ML20005E576

Finfish Survival Study & Baltimore Gas & Electric Co Final Rept

ML20005E576
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	12/23/1986
From:	Breitburg D, Thoman T ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILA.
To:
Shared Package
ML20005E568	List: ML20005E567 ML20005E576
References
NUDOCS 9001080188
Download: ML20005E576 (28)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, p ;; u y'l, yy-e 4,. + g ..a l:. i p7 r,-,- p: 4 h, Vi. s t.;c w lj t, e i y b. i_k ^ CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1} FINFISH SURVIVAL STUDY ~ d FOR s BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i FINAL REPORT - ~~~ '"T-o, i Denise L. Breitburg Timothy A. Thoman F m Report No. 86-19 r i n s Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory Benedict, MD 20612 A.. og Division of Environmental Research Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 19th and the Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19103 December 23, 1986 900108o188 891222 fDR ADOCK 05000317 PDC r 8 8 g s a3e * *ipt of ( f se N '* a m e et e * *%

• e 04 e e 5

'at '8.m**

• ' N

b.. ..a EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Survival and impingement studies were conducted at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant June-August 1986 to compare survival - rates, sizes and numbers of impinged finfishes. There were no overall differences among screen types in survival of impinged finfish. Beauderey screens ' impinged fish of larger ' average size than did control screens. More fish were impinged by both experimental screens than by FMC single-speed screens.

However, the difference in impingement rates may be due to screen positions rather than screen types.

~~ i .n u, -

I Ti 1 { TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

i INTRODUCTION.................-.......................... 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 1 Finfish Survival Studies............................. 1 Impingement Study.................................... 4 Statistical Analyses................................. 5-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................- 6 Finfish Survival Rates............................... 6 Sizes of Impinged Finfishes.......................... 8 Numbers of Impinged Finfish and Blue Crabs-........... '8

SUMMARY

9 LITERATURE CITED....................................... 10 t 4 11

L 1. - ^ INTRODUCTION i In the summer of 1986, the Academy of Natural Sciences conducted studies to compare numbers and survival rates' of. finfish ' impinged on three different types of traveling screens. at the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP). These screens are designed to prevent finfish, other estuarine organisms and debris too large to pass through the 8 x 8-mm opening of the screen mesh from being carried into the cooling system of the plant. As the screens rotate, impinged animals normally are washed off.the-I screens and into a trough that returns them to the Chesapeake Bay., _ FMC single speed screens are currently used at CCNPP. Two experimental screen types, Beauderey screens and FMC dual-speed o screens were installed by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) at Units 1 and 2, respectively, to test their effective-ness at protecting the power plant's cooling system.. The purpose of. the study described here was to determine whether a conversion to either of the-experimental screen types would significantly increase the number of fish killed by plant operations. It l - MATERIALS AND METHODS l. Finfish Survival Studies 1 Survival rates for finfish impinged on FMC dual-speed l screens and Beauderey screens were compared with those of finfish impinged on the currently used FMC single-speed screens (controls). The FMC dual-speed screens were located at Unit 2, screen position 6, and the Beauderey screens were at Unit 1, position 1 (Fig. 1). FMC single-speed screeas at Unit 1, position 2, and at Unit 2, position 5, were used as controls 1 n n ..a..

.because finfish impingement at these positions tends to be most similar to that at the positions where the experimental screens l were installed (J. H.

Hixson, III, personal communication).

Because' each type of experimental screen was installed at only one position, this study cannot clearly distinguish be-tween screen and position effects. The duration cf this study did not allow for comparisons of survival ratas of - finfish impinged at-the - positions used - for experimental screens before and after those screens were installed. It is the impression of the biologist J. H.

Hixson, III, who has been conducting sampling of impinged animals at CCNPP for 10 years, that sizes and-survival rates of impinged finfishes do not vary among screen positions within units.

However, Mr. Hixson has ob-served that the outermost screen positions (Unit 1, position 1 and Unit 2, position 6; Fig. 1) impinge the greatest numbers of individuals. Based on-Mr. Hixson's observations, it seems most judicious to interpret a. difference in survival rates, sizes of impinged finfish or a lower impingement rate at experimental screens than at controls as due to differences between screen types.

However, no interpretation of data can be made if impingement rates are higher at experimental screens than at control screens.

'Io conduct the survival study, fish and wash-water were diverted from the troughs to large concrete survival pools that measured approximately 9.3-m long x 4.3-m wide x 0.8-m deep (Fig. 1). At Unit 1, specific screens were sampled by timing the collections to begin approximately 100 sec after the screen .to be sampled began to rotate; 100 see was the approximate amount of time it took for wash-water and fish to travel from the Unit 1 screens to the Unit 1 survival pool. Wash-water and impinged animals were allowed to flow into the pool for 10 min, the duration of each screen rotation. At Unit 2, a different procedure was used because the time it took for fish to travel from the screens to the Unit 2 survival pool was longer and more variable than that at Unit 1. Unit 2 screens were manually rotated. Organisms from screens not sampled for this 2 . ~..

