a 0.75 meter diameter heavy-duty oceanographic plankton net (No. 00, 0.75 m mesh) equipped with a calibrated General Oceanics flow meter.
Each sample consisted :f a 5-minute circular tow at 3 to 4 knots with this net.
Samples were collected on 10 occasions (approximately 10-day intervals or as weather allowed) between 30 April 1978 and 1 ' atember 1978 from the Locust Point vicinity and on 6 occassions at Toussain Reef. Sampling was terminated after 1 September as only one sample on 23 ' Jgust and none of the samples from 1 September contained ichthyoplankters. It sould be noted that U.S. ~ EPA (Grosse Ile office) terminates their Western Basin sampling on 15 July each year.
Samples were preserved in 5% formalin and returned to the laboratory for sorting and analysis. All specimens were identified and enumerated using the works of Fish (1932), Norden (1961a and b), and Nelson gnd Cole (1975).
Results were l-reported as the number of individuals per 100 m of water calculated from the volume filtered (flow meter) and the number of individuals within the sample.
l Results Specimens collected during the 1978 field season represented 11 taxa,10 to the species level and one listed as unidentified shiner (Table 1). No eggs w6.re collected at Toussaint Reef.
Eggs were collected at Locust Point from the bottom of Stations 3 and 13 on June 8 (Table 1 and 2).
Gizzard shad, emerald shiners, walleye, freshwater drum, and yellow perch were the dominant species representing 68.7 percent, 14.3 percent, 10.8 percent, 2.5 percent, and 2.1 percent, respectively of the total population at Locust Point (Table 1).
No other species represented as much as 1.0 percent of the total.
Gizzard sh d 3
occurred from 8 June through 11 August and peaked on 8 June at 220.9/100 m.
Emerald shigers occurred from.8 June through 23 August and peakep) on 5 July (75.8/100g.
Walleye were collected on 22 May (61.0/100 m and 8 June (0.1/100 m ).
Freshwater drum were collected f5 m 8 June through 19 July with maximum density recorded on 20 June, 11.8/100 m. Yellowpgrchwereco}lected 22 May, g June, and 20 June at densities of 6.3/100 m, 6.5/100 m, and 0.6/100 m, respectively.
Statign 13 (plume area) exhibited the greatest mean larval density, 76.1/100.m, while, in the vicinity of the plant site, Station 8 (intake) exhibited the lowest larval density ((Table 2).
Table 1). Overall, Toussaint Reef had the lowest larval density, 16.1/100 m All 5 stations exhibited much greater larval densities at the surface than at the bcttom.
However, this increased abundance at the surface was heavily weighted by the dominance of gizzard shad and emerald shiners. Drum and shite bass were more abundant at the bottom and perch and walleye were uniformly distributed in the water column.
l
s 9 26 LAKE ERIE 93 e8 7
23 h
6 91
.. ' 'it.
915 t
MARSH AREA 24 II I2 COOLING O
O g }3 g g4 OWER L...
ys STATION s4 1,
0 17 25 AREA
- t' b....,
I/,,,,,,,,
MARSH AREA
/
e29
- ," * ~ ~.-
FIGURE 1
~
,. " ~
1000
,.I DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 AQUATIC SAMPLING STATIONS
,.g)
...,mr...
O WE5r s4 STER REEP Q
bt
_\\
\\
5 2......(
'G"/' "%
4i.40,_
~
v s
"r i i come aus,- u egenzt,asar miacana naar if FLAT AOCK REEP I
'"* ' "' 6 cocusr poiar ass, c.
era M
"5 h
q.,_ _.
~
G
'*"" ~9r 5 G
o.a m NPS A,G'%
-41 35-B ATH Y METRIC MAP oErTa coxicuR; BN FEET BELOW LOW WATEA DATU2
+ LEAST DEPTH OVER REEF CONTOUR l'NTERVAL S FEET I
FEET
.apu n2 so k MILES 4
~.
. va.
o-w 83*(p5' 83* 00'
..e eu.
FIGURE 2.
