ML20079N100

Demonstration Under Section 316(b) of Clean Air Act, Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3

ML20079N100
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/30/1979
From:	LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NUDOCS 9111110079
Download: ML20079N100 (167)

Text

-.

y 10DISIANA POWER & LIGHT Dernonstration Unrier Section 316 b) of the Cleari Water Act I,

~

s WATERFORD STEAM hSTRIC STAllHN

• UNITMls.3 gpa ~";;,

_ pyw

s . .-

O L

14UISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IEMONr7L TION UNDER SECTION 316(b) 0F Ti!E CLEAN WAIIR ACT h WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC ST/IION UNIT NO. 3 O

April, 1979

)

w s

}

TABLE OF CONTENTS k Page

1.0 Purpose and Scope

1-1 2.0 Introduction 2-1 3.0 Site and Plant Description s 3-1 3.1 Site Locatioa 3-1 3.2 Meteorology 3-1 33 Hydrology 3-1 3.4 Ecology of the Mississippi River 34 O 3.5 Pre-Existing Environmental Stresses 3-12 3.6  % c Waterford 3 Circulating Water System 3-14 4.0 Biological Community impact Potential 4-1 2

4.1 Phytoplankton 4-1 4.2 Zooplankton 4-1 4.3 Sht.11 fish /Mac roinve rtebrates 4-2 4.4 Fish 4-2 5.0 Entrainment Effects 5-1 5.1 Stresses During Entrainment 5-1 O

O '^$'t or co"'t"'s (ce t'd)

P_,yg 5.2 Waterford 3 Entrainment Effects 5-2 6.0 Impingement Effects 6-1 6.1 Introdiaction 6-1 ,

6.2 Factors Affecting the Analysis of Impingement 6-2 6.3 General Methodology for Prediction of Impingement 6-3 ,

k 6.4 Prediction of Impingement at Waterford 3 6-9 6 . *, The Effect on the Mississippi River of Impingement u 19 by Waterford 3 Appendix A - Methods - Preoperational Environmental Monitorins Program O

. I

\

O 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 the Waterford 3 Site 3-3 Monthly Water Temperature Data from tne Mississippi River near Westwego, Louisiana (1931-1969) 3-4 Sediment Concentrations in tne Mississippi Riser at tuling Ferry, Louisiana O 3-$ Sampling Stations for Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program for Surface Waters 3-6 Species List of Phytoplankton Collected in tne Mississippi River in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 From June 19/J to September 19/6 3-7 Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Col-

• 1ected in the Mississippi River in the Waterford Vicinity from June 19/J through May 19/4 (Year I) 3-8 Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Col-1ected in the Mississippi River-in the Waterford Vicinity from Juno 19/4 through February 19/5 (Year II)

O

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table Title 3-9 Average Phytoplankton Densities in Samples Collected in the Mirsissippi River in the Waterford Vicinity from October 19/> through Sept.mber 19/6 (Year III) 3-10 Zooplankton Collected tu the Vicinity ot Waterford 3 from June 19/3 through September 19/6 3-11 Average Densities, Numbers per M3 , of Dominant Zooplankton Taxa in Samples Collected in the Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-12 Average Zooplankton Densities, Number per 3

M , by Station by Date in Samples Collected in the Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-13 Species of Fish Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 April 19/3 through September 1976 3-14 Total Numbers and Weights or Fish Collected by All Gears During Years I, II, and III, in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-15 Total Numbers and Weights of Fish Collected per Unit Effort Each Monch During Years I, 11, 111 in the Vicinity ot Waterford 3 3-16 Average Number and Weight per Unit Eftort of Representative Species of Fish Collected Each Month During Years I, II, Ill in the Vicinity of Waterford 3

+

O LIST OF TABLEj (Cont'd)

Table Title 3-17 Total Number and Weight of All Fish Species Captured per Unit Effort At Each Station During Years I 11, 111 in the Vicinity ot

-Waterford 3-18 Friedman's Two-way Anaipsis of Variance; Testing the Null Hypothesis (H O) Equal Catch / Effort at 5 Waterford Stations (Year 1) 3-19 Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null Hypothesis (H O} '9""

O. Catch / Effort at 5 Waterford Stations (Year III) 3-20 Habitats, Spawning Areas, Migration Routes and Foods of Some Fish Spacies Present in the Vicinity or Vaterford 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 i

in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 3-23 Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance; Tr. sting the Null Hypothesis (HO ) f Eqos11ty

() of Ichthyoplankton Concentrations (Number per Cubic !!eter) at 5 Waterford Stations During Year III

_ ,,____-u- . _ _ _ _ - . - . _ _ - . . - - - . - - - -

5 i

O LIST SF TABl.E5 I (Cont'd)

Table Title 3-24 Commercial Catches from Mississippi River  !

between Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the Mouth of River, 19/1-19/>

3-2S Velocities in Circulating Water System 3-26 Average Velocities and Travel Times in Circu- t lating Water System 3-27 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Summer Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford J 5-1 Estimatad Phytoplankton Entrainment by Waterford 3 5-2 Estimated Average Number ot Zooplankton Entrained by Waterford 3 4

5-3 Estimated Ichthyoplankton Entrainment by Waterford 3 5-4 Percen*. ot Mississippi River _ Flow Entrained by Waterford 3 l

l l

i-t O

g,ct g rr > c ,gnyiegnw'- 7re-g>w dey. 9gw M w 4. 9.qm--uwdr-m 's 1yy.m yetfi g ye e wM M -ig qw w++N -mM-t*vige e- y n.e g -g yy 9 g a by ef tw?w-t=?---grg<Wt--+gma-m+prW+WM- c e'y *-prt-p --s-'-r-yb 'W g W m99- DwWWTwY

O 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 Toi Impingement 6-4 Estimated Number of Organisms to be_ Impinged at Waterford 3 6-5 Economic Costs of Predicted Impingement by Waterford 3

9 0

0 WC . - - - - - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . - _ . _ . -_--_.--__-____mm__

O LIS*/ OF FIGUF;ES Figure Title 3-1 The kegion Within 10 miles of Waterford 3 3-2 Waterferd 3 Site and Nearby Structures 3-3 Mississippi River Flow Duration Curve

?-4 Mississippi River Cross-Section at Littic Gypsy Generating Station 3-5 Monthly Variation in Water Temperature in the Mississippi Ri"er Near St Francisville.

LA (1954-1968) 3-6

() Duration Curve of Suspended-Sediment Con-e.entration Mississippi P.1ver at Red River Landing, LA (1949-1963)-

3-7 Sampling Areas in the Mississippi River near m

Waterford 3 3-8 Waste Sources in the Lower Mississippi River-3-9 Circulating Water System Ga.neral Plan-

_ 3-10_ _ Circulating Water System-Intake Cans 1--

3-11 Circulating Water System Intake-Structure

,- 3-12 Circulating Water System Discharge Stcucture and Canal' O

_ _, . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ ' " " ^ ^ ^ ' ' '

i O LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) ficure Title t 6-1 Location of Electric Generating Facilities Included in the impingement Analysis 6-2 Number of Fish and Crustaceans impinged per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 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 callons of Water Entrained O 6-5 Average Number of Gizzards & Threadfin Shad Impinged-per 100,000 callons of Water Entrained, Relative to Impingement of Other Species 6-6 Average Number of Blue Catfish Impinged per 100,000 L

Gallons of Water Entrained 7 Average Number of Channel Catfish Impinged per 100,000 Gallons of Wata.r Entrained 6-8 _

Average Number of Freshwater _ Drum Impinged per'100,000 Gallons of' Water Entrained 6-9 Average Number of River Shrimp. impinged per 100,000

. Gallons of Water Entrained 6 Fishing Districts of Louisiana

_m_. _ , _ ..__m_ _.-

m, - - - ,- --

--..,y- , . ~ - - - -

gyy,m-,a_,, --

s  !

I I '

4 6

J -I.

i e ,

~

l r

i 1 I

I k

4 -  ;

a >

I

, -L

.1 9

- Y s, ,

L 7

t e

SECTION 1 i i

k t

s

! b

! +

l l

l l

1 i

.I r

l e

i

'wk'v-fweit Ww w *_ _ M w 'euwwwwM aule u revdM etar'n w@ r __ ,,wwp&W, ,.. W y'Ni'sW 99 Y Pf 9*@W E="aW W Wh f 6'1 TM r'qWMMM MMMTN

1 i

l i

4 l

O 10 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1

i

, 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 Qr minimizing adverse environnental impact.

This document is submitted by Louteiana Power & Light Company to demon-strate its compliance with this reqairement 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 oiscussed, 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.

i O F

W t

1 I-1

.:. - . -~.---.:.-.-.....----.,,-....-._-..--..-,.-.--,-..,..,.....-,-._,,..-..-.-

O SECTION 2 O ~

4 0

Y i - -

, , , , , , , , .. .,i .

O 2.0 INTRODUC7'.ON Ine Waterf ord Steam tiectric Station, Unit No. 3, owned by the Louisiaua 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. 31-rectly across the Mississippi River from Waterf ord 3 is Louisiena 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 f or Waterf ord 3 filed pursuant to 40 CFR 125 with the U S Environmental Protection Agency.

Pegion V1, on October 16 , 1978. The report evaluates the Waterford 3 Cir-culating Water Syr em and demonstrates that this system complies with the requirements of t a 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 extsting information on the biological communities of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 and predicts the entrainment and impingement ef fects 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 chermal analysis and biological monitoring have also been prepared (Ebasco,1974), (LP&L,1972), (Geo-Marine,1977).

Entrainment ef fects for Waterford 3 are predictea by comparison of the ratios lof river flow to water use. Impingement e*timates are based on those described in the literature for other plants on the Mississippi.

O 2-1

'I i

a Ohio and Missouri Rivers, site-specific tmseline monitoring results, and impingement mortality estimates from existing cooling water intakes in the vicinity of Waterford 3.

5 O

O 2-2

.- -- _ .. - . _ - -.. - -. . - - . ~ ~.. . - - - -. _ . - -- ..-.-_.. - .

i O cir^r'o><s - secrtor< 2 1

1. Ebssco Services, Inc., 1974 *Waterford Steam Electric Station, Sum- )

eary of Hydrologic Studies Performed in the Mississippi River for Louisiana Power & Light ~.

1

2. Geo-Marine, Inc.,1977 'Pirst Operational Hydrothermal Study, Water- I ford S.E.S.", Sept-Oct, 1976. Conducted for Louisiana Power & 4 Light Co. I

, 3. Louisiana Power & Light Company,1972 Environniental Report -

Construction Permit Stage, for Vaterford Stesa Electric Station.

Unit 3.

C 4

O  :

+

1 l

l l

I b b

O l

,,ev.,-3.,, . . ,%,mv,nm, og aac'e " *" " * '

b.i A O

h l

SECTION 3 O

3.0 SITE AND PLANT DESCRIPTION This section contains information concerning the environmental character-1stics of the area surrounding Waterford 3, as well as a description of the Circulating Vater 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.