~ ^ Me - study _ (screens 21-24) were diverted toward Unit 1 during the entire pool-filling procedure on days. that Unit 2 screens were sampled. Wash-water and organisms were allowed to enter the Unit 2 survival' pool for 25 min, beginning 3 min after the experimental or control screen - to be sampled began its hourly rotation. At the-end of the 25-min sample collection, wash-water and ' organisms were diverted away from the pool and the screen not targeted for sampling was manually rotated. Other than the method of collecting discrete samples from targeted screens,. procedures used at Units 1 and 2 were identical. I At the.'end of each diversion of ' wash-water and organisms into the survival pools, blue crabs (callinectes sapidus), l coelenterates and etenophores were removed. Dead finfish were removed and identified to species and total lengths of all dead f finfish, up to-a maximum of 25 randomly chosen individuals of i each species, were measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. We attempted to include all fish washed from the screen of interest during 6-7 successive screen rotations in each sample. l

However, the actual number of screen rotations included in-I samples was often fewer -than 6 (Table 1), generally because i

screens were placed in continuous rotation during some portion of the day or, occasionally, because we collected large numbers of fish in less than 6 rotations. When heavy impingements I required continuous rotation of screens, all screens at a unit rotated simultaneously and it was impossible to collect dis-9 crete samples *from the screens of interest. After the final screen rotation was included in the day's sample, data on environmental parameters were taken. Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels were measured with a Y.S. I. model 57 D.O. meter. Salinity was measured with a Y.S.I. model 33 Salino-meter. Water temperature (*C), water depth and weather were also recorded.

Salinity, D.O.

and water temperature were measured at middepth in the pools. These data are summarized in Table 2. Approximately 24 h after pools were filled, salinity, D.O. and water temperature were remeasured (Table 2 ). All finfish 3

( except hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus) were then removed, identified and classified as live, dead'or exhibiting loss of equilibrium (LOE). Loss of equilibrium was defined as the inability of the fish to maintain a normal position in the water. Total length of all individuals, up to a maximum of 25 (haphazardly chosen) individuals of any one species, was mea-sured to. the nearest 0.5 cm. Trinectes maculatus was -not included in this study because previous research indicated that impingement does not increase mortality of this species (Burton, 1976). Sampling was conducted 6-7 days per week from June 1 through August 22,

1986, except during plant outages, when screens were not in operation, or when screens were contin-uously-rotated.

A total of 9 samples was collected from the Beauderey screens, 20 samples from Unit 1 control screens,17 samples from' FMC dual-screens, and 9 samples from Unit 2 con-trol screens (Table 1). Impingement-Study Numbers and kinds of finfishes and numbers of blue crabs (callinectes sapidus) impinged on experimental and FMC single-speed screens were determined by netting finfish and crabs directly from the screen-water troughs during June, July and August 1986. At each operating unit, a 1.27-cm stretch-mesh collecting net was placed in the. screen-wash trough during one 10-min rotation of each of the six pairs of rotating screens. Raw data were adjusted to account for the amount of time it took to lift the net out of the trough and empty its contents into collection buckets since nets needed to be emptied as often as several times each minute. Each pair of screens rotates 10 min out of each hour and then remains stationary during the remaining 50 min. Thus, each 10-min sample taken and adjusted as described above, can be used to estimate the number of finfish and blue crabs impinged on the screen in one hour. For this portion of the study, data from all FMC single-I l 4

s, 9 4 h speed screens at a. unit' were combined and used as the control '~ against which experimental screens at that unit were compared.- Sampling frequency was based on 6-day cycles separated by 0- or 3-day intervals. On each sampling day, 1-h collections were made at each of the-two generating units. If one unit was not in operation, samples were. collected only at the operating-M unit. Samples were not used for experimental vs. control screen comparisons when screens were placed in continuous rotation.- l The unit to be sampled first alternated each day. The initial 6-day sampling period, and succeeding-odd-numbered i 6-day periods, were scheduled as follows: the first collection began at 0000, 0400, 0800, 1200, 1600, 2000 h - on the first, .second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth days, respectively. The second' 6-day sampling period, and succeeding even-numbered t sampling periods were scheduled as followed: the first collec-l- tions began at 0100, 0500, 0900, 1300, 1700 and 2100 h on-the

first, second,

third, fourth, fifth and sixth days, respec-tively.

On each day the second collection began 2 h after the first had begun. Therefore, all hours of the -day were sampled l-in two 6-day sampling periods. A total of 32 samples taken from Beauderey screens, 33 samples from Unit 1 control screens, 28 samples from FMC dual-speed screens and 35 samples from Unit 1 2 control screens were included in comparisons of impingement rates at experimental and control screens. Statistical Analyses l l Survival rates of impinged finfishes were calculated l-- separately for each species at each screen as Iai .p= Ing where a1 = the number of live individuals in sample i and ng = the total number of individuals in sample i. The standard error of p was calculated for all species represented by a 5 l' M$ 0 iaga g g ug g

t'

7..