REEFS NEAR LOCUST POINT. -
Tant t 1 ICP1HT0f'LAnFif2 OCN5tT![5 AT LOCUST P0thi.19785 April 30 May 22 June 8 June 20
- stcles 3
8 13 29 Mean 3
8 13 29 Mean 3
8 13 29 Mean 3
8 13 n
mean Pro-larvae 0.4 0.1 Carp Post larvae Surface Botton 0.8 0.3 Sooto tal **
0.4 0.1 Pro-larvae 0.6 0.2 tswrale Post. larvae Shiner Surface Bottom 1.1 0.4 Subtotal" 0.6 0.2 fres bater ~
Pro-larvae 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 4.2 1.7 25.4 15.2 11.6 Post-larvae 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 1.8 15.9 13.0 7.9 Orum Surface Botton 2.1 1.5 2.9 2.2 7.6 1.5 35.8 18.0 15.7 Subtotal **
1.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 4.2 1.7 25.8 15.5 11.8 Pro-larvae 105.2 33.7 57.4 65.4 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.8 Gizzard Post-larvae 291.7 52.9 121.7 155.4 47.6 15.7 30.7 49.3 35.8 ina4 Surface 646.8 106.1 239.1 330.7 53.6 31.4 32.3 59.4 44.2 totton 147.0 67.1 119.2 111.1 41.7 1.4 30.5 41.8 28.8 Subtotal" 396.9 86.6 179.1 220.9 47.6 16.4 31.4 $0.6 36.5 Pro-larvae 1.8 4.5 1.6 Rainco.
Post-larvae 5 salt Surface 1.4 8.3 2.4 Botton 2.3 0.8 0.8 Subtotal" 1.8 4.5 1.6 Pro-larvae 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 5pottall Post. larvae 0.4 0.1 satner surface 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.8 Botton 1.0 0.7 0.6 Subtotal **
0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 Pro-larvae UntJentified Post-larvae 0.3 0.1 shiner Surface Botton 0.6 0.2 Subtotal" 0.3 0.1 Pro-larvae.
52.1 6.0 65.2 120.8 61.0 0.4 0.1 Walleye Post-larvae Surface 23.8 1.9 57.2 181.3 66.1 0.8 0.3 Botton 80.3 10.1 73.1 60.3 56.0 Subto tal" 52.1 6.0 65.2 120.8 61.0 0.4 0.1 Pro-larvae 1.8 0.4 2.5 1.6 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.6 white Post larvae 1.0 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.4 1.3 3.1 1.7 Bass Surface 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.8
- 3. 4 1.7 Bottom 4.4 1.5 3.2 3.0 4.3 0.7 0.8 6.0 3.0 Subtotal" 2.8 0.8 2.5 2.0 2.6 0.8 1.3 4.7 2.4 Pro-larvae 0.4 0.1 kalteftsh Post larvae Surface 0.8 0.2 6
Botton Subtotal" 0.4 0.1 Pro-larvae 4.0 4.8 7.7 8.5 6.3 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.8 tellow Post larvae i
5.6 4.5 7.0 5.7 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 Perca surface 4.0 8.6 6.9 12.3 8.0 1.7 1.4 7.2 3.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 6otton 4.1 1.0 8.5 4.8 4.6 10.2 8.3 10.2 9.6 0.8 1.3 0.5 Subto tal" 4.0 4.8 7.7 8.5 6.3 5.9 4.8 8.7 6.5 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 Pro-larvae 0.4 0.1 56.1 10.8 74.7 133.9 68.9 la9.8 35.5 64.3 69.9 5.1 3.0 26.7 18.1 13.2 Total Post-larvae 298.6 57.8 128.7 161.7 49.7 16.7 33.4 53.7 38.4 Surface 0.8 0.2 27.8 10.5 65.5 201.8 76.4 650.3 107.4 249.6 251.8 56.2 35.8 52.3 73.5 55.2 Sotton 84.4 11.1 83.9 65.9 61.3 166.4 79.1 136.4 127.3 53.6 3.6 67.8 67.1 48.0 Subtotal" 0.4 0.1 a6.1 10.8 74.7133.9 68.9 400.4 93.) 133.1
- 231.6 54.9 19.7 60.1 71.8 51.6 Surface (g9s Botton 8.7 6.3 5.0 Subtotal" 4.3 3.1 2.5 VASLE 9 (C0hilmuCD)
ICHTMt0PL ANEl04 OfMSITIll At LOCUST PolNT 197aa July 5 July 19 Autwst 1 Aw9 ult il tsits 3
8 13 29 Mean 3
8 13 29lMran 3
8 13 29 Mean 3
4 13 29 Naa
/
i Pro-larvae 0.4 0.1
' #' k Post larvae sur:46e 0.9 0.2 Sottom 5.utatal" 0.4 0.1 Pro larvae 54.7 62.0 92.0 58.4 66.8 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 t ci al' Post larue 3.8 6.5 22.4 3.5 9.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.5 Pmr Surface 109.4 136.0 174.9 120.5 135.2 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.6 3.6 1.1 Sotton 7.6 0.9 53.9 3.3 16.4 0.4 0.2 Subtotal" 58.5 68.5 114.4 61.9 75.8 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.5 1.8 0.6 Pro-lae.ie 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7
- e vna.6.ater Pott. larvae Surface 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.6
.e-.