• 1 2iana. The site is in the north- i weste.*n section of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, near the towns of K111ona and Taft. The Mississippi River is the most prominent natural water body near Waterford 31 other importent natural features include Lac des Alle-mends, about 5.5 miles southwest of the site, and Lake Pentchartrain, about 7 milec northeast of the site. Figure 3-1 shows the area withia 10 miles of Watet.'ord 3.

O Waterferd 3 ts 1ecated adaacent te the Waterferd 1 and 2 enerseine statien and directly across the Mississippi River from the Little Gypsy generating station. The Watetford 3 site and plot plaf- .rith major station structures is shown in Figure 3-2.

3.2 METEOROLOGY Table 3-1 pres 5nts a summary of monthly and annual average metecrologic31 data for the site area. Mean temperatures range froe. 33.60F in January to 79.8 F in July. Average annual precipitation at New Orleans is $3.9 inches, varying from an average of 2.84 inches in October to 6.72 inches in July.

3.3 ilYDROLOGY Of tne regional surface water hydrologic characte:ristics, the flow regime of the 1ower 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

() ratterns, and thermal characteristics are important.

3.3.1 TLOW v0Lt NI IN Tile 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 art 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 annust discharge is 494,000 cis. Flood season is from mid December to July, and typically, flows are generally above the mean f rom February to June, and below thm 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 vears of combined monthly data

() from Tarbert Landing and Red River Landing, sSoud the percent of the time that various tiver flows are exceeded. This figure indicates th;.L. for approximately 85 percent of the time, flows are abo.e 200,000 cfs. 7t.is is a typical low flow, which is estimated to occur about every four years during the summer and fall seasons. If all conths of the year are consid-ered, the typics1 low flow would have a recurrence interval of about 6.7 years. Thia flow may be compared to seasonal average flows which have been calculated to be 580,000, 650,000, 280,000 and 240,000 cIs 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 ot the bottom, in this reach of the Mississippi, is approximately -119 f t MSL. Bathymetry for the Mississippi River in.the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site is prenented in Figure 3-4.

3-2 O

4

________._____m_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .

3.3.4 RIVER CURRENT AT Tile WATERFORD 3 SITE The 39 year average current velocity calculated at the Waterford 3 site in 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-sections 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 T}4ERNAL CilARACTERISTICS Temperatures in the Mississippi River below St Francisv111e 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 O

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 81ves 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 sita decreases with increasing distance downstreau (LP&L, 197E).

O 3-3

- - __ -___._____..___m_____.__mn-__ _

3.4 ECOLOGY OF THE MISSISSlPPI RIVER The Mississippi P,1ver is a highly turbid waterbody, with high current ve -

locity and low habitat diversity. The productivity of the system 1 i limited by light penetratioa and the high suspended solids cca.

• ton, j r

as well as the stability and habitability of the substrate. The Miss!"

sippi River food chain is considered to te de t rital based, be cause phyt o-plankton occur in low densities and do not seem to be the major energy }

source that they constitute in ane lake-like environments. This to typa

• ical of larger southeastern and midwestern rivers.

In April,1973, the Waterf ord 3 F.nvironmental 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 characteriring the site area. Five sampling stations repre-senting low-current, soft-bottomed, shallow areas, mid high-current , dense

~

clay sediment areas, were established between River Miles 132 and 126, as O swewe i rism< 2-7. <^ sixtw stattee was e< r estiswed te <sPtace a# earti-er station in the avcond year of sampling). i description of the sampling areas is presented in Table 3-5. 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 Wacerford 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 af f ected due to river water withdrawal by Water-ford 3. These are phy toplankt on zooplankton macroinvertebrates O -

fish and ichthyoplankton 3-4

)

3.4.1 PHYTOPLANKTON O

in the lower Mississippi River, turbidity, turbulence and suspended solids limit the productivity of the primary producers (e.g. phytoplankton). High river suspene d 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) algse production are rare.

'herefore, production of "tychoplankton" (ie, algae which find their way l

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 estirates 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 Waterfntd 3 site it. 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. Aru.y Corp. of Eng.1976), (Bryan, et al,1973).

l 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 f median (50th percentile) densities were 260 and 150 cells /cm , 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 /c'n3 in some lakes which have been studied.

O 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-pies of zooplankton taken near the Waterford site. In view of the large number of rotifers sampled elsewhere in the lower Miusissippi River, (Bry-an, et al,1973) and the small mesh-sized net normally required to sampin 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 relaeively 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. Cal-braith (1967) found that yellow perch and rainbow trout usually f6d 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 1.arger sizes. Allan (1974) reported that yellow perch were most interested in orey 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 zooplank*on as forage for the fish community near Vaterforf.

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. Zoorlankton are generally regarded to be an impor-tant component of quiet water systems. Zooplankton were reported to range 3-6

3 between 2000 and 24,000/m , 2000 and 55,000/m3, and 200,000/m3 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 3

be 28,000/m , 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 Cull Lake, Michigan: Cranberry Lake, New York; and Lake George, New York were 6,000 to 13,000/m 3

, 20,000 to 26,000/m3 and 3

15,000/m respectively. In cor.trast to these reported values, average annuc1 rooplarkton densities at Waterford 3 did not exceed 2500/m3 and the average monthly density over all stations, as shown in Table 3-12 did 3

not exceed 3500/m .

3.4.3 PELACIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES Tne river shrimp, Macrobrachium ohione, has been consistently found in high i numbers at tne Waterford site during the Environmental Surveillance Program and during impingement sampling at Waterford 1 and 2 (Epsey-Huston, 1977).

Both females "in berry" and decaped larvae, probably river shrimp, were ob-served during the Wateirford 3 sampling program indicating that spawning takes place near the site.-

3.4.4 FISH AND ICHTHY 0 PLANKTON 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, pe: I hr electrofishing ef fort) is :given in Table , 3-15 and 3-16. The number and weigh of the

' dominant fish and all ff,h captured per unit effort during each year, at each statiren utilized, s 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 collectiens during Years 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 fit.h caught per unit ef fort 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 twn 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 year, blue catfish were in low abundance throughout the year.

The number of threadfin shad caeght 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 o! 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 uis, 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 weti considered independent trials and the stations were considered treatmentt. 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 (Taole 3-18 and 3-19). Again, che 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 dif f erence in fish abundance between stations in the river near Vaterford, or that differences could not be detected from the samples taken.

I'hermal dats suggest that sampling station At expirienced, during Year III, elevated temperatures due to Waterford 1 and 2. However, the applica-tion of Friedman's test to data from this station suggests that it did no.

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 A g was 4

examined using the sign test (Stagel, 1956). Catch per unit effort for Year I was subtracted from that for Year III at Station A for each of the five common species. Given that no difference between Years I and III existed, the occurren e of plus and minus signs ware equally likely. These signs did orm in approximately equal numbers, suggesting no dif f er-ence in the gecodance of common species between Year I and IIII that is the hypothesis of no difference between Years I and III could not be reject.d at accepted levels of significance.

In summary, significant differences in the distribution of dominant fish species among stations within years could not be d.stected. The relation-Catch per unit ship between statiens did not vary between Years I and III.

affort at Station A was g

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 Miscissippi 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, t v t trera- ots <

O S . etc). ti itea ===> er e tri w > e we

_ _3-9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ]

species that may be capable cf spawning in this pot ' ion of the river in-clude freshwater drum, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, river carpaucker and shipjack herring. However, the spawning hahn a appears not to be optimal even for these species. This is supported by the low ichthyoplankton densities found.

Average densities for all stations ranged from a low of 0.002/m to3 0.106/ ,

3 m 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 I variation by station in total ichthyoplinkton 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 nor differ sig-nificantly. Therefore, these data indicated no significant spatial dif-ferences in ichthyoplankton densities in the Mississippi in the Waterford vicinity.

O At St. Francisv111e, 1.ouisiana, 10 species of ichthyoplankton were found to be common in the Mississippi River mainstem. These included Dorosoma sp j (March - July), Cyprinus yapio_ (May - August), poxomis sp (April - June) and Aplodinotus grunniens- and Hybopsis sp. Ichthyoplankton were found only in the mainstem. Donsities during May, June and early July are ranged from 0.5 to 0.9/m 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, freshvater catfish, freshwater drum and gar. The commercial catches from the Miesissippi River from Baton Rouge to the mouth are shown in Table 3-24 (it. oot.1 pounds and dollar values) for the period 1971 to 1975. This

.information shows that freshwater-catfish had the highest dollar value of '

3-10 m . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . -

- _ _ - - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . ~ . _ , . , . _ - , _ . . _ _

k'ihe [

h .. - -

ve i- _

h-; $, Y $er+s .

%t nu s .. ,.

h'c #-

/

C .;

TY a

41 *t.cial species, reaching a high of S401,903 in 1975. The only com-mercial species which were com'non in the Waterford area ere the freshwater

' , 'M # ~ g h .' c Atfish and f resh';ater drum. Co:ve rcial catches of river shrirop in the p lowe- Misslos.;pi River f rom 1971 to 1975 are shown (Table 3-24) to have ranged trom 900 t o 4,200 pounds to be valued f rom $297 to $2,940.

3.4.4.4 Sport Fisheries N Fish sought by sport fishercen in the River Bend crea of the Mississippi River incluc'; blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catiish, white bass, ye nw bas s, waite crappie , saager and freshwater drum (U S Atomic Energy Coamtss!on, 1974). Although all thet.3 species are present in the Water'ord area, the only enes that can be considered common (more than 200 collect.ed during any sampl.ag yetr during the '.!aterford study) are blue catfish and freshwat%r drum. Largemouth bass, another valued sport fish, was collected ,

only occasionally during the Watet ford 3 Er vironaental 5s.rveillance Program.

3.4s4.5 Endangered Species

. of the fish species actually found in the area Sled in the Water-fora s*.udy, or expected to be present in the Waterf -i a se, are incluced in the Jc.nuary 1979 Fish and Wildlife Service's Lis: '

tdc.gered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USDI, 1979).

There are sov, species which vere found d i the Wsterf ord area which may be considered loca.ly rare, or whose number have been recently decreasing.

There include the pallid sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeo.. and paddlefish. The Louisi.ena kild.'.ife and Flaheries Commissior (1977) has indicated, however, that the shovelnose sti.rgeon and paddlefish are stil.~. elatively common in the State of Louisiana. Of the species listed by Miller (1972) as threat-eaad and/or rare in the "e .e of Louisiar s, only the brown bullhead, pallid sturgeon and sucker:sout; minr.0" were founr* in tae 9aterford area. However, the s.tekermouth minnov and arown bullhead do nor appear to t,e endangerad when their entire range, and not just the State of Louisiana, is con-gi sidered.

W- 3-11 i

)

l

_. . ~ . - - -. a

E 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, st *'ared areas, smaller streams, backwaters, areas of aquatic vege-tation, or over gravel and sand bottoms. The only abundant (A), commercial (C), , port (S), or threatened (T) species that might spawn over the clay or mud su'istrate in the waters found in the vicinity of the Waterford area are >c threadfin shad (A), gizzard shad (A) and possibly blue catfish (C). These were the most abundant groups of ich-hyoplankton captured during the Water-ford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program.