3 total-of.>30-individuals and present in at least three samples frota that screen. The formula used was 1 s.e. i = n {(lag -2plagng+p2Ini )/C(C-1) 2 2 where C is the number of samples-and "i pg =-{ : N=Ing:n=f (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). To compare survival rates at experimental and control screens, data were transformed using the logistic transforma-tion (Cox', 1970) such that Z = log / d +h h i "i ~ di+N / where dj = the number of dead individuals in sample i. These transformed data were weighted for sample size as weight = 1/V ( i+ } (i+ } where V= ng (di + 1) (ng - df + 1) Data were analyzed using the SAS GLM procedure (SAS Institute, 1982). Samples containing at least four individuals of a species were included in the statistical analysis for that species. T-tests and approximate t-tests were used to compare numbers and. sizes of impinged individuals. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Finfish Survival Rates Twenty-nine species of finfish representing twenty-two families were collected in the survival pools at CCNPP (Table. 3). Survival rates at each sampled screen were calculated for all finfish except hogchoker impinged on that screen (Tables 4a-d). Survival rates based on few samples or few individuals per sample are poor estimators of actual survival rates, how-6

[ e m M l' ' 'ever. In : general, survival rates were lowest for schooling, 'midwater species (e.g., bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlan-L tic 'menha' den [Bravoortia tyrannus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis]) and highest for benthic species (e.g., oyster L-: . toadfish [Opsanus tau) and flatfishes). (' Data from: Units 1 and 2 control screens were combined for L statistical-analyses in order to ' increase sample sizes for comparisons of survival rates at experimental and control. l screens. Sufficient numbers of individuals of four species L were collected to statistically compare survival rates of fish impinged 'on Beauderey screens with those impinged on control screens. These species were Atlantic menhaden, oyster toad-

fish, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) and northern searobin (Prionotus ' carolinus).

Seven species were sufficiently abun-dant to compare their survival rates when impinged on FMC dual-speed screens with those when impinged on controls: oyster

toadfish, bay

anchovy, spot,-

winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes. americana), skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus),. northern searobin. and blackcheek. tonguefish .(Symphurus.plagiusa). Species included in statistical analyses swere those 'with at least four individuals present in at least-four samples for each screen-type considered in that com-parison. There were no consistent -differences in survival rates among finfish impinged on the three types of traveling screens tested in this study. Of the 11 comparisons made, only 2 were statistically significant (p<0.05): survival of spot was lower when impinged on Beauderey screens than when impinged on con-trols, and survival of bay anchovy was lower on FMC dual-speed screens than on controls (Tables Sa and b). Proportions were arcsin transformed before t-tests were performed (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969). 7 m

3, i Sizes of Impinged Finfishes j Mean' lengths of live, dead and LOE fish collected for the survival ' study from each screen are presented in Tables 6a-d. j sizes of fish-impinged on the different screen types' are com-pared in Table 7 for those species represented by at least 10 individuals in both the experimental screen of interest and the -combined controls. The mean' size of individuals impinged on j .Beauderey screens was larger than that.on controls for 7 of the 10-species' compared: bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, weakfish (Cynoscion regalis),

spot, oyster

toadfish, harvestfish (Peprilus alepidotus), and blackcheek tonguefish.

Thus larger s individuals of both water column and demersal species-are impinged o'n Beauderey screens. Only winter flounder was re-presented by larger individuals in samples from controls than in those from Beauderey screens. There was no significant difference in size of skilletfish or northern searobin impinged at Beauderey and control screens. No general differences in lengths of fishes. were apparent between those impinged on FMC dual-speed screens and those impinged on control screens. Of 12 species compared, mean lengths of two (weakfish and winter flounder) were signifi-cantly-greater in fish impinged on control screens, and lengths of three - (spot, northern searobin and blackcheek tonguefish) were significantly greater for fish impinged on the FMC dual-speed screens. There were no significant differences between screens for lengths of the other fish compared. Numbers of Impinged Finfish and Blue Crabs Numbers of finfish impinged by experimental and control screens at each unit were compared for the five most abundant species at each unit and for all species combined (Tables 8a and b). Impingements were higher at experimental than at control screens for three of the five most abundant species at Unit 1, for four of the five most abundant species at Unit 2 8 - ~..

4 i 9 .W' ,4 an'd for. all finfish species combined at.both units. Species for which impingements were not significantly different between screen types followed the.same. trend;- no species were impinged in higher numbers on control screens than on experimental screens. There were also no apparent differences between water column and benthic species. 4 More blue crabs were impinged by Beauderey screens than by Unit 1 controls (Table Ba). The difference in crab impingement - on-FMC dual-speed screens and Unit 2 control-screens was not significant (Table.8b). As discussed in the Methods section, it is impossible to - determine whether higher impingement rates at experimental screens. than at controls is due to differences in - screen type i or screen. position. j i

SUMMARY

1) -Survival and impingement studies were conducted at CCNPP June-August 1986 to compare survival rates, sizes and numbers of impinged finfishes. 2) There were no overall differences among screen types in survival rates of impinged finfish. Of 11 statistical comparisons, only 2 significant differences were found j. .between experimental and control screens. 3) Beauderey screens impinged fish of larger average-size than did' control screens. Because the economic value of fish ' is based on size, the value of fish impinged by Beauderey screens may be higher than the value of fish impinged by FMC single-speed screens. FMC dual-speed screens and FMC single-speed screens impinged fish of L similar average size. 4) More fish were impinged by both experimental screens than by FMC single-speed screens. However, the difference in impingement rates may be due to screen positions rather than screen types. Experimental screens were installed in the positions that The Academy of Natural Sciences biol-9

ogists believed had the highest impingement rates in an '~ e ffort to - improve chances of obtaining adequate sample sizes for analyses of survival rates. LITERATURE CITED

Burton, D.