Cottom 1.2 0.3 1.8 0.4 1.6 1.0 5 btotal" 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7 Pro-larvae 5.8 12.7 198.1 54.2 1.4 7.4 12.4 5.3 1.6 0.4 13.7 66.5 0.3 0.3 262 itrard Post-larvae 128.8 28.2 101.8 82.0 85.2 9.8 5.1 2.6 18.4 9.0 1.3 7.2 2.3 11.3 5.5 1.5 0.3 3.9 3.4
- 2. 9 tr 2J sortace
$1.3 57.5 358.5 9.7 !!9.3
!!.4 5.3 13.4 23.5 13.7 3.0 12.4 2.7 19.3 9.4 25.7 98.9 1.7 6.3 33.2 0 ttu 217.9 24.3 241.4 154.3 159.5 7.1 7.7 6.6 38.1 14.9 2.9 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.6 4.6 34.8 6.7 1.1 11.8 httotal" 134.6 40.9 299.9 82.0 139.4 9.8 6.5 10.0 30.8 14.3 2.fr 7.2 2.3 11.3 5.9 15.2 66.8 4.2 3.7 22.5 Pro. larvae u na s.
Post. larvae 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 tsit S.ctace Botton 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 5.ctwtal**
0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 Pro-larvae 0.6 0.2 attail Post-larvae 2,nwr surfa.;e 1.2 0.3 co ttu.a 5 ototal" 0.6 0.2 Pro-larvae
.. I Jal t i 1 s'J Pontelarvae
> !a hwr
$.rfaCe Gottum 5 btotal" l Pro larvae
'r,e Post larvee 4.
Surface BetLos subtotal" Pro-larvae 0.3 0.1
- 1 te l'on t.lar vae na
% rtace bottom 0.5 0.3 5 btotal" 0.3 0.1l Pro-larvae at te t t ui e'os t. larvae Surface LottJe hotutal" Pro-larvae tellem Post-larvae lercn Surface aattom
)wo to tal" Pro. larvae 60.5 76.2 290.1 58.4 121.3 0.3 2.3 8.8 13.5 6.2 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.8 14.0 66.6 0.3 0.6 20.4 l.
?.,tal Post lartae 132.5 34.6 124.2 85.9 94.3 9.8 5.3 2.6 18.6 9.1 2.6 7.5 2.6 11.3 6.0 1.1 2.4 3.9 3.6 2.9 5.rfase 160.6 195.3 533.3 130.2 254.9 13.0 5.3 15.8 24.0 14.5 5.6 13.5 3.7 20.4 10.8 26.3 102.4 1.7 6.3 34.2 Cattom 225.4 26.4 295.3 157.6 176.2 7.1 9.9 7.0 40.3 16.1 2.9 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.6 5.1 35.6 6.7 2.1 12.4 hotatal" 193.0 110.8 414.3 143.9 215.5 10.1 7.6 11.6 32.1 15.3 4.2 7.8 2.8 11.9 6.7 15.7 69.0 4.2 4.3 23.3 5.rface j
ts SJt tika ha to tal"
)
i l
-s-
TA8t[ 1 (C04f14UED)
!CMfMYOPLANETON 0(N5111t$ AT LOCU$f POINT 1970' August 23 5'8t'"h 1
%1All01
- . t Il s 3
8 IJ 29 Nea 3
13 i'l M'en 3
8 13 29 Mesa
/
Pro-larvae (0.1
( 0.1 CJ' 8 Post larvae 56rface 0.1
< 0.1 Bottom 0.1
< 0.1 1.h to t41 *.