Based on the length distribution of the abundant, commercial, sport or threatened fish species c711ected in the Waterford crea, it would apptar that blue catfish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad and threadfin shad juven-iles utilize the area as a nursery area during specific times of the year.

F Life history iaf ormation on spot - (3), commercial (C), abundant (A), or threatened (T) species in the Waterford area suggests that some -*cies may undertake spring or summer migrations through the Waterford area.

Thess. include longnose car '~', gizzard shad (A), bigmouth buffalo (C),

channel ca' ' tsh (N. and striped muliet (A). Actual data collected in the Waterfard crea indicated, however, that longnose gar and bigmouth buffalo apparent.ly do not pass though the area in sizeable nunbers.

Comparison o' Waterford data to other studies of fishery resources in the

[ lower Mississippi River and fish collected in the area, suggests that the N Mississippi River at Waterford is not unique fish habitat.

3.5 Pre-Existing Environmental Stresses The populations of aquatic organisms in the lower Mississippi River appaar l to be limited mainly by the poor spawning _ habitats and the effects of high 4K turbidity, high concentrations of total suspended solids, high current F

velocities, and fluctuating water levels.

b

=

g 12

=

-- - - ___ --.--.. -.-- ,.m..

L The high turbidities (49-625 JTU durirg the Waterford study) restrict phy-

[ toplankton and periphyton growth due to very limited light penetration.

g Productivity of the phytoplankton is further limited by the high turbulence I

and mixing in the Mississippi, which may prevent phytoplankton from re-maining in the :one of light penetration for sufficient lengths of time to effectively photosynthesize. High concentrations of taspended solids (reaching values as high as 345 ppm in the Waterford study) and high cur-rent velocities (2.78 to 7.01 f pe in the .',pril 1973 to September 1976 study -

g period) result in scouring of f1sh eggs and larvae (in nests or attached to submerged objects), scoum3 of benthic and periphyton communities, clog-ging of fish gills and filter-feeding mechanisms of inve tebrates, and I_ 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 I make it a difficult habitat for fish. (The total river discharge during

[ the Waterford Environmental Surveillance Program t.xcluding those values g 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 aquar.ic organisms in this reach of the Miswi-ssippi include the effects of waste vatt

r discharges. According to a 1969-1971 Environmental Protection Agency study of the lower Mississippi River (US EPA, 1P 2) sixty industrial plants between St. Francisville, Louisiana and Venice, Louisiana (Figure 3-8) discharged wastes containing quantities I of heavy metals and organics into the river.

As a . l* of its unstable substances, high turbidity, high concentrations of suspended solids, high current velocities, and industrial discharges along its banks, the lower Mississippi River mainstreaui wsuld be expected to be an area with relatively low productivity. The Waterford studies seem

_. to support this assumptien of low productivity for cectain cot.sunities.

5 The Waterford Environmental Surveillance Program has found extremely lev concent'itions of phytoplankcon and sttached algae, lov scoplanktoe ir 3-17 I

densities, and an absence of ma:rophytes. 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 rumbers are so low as to make their contribution minimal, although river shrimp (Mac ro-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 Wate.. m struc-ture and operation, including the intake canal, intake strc;;are and discharge structure. Velocities, residence times, and temperature changes are also presented.

The Circulating Water System withdraws water from the river t5ough 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 diacharge structure. The circulat-O ing water is then returned to the river through a discharge canal. A plan view of the system is shown in Figure 3-9. The sratem is a once-thtough 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, ir predicted from this preliminary schedule.

Water is withdrawn fres 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 rpm, which undergo a tcuparature increase of about O 3-14 n . -n -

7.6 F The resultant temperature rise of the combined flow of 1,003,200 gpm is approxis tely 16.1 F. Therefore, during full load and design flow conditions, the circulating coc11ng water discharged to the river is #

an average of approximately 16.1 F ;bove the intake water teoperature.

When-the station is operating, it is anticipated that all four circulating water pumps will be utilized whenever the intake water temp rature exceeds 70 F. This is estimated to occur approximately 34 percent of the. time on an annual basie. 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 tirne, when the intake water temperature ranges between 55 F and 700F.

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 utilizcd. This condition is expected to occur about 30 percent of the time. The flow rate g during this mode is about 62 percent of '.he design flow rate when four pumps are operating , and this mode has a corresponding temperature rise  ;

of approximately 26 F. The temaining 11 percent of tha time, the unit is shut down.

There are no provisions for backflushing or de-icing anywhere within tha Circulating 'hter System.

3.6.2 Intake Canal Wat r 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 erd of the canal, its width is approximataly 37 ft and the bottom elevation is at -35.0 ft.MSL. Average low water leve1 (ALWL) and average high water level (Am(L) in the river are 0.90 ft and 18.60ft MSL. respectively. The cenal width increases uniformly over the first 122 ft oc .ppra.imately 120 ft. That width is maintained over the last 40 ft to the intake strt.cture. The bottom of the canal elopes upwa-d 3-15  !

l

. .__. . _ _-- - --- ------------- -~ >

)

over the first 52 ft to an elevation of -24.0 ft MSL, which is maintained for the remaining llG *t. At the river entrance to the canal, a skimmer vall 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 f t 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. Tc4 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 f t MSL, leaving a clear opening 20 f t high.

Water entering the intake passes through a coarae screen (trash tack) of 1/2 in. diametet bars on six inch centers and ente.s into eight bays, each equipped with a travelling water 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 mest 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 trogh and then sluiced to the river at a point downstream of the Waterford 3 intakt.

3.6.4 Zone of Intake Withdtawal The opening of the intake canal to the river is set at -35.0 f t 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 colucn 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 rater 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. whan stage height is above +16.0 ft, the entire intake cacal sheet piling and 5-16

- _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._ .__ . _ _ i

skimmer wall will be below high water level ( AHWL) of 18 f t. At this h 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 Hirhway 18, and join two reinforced con-crete pipes, with internal diameters of 11 ft. The concrete pipes are in-stalled belnw grade and carry the flow f rom the end of the 11 f t steel 21 pes to the cast-in place, concrete condenser intake block within the T tr-bine P,ilding.

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 g

to the turbine generator. These stainless steel tubes are 51 ft long, one e inch outer diameter and 22 Bwg.

F v1 the cast-in place condenser disenarge block, two,11 f t 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 stee i pipes convey the water from the transi-tion block in the Turbine Btilding, 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 it 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 f t and 11.0 f t. The elevation selected at a given time depends on the Mississipp* River water level. The discharge structure design selected is typica .: 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 stre:ture to the river. The bottem is constructed at elevation -5.0 ft MSL. At t.ne 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 AINL 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 l

l the canal is contracting.

3.5.7 System Velocity and Residence Times Average velocities at selected locations within the intake canal and intake structure have been calculated for high arJ 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 vall at the entrance of the in-take canal, from a maximum of 1.78 feet per second, during operation of all i four pumps, to a minimum of 1.09 feet per second when two pumps are opera-

! ting. The average velocity through the travelling screer.s, based on net

. citar 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-

elling screens.

1 3-18

_ ,_ _ .. ._. _ _ _ - - . _ . _ . ~ . . - . . . . . . _ . - . _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ - . - .

Travs1 times have been calculated .or the various portions of the Circula-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 circe.'.ating water after the addition of heat varies from 330 secondit to 238 seconds at AWL 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 !nereases in the concete-trations in the circulating water are extremely slight when compared to the concentrations occurring in the river, as indicated in Table 3-27.

O 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, i'. 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.

4 O

v 3 - - _ _ _ - - - - . - _

CITATIONS - OLAPTER 3 h 1. Allan, J.D. ,1974 " Balancing Predation and Competition in Cladocerans", Ecology 55: 62 -629.

2. 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 "Secoo l 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 '1I, 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 en Daphnia by

[ 1-10 Rainbcw Trout and Yellow Perch Trans Amer Fish Soc 96 (1):

6. Geo-Marine, Inc.,1979, Personal Communication, Richardson, Texas t

,. Hynes, H.B.N., 1972 ihe Ecology of Running Waters._ Univcesity of Toronto Press.

8. Lane, P., 1975 "The Dynamics of Aquatic Systems: A Comparative Study of the Structure of Four Zooplankton Communit 'es", Ecol Monogr 45: 307-376.

9. Likens, G.E. and J.J . Gilbert. , 1970

• Notes on Quantitative Sampling of Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers". Limnology and Oceenography 15 (5), 817-820.

10. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 1978 Environmental Report _- ,

Operating License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.

I

11. Lyakhnovich, V.P., C.A. Galkovskaia 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-?8 (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 Fisharies Commission, July 7,1977.

14. Siegel S., 1956 donparametric Statistics for the Behavioral (

Sciences. McGra.<-Hill Book Company, Ire.

i _____~_m.___---_.____m__ _ _ _ _ .

i

, CITATIONS - CP. APTER 3 (Cont'd)

() 15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976 " Final Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, 3oeuf, 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. $0-438 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 t,he_ Lower Mississippi River in Louisiana. Dallas, Texas of fice.

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. S., May, 1974.

21. William, A.B., 1965 " Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Caro *ir.aa",

Fishery Bulletin. Volume 65, No. 1.

O T

D O

h _ _.___ _ _______.____m____m___- __..._____...m_.. _._-_.___m._. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ______2.

O O O TABLE 3-1 AVERACE MONTilLY TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED STATIONS IN TIIE NEW ORLEANS AREA New Orleans, La - New Orleana International Airport Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Temp ( F) 54.6 57.1 61.4 67.9 74.4 80.1 81.6 81.9 78.3 70.4 60.0 55.4 68.6 Precip ?.sa.) 3.84 3.99 5.34 4.55 4.38 4.43 6.72 5.34 5.03 2.84 3.34 4.10 53.90 Neo Orleans, La .Audubon Station Jae Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Temp ( F) 55.5 57.7 62.1 68.9 75.7 51.1 82.6 82.5 78.9 71.1 61.0 56.6 69.5 Precip (in.) 4.29 4.35 5.91 5.54 4.06 5.59 8.12 6.64 6.41 3.lS 3.51 4.59 62.96 Reserve, La - Cooperative Observer l

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Atg[ Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Temp (*F) 53.8 55.9 60.6 67.8 75.1 80.0 82.5 82.3 78.7 70.4 59.8 54.6 68.5 Precip (in.) 4.49 5.16 5.64 4.92 4.90 5.31 7.00 5.74 5.14 2.96 3.77 5.54 60.57 i

l u+-~

-v

l O O O TABLE 3-2 AVERACE MONTHLY CROSS-SECTIONAL '?ELOCITY AT THE WATERFORD 3 SITC Cross Sectional Month Flow

• Stage (f t) Area ** Velocity Average Minimum Average Minimum Average Minimum Average Minimum January 455 :116 7.6 0.2 18.4 16.2 2.5 0.7 February 577 IIS 10.25 1.6 18.9 16.7 3.1 1.1 March 700 296 12.9 4.3 19.5 17.6 - 3.6 1.7 April 773 302 t '. 6 4.3 19.7 17.6 3.9 3.7 May 590 303 10.6 4.3 19.0 17.6 3.1 1.7 June A74 247 8.2 3.3 18.5 17.2 2.6 1.4 July 384 198 6.3 2.2 18.0 16.8 2.1 1.2 August 243 154 3.1 1.I 17.2 16.5 1.4 0.9 ~

Sep t e.a be r 194 133 1.9 0.6 16.8 16.4 1.2 0.8

' October 212 93 2.4 0.1 16.0 16.2 1.3 0.6

'Hesember 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 1.1

• Flaw (Q) in 1,000 cfs

• • Cross sectional area (CA) in 10,000 sq. ft ,

m . ..