T.- 1976. Impingement studies. II. Qualitative and quantitative survival estimates of impinged fish and crabs.' Pages 11.2-1 to 11.2-49 in Semi-annual. environ-mental monitoring report for Calvert. Cliffs Nuclear. Power Plant, March 1976. Baltimo're Gas and Electric Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

Cox, D. R.

1970. Analysis of binary data. Chapman and Hall, London, England. SAS, Institute. 1982. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS In-stitute, Cary, North Carolina. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. 6th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames, Iowa.

Sokal, R.

R. and F.-J. Rohlf.. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California. 10

y . 4,.,, I ~ Power Plant N BsBGOBBBBB2 g i i i I Unit 1 -1 (Init.2 Screens tin i t i Screens-Survival st/ Position Numbers w/ Position Normbers Pool lin it 2 Siirviva t Pool I j Fabayment p e l Chesapeake B.ny Figure 1. Diagram of CCNPP. Approximate relative locations of rotating screens, survival pools and embayment are shown. I 1 ..~=...,.-.;:-. ~--... -, ~.. - - - ~ ~ - -

l 1 L'.. t s *;., * ( r. Table 1. Dates on=which survival pools were filled for-1986.the finfish survival e study and the mean number-(ic) of' screen rotations included in each sample.--Prior to 10 June we were unable to collect discrete sam-ples from the desired screens at Unit 2. (SE = Standard Error)- ~ k Sample Dates ? i. Unit 1 controls Unit 2 controls Beauderey' Screens (FMC single-speed-FMC dual-speed =.(FMC single-speed screens) screens screens) June.5 June 1-June 12 June 10 t 10 8 15 17 19 12 23 19 24-15 27 25 17 30 22-26 29 e July 8 July 1 July 2 July 9 y 15 6 7 16 29 10 14 23 13-18 17 21 20 28 l 24 August 5 August 3 August 1 August 6 14 7 4 13 10 - 8 17 11 l 21 15 l 20 l l' X (SE) number of rotations perisample: 5.3(0.5) 5.4(0.4) 5.6(0.3) 5.0(0.5) ll l l l 12

f T ;...x - Table 2. f Dissolved oxygen,' salinity and temperature of water in survival l pools.- F = data taken on day pool was' filled, E = data taken approximately 24 h later, on the day the pool was emptied. All . data are presented as X 1 1 SE. Screen . Dissolved Oxygen (mg L'1) Salinity (ppt) Water Temperature ('C) F E F E F E l: o l" Beauderey 7.6t0.2 5.610.7 14.210.5 13.710.1 25.610.'9 24.5 0.7' FMC dual-speed 6.710.2 3.710.3 14.210.2 13.910.3 -26.410.4 24.710.4 l-Unit l' control 7.610.3 5.910.4 14.210.3 14.lio.3 25.810.4 24.210.4 L l-Unit 2 control 7.1 0.2 4.310.8-14.310.3 13.510.3 25.910.5 24.310.8-1 l l l. l. l-4 13 .- ~

4 + x,- r Table 3. Finfish species collected from experimental and control' screens for the 1986 finfish. survival study at CCNPP. Hogchokers, Tri-nectes maculatus, were also impinged but were not included in the study.- t ' FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME l Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis blueback herring Alosa pseudoharengus alewife Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic-menhaden - Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy Ophidiidae ophidion marginatum striped cusk-eel Batrachoididae~ opsanus tau oyster toadfish Gobiesocidae Goblesox strumosus skilletfish Gadidae Urophycis regia spotted hake r Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon variegatus sheepshead minnow Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis mosquito fish Atherinidae Nenidia menidia Atlantic silverside Syngnathidae Syngnathus fuscus northern pipefish Triglidae Prionotus carolinus northern searobin Percichthyidae Norone saxatilis striped bass l Sciaenidae Menticirrhus americanus southern kingfish Cynoscion regalis weaktish Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout Leiostomus xanthurus spot Bothidae Paralichthys dentatus summer flounder scophthalmus aquosus windowpane Pleuronectidae Pseudopleuronectes americanus winter flounder Soleidae Trinoctes maculatus hogchoker Cynoglossidae Symphurus plagiusa blackcheek tonguefish Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides maculatus northern puffer Blenniidae Chasmodes bosquianus striped blenny Hypsoblennius hentzi feather blenny Gobiidae Gobiosoma bosci naked goby Stromateidae reprilus alepidotus harvestfish 14 ~ 1L 1

a ;,, u.