< 0.1
<0.1
< 0.1 Pro. larvae 0.3 0.1 5.6 6.2 9.2 6.6 6.9
( wrald Post. larvae 1.4 0.9 2.2 0.4 1.2
' imr 5.e * *e 0.6 0.2 11.3 14.1 17.6 13.5 14.1 1.attam 0.9 0.1 5.4 0.4 1.T 54tutal" 0.3 0.1 7.0 7.1 11.4 7.0 8.1 Prte-larvae 0.6 0.4 3.3 1.8 1.5 levst. ater Post. larvae ce...
s reace 0.1 0.3 1.7 1.5 0.9 tiettva 1.0 0.6 3.9 2.2 1.9 5.hto tal "
0.6 0.4 2.8 1.8 1.4 Pro-larvae 12.6 11.5 26.4 1.6 15.8 t::arJ Post larvae 48.1 10.9 26.3 18.3 25.9
%J 5.rface 79.3 31.2 64.8 13.1 47.1 Sottom 42.1 13.7 40.1 26.5 30.6 Subto tal "
60.7 22.4 52.7 19.8 30.9 Pro-larvae 0.2 0.5 0.2 i:a bito.,
Post. larvae 0.1 0.1 0.1
'sett Surface 0.1 0.9 0.3 Sottum 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Santutal" 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 Pro. larvae 0.1 0.2 0.1
- :.ot ta ll Pust.lervae t h i=r servace 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 Gottoa 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.bto ta l "
0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 Fro-larvae L. Antt f ted Post. larvae (0.1
( 0.1 v.. er Surface Cottom 0.1 (0.1 Subtotal **
(0.1 (0.1 Pro-larvae 5.2 0.6 6.6 13.4 6.1 allese Post larvae Surface 2.4 0.2 5.8 20.1 6.6 Bottom 8.0 1.0 1.3 6.7 5.6 Suetotal "
5.2 0.6 6.5 13.4 6.1 Pro-larvae 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 atte Post-larvae 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2
- .n s surface 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 c ttom 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.6 5.S to tal "
0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 Pro-larvae (0.1 (0.1
.ittwitsa Post larvae Surface 0.1 (0.1 Bottom 34gotag *.
<0.1
<0.1 Pro. larvae 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 tellow Post larvae 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.5 reren Surfai;e 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 Sottom 1.4 0.9 2.0 0.7 1.3 subtotal **
1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.2 Pro-larvae 0.3
. 0.1 24.8 19.5 46.5 25.0 29.0 t o t a'.
Post-larvae 49.5 12.4 29,5 19.2 21.7 Surfase 0.6 0.2 94.0 47.1 92.2 51.0 71.1 Botton 54.5 16.8 59.9 37.4 42.2 subtotal "
0.3 0.1 74.3 31.9 76.1 44.2 56.6 Surface fqgs Gotton 0.9 0.6 0.2 Sutito tal '*
0.4 0.3 0.2 3
- Data presented as no./100m. A
- desh
- indicates no collection due to bad usether.
4
- Suetotal of Pro and Post larves, asen of surface and bottom samples, a
TABLE 2 RESULTS OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTIONS AT TOUSSAINT REEF - 1978 s rsi 30 my n aune to auir 5 g.
S et.
- rea, e
t uaP Pr.iarvae 0.8 0.1 P.st tarvae Surfue 1.6 c.3 sett.