TABLE 3-3 O MONTHLY WATER TEMPERATURE DATA FROM THE ,

MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR RESTWEGO, LOUISIANA (1951-1969)

Temperature ( F)

Month Maximum Minimum Mean 2 January 50 41 40 .

February 50 40 46 March 56 46 51 April 63 57 59 May 78 67 71 June 83 77 79 July P/ 81 84 August 90 81 86 Se ptember 87 76 83

() October 78 71 74 November 71 57 63 December 57 47 52 Measurements taken at Ninemile Point Generating Station, 25.6 miles downstream f rom Waterford 3.

Source : Louisiana Power & Light Company, Envi-ronmental Report Operating License Stage,-Waterford Steam Electric Sta-tion, Unit 3, 1978.

O

--_x.a_-- -.---____a.o-

a n .

O O O TABLE 3-4 SEDIMENT CONC 2NTRATIONS IN Tile MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT LULING FERRY, LA.

Discharge.at Red River Total Suspended Silt Sand Landing cfe x 1,000 Lste sediment (eg/1) (mg/I) (eig/ l )

602 April 7, 1976 386 290 96 304 June 19, 1976 135 122 13 221' Aug. 18, 1976 58 49 9 Feb . 9, 19 7 7 68 61 7 e 174 (2/10) l May 4, 1977 250 232 18 I 420 (5/5).

I i

Source: Personal Communication, US Ceological Survey, r

Faton Rouge, La. 1977.

i

[. Preliminary Data, Subject to Revisio=,

r r*$

l l

r 1 l I i

l

-4

-. . . .._/

4 TABLE 3-5 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRON 1tENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRM4 FOR SURFACE WATERS Station Ra tionale Identification Location for Location A Behind an island on the west Station is not expec-bank (right hand descending) ted to be directly of the Mississippi River, in offectsd by discharg-a challow back-water area es from Waterford upscream of Waterford 1 1, 2, or 3; and and 2. therefore, has been designated as a con-trol station.

A

• On the west bank of the Back eddy current Mississippi River, in a results in transpor-shallow area enaracterized tation of heated dis-by low-velocity currents. charge from Waterford Immediately upstream of I and 2 upstream to Waterford 1 and 2, in a this station.

back eddy current.

B

" On the east bank of the Intended as unaf fec-O Mississippi River opposite Waterford 1, 2, and 3. It ted control station for deep, fast velo-is also upstream of LP&L's city current environ-Little Gypsy Power Plant. ment.

B Immediately downstream of Station located in Waterford 3 discharge. area of river ir. flu-enced by heat dis-chargs frcm Waterford 3.

B t

Along the west bank, nea- Abandoned af ter first River Mile 127. year of sampling, and replaced by Station B

gy..

B gy, On the west bank near River Replaced Station Mila 127.8. B in second-year of armpling. Lcca-

]

tion'is just upstream of an adjacent ther-mal discharge, and further downstream f rom the discharge of l

, Waterford 3 than Sta- '

tion 3 g.

- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _m.. ._ _ - . _ _ _ . _ -

TABLE 3-6 SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF

'(ATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973_ TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 1 of 5)

Chlorephyta Chlorophyceae Volvocales Volvocaceae ,

Eudorina Pandorina-Goniun. pectorale Chlorococcales Cocystaceae Ankistrodesmus Ankistrodesmus falcatus

$cenedesmaceae Acticastrum Actinastrum hantzschii Coelastrum Scenedesmus sp Scenedesmus acuminatus Scenedesmus armatus Scenedesmus dimorphus

-Scenedesmus obliquus; Scenedesmus quadricauda Tetrastrum Hydrodictyaceae Pediastrum Pediastrum duplex

, . . , - <we.. ...-*---- ,v.,- ~ -, c'-

TABLE 3-5 (Cont'd)

SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF k'ATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 To SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 5)

Chlamydomonadaceae Chlamydomonas sp '

Chrysophyta Chrysophyceae ,

Chrominales Chrysococcaceae Chrysococcus Ochromonadalec Dinobryaceae Dinobryon

, Bacillariophyceae Centrales Co=:inodiscaceae Coscinodiscus-Coscinodiscus rothu Melosira ,

M losira distans Melosira granulata-Melosira herzogii Melosira ambir_ua Melosira variens Melosira islandica Cyclotella Cyclotella meneghinfana

i TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)

O _ SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANRTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER iN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 5) -

Stephanodiscus

, Stephanodiscus-astrea Perinalea Cymbeliacea Amphora Cymbella i

Fragilatiaceae Fragilaria Synedra, D_iatoms i sp A_starionella formosa Eunctiaceae Eanotia Achnanthaceae Achnanthes Cocconei_r.

Navicu1*,ceae Gyrosigne sp Gyrosigma kutziingii Navicula Navicula exigua Finnularia sp Pleurosigma Stauroneis-l l

e TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)

SPECIES LIST OF PHYTOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF

'a*ATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 4 of 5)

Comphonemaceae -

Comphonema Gomphonema constrictum Nitzschiaceae =

Nitzschia Surirellacese grirella _

Cyanophyta Chroococcales Chrooccccaceae Anacystis Meriamopedia Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Gacillatoria sp Nostocales Nostocaceae gabaena Euglenophyta Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglena sp Euglens acus h Trachelomonas

TABLE 3-6 (Cont'd)

SPECIES LIST OF PHYf0 PLANKTON 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 volvoefna I

O

1 O O TABLE 3-7 AVERACE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIE9 IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN Tite MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY F, ROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH HAY 1974 (YEAR 1) j.

~

Avg Total Density Number of Month (No./ Liter) Dominant Taxa

• Genera June, 1973 27,200 Cyclotella, Melosira 4 l

July, 1973 57,800 Cyclotella, Helosira, Scenedessus 5 299,200 -Coccinodiscus l ',

Auguct, 1973 September,1973 719,100 Coscinodiscus, Melosira 11 retober, 1973 59,500 Coscinodiscus, Scenedesmus, Cyclotella, Melosira 4 hovember, 1973 52,700 Coscinodiscus, Cyclotell,a, Helosira 5 Dec embe r , ' 1973~ 34,000 Cyclotella, Melosira 3 February, 1974 40,800 Cyclotella, Melocira 4 31,000 5 March, 1974 Cyclotella, Melosira 45,960 Melonira, Trachelomonas 5 April, 1974 May, 1974 28,900 Cyclotella, Melosira- 3 Average -178,742

• 20% or greater of average total density or most abundant Source: Waierford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program

c u c> --

O O O TABLE 3-8 AVERACE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY FROM JUNE 1974 THROUCH FEBRUARY 1975 (YEAR II)

Avg Total Density Number of Month ( No./Li t er) Dominant Taxe

• Genera June 1974- 230,814 Chrysococcus Melnsira 13 August 1974 479,417 Coselnodiscus 15 April 1975 348,098 Chrysococcus 9 February 1975 501,201 Chrysoccoccus 12 AVE RACE 389,882 i

• 20% or greater of average total density or mest abundant.

I Source: Uaterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program i

~ . -

O O O TABl.E 3-9 AVERACE PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES IN SAMPLES COLLEC1 C IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THE WATERFORD VICINITY E M OCTOBER 1975 THROUCH SEPTEMBER 1976 (YEAR III)

Avg. Total Density Number of Month (No./Line r) Dominent Taxa

• Genera October 1975 56,751 Helosira 12 November 1975 24,541 Coscinodiscus: Melosira, Scendessus quadricauda 9

' December 1975 59,816 Cascinodiscus 6 January 1976 152,349 Coscinodiscus: Melosira 7 February 1976 119,636 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 11 March 1976 162,574 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 8 l

e April 1976 1,446,815 Melesira 19 Coscinodiscus; Melosira 9 May 1976 320.548 326,699 Melosira 15 June 1976 440,189 .Coscinodiscus 12 July 1976 Coscinodiscus; Cyclotella; Helosire: 14 September 1976 608,919 162,579 Melosira; Cyclotella 14 September 1976 _

AVERAGE 3S3,451

• 20% or greater of sverage total densit y or most abundant.

Source: Waterford 3

• wironment Surveillance Prcgram O

i

/" TABLE 3 t} ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF.

k'ATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 1 of 3)

Hydrozoa Rotifera Class Monogononta Order Ploima M p3 anchna . 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.

Cy iodaphnia recticulata r Ceriodaphnia sp.

Moina brachiata Moina-sp.

O

'T P*P

. --m -r

$ 1 s-ye .y- e.-,g+.e4q p p ,,v. a ye-4 g ,y=-,- q.* g & -9pye., +gy--g-ye. g --en-9+yrm,--- d aw- wm , vg--y-

TABLE 3-10 (Cont'd)

ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROU6:1 SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 3)

Bosmina longirostris Sosmina,coregoni Bosmina sp.

Alona sp.

l Alonella rostrata Alonopsis sp.

Camptocercus ,rectirontris Chydorus sp.

I Diaphanosoma branchyurut Diaphanosoma sp.

Subclass - Ostracoda Subclass - Copepoda Order - Eucopepoda Suborder - Calanoida Eurytemora affinis Diaptemus pallidus-Diaptomus siciloides Diaptomus stagnalis Diaptomus sicilis Diaptomus sp.

Suborder - Cyclopoida l

Cyclops bicuspidatus Cyclops vernalis Order - Harpacticoida i

i l

I-TABLE 3-10 (Cont'd)

ZOOPLAKKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 3)

Subclass - Malacostraca Order - Decapoda La rvae Orde r - Amphipoda l'

Family - Gammaridae f

Clas. - Arachnida Order - Acarina Family - Pionidae j Order - Hydracarina i

Class - Insecta (Larvae)

) '

Order - Ephemeroptera Order - Coleoptera ,

1 Order - Odonata ,

t Order - Plecoptera  ;

Order - Diptera t

Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillancc Program F

0 O

l. _ _ _ . . . . . , . _ , .

. - ~ ~ . ~n. . ~ . - - ... _. _ . . .