. 3 h

.y y Table 4a.. Survival rates of finfishes impinged in 1986 on Beauderey screens at CCNPP-Unit 1. . number of-number of individuals i samples on in samples which per-included in Percent survival cent survival calculation of . Species SE* is based ** percent survival i SE t Alosa-aestivalis 0.0 '2 1.0 Anchon mitchilli 6.3 2.8 ~8 6.0 3.4 Anguilla rostrat.1 0.0 3 1.0 Brevoorti< cyrannus 6.2 3.3 7 9.3 1.9 g ' Chasmodes bosquianus 100.0 2 1.0 Cynoscion regalis 31.6 4 4.8 2.2 Gambusia affinis 100.0-2 2.5 0.5 Gobiesox strumosus 100.0 6 3.2 0.8 Gobiosoma bosci 190.0 2 1.0 -Leiostomus xanthurus 45.6 20.6 9 122.3 51.7 Menidia menidia 0.0 4 1.5 0.5 opsanus tau 97.4 1.4 9 8.7 2.1 Paralichthys dentatus 44.4 5 1.8 0.4 Peptilus alepidotus 18.3 2 41.0 12.0 Prionotus carolinus 51.0 1.3 6 277.5 249.0 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 78.8 11.2 3 11.0 2.9 ^Scophthalmus aquosus 100.0 1 1.0' Sphoeroides maculatus 87.5 6 1.3 0.2 Symphurus plagiusa 47.8 3 15.3 12.3 c Syngnathus fuscus 33.3 2 1.5 0.5 Urophycis regia 11.1 4 2.3 0.9 ' Unknown' O.0 1 1.0

• Standard errors for survival rates are calculated for all species represented

= by a total of at least 30 individuals and found in at least 3 samples.

• • The survival rate of a species is calculated using all samples that included at least one individual of that species.

e i 15 l

y 3 4 1 ~ n1 1 u 7.., a Table.4b. Survival-rates of finfishes impinged in 1986 on FMC dual-speed; screens at CCNPP Unit 2. 1 number of number of individuals samples.on in samples which per-included in Percent survival cent survival calculation of Species SE is' based. percent survival i SE ~' Alosa pseudoharengus-0.0 1 1.0 Anchoa mitchilli 0.0 0.0 15 89.6 84.7 Brevoortia tyrannus 0.0 7 1.6 0.2 Chasmodes-bosquianus 89.5 5 3.8 2.6 cynoscion regalis 21.4 7 4.0 1.5 Gambusia affinis 100.0 2 2.5 0.5 Goblesox strumosus 98.6 0.6 12 23.3 13.0 Gobiosoma bosci 93.8 7 2.3 0.6 Leiostomus xanchurus 91.0 4.2 16 22.9 8.3 Menidia menidia 12.5 2 4.0 2.0 Morone snxatilis 100.0 1 1.0 Ophidion marginatum 100.0 2 1.0 opsanus tau. 96.8 1.0 16 25.3 6.6-

Paralichthys: dentatus 89.2 7.1 12 8.3

~7.9 Peprilus alepidotus 36.4 4 2.8 1.4 Prionotus carolinus 38.8 5.1 13 7.9 1.9 ^ Pseudopleuronectes americanus 47.6 11.2 9 7.0 2.5 .Scophthalmus aquosus 0.0 1 1.0 Sphoeroides maculatus 66.7 4 .1. 5 0.3 Symphurus plagiusa 65.2 9.7 15 12.3 4. 71 'Syngnathus fuscus 22.2 6 1.5 0.3 Urophycis regius. 75.0 5 1.6 0.6 16

f.' j s ;<; ~;., i / i.~ + L Table 4c.. Survival rates of finfishes. impinged in 1986 on Unit-1 control. screens at CCNPP. -f number of number of individuals samples on in samples which per-included in Percent-survival cent survival calculation of; ' Species SE is based' percent survival' i SE Alosa aestivalis 17.1 2 58.5 53.5 't Anchoa mitchilli 18.3' 3.6 19 65.8 36.7 Brevoortia tyrannus 12.8 3.4 18 16.9 '10.5 chasmodes bosquinnus 66.7 2 3.0 2.0 cynoscion nebulosus 100.0' 1 1.0 Cyroscion regalis. 26.0 3.4 6 8.3 5.0 Gambusia affinis 100.0' 1 3.0 0.0 Gobiesox strumosus 100.0 0.0 13 4.8 1.2 Gobiosoma bosci 100.0 3 1.7 0.3 Hypsoblennius hentzi 0.0 1 1.0 Leiostomus xanthurus 61.1 5.8 19 99.9 27.3 Menidia menidia 10.7 13 2.2 0.3 Menticirthus americanus 0.0 1 1.0 Ophidion marginatum 0.0 1 1.0 Opsanus tau 96.5 1.5 19 5.9 0.9 - Paralichthys dentatus 35.3 9 1.9 0.5 Poprilus alepidotus 9.3-3.0 4 10.8 9.4 Prionotus carolinus 44.5 8.1 15 23.7 9.6 Pseudopleuronectes americanus ~46.3 '11.6 10 4.1 0.9 Scophthalmus aquosus 40.0 3 1.7 0.7 Sphoeroides maculatus 87.5 7 1.1 0.1 Symphurus plagiusa 45.3 11.1 10 6.4 2.0 Syngnathus fuscus 44.4 5 1.8 0.6 Urophycis regia 35.7 5 2.8-1.1 17 4-

cN: '

• e.
• -le am.