Suntatai 0.8 0.i
= raid Preiervee 4.2 50.3 5.2 10.0 Shiner Post Larvee 61.6 10.3 Surface 8.4 221.8 8.9 39.9 Botton 1.9 1.6 0.6 Suttotal 4.2 111.9 5.2 20.2 Freshwater Prolarvae 8.2 1.4 Orum Post tarvae Surface Bottom 16.4 2.7 Subtstal 8.2 1.4 Eluard Prolervee 2.8 0.5 Shad Post Larvae 2.4
- 1. 6 2.7 Surface 2.0
'2.0 4.0 Bettam 8.4 4.1 2.3 Suttatal 5.2 13.6 3.1 Ratabow 5 melt Prelarvae i
Post Larvae 0.3 0.1 Surface 0.-
0.1 Bottam Suttatal 0.3 0.1 5pottall Prolarvae Shiner Post Larvae 0.3 0.1 Surface 0.6 0.1 tottam Suttatal 0.3 0.1 Unidentified Prelarvae Shiner Post Larvae Surface Settem Suttatal Walleye Prolerves 1.3 0.2 Post Larvae Surface Setten 2.5 0.4 Subtstal 1.3 0.2 White less Prelarvae Post Larvae Surface Bottom Suttatal White f t sh Prelarvae Post Larvae Surface lettam Suetotal fellow Prolarvae 5.3 0.9 Perch Post Larvae Surface 6.7 1.1 tottan 3.9 0.7 Suttatal 5.3
- 0. 9 TOTAL Prelarvee 6.5 15.3 5..!
5.2 13.0 Postlarvae 2.4 75.5 0.3 13.1 Surface 6.7 10.4 246.1 9.4 45.4 Settem 6.4 24.8 7.0 1.6 6.6 Suttatal 6.5 17.7 126.6 5.5 26.1 Samples could not be collected on 19 July and 23 August due to artillery firing into this zone and on 8 June and 1 August because of wind and high waves.
_. =
All raw data were keypunched and stored at the offices of the Ohio State University's Center for Lake Erie Area Research in Columbus, Ohio.
A voucher collection of all samples is also maintained at these offices.
_ Analysis Ichthyoplankton populations have shown tremendous variations since 1974.
Emerald shiners constituted 81 percent of the 1974 larvae,1 percent of the 1975 larvae, 60 percent of the 1976 larvae, 3 percent of the 1977 larvae, and 14 percent of the 1978 larvae.
Yellow perch constituted 5 percent of the 1974 larvae, 70 percent of the 1975 larvae, 4 percent of the 1976 larvae, 26 percent i
of the 1977 larvae, and 2 percent of the 1978 larvae.
Gizzard shad appear to have increased significantly reaching 34 percent of the 1976 larvae, 56 percent of the 1977 larvae, and 69 percent of the 1978 larvae. It is felt that the above described variability is largely due to the fact that we are sampling schooling specimens.
Consequently, when the net is drawn through a school the density appears quite high. This is also quite dependent on the seasonal frequency of sanpling. For example, if the weather allows more frequent spring sampling but prohibits summer sangling, then spring species such as perch and walleye appear relatively more abundant.
This is the second year that walleye have constituted a significant portion of the catch.
However, as noted last year, adult populations throughout the Western Basin are increasing greatly and, consequently, greater larval populations are to be expected (Scholl,1978). These walleye larvae contributed to the 53 percent increase observed in larval densigies from 1977 (mean density 3
= 37.0/100 m ) to 1978 (mean density = 56.6/100 m ).
However, gizzard shad were the mpor source of this inc{ ease as their mean densities increased frbm 20.7/100 m in1977to38.9/j00m in 1978.
Yellay perch densities decreased significantly from 9.5/100 m in 1977 to 1.2/100 m in 1978. This decrease is similar to that observed by the Ohio Division of Wildlife for the adult i
population (Scholl,1979).
In 1976, control stations (3 and 29) were established on either side of the intake (Station 8)/ discharge complex (Station 13) to determine if unusually large fish larvae populations were occurring due to possible spawning in the rip-rap material around these structures. This does not appear to be occurring to any significant degree as Station 13 plume area) exhibited densities similar to Station 3 (control) and Station 8 (intake) exhibited the lowest densities.
These lower densities observed at Station 8 are probably due to the fact that this station is the furthest from shore and in the deepest water.
In sunmary, there is no indication of significant spawning occurring at Locust Point.
However, the nearshore waters here, as with the rest of the nearshore waters along the south shore of the Western Basin, appear to serve as a nursery ground for larvae.
Furthermore, due to the-similarity between test and control stations, there is no indication that the activities of the plant have significantly altered these popult.tions. -
i i
LITERATURE CITED Fish, M.P.
1932.
Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters. Bull. U.S.
Bur. Fish. 47:293-398.
Nelson, D.D. and R.A. Cole.
1975.
The distribution and abundance of larval fishe: along the western shore of Lake Erie at Monroe, Michigan.
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Michigan.