I O O O TABLE 3-13 f?

i AVERACE DFNSITIES*. Nf'MBE RS PF R M 0F DOM 1444T ZOOPIANKTON TAXA IN SAMPRES I

f COL 11CTFD I4 THE VICINITY 0* WATERFORC 3 [

l ZOOPLANKTON CROUP

' CER IODA PH N! A DPtAPODA DI A PH ANOSOMA SUBURDfR YEAR StiRON Dtd DATE BOSMINA SP. SP. DAPHNIA SP. LARVAE SP. MOINA SP. CA LA NOI DA CYC10PelD4 l I 73 JUN 08** 85.278 101.692 228.935 9.091 I

.000 .000 820.476 H62.410 i i 73 JUL 17 .000 1.025 993 33.027 .000 000 39.01) 68.962  ;

73 AUG 22** 000 .000 .000 7.771 .000 .000 66.486 60.195 73 SEP 28 591.511 109.854 259.865 .720 000 *

.00r 185.701 412.575 i 73 OCT 25** 1.770 .360  ?.446 .000 000 220.801 ,!

l- .009 34.682 73 NOV 30 44.785 8.145 29.868 .000 94.607

.000 .000 62.183 [

73 DEC 19 44.423 12.975 44.842 000 .000 .000 79.727 70.577 J 74 FEB 13 I 68.815 38.909 '103.283 .000 .000 .000 214.011 325.845 I i 74 MAR 27 119.268 56.026 84.571 .000 l

.000 .000 680.059 585.786 [

74 APR 20 61.025 4.881 9.588 .000 000 000 81.812 I 220.428  !

74 APR 23 113.?i$ 37.867 48.577 .000 .000 323.532

.000 722.367 ~

) 74 MAY.17 299.345 15.592 237.192 1.212 .000 .000 848.203 1006.413 l f i 11 74 JUN 04 .000 1.798 i 1

7.425 11.990 .000 .030 97.714 99.979 i 74 JUN 24 .860 .687 38.277 2.873 .000 37.397 I

74 AUC 22

.000 19.223 139.324 232.268 135.890 .867 .000 .000 13.804 2961.953 74 NOV 13 j

{ 146.515 11.969 19.369 .000 10.627 .000 2207.900 402.447

75 FEB 26 88.778 70.828 6.903 .000 .387 .000 88.171 270.836 l ~75 APR 23** 37.728 57.007 9.4 75 000 2.083 000 31.052 94.815

{ 75 AUG 08 1.609 7.158 .000 1.516 16.442 '

4

.000 56.724 205.923 t

l* 111 '75 OCT 30 127.194 1.146 6.023 .000 1.284 000 39.73h 32.127 I 75 NOV 20 7.937 .459 7.056 .000 .000 .000 16.361 22.429  ;

4 75 DEC 22 33.409 .003 4.230 000 .000 16.166

' .(n'0 41.009  !

76 JAM 30 .000 .000 4.131 .000 000 000 3.208 402 '!

76 FE8 26 . 04 0 .165 .447 000 000- .000 .486 .656

76 MAR 25 41.992 7.526 27.146 [

.000 .567 .000 62.380 133.386 g 76 APR 29** 39.660 .145 7.656 .000 .000 .000 18.877 33.791 i 76 MAY 27 7.941 1.137 5.631 000 .410 000 18.921 135.583 {

76 JUN 24 .000 1.581 .213 .000 l1.551 0( -) 57.615 49.072 l 76 JUL 29 .000 4.552 1.539 .000 6.403 456.6.6 17.088

(

j 76 SEP 10 31.480 l 124.016 .2 74 9.861 000 2.436 164.A76 25<917 1091.319 76 SEP 26 413.466 2.247 45.346 i

.000 2.158 155.645 12.567 til.096 i j

• Densities do not include exoskeletons e'

t. ** Samples on more than one sempting day i

} Source of data- Water ford 3 Environmental Surveillence Progr en '

c t =

I T I I  !

I  :

j ~!

t I

i 4

o o O TABLE 3-12 AVERACE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES *, NUMBER PER H . BY STATION BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 STATION Average Ac At Bc Bt Etl Den s i t y YEAR DATE I 73 JUN 08** 2151.734 1560.130 1803.907 73 JUL 17 2005.236 2679.522 2044.106 126.281 140.528 97.441 214.526 158.607 147.477

'73 AUC 22** 62.817 99,730 73.826 295.303 272.853 160.906 73 SEP 28 647.594 1385.827 1944.685

-73 OCT 25**

2087.479 1901.405 1593.410 210.468 77.3%* 460.079 336.389 223.060 73 NOV 30 261.469 201.474 314.5:= 239.250 221.261 248.244 73 DEC 19 244.949 250.44I 229.720 314.981 225.287 252.158 254.518 ^

74 FE8 13 980.525 744.519 701.260 873.192 459.180 751.735 74 MAR 27 1475.952 1528.514 1384.779 74 APR 20 1806.556 1448.072 1528.774 478.675 227.956 319.404 391.012 488.194 381.048 74 APR 23 1181.860 1284.395 1576.604 1214.21; i818.899 74 MAY 17 1275.199 3890.018 1991.789 743.248 3291.852 2133.284 2410.038 I Average Year I 971.487 800.420 804.96 1080.194 948.623 11 7,6 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 AUC 22 1727.880 4398.961 2395.663 7689.520 4 928.038 3428.012 74 NOV 13 483.673 1189.501 508.609 75 FEB 26 7873.902 2774.520 2566.041 756.809 247.172 399.953 416.015 825.766 i

75 APR 23** 529.143 100.409 263.693 160.395 439.766 214.347 75 AUG OS 268.163 235.722 168.986 297.409 443.718 380.032 311.662 Average Year II 539.596 942.582 i

} 590.531 2452.436 764.383

.III 75 OCT 30 123.350 52.613 436.986 314.618 l 38.745 193.270 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 76 JAN 30 208.136- 87.400 '

5.173 18.819 5.151 9.339 3.593 8.415 76 FEB'26 .000 5.505 1.033 3.156 1.746 2.288 76' MAR 25 327.820 233.666 402.086 407.337 t 7.238 275.629

76 APR 29** 19.055 132.969 109.459 83.841

141.732 97.411 76 HAY 27 113.404 225.532 197.259 153.344 1 182.504 174.408 76 JUN 24 '68.690 150.226 157.960 103.963 150.243 126.217 76 JUL 29 225.149 69.174 632.122 925.233 504.507 471.237 76 SEP 10 1434.406 527.145 1985.596 i 1571.616 1297.066 .1363.166 76 SEP 26' 622.113 528.958 792.617 706.768 951.573 Avenage Year III 720.406 i

252.865 177.985 402.055 360.666 296.921

• Densities do not include exaskeletons or fish larvae j **

Sampled on more than one sampling day i

' Source of data

Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program 4

l TABLE 3-13

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF DATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 1 of 4)

Osteichtyes Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Scaphithynchus albus (Pallid F.turgeon)

Scaphithynchus platorynchus (Sno-ealose Sturgeon)

Polyodonitidae Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish)

Semionotifo rmes i Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus (Spotted Gar)

Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar)

Lepisosteus platostomus (Shortnose Gar)

Lepisosteus spatula (Alligator Car) l O Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva (Bowfin)

Elopiformes Elopidae Elops saurus (Lady Fish) 53uilliformes Angufilidae Anguil? a rostrata- (American Eel)

Clupeiformes L Clupeidae Alosa'en7sochloria (Skipjack Herring)

Brevoortia patronus (Gulf MennedenT

! Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) l -

Dorosoma petenense-(Threadfin Shad)

_cm. . . . .e e rm .__m .4 ,- - -

-- -- - . . - _ . ~ , . - . . , - - , , - . - . _ - , . - - - - - - . . -

~,~

- - - - - . . - . - . . . _ . _ . . - - . _ . _ - .. - ~-_- - - . _ _ . . . - .. .- ..

(I TABLE 3-13 (Cent'd)

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINI?" OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMB.~S T ~76

{ Sheet 2 of 4)

Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy)

Os tcoglossiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides (Goldeye)

Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye)

Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio (Carp)

Hybognathus nuchalis (Silvery Minnow)

Hvbopsis aestivalis (Speckled Chub)

Sybopsis amblops (Pigeye. Chub) l O Hybopsis storeriana (Silver Chub)

Notemigonus crysoleucas (Golden Shiner)

! Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner)

Notropis blennius (River Shiner)

Notrop1s emiliae (Pugnose Minnow)

Notropis fumeus (Ribbon Shiner)

~

Notropis shumardi (Silverband Shiner)

Notropis venustu (Blacktail Shiner)

Pimephales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow)

Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio (River Carpsucker)

Carpiodes cyprinus (Quillback) l Ictiobus bubalus (Smallmouth Buffalo) l Ictiobus cyprinellus (Bigmouth Buffalo)

Siluriformes

Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus (Blue Catfish)

Ictalurus melas (Black Bullhead) letalurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead)

Ictalurus nebulosus (Leown Bullhead) letalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish)

Pylodictis olivaris-(Flathead Catfish)

Atheriniformes

) 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 Gambunia affinis (Mosquito Fish)

Atherinidae Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside)

Perciformes Percichthyidae Morone chrysops (White Bass)

Morene mississippiensis (Yellow Bass)

Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass)

Centrarchidae Elassoma zonatum (Banded Pygmy Sunfish)

Lapomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish)

O 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 sclera (Dusky Darter)

Stizostedion canadense (Sauger)

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater Drum)

Hugilidae Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet)

Pleuronectiformes Bothidae O

i i

5 . _. ._ __ --____._.____._m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ -

TABLE 3-13 (Cont'd)

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 197_6 (Sheet 4 of 4)

Paralichthys lethostigma (Southern Flounder)

Soleidae Trinectes maculatus O

O

- ~ u j TABLE 3-14 (Sheet I of 2) 3L NUMBERS AND WEICHTS OF FISH COLLEChrD BY ALL CZARS DURING YEARS I, II, AND III. IN THE VICINITY OF WATE9 FORD 1

, YEAR YEAll YEAR I  !! III COFMON NAME NLwBLR WEIGHT NUMBER WEICHT NUMBER WEIGHT ALLICATOR CAR 2 856.1 0 . 2 9.106.2 AMERICAN EEL 7 3.444.3 2 276.3 2 363.3 BAY ANCh0VY I 2.5 0 . 333 301.4 BICEYE CHUB 3 3.7 0 . 0 .

BICHOUTH BUFFALO 5 2.755.2 7 3.415.0 1 1.866.0 BLACK BULLHEAD 1 33.8 6 552.4 0 .

BLnCK CRAPPIE 10 871.6 6 763.3 12 2.324.2

[ BLACETAIL SHINER 0 . 0 . l .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 1.074.8 BOWFIN 1 f.918.0 0 . 0 .

BROWN BULLHEAD 5 2.202.3 0 . 0 .

BULLifEAD MINNOW l 3.4 0 . I I.I CARP 17 12.933.6 34 50.575.6 20 37.230.1 CHANNEL CATFISH 82 12.140.2 35 2.9ft.8 41 9.392.8 DUSKY DARTER I 259.6 0 . 0 .

ENERALD SHINER 0 . I 6.I 2 4.9 FIATHEAD CATFISH 10 7.468.4 8 2.528.4 II 6,948.3 FK2SHWATER DELH 368 9.336.9 24 2.624.9 40) 25,388.3 GIZZARD SHAD 2451 97.284.6 799 75,096.6 Illt 19?,627.3 COLDEYE 10 320.7 3 763.7 5 647.9 CREEN SUNFISH 0 . 35 764.4 0 .