C s.<: Table 4d. Survival ~ rates of finfish impinged in 1986 on Unit 2 control screens-at CCNPP. e number of number of individuals samples on in samples which per-included in Percent survival cent survival calculation of Species SE is based percent survival I S. SE1 .Anchon mitchilli 9.4 3.5 9-3.6 1.3 - > ~ Anguilla rostrata 100.0 i 1 '1.0 - Brevoortia tyrannus. 0.0 6-1.3 0.3 Chasmodes bosquianus 100.0 1 1.0. ) Cynoscion nebulosus 0.0 1 1.0 i Cynoscion regalis 100.0 2.4 3.8 3 13.7 11.2 j Cyprinodon variegatus i 1 1.0 Goblesox strumosus 91.7 6 4.0 1.1 Gobiosoma bosci-91.7 3 4.0 1.5L 4 l - Leiostomus xnnthurus 82.9 6.6 7 5.0 ' 2.2 Nenidia menidia 0.0 3 1.0 Ophidion marginatum' 50.0 2 1.0 opsanus. tau 94.6 1.7 9 18.7 7.5 Paralichthys dentatus 75.0 3 1.3 0.3 =Peptilus alepidotus 0.0 l 1 1.0 Prionotus carolinus 35.9 7 18.3 11.3 i 'Pseudopleuronectes americnnus 90.8 5.5 4 16.3 10.3- ) stmphurus plagiusa 56.3 7.0 6 11.8 6.5 { Syngnathus fuscus 75.0 4 1.0 l Urophycin regia 100.0 1 4.0 0.0 l l I i L .i i ^ 18

v l. ~' ? 8. ' .. y ' Table. 5.. Statistical comparisons of Lsurvival rates of finfish impinged in 1986 on a) Beauderey and control screens and b) FMC dual-speed and control screens. Only samples that contained at least four. individuals of the species of interest are included in means or' statistical compari-sons.. Mean survival rates represent averages of the percent sur-vival' calculated for'all samples containing >4 individuals of that species. a.. A percent survival (number of samples) Beauderey combined Species screens controls F p>F j Brevoortia tyrannus 7.8(7) 5.0(8) 0.67 0.427 Leiostomus xanthurus 41,2(9) 70.4(18) 6.52 0.017 l opsanus. tau 100.0(7)- 95.4(19) 0.38 0.542 Prionotus carolinus 44.4(6) 48.5(14) 1.65 0.216 b. i percent survival _3 (number of samples) ~ FMC dual-speed combined Species-screens controls F p>F Anchoa mitchilli 0.0(8) 9.8(16) 8.46 0.008 Gobiesox strumosus 97.4(7) 100.0(11) _2.71 0.119 Leiostomus xanthurus 84.5(9) 70.4(18) 3.89 0.060 opsanus tau 97.3(14) 95.4(19) 2.38 0.133 Prionotus carolinus 45.9(9) 48.5(14) 0.06 0.808 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 53.2(4) 65.1(7) 'O.67 0.435 Symphurus plagiusa 80.7(9) 56.2(10) 0.46 0.507 7 1 19

= y= 7 n ' a c  : - \\ 4 "' 1e ' Table 6a-d. Total lengths.of,finfish collected for the finfish survival study at CCNPP, June-August. 1986. (n = nt:mber of fish measured in each category.) I a) Beauderey Screens Total Length;(cm). Live Individuals Dead Individuals ELOE Individuals' Species 5 SE' n 5 SE .n 5-SE a Alosa aestivalis 0 5.3 0.8' 2 0 Anchoa mitchi11i 5.8 0.3 3 7.1 0.1 42 0 j Anguilla rostrata 0 33.5 10.6 3 0 Brevoortia tyrannum 16.0 0.8 4 17.6 0.5 61 0 chasmodes bosquianus 7.5 0.5 2 0 O cynoscion regalis 11.7 2.4 6 '9.4 1.5' 12 7.0 1 Gambusia affinis 4.3 0.2 5 .0 0-Gobiesor strumosus 4.1 0.3 19 0 O. Gobiosoma bosci 5.0 1.0' 2 0 0 Leiostomus xanthums - 9.0 0.3 121 10.2 0.2 181 11.5 1.0 5 Menidia menidia 0 9.4 1.0 6 0 opsanus tau 12.2 0.8 76 6.5 0.5 2 0-Para 1ichthys dentatus 11.9 2.4. 4 22.6 3.9 5 0 Peprilus alepidotus 7.4 0.2 12 1.1 0.1 59 O Prionotus carolinus 11.2 0.2 59 11.6 0.1 92 11.5 0.6-3 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 6.9 0.2 2i 8.4 1.4 7 '0 Scophthalmus aquosus 4.5 1 0 0 Sphoeroides maculatus 13.0 1.2 7 5.5 1 0 Symphums plagiusa 11.6 0.3 22 11.4 0.3 24' 0 Syngnathus fuscus 16.5 1 17.0 1.5 2- .O. Urophycis regia 12.5 1 15.9 0.5 8 O Unknown Fish 0 18.5 1 0 e