Institute of Water Research Tech. Rept. No. 32.4.
66 pp.
Norden, C.R.
1961a.
A key to larval fishes from Lake Erie. University of S.uthwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Mimeo. Rept. 4 pp.
- Norden, C.R.
1961b.
The identification of larval perch, Perca flavescens, and walleye, Stizostedion L vitreum. Copeia 61:282-788--
Scholl, R.L.
1978.
Status of Ohio's Lake Erie Fisheries:
January 1, 1978. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlif e.
20 pp.
Scholl, R.L.
1979.
Status of Ohio's Lake Erie Fisheries:
January 1, 1979. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife.
18 pp.
l !
I
~
i v
XIII SECTIO 9 3.'1.2 A.5 g
FISH EGG AND
_ARVAE tNTRAINMENT m
I i
3.1.2.a.5 Fish Egg and Larvae Entrainment Procedures Fish egg and larvae (ichthyoplankton) entrainment at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station was computed by multiplytng the ichthyoplankton concentration observed at Station 8 (intake) by the intake volume (Figure 1).
Ichthyoplankton densities were determined at approximately 10-day intervals from four 3-minute, oblique (bottom to surface) tows at 3-4 knots made at night on each date (Table 1) with a 0.75 meter diameter heavy-duty oceanographic plankton net (No. 00, 0.75 mm mesh) equipped with a calibrated General Oceanics flowmeter.
Oblicue tows were selected as this is the technique required at intakes on Lake Erie by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Night sampling is also required by these agencies to minimize net avoidance by larvae and to more accurately assess populations of species which may cling to the bottom during daylight.
Samples were preserved in 5%
formalin and returned to the laboratory for sorting and analysis. All specimens were identified and enumerated using the works of Fish (1932), Norden (1961a and b), and Nelson and Cole 3 (of water. Densities were presented as number of 1975).
ichthyoplankters per 100 m From the above estimates it was possible to determine an approximate period of occurrence for each species and a mean density during that period.
For example, walleye were not found on 30 April or on 7 June or later (Table 1).
They were present in samples from 11 May and 21 May.
Therefore, the period of occurrence was estimated to have been from 6 May (the midpoint between 30 April and 11 May) to 30 May (the midpoint between 21 May and 7 June) (Table'2). The densjty of walleye during this period was mean estimpted to have been 41.6/100 m, computed from the concent ation of 79.2/100 m observed on 11 May f
and the concentration of 4.0/100 m observed on 21 May.
It was this concentration, 41.6/100 m, which was multiplied by the volume of water drawn through the plant from 6 May to 30 May.
The daily intake volume was computed by multiplying the daily discharge volume by 1.3. The daily intake volumes were then added for all days within the period of occurrence of the species in question to determine the total intake volume during the period.
All specimens were vouchered and all data were keypunched and stored at The Ohio State University's Center for Lake Erie Area Research, Columbus, Ohio.
Results Ichthyoplankton densities observed at Station 8 (intake) during 1978 indicated that ichthyoplankters were entrained at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station from 6 May to 17 August (Table 1). May 6 was selected as the first day since it is midway between 30 April and 11 May. August 17 was selected as the last day because larvae were present in night samples on 11 August (Table 1) but were absent from day samples at Station 8 on 23 August and later (See Table 1, Section 3.1.2.a.4 Ichthyoplankton).
\\
0 26 LAKE ERIE
~
93 98 i
7 6
e1
'?
., *.. *
- D.
9 15 MARSH y.
2 24 AREA C00LI G
~.
8 8 18 1
0 17 STATION sp 1,.,
25 AREA I*',,,,,,,,
MARSH AREA
.I'**...'.,
'.5 O 29 FIGURE 1
~,
1000 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1
)*
AQUATIC SAMPLING STATIONS
TABLE 1 ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE INTAKE OF THE DAVIS - BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION - 1978*
DATE April May May June July July Aug.
Aug.