CULF HENilADEN 6 168.1 0 . 91 3.163.1

'HOCCHOKER 0 . 0 . 3 9.5 IMMATURE SUCKER 0 . 0 . 2 1.2 LADYFISH 0 . I 86.4 4 675.8 1ARCEMo&TH BASS 8 1.957.7 9 4.000.8 7 3.873.9 LONCEAR SUNFISH I 13.9 0 . 5 162.3 LONGNOSE CAR 5 1.481.3 5 2.647.2 5 5.951.7 MISSISSl? PEE SILVERS!DE . O . 2 6.4 I 4.7 NOONEYE 1 4.1 0 . 0 .

MOSOUITOFISH O . I .7 0 .

PADDLE FI S H - 6 261.1 0 . I 1.289.1 PALLID STURCEON 3 360.4 0 . I 144.4 PUCNOSE MINNOW- 0 . 0 . I 0.7 PYCMY KirNFISH I 0.1 0 . 0 .

QUILL 6ACK CARPSutaEE O . O . I 274.2 REbEAR SUNFISH I 45.0 0 . 0 .

RIBBON SHINER 0 . 0 1 2.9 RIVER CARPSUCrER 50 9.918.6 7 1.758.5 13 5,567.1 RIVER SHINER 0 . 0 . 1 4.0 SAUCER 8 683.8 0 . 7 3,238.8 SHORTNOSE CAR 3 3,3 71.0 3 f.816.5 1 1.620.*

g y- -

e ,

~

r O

TABLF. 3-14 (Cont *d) (Sheet 2 of 2)

TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEICHTS OF FISH COLLFCTED BY ALL CFAPS DURING YEARS I. II. AND III. IN THE VICINITY OF WATE9 FOND 3 YEAR YEAR TEAR

+

I 11 111 COMMON NAME NUMBER WEICHT* NUMBER WEICHT NUMBER WEIGHT SHOVELNOSE STURCEON 22 1,954.3 2 2.0 5 1,796.310 SILVER CHUB 20 92.4 1 9.9 7 43.600 SILVERBAND SHINER 3 4.8 0 . I 2.000 SILVERY MINNOW D . 0 . 3 5.230 SKIPJACK ltERRING 130 13,697.4 48 5.364.0 71 9,227.530 SMALLMDUTH BUFFALD 24 7,802.2 14 10.229.0 10 12,950.270 SOUTHERN FLOUNDER 0 . 0 . IO 7.157.790 SPECELED Clit'9 3  :.1 0 . 1 .400-SPOTTED BASS O . I 1.9 0 .

SPOTTED CAR 4 4,237.? 5 1,991.9 8 3.837.600 STRIPED BASS 20 3,589.7 6 3,685.5 to 10.626.680 STRIPED MULLET 233 49,229.2 497 75,656.2 467 84,01).985 THREAD FIN SRAD 1058 6,434.5 187 2,078.7 222 2.796.610 WARHOUTH 0 . I 38.6 I 6.770 WHITE BASS 10 782.0 7 1.044.1 14 4,036.290 WHITE CRAPPIE 19 2,200.2 4 226.6 I 156.670 YELLOW BASS 2 94.7 2 203.7 I  !!!.900 YELLOW BULLHEAD 1 1.3 0 . 0 .

• 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 1, 11 AND 111 IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 '

' LEAR AVERAGE AVERAGE AND MONTH NUMBER ** W T.GHT***

73 APR(I) 1.0 379.7 14.3 9,741.8 73 JUN(2) 73 JUL 12.6 897.1 73 AUG 25.4 4,875.9 73 SEP 92 .4 12,754.4 73 OCI 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(I) 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 48.2 9,845.2 0 75 OCT 75 NOV 75 DEC 25.0 57.1 6,699.7 15,681.8

)

76 J AN 14.0 4,038.4 76 FEB 65.2 16,922.2 76 MAR 80.4 15,330.1 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 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of electroshocking and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> 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

O O o TABLE 3-16 (Sheet I of 2)

PART I AVERACE NUMBER AND WEICHT PER 1! NIT FFFORT* OF REPHESENTATIVE SPfCIES OF FISH COLLECTED EACH MONTH DURING YEARS 1 II AND 118 IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ClZZARD SHAD STRIPED MirILFT TUNFADFIN SHAD YEAR BLUE CATFISH FRESHWATER LRUM AVERAGE AVERACE AVERAGE AVERACE AVERAE AYERAGE and AVERACE AVERACE AVERACE AVERACE NUMBER WEICHT NUMBEP WFICHT NUMBER WEICHT MONTH NUMBEB** WEICHT** NUMBER WEICHT 73 APR I l '. 0 379.7 .I N . . . . . . .

26.4 4.0 - 4 76.8 .7 23.7 3.3 II.4 73 JUN - 4.0 926.4 .3 253.3 5.1-

.8 1.2 .8 3.0 3.0 254.0 2.6 2.4 73 JUL 827.0 1.6 7.7 1

.5 457.9 1.5 832.6 . 12.0 1.387.5 4.0 73 AUC 53.4 3,926.1 19.4 4,680.4 6.0 48.3

• 73 SEP 3.0 741.2 4 120.6 12.6

.8 122.7 9.8 637.2 3.6 1.039.8 2.0 73 OCT 6.6 ~322.6 983.4 .2 .9 73 NOV l .8 . 692.9 .3 46.6 49.6 4,952.4 4.0 15.4 2.584.0 1.2 55.4 .4 1.3 73 DEC 8.3 J.200.9 .2 .2 12.3 2.306.7 .6 81.3 .2 .7 74 JAN 5.2 'l.134.8 . .

7.4 1,239.0 . . .4 1.3 74 FEB 2.4 475.7 . .

16.1 1.01).1

-542.8 1.7 288.6 . .

74 MAR' > 2.0 . .

13.0 2.382.5 15.2 274.3 5.0 2,269.8' l.0 36.3 47.5 2.010.3 74 A PR 17.4 837.6 12.0 2,300.3 1. 8 ' 29.8 74 JUN 4 799.2 .8 118.0 116.3 3.8 206.6 20.2 5.996.4 1.6 4.7 74 AUG .8 . 1.251.3 ' .6 33.3 1,055.6 1.0 96.1 67.6 4.433.7 38.8 4,931.2 4.4 74 Nov 7.2 26.4

.2 45.3. 1.0 99.2 65.0 9,264.1 1.633.1 . .

75 FEB 1.6 227.7 4.8 27.2 298.0 .2 46.3 1.0 P6.4 75 JUN .8 .4 42.4 .4 4.7 625.1 1.6 155.5 75 ADG e 2.4 . .

11.0 3,104.8 1.8 24.7 669.5 . 27.6 5.47% ?

75 0CT f1.6 .

1,849.1 2.2 365.5 601.9 ... 15.4 . .

75 NOV  !.2 .

30.6 4,534.2 5.8 1,366.7 .2 1.5 75 DEC 10.2 4.473.1 1.4 196.3 .

270.1 . 13.S 3,768.3 . .

76 JAN 3 .

.2 117.8 1.0 6.9 7.2 .2,818.0 8 227.8 $0.6 - 13.932.1 76 FEB 2.6 304.9 7.2 129.2 4.480.6 .6 204.1 56.2 7.834.2 76 MAR 9.0 8.3 727.3 15.0 2.006.6 6.9 124.9 2.661.6 1.9 619.7 76 APR [4.3 331.6 4.0 672.9 6.6 705.3 6.2 63.7 76 MAY 1.4 - 65.4' l.3

.5 .1 2,174.5 .2 50.3 3.7 569.1 6.2 789.0 76 JUN . , 2.5 253.6 12.0 1.801.1 2.8 26.9 1.7 1,628.5 .5' 88.8 1.7 76 JUL 23.2 58.2

' 3.2 2,855.4 1.0 421.8 4.4 1.340.4 4.812.6 4.2

( 76 AUC 12.0 t,830.4 3.0 7*. 9 76 SEP 4.3 '2,065.1. 2.0 46?.0 5.4 2.045.4

• In 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of electtoshocking and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of gilli net t sng l

• • Numbe r of individuals '

t *** Expressed in grams (1) 48 hrs gilt nett ang only (2) 2 hre electroshocking enly (3) Species not found during sampling Source cf data: Waterford 3 Environment al' Sur ve s t lance ProRr am

O O O TABLE 3-16 (Cont *d) (Sheet of 2 of 2)

PART 2 NUMBER AND WEICHT OF REPRESENTATIVE FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PFR t'Nif EFFORT

• AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I, II AND lil IN THE VICINITY OF WATFFFORD 3 CIZZARD SHAD SYNIFrP MULLET THREADFIN SHAD BLUE CATFISH FRFSHWATER DRt!M YEARLY AVERAGE \ EARLY AYERAGE YEARLY AVERAGE YEARLY AVERACE Y EAR LY AVE RA CE NUMBER WEICHT WDMPER WFICHT wifM6FR WEICHT STATION YEAR NUMBER ** WEICHT*** NtFMBER WEIGHT 141.4 24.5 1974.0 2.4 527.3 1.5 16.5 l Ac I 5.4 898.3 .5 15.2 7.2 452.7 9.8 2465.4 1.0 16.6 a 11 .3 138.2 .2 76.2 20.1 1911.8 9.0 1901.0 3.0 40.7 Ill 5.0 1612.6 .4 84.7 15.4 1814.4 4.1 974.3 7.8 224.7 At 1 5.2 1050.0 .3 113.7 14.5 1646.4 10.2 1239.2 4.0 28.5 II 2.3 601.8 .8 l

296.5 10.6 2484.5 2.5 989.8 3.9 39.4 .I Ill F.4 4979.7 .9 67.5 25.9 268I.8 3.6 712.9 3.6 42.1 sc I 4.1 1768.5 .3 II .7 463.9 (1) . 63.3 5342.5 12.3 2707.1 1.7 17.8 561.5 .5 164.4 3?.2 8346.1 9.9 1470.0 3.6 82.9 III .9 311.8 23.4 2140.8 12.0 2457.3 4.3 193.7 Bt 1 2.4 958.! 3.0 28.0 2780.8 30.8 3245.7 3.0 12.8 11 5.7 1657.6 .7 73.1 223.5 14.8 2320.8 11.1 1779.9 3.1 45.0 Ilf 6.0 2444.0 .9 1737.5 3.1 645.6 2.9 94.6 Bt 1 1.7 218.2 .3 2.6 21.6 3

1.3 174.6 17.3 2264.3 19.7 2952.0 8.2 7.5 II 8 534.0 1.6 420.3 11.4 2748.4 7.6 1894.9 .9 6.8 III 1.8 1936.5

• In 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of electroshocking and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of gilt netting

'** Number of individuals

• • • Em pr essed in grams (1) Species not found at this station Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program

TABLE 3-17 TOTAL NL'MBER AND WEICHT OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

• AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I, II AND III IN THE VILINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEARLY YEARLY AVERAGE AVERAGE STATION YEAR NUHBER** WEIGHT ***

Ac I 43.7 6,924.4 II 25.3 8,243.7 III 50.6 10.585.1 At I 39.5 5,202.1 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 g I 34.0 3,463.2 II 47.3 10,044.8 O III 26.7 9,198.6

• In 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of electroshockin; and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of gill netting

• • Number of individuals

• • • Expressed in grams Source of data Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program O

4

. _..______._.__._.__.___.____._.__________---._-._.m_

l O TABLE 3-18 FRIEDKAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; I

_ TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS __ O (H ) 0F {

EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

• AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS '

ifEAR1)

Catch / Effort

• STATION Ac At Be Bt St 3 Blue Catfish 5.429 5.233 4.089 Freshwater Drum 2.375 1.700

.486 .322 .322 Gizzard Shad 1.042 .500 24.543 15.411 24.944 23.403 Striped Mullet 2.443 21.550 4.100 3.6 00 12.000 3.075 Threadfin Shad 1.500 7.600 3.600 4.431 2.900 Ra nk * *

Blue Catfish 5 4 3 l 2 Freshwater Drum 3 1. 5 1.5 1

4 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 5

Striped Mullet 3 2 1 4 3 5 l Threadfin Shad 1 5 3 2

l 4 2 l

Sum of Rs.nxs 14 15.5 15.5 19 Sum of Ranks 196 240.25 11 Squared 240.25 361 121 X' = 2.68 Fail to reject H0 ; le, stations were not significantly different with respect to catch / effort

• Per 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> gill net set and I hour electroshocking effort

• • Stations ranked according to catch /ef fort for species listed (ties were averaged).