x L ~_~ 3 lv=9= pcx y a m ..c .# ~ 5 ' _q : q g, 7, Table 6a-d (continued). Total lengths of"finfish' collected for.the finfish' survival study'at CCNPP. (n =; y number of fish measured in'each category.) b) FMC Dual-Speed' Screens Total; Length (cm). Live Individuals 1)ead Individuals LOE Individuals Species E SE n 5 SE n i SE n-Alosa pseudoharengus 0 4.0 1 0 Anchoa mitchilli 0 6.6 0.1 94 0 Brevoortia tyrannus 0 16.6-1.7 11 0 Chasmodes bosquianus 5.0 0.4 17 6.3 1.3 2 ~ 0 Cynoscion regalis 4.8 0.3' 6 4.5 0.2 22 0 M Gambusia affinis 4.1 0.2 5 0 0 Gobiesox strumosus 4.2 0.1 100 4.3 0.7 4 0 Gobiosoma bosci .4.7 0.3 15 6.5 1 'O Leiostomus xanthurus 11.2 0.2 163 11.3. 0.7 33 0 Menidia menidia 0 8.9 0.9 8 0 Morone saxatilis 17.5 1 0 0 Ophidion marginatum 15.5 0.5 2 0 0-opsanus tau 10.8 0.4 2 6.9 0.3 0 0 Para 1ichthys dentatus 19.5 1.0 223 25.6 4.4 8' 0 Peptilus alepidotus 7.4 0.3 33 6.6 0.6 4-O Prionotus carolinus 11.6 0.2 4 11.7 0.2 8 13.0 1.0-0- Pseudopleuronectes americanus 1.2 0.4 30 7.0 0.2 .32 20.0 1 Scophthalants aquosus 0 9.5 1 O sphoeroides maculatus 11.8 2.5 4 11.3 1.3 2 0 Symphurus plagiusa 11.9 0.2 98 11.2 0.2 62 11.5 0.0 2 syngnathus fuscus 20.0 0.0 2 16.8 1.3 7 0 Urophycis regia 16.8 1.1 7 16.5 1 0- + ~

..,s m., 4 V w.~ L '. ' - 'i Table 6a-d. -(continued). Total lengths of finfish collected for the finfish survival' study'at CCNPP.. (n = number of fish measured in each category.). c) Unit 1 Control Screens ~ 2 - Tota 1 Length (cm). Live Individuals Dead Individuals LOE Individuals SE : n X SE -n Species X SE n X Alosa aestivalis 4.0 0.0 20-4.1 0.1 .35 0 Anchoa mitchilli 6.5 0.2 33 6.5 0.1 234 6.3 0.3 -9. Brevoortia tyrannus 16.3 0.8 26-15.1 0.4 135 '0: chasmodes bosquianus 4.0 0.5 4 5.0 2.0 2 O l cynoscion nebulosus 6.0 1 0 0 N cynoscion regalis 5.5 0.9 13 7.0 0.8 36 0.5 1 5 Gambusia affinis 3.8 0.2 3 0 0 Gobiesor strumosus 4.3 0.2 64 .0 ~0 Gobiosoma bosci 5.1 0.4 5 0 0 Hypsoblennius hentzi 0 8.5 1 0 Leiostomus xanthurus 9.7 -0.2 319 8.7 0.2 230 8.2 1.0 6-Menidia menidia 6.8 0.7 3 10.5 0.4 25 0 Menticirthus americanus 0 32.0 1 0 Ophidion marginatum 18.9 1 0 0: opsanus tau 11.2 0.6 109 7.0 0.5 4 -0. Para 1ichthys dentatus 17.9 4.1 6 23.5-2.5 11. 0 Peprilus alepidotus 6.3 0.4 3 .6.8 0.2 31 0 Prionotus carolinus 11.2 0.2 101 11.4 0.1 132 13.0 1 Pseudopleuronectos americanus-8.9 1.4 17 8.5 0.8 21 '0 Scophthalmus aquosus -8.8 4.3 2 9.8 0.3 3 0 Sphoeroides maculatus 14.2 1.1 7 4.5 1 O Symphurus plagiusa 11.7 0.2 29 10.5-. 0.2 35 0' Syngnathus fuscus 17.3 0.6 4 -16.3 2.2 5 0 Urophycis regia 15.5 0.6 5 16.4 0.7 9 0-e .h- ..y.9 g. G- .gg.,. ..yn 3 a mm sm-. ,w c. 4 -r ,y.g-.

s. c+ . ~gg:v - p h. ^ [ - idy y ~ 7, : a... .-,g ~ ~ Q;n.q

.?