MEAN SPECIES STAGE 30 11 21 7
4 19 1
11 Carp.
Pro-larvae 0.3 0.04 Post-larvae Subtotal 0.3 0.04 Emerald Shiner Pro-larvae 14.7 1.84 Post-larvae 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.50 Subtotal 16.3 1.6 0.8 2.34 Freshwater Drum Pro-larvae 0.7 4.9 0.70 Post-larvae 0.4 0.05 Sub-total 0.7 5.3 0.75 Gizzard Shad Pro-larvae 16.4 0.4 2.10 Post-larvae 5.2 181.9 30.0 3.6 24.3 30.63 Subtotal 21.6 181.9 30.0 3.6 24.7 32.73 Rainbow Smelt Pro-larvae 0.7 0.09 Post-larvae 4.2 0.6 0.60 Subtotal 0.7 4.2 0.6 0.69 Spottail Shiner Pro-larvae 0.3 0.04 Post-larvae 0.4 0.2 0.08 Subtotal 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.11 dalleye Pro-larvae 79.2 4.0 10.40 Pos t-larvae Subtotal 79.2 4.0 10.40 Yellow Perch Pro-larvae 1.4 1.8 0.40 Post-larvae Subtotal 1.4 1.8 0.40 TOTAL LARVAE Pro-larvae 80.6 7.2 16.7 19.9 0.4 15.60 Post-larvae 5.2 183.9 34.6 5.2 25.9 31.85 Subtotal 80.6 7.2 21.9 203.8 34.6 5.2 26.3 47.45 EGGS 2.4 0.30 1
3 Data presented as number of individuals per 100m and computed from 4 oblique tows (bottom to surface) collected at night. --
TABLE 2
. n10 PLANKTON ENTRAINMENT AT THE Davis-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION - 1978 PERIOD DURING WHICH Volume of Larvae Number of 3
3C SPECIES ENTRAINMENT Water (100m )
per 100m Larvae OCCURRED a withdrawn Entrained D
during period Carp 21 June - 12 July 20,443 0.30 6,133 Emerald Shiner 21 June - 17 August 73,704 4.68 344,933 Freshwater Drum 16 May - 12 July 49,951 2.00 99,901 Gizzard Shad 30 May - 17 August 91,598 52.37 4,796,964 Rainbow Smelt 16 May - 17 August 103,211 0.92 94,955 Spottail Shiner 30 May - 17 August 91,598 0.18 16,488 Walleye 6 May - 30 May 22,037 41.60 916,738 Yellow Perch 6 May - 30 May 22,037 1.60 35,259 TOTAL 6,311,371 Eggs 30 May - 21 June 18,449 2.40 44,278 8 Estimated from Table 1.
See discussion on page b Estimated by multiplying daily discharge rate by 1.3 and adding all daily estimates for the specified period,
- c. Average concentration during their period of occurrence..
3 The mean larvae density from all night samples at Station 8 (47.5/100 m )
was 49 percent greater 3)than the mean density from all day samples collected at Station 8 (31.9/100 m Gizzard shad constituted 69 percent of the night ichthyoplankton population followed by walleye at 22 percent and emerald shiners at 5 percent (Table 1).
4 Based on the above results (Table 1), it is estimated that 6,311,371 larvae and 44,278 eggs.were entrained at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1978 (Table 2). Of this total, gizzard shad constituted 76 percent, walleye 15 percent, and emerald shiners 5 percent.
Anal,ys,i s, l
Ichthyoplankton entrainment at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1978 was typical for an intake on the south shore of the Western Basin of Lake Erie--it was strongly dominated by gizzard shad.
As explained in the l
ichthyoplankton section of this report (Section 3.1.2.a.4), gizzard shad are on the increase and, consequently, it would not be surprising if they represented even a greater portion of the entrainment next year. Walleye is another species which is increasing greatly in the Western Basin. This species constituted 0.02 percent of the 1976 population, 11 percent of the 1977 population and, now, 22 percent in 1978 (Reutter and Herdendorf,1977; Reutter,1978). The brood stock of walleye in the Western Basin is still increasing so ichthyoplankton densities next year may be even greater. Perch entrainment was very low in 1978 as would be expected since this population is currently declining (Scholl, 1979).
One way to put entrainment losses into perspective is to look at fecundity.
Based on an average of 300,000 eggs / female gizzard shad (}iartley and Herdendorf, 1977), the 4,796,964 larvae could have been produced by 16 females; based on an average of 331,000 eggs / female walleye (Hartley anc Herdendorf, 1977), the 916,738 entrained larvae could have been produced by 3 females; and based on 44,000 eggs / female yellow perch (Hartley and Herdendorf, 1977) the 35,259 entrained larvae could have been produced by 1 female.