Source : Siegcl S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.

O

TABLE 3-19 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TT. STING THE NULL INP0 THESIS (H O ) 0F EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

• AT 5 WATFRFORD STATIONS YEAR III Catch / Effort STATION Ac At Sc Bt Bt)

Blue Catfish 5.015 7.389 .875 6.000 Freshwater Drum 1.773

.432 .889 .458 .917 Gizzard Shad 1.573 20.697 10.622 37.167 14.845 Striped Mullet 11.355 9.030 2.456 9.917 11.083 Threadfin Shad 3.008 7.600 3.900 3.583 3.083 .909 Ra nk *

• Blue Catfish 3 5 1 4 2 Freshwater Drum 1 3 2 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet 3 1 4 5 2 Threadfin Shad 2 5 4 3 1 Sum of Ranks 13 15 16 19 12 Sum of Ranks 169 225 256 Squared 3 61 144 X; = 2.40 Fail to reject H0; le, Stations were not significantly dif ferent with respect to catch / effort.

• Per 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> gill net set and I hour electroshocking effort

• • Stations ranked according to -ca tch/ef fort for species listed (ties were averaged)

Source : Siegel S.

Nonparametric Statistics for t,he Behavorial Sciences.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.1956

(:)

i- :I!ih!:(:[! h' ,t! ;j([i!!{ l( i * > i: j1 l i! i I' LEl!Ith +$  ?

)

3 f

- o i

t e

e h

S

(

_- t h

s - , s - s a n a l s - s d au

_ f o h r - f l dh ng i l t t t s e r , a ec a g ml si ok i gt od h m e est oaur s n f r c n s gs f t t r mr t

_ l a a e ,a i n e mah n i sc e

- al

• rl s) f u ,l maes a h d p o ncs nyt a osb m nsf p i l c .l s  ; f ;iiu

( ) i 5 ot ,laail c d r n h t e ct o eo mnti ;e e 7 t l d aimn nrs a g

_ o d nmonr d s s g enne k uh n ond s a ue F er o et t aai at .r e e r* db e eai v f d k2 e! d f c l f s f as o e

_ n1 e c n , . p p; e mcs ,

me of l a

r f e ,

ac e aopr a r ee uos od s u

, s m ot us t peh vi l ed e t h rit l t nl n E t r od s r n u uert s mcl t al a M oe oniae d r eh a i noe o ol oe B pmc O B t Z uf l g A cf sm F or s m S

F 3 .

s g 3 O

D y n -

S R a y i 2 D O b n n F l ew a o R w oy n

. t h a i F E n nt p d T os l r w e s n D A ,s e l a a uo e p

N W t t at p qt r A a u h us e e p F r o sb r nt A S O agR io f aa E ort aw ,

T Y M t t st s U T n s i aw e O I i pm ro . a R N ua e gl s c I e e r al a e N C O I vd r ant esah re S p

Mas h 0 I V T as a 2 T t

- A E n 3 R H a C T t E. I r

- t B

M N t -

l s .

o p

A ,I e i ne - emp d , r T ST p aih n e o h oe es I A5 y w di d3 et ms oy st e erd E E T ea - r o t d r ee f R S g

s d e a2 agt a t ro atb o A E si eeh nt d eb t t R g hg rrt t  ; nsio t h e s at s C P E ai si gl b9 nt d e g cn e N us s n a gc - eouf . gsa . i l S d ol s oo et E e7 c m e E l e r h E n l egp s v g en rl gh a r 2 v epl o W I a e ai j or - r b A C eEd o t u .nt u ro . d oos i

arb t

s P E a ;l i s yb r otf g a , t e s eu i S P e s et e d eY a n sd h ad vr H S r yr .r a N est ti s gnpd eno

, A a egat eia nsh t oe ua r a d e S

T S H

g b t n aid g e t c

w n

w.oec eint sl s e re a

eoa mn f a

A I n wwrne o pavm

. u r'

wof vt o n ,ner wvd L T F oioiaeh sot a I

B i

n w

l l s ed t o t s

l s st h d e l n , ws a loins sai e l i l st eet t l err h A a at evat n a eeh g s i or g ah b t H p h nhi eo o h r ed ef o ut eng hdt e S S ut sdb C S pf avop B sti E S aad n i

- sd d t

s nmn -

e s

. n i a a u o d s yae r st o mrean r u d r r n prn f o t , o ddt o ee ~

t g dj - n r y e u si t t m e ur s n a ee a a - r s mt t uad b b a w l o a mcs ie l ebk ei ch

,nga ent s

. b wn u n d b sf t r cf awn sti e m deop wo a ens eoop ob o et v g o c t io n n n si k ioet t l m u a s

. t s a sd rt ammvt uli s

_ a bd , l nai r nea l r o b a e t i ns o d eavt ewt b i hd c i r ue eiet nt ua srg i e yt on rsn r b t ok gt r n d nl ad t a u a sf a r r ee owt e eisd u st o H i l a oh r l pwr f i f r e ,a nm i es s

d y . h po . wf di r ys

_ ynsh l ,s er sc u

l i wsi n ct ,os> yat o yqv ue d n

_ l or g ver l gort e rs a l i a emeu f pee a gr eas al whd esr s d mv o eevl uurt ue sl oa qr eoet n d r ne i oa l r eib l ogi a i ef oi Wcr s Pd r a U sb wap C pa ws Wf o i c t e a p ms r

ot f n

• na

• d i n a

t b a e

a h o t l ua of i

h f

s h i

s nl h

e l l

AD a

m o

c mf et f wl p e

p g u ua w ou r i B l C o rB a

• S B B B B C *

• 8 i ) ?!1, ' j ji 4 li

TABLE 3-20 ( Cont 'd) (Sheet ? of 3)

HABITATSgSPAWNING ARE AS, MICRATION ROUTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3*

i Migration Species Habitat Spa wn inE Ares and Frg type Rout es Foods Channel Found an stresas, rivers, Under overhanging ledges, Msgration into ravers (basvorous - feed on aquatac Catfish t akes and ponds but prefer hollow logs or in similarly during opswnang peraods. ansec t s or ot her fash. In the moderate to swif tly flowing sheltered areas. Also Ravee Be nd e t wd y * *

• t h-c y we r e stresas with warm water and s pa wn in lakes and ponds: f o and to f eed on det r a t us, ol age-bottom of sand, gravel or They will not s pa wn in chaetes, sacrocrustacea, crayfash, rubble. During daytime, in clear ponds. Eggs depos- usyfly larvae, c addasily larva

• streams, adults inhabit pool ited in a gelatinous mass. and dapteran larvae.

areas and reessa near cover; at night they move into stronger, deepen, riffle areas for feeding.

Freshwater Lakes and large rsvers. Spswn on and and sand bottom hottom feed ing food s i nc l ude may-Drum ** es pec ially in the shal*ow generally in areas where flies, am ph a pod s , f a sh, cr ayfish, se ca s o f t he ged and Mi s s i- aquatic vegetation is pre- small mollusc a and detratus ***.

esippi Rivers. sent. EgEs are buoyant.

Gszzard Successful in both streams Pond bot toms; shallow There may be a spawning sagra- Young feed on zoopl ankton and later Shsja* and takes. water. Eggs are demer- tion upstream in the lower on bottom orgenases. Adult s are asl and adhesive. Mississippi River. falter feeders - ba rain det ratus f ram t he bottm and plankton from the water.

Largemouth All types of freshwater Sheltered boys among aquat ic Young feed en zooplankton. Adul t s Bass bodies from small creeks vegetation in 6 inches to 6 f eed on a nsec t s , c r awf a sh , small to large 1skes but is most feet of water over bottoms turtles and f r og s. Cann abel n am as common in non-flowing water which vary from gravelly common.

characterized by abundant send to earl and sof t mud.

aquatic vegetation and soft bottoms.

langnose Sluggish pools, backwaters, Shallow open sloughs and Spawning is of ten preceded by Young fee t at the sur f ace on small Car ombowa; adults usually found b ac k wa t e r s . Eggs are upstress migratiens into smaller a n sec t s , crustaceans and fash; in large deep pools. Often adhesive; larvae attsch st reams . efulte are pe sc avorove.

inhabit brackish water and themselves to stones and -

sometimes salt water. other object s by means of a sucking disc, Paddlef ash Seem to be Fessrally can- Dwer sand and pebbles and in the Osage River , an upst r eam Plankton, faeh, ansect s (mayfly fined to large rivers and gravel bars in strong car- migration follows t he warming of n a i ad s ) .

im poundmen t s . tent s; generally spawn in the waters to 50"F.

schools.

• • Dsminant specses

• • • Bryan CF, JV Conner , and DJ Demont , "An Ecological Study of the tower Mississippi River and Allinator Beyou near St . Fr anc e sva l le. Lonasaana" In: Env s ronme.st al Report , River Bend St at ion Unit s I and 2, Const ruct s nn Permit Stape, Vol ume lit, Appe nd a m F. Culf St at e ttt a ls t aes Comptey, 1973 w

O

, ~ .

TABLE 3-20 ( Cont 'd) (Sheet 1 of 3)

HABITATS, SPAWNikC AREAS, MICRATION RolfTES AND FOODE OF SOME FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN THE VICINITT OF WATERFOsD 1*

Msgrat ton Species Habit at Spawning Area-and Egg Type E nest es foods Pa l l id Largest, muddiest. rivers Sturgeon o f t he Mi s sour i-Mi s s i s e-ippi System. Bot t om in-habitant, usually living in strong currents over firm sandy bot t oms.

Raver Stresas and rivers. Fre- 1-3 feet of water in takes Indsscrasanste omaavure; botton Carpsucker ferred habitat. is quiet silt- and reservoirs over a firm feeJer.

t bot tomed pools , backwaters, sand bot t om; in sitty shosts; and ombows or large stresas in shallow silty bays; on sitt deltes at the mouth of t ribu-taries extending upstream; and over tree roots and vegetation in moderately deep wat er.