Table 6a-d. (continued).. Total lengths of finfish collected for the finfish survival ' study at CCNPP.- (n = number of fish measured in each category.). ~ d) Unit 2' Control Screens Total Length (cm) Live Individuals. Dead Individuals LOE Individuals-Species 5 SE n 5 SE n- .5 'SE - n l Anchoa mitchilii 7.3 0.4 -3 7.1 0.1 29 ^ - 0 Anguilla rostrata 8.5 i 1 0 _0 Brevoortia tyrannus 0 16.0 2.0 - 8 -0: Chasmodes bosquianus 6.0 1 0 .D' Cynoscion nebulosus~ 0 6.5 1 0 y Cynoscion regalis 6.0 - 1 4.1 0.2 29 0 Cyprinodon variegatus 4.0 1 0 ^- 'O cobiesox strumosus 4.4 0.2 -22 4.5 0.0 2 0 Gobiosoma bosci 4.9 0.3 11 6.0 1 0 Leiostomus ranthurus 9.4 0.5 29 6.8 0.8 6 0 Menidia menidia 0 10.2 6.2 3 0 l Ophidion marginatum 18.0 1 17.0 1 0-I opsanus tau 9.5 0.5 113 7.2. 0.3 8 9.0-1 Para 1ichthys dentatus 18.7 3.1 3 19.0 'l 0 Peptilus alepidotus 0 6.5 1 0 - 4 Prionotus carolinus 10.6 0.3 42 11.5 0.1 48 0 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 8.1 0.5 ' 38 7.5^ 0.4' 6 0 Symphurus plagiusa 10.8 0.2 35 10.7 0.2 31 ^ 0 Syngnathus fuscus 15.8 3.6 3 -15.5 1 0 Urophycis regia 17.3 0.7 4 0 0 _...__.m_, .m . m.

s.a o' $ j. Table 7a-b. Results of t-tests comparing sizes of finfish topinged in 1986 on experimental and control screens at CCNPP. (B = Beauderey, i C = control screens, D = FMC dual-speed screens.) 1 a. Beauderey Screens vs. Controls Screen type impinging individuals Species p>t with largest average size Anchoa aftchilli 0.001* B Brevoortia tyrannus 0.001 B Cynoscion regalis 0.003* B Gobiesor strusosus 0.538 Leiostomus xnnthurus 0.025 B opsanus tau 0.022* B Peprilus alepidotus 0.008 B Prionotus carolinus 0.201 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 0.047* C Symphurus plagiusa 0.008 B b. FMC Dual-Speed Screens vs. Controls I Screen type impinging individuals Species p>t with largest average size Anchoa mitchilli 0.756 Brevoortia tyrannus 0.330 cynoscion reg? tis 0.011* C 00biesox strumnsus 0.389 Gobiosoma bosci 0.570 Leiostomus xanthurus 0.001 D Opsanus tau 0.345 Paralichthys dentatus 0.658 l Peprilus alepidotus 0.732 Prionotus carolinus 0.012 D l Pseudopleuronectes neericnnus 0.048* C Symphurus plagiusa 0.001 D

• Approximate t-tests were used where variances were significantly heterogeneous (SAS Institute, 1982),

r.a l I e I L 24 ~ ~.

? ?0, o '. - ' i ,4 Table 8. Number of finfish and blue crabs impinged per hour in 1986 on experimental and control screens at CCNPP. a) Unit 1, b) Unit 2. (ns = p>0.05) a a. Beauderey vs. Unit 1 Control Screens 5 i i SE number of individuals impinged per hour-Species Beauderey screens Control screens t or approximate t p>t Anchoa mitchilli 5.811.6 1.610.5 2.45t 0,019 Leiostomus xanthurus 18.413.6 7.112.0 2.731 0.009 Opsanus tau 5.911.7 1.510.7 2.44f 0.019 Prionotus carolinus 14.014.1 10.116.0 0.53t 0.600 ns Trinectes maculatus 98.4154.2 17.516.6 1.48t 0.140 ns All finfish 151.3155.3 39.1110.1 2.00f 9.054 caliinectes sapidus 39.014.6 26.414.1 2.06 0.043 u us b. FMC Dual-speed vs. Unit 2 Control Screens 5 i 1 SE number of individuals impinged Per hour Seecies FMC dual-speed screens Control screens t or approximate t p>t Anchoa mitchilli 4.111.5 0.810.3 2.Ilt 0.044 Leiostomus xanclurrus 5.811.2 2.710.9 2.I8 0.033 Opsarnas tau 3.010.9 0.710.2 2.461 0.020 Prionotus carolinus 7.912.2 1.710.6 2.75t 0.010 Triswetes maculatus 15.813.8 8.612.9 1.53 0.132 as All finfish .41.416.7 15.713.6 3.351 0.002 caIIinectes sapidus 25.613.3 19.613.8 1.17 0.246 ns

• Approximate t-tests were used where variances were significantly heterogeneous (SAS Institute,1982).

gr y iy gi 4 c-p w - m v vr"-my S. ei, -m--=-'- q,- .,--gy -p.w-g.w}}