In actuality, the above estimates of the number of females required to produce the entrained larvae are quite low since they do not take mortality from eggs to larvae into account. If we assume 99 percent mortality from eggs to larvae to be safe (90 percent is probably more reasonable) then the entrained larvae could have been produced by 1,600 gizzard shad, 300 walleyes, and 100 perch. These values are less than 0.1 percent of the number of perch and walleye captured by Ohio sport fishermen in 1978 (Scholl, 1979).
Another way to determine the impact of entrainment losses is to estimate the number of adults the entrained larvae would have produced had they lived.
This technique requires some knowledge of the mortality between larval stages and between year classes.
Patterson (1976) has developed such estimates for yellow perch, and, since it is in the same family, the estimates will also be used here for walleye.
Several assumptions are involved.
i l l
I.
All entrained larvae are killed.
II.
All larvae lost by entrainment are in their late larval stage.
This provides a conservative or high estimate because it does not account for early larval mortality which may range from 83-96 percent (Patterson, 1976).
III.
Yellow perch become vulnerable to comercial capture, and reach sexual maturity at age class III.
IV.
A one percent survival rate from late larvae to age III adults is assumed. Again, this is conservative since survival rates from:
late larvae to YOY = 4 to 17 percent; YOY to age class I = 12 to 33 percent; age class I to age class II = 38 percent; age class II to age class III = 38 percent (Patterson, 1976,andBrazo,e_t_al.,(1975).
This trend translates to a survivorship ranging from 0.1 percent to one percent over the period from the late larval stage to age class III.
Based on the above assumptions, the 916,738 entrained walleye larvae could have produced 917-9,167 age class III adults and the 35,259 entrained yellow perch larvae could have produced 35-353 age class III adults.
The author feels little weight should be placed on the above impact assessments since they are based on the number of entrained larvae which can vary greatly from year to year depending on the success of the hatch which in turn is dependent upon the size of the brood stock and weather conditions during spawning and incubation.
In the case of Davis-Besse, the off-shore intake where larvae densities are lower (See Section 3.1.2.a.4) and the low volume intake (1978 mean = 21,389 gpm) due to the cooling tower and closed cooling system necessitate a very low-level impact on Western Basin fish populations.
LITERATURE CITED Brazo, D.C., P.I. Tack and C.R. Liston.
1975.
Age, growth and fecundity of yellow perch, Perca flavascens, in Lake Michigan near Ludington, Michigan.
Proc. Am. Fish. Soc.
104:/Z/.
Fish, M.P.
1932.
Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters.
Bull. U.S.
Bur. Fish. 47:293-398.
Hartley, S.M. and C.E. Herdendorf. 1977. Spawning ecology of Lake Erie fishes.
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio. CLEAR Tech. Rept. No.
62.
10 pp.
Nelson, D.D. and R. A. Cole.
1975.
The distribution and abundance of larval fishes along the western shore of Lake Erie at Monroe, Michigan. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Michigan.
Institute of Water Research Tech.
Rept. No. 32.4.
66 pp.
Norden, C.R.
1961a.
A key to larval fishes from Lake Erie.
University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Mimeo. Rept. 4 pp.
Norden, C.R.
1961b. The identification of larval perch, Perca flavescens, and walleye, Stizostedion v. vitreum. _Copeia 61:282-288.
Patterson, R.L.
1976. Analysis of losses in standing crop and fishery yields of yellow perch in the western basin of Lake Erie due to entrainment and impingement mortality at the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant.
Large Lakes Research Station.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Grosse Ile, Mich.
Reutter, J.M. and C.E. Herdendorf.
1977.
Pre-operational aquatic ecology monitoring program for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit I.
Prog. Rept. July 1-Dec. 31, 1976.
Toledo Edison Co.
205 pp.
Reutter, J.M.
1978.
Ichthyoplankton studies from Lake Erie Near the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1977. The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio. CLEAR Tech. Rept. No. 88. 8 pp.
Scholl, R.L.
1978.
Status of Ohio's Lake Erie Fisheries:
January 1, 1978.
Chio Dept. of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife.
20 pp. -
9
.N s
I s -.
i f
i I
I