Shortnose Lakes, ombows, backwaters Eggs deposited in small masses Doesn't appear to be any Young f eed on es t r acod s, wo rms Car but prefer the mainstreams held together by a clear particular spawnang migration. and aquatac anse;.s; adult s are os large muddy rivers. gelat inous subst ance which pa sc avorous be ( sometames feed attaches t,o, weeds. on c r awis sh a nd . shr sep.

Shovelnose Larger eiwers of Missassi- Rocky bottit es in swift water. Upstream miFratione precede Insects, alget, aquatac vegeta-Sturgeon ppi Basin and Rio Crande. s pa wn ing . Ent ers t a ibut aries tioe ( bot tom t eed e r) .

Lives on the bottan'in for spawning when water is hagh, areas characterized by strong currents.

Skipjack Deep swi f t waters - usustly In Louis s ans-spr a ng migrat ion Ot her fash; anvertebrates.

Herring avoiding high turbidities, when it travels to the head-waters or larger streams and in-to connect ing lakes.

Smallmouth Osbow lakes, backwater Areas of aquatic vegetation Bot t ne feeder, a nd a sc r aminat e Buffalo areas of !arge rivers, or innundated terrestrial nenivore.

s wi f t shallow riffles, plant s, and sloughs.

creeks.

Strapwo Marane waters - same- They do not seem to spawn Schools of mullet are k no wn Ma scroscopic organa ses a nc l aJ-Mullet ** times come up into waters in fresh water. t o c ome up t he At cha f alays ing dia*see and forman.fera, of the Gulf St at es and River in t he spring as far detritus.

California and up the , as Avoyelles Parish.

Mississippi River.

Thread fin Pre fer s large bodies of Open water; under brush and Plankton, Chaoborus, Tend e ped aJ s.

Shad =* water and is most abum- floating logs. Spawns in dsnt where strong current sc hool s . Eggs are adhe s ive is found - Pelagic

• • Somanaat species

. ~ . . . . . - - . - . . . . . - . ~ - . . - . - . . . . - . . .- ~ - . . . . . - . . . - ~ ~ , - - . - . - . ~ ~ ,-~ -- n~.>.- n.- -~~m..~, . - - + ~ . - - -

4 4

m w ** O N A O O O O e d = @ N A N m y N O C N O O O O O N N O O O c > c O O O O O = O O O O g < e e e e e O. O. O.

O O O = 0 C Oe O O

e e e e e e e O. O. e-A m

W 3

h C ,.

> C O o *

-88

- h O' e b 8 - - - 4 A e m .A h O

- .= C, 6e O O 8e O O

8

- O O

r O 8.-0 8 O

e O

m e e e e e O. O. e e e e e e - 8e e O

=

W Z

b E

=

0 W

w ee O O 4 C O O O O m 4 e C y a o O + C O O C C H N m O h

m

= O J O O O O O O O O O O m C c e e e e e e e e e e e e.

=

e 0

e C

e C

e e C-e Q e m

W d

A E

- 4 N O e E m 2 O w =

W J

b 2 4 m C b 1 Q $ Nx $ O O O

+

O O O O O 7  % @ O O M C @ O O

a

< 8e e O

e O

e e 8e 0 8 8 8 8 O

@ m O

O O

~

O 8 C O

O O

e e e e e e e e e L e e e e O

E k

3 0

=

9 k a k

Q e x c w

C b

~

4 w N O O O O O O O O = e e < N O O O O O O O 4 O 4 O O O w =

a O. O.

O-e O

e O

e O O O.

O

=O O

e O

O O

N

= 0 O M O

C O

8 O O

=

C e

e e e e e e e

> e e e O. O. O. .

m . -=

e 3 m >

k W 3 w

m

a

m m e E

W e'

9 . c w

G -

D.

W $ hO k O O O O .O O O- O

=-

m W

M O

8- 8 O-O O

O O O O O O O O

O O

N N

N O

O m

O--8O O ' O O 8 m "L .=

> O O O O O O O O O = C- O E g >

e e e e e e e e a e e e e e O. O O- N e c 4 e e e e O. we W

8

.A e I

B...w C

w o ce-  %

• • > b Q. k

% a GM e e 4 3 au I_ U U h p e.

bm G Nm a

1. # & O - e e # -

4 u Q

@ @ c O O N - O @ e O N e o A e N N e

M N h . O M N N m N N- M N O N O N = =

0- ee  %

N == 3 0

> a E Q b > U w=

-O W.

k-E W

b b

4 D

4 Q'

O O

E.

M Q

2 9

M W

b M

4 Z

M A

M N

4 Z

2 3

9 2

9 ' 3M 3

J

'b J

9 Q

m A

W W

A W

W

== w e D G e t

u k

q 4 e e e W e a @ @ mm p g h  % M N N N h N

@ 4 . @ @ @ @ @ @ - N@ @ de N N N N 5 h  % N N Q N e e m e

- ,. .., ,--.w- ~wo ., , ,-c.,,. .r- -s._r + y--+w , --

. , , - - . - y ---y -.m ,.,, ,p-, -wr ., -c.,m g,w

.~ .. _ _ m m_m, .. ..m. .m. _. _ . . . - . . ~ . ~ . _ _ _ . . . .. . ,..m.....~...-....._....._..~.m . ..._m ~._.._m.___.<__._m..g ..,._,_m,_

l t

I 0 s e

e m e 1 e f f C 6 i

o 4 N I =N 0

& a t l l l t t t t 1 O O O *-

gT * =

• 4 -m v

m e

e a eT N

= - = t t 1 4 i t f f I 1 1 ( t i t 1 i w w 8*e

=s e m

m W W i += g .

~ N U

w T

a I t f f i I 'I C i l i l i t t i i 1 1 f A w C.

m o e

> w aa w m

e 6 m m

W 2 O t

== == ar. 4.

== c

• C = 4- N st er e N w 4 I I C C i 1 4 I I C o == 1 I i t- t t I m w a &T oe a M w h= o. o. o. o.

y w w k u y a w at

, J 3 m E & w fa.

p - uW U C k y 3 x m > e e

< M.e Jw k==

p T

- e e N c w

w A A E & = 1 1 C l 1 0 1 1 o I t- o t ce t t t t o C E = & C O C O w

> *t U 3 *

• e e 6 x m ~ ~

k E E

> W g

(- L == I

• e w I  %

a w= ..e at ee 3 as wT e ao N e ,

w e'** I i I a f f i t t 1 o o o. N.

C I t t t n.

= c .= c* o* o o o* 1 y

• a d* * -

a w

5 b

h C

.esw-e >

I S C 6

=- .-

3D 4 A N m .A T

• I 4 t i I I t i i I o o o I t - o t I t eT

• • a o e o-e oe oe sw g O J,C w w C w

.m o W

T W b3 e

e b e.

h. e bH M 4 NT ew 4 A + @ + + e 4 & & h Q

@ @ @ 4 & 4 4 4 4 --

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w g 4 u O

-m u M @ 4 g C C N O 4 e O N e 4 N m N O N e he 4 m rw N m N N M N N m N N N me ce N C 3 Q b O P 4 m. ae w > U C A he w-  % C C == == 60 & a Cm

.6 4 & 3 u O # 4 8 8 4 9- 3- 3 3 3 3 & &

E b 4 *C C E G 9 b Z 4 2' "3 9 9 .'"1 *C (A (A e l

l t

4

- -. , ,. , . . - , . - . - . . - . - , , - . , . . . .-. . . . . - . . - . , . . , , = -. , . .~--.~,...,n ~ - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . ~ , . , ,

_ __.__. ._ . . _ _ _ .-_ _ . ._ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - . _ m _. _., _ .___.

1 TABLE 3-23 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; l TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H,) 0F EQUALITY OF ICHTHY 0 PLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS FNUMBER PER CUBIC METER) i AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS DURING YEAR III NUHBER PER CUBIC METER STATION Date Ac At Be Bt Bt March 25, 1976 .000 .010 .009 .023 .004 April 30,1976 .000 .0 81 .007 .026 .015 May 27, 1976 .020 .009 .069 .000 . 007 June 8,1976 .127 .176 .030 .139 . 058 June 24, 1976 .000 .000 .000 .000 .008 July 7, 1976 .003 .034 .013 .017 .107 July 29, 1976 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000 August 12, 1976 .000 .000 .006 .0 00 .007 RANKS

• March 25, 1976 O April 30,176 May 27, 1976 1

1 4

5 4

2 3 5 4

2 3

3 5 1 2 June 8, 1976 3 5 1 4 2 June 24, 1976 2.5 2.2 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 Sam of Ranks 17 29 22 27 25 Overall Rank 1 5 2 4 3 X' ' = 4.40 I

Fall to Reject H ; e, a i ns were not significantly 0

different with respect to ichthyoplankton densities.

• Stations ranked according to ichthyoplankton densities (ties were averaged) d Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.

(:)

-. -- - . - . - . ,,,m ,,,,__-....m_m..,_,,- _

,..._r.. ..,,,,..v,.. _.y _ . . , . , , , . . , , . , , , . - . _ _

O a5 N 4 m e -f m O O O 4 s y 4 e 4 O e == 4 4 N ee 3 e e M N

e. e o e

e e

N e O == &

N O a =a

> 4 w

e.

e e

8 8 8 8 8 % 8m 8 8N 3w e e 4 E w N c

• N

• * * * *

• 4 I a 1 3 O o e a w N 4 4 h m == m 4 40 W" en en o

one N P @ O O 10

& 3 4 of 4 ee

$ & e h O N * *) O O e e ee N 4 N

== Oa 4 e e o e g

y e 4 e =

m.e e se

• N 4

e e e- 4e m 13 8 8 8 8O 8e 8 8 8 8 8 m

O m N *e o e

• 0 4= * * * *

• 4 I I $

4 A -.e m ** N @ e m go e.2

. 4 4 m

e. m up e w

~

a m-b<>

W h.w

~ > a & D e e m- A e me o em g6 == at O O m .4 2 0 ao e= e) eS e 4

• = G3 N eo

& h

.2 c e N. O. m. m. *J. O.

em

== @ h

& O O > en 40 en os m T C en ==

m x e 6=,

O4 e-  :- et N m Q &

L la ==

enm Z e O O O O N K w O N O O Q O t I we c O O Q- O O O O O T k. W 3 @ 4 e

O 3 o . eD. m. O. *e. O. . m. I ; qg g W m C & == O e O m m ** e N l

• 2 W 4 4 m

e 46 =1 m 4 >

< m

>= la3 et .4 z 2 V < a b- =e Q e e e e

< m i s 4 eD 4 c N en a.

p v -= c 3 4 4 N > ==

- 4 4 M e3 23 2 M. O. m. e

.I ) e m o O.

. ;C > m -= a 4 ==

e.c _e U =a. w m W w o tA I D o N 2' C E e-O O O O S Q z = p e O O O .O U C == 1lf C O O O C C O 4 E A e* e @ t o

C 3

4

= N. C. g . N. e. I g gg w

>= E O E O O 4 e* e == .m.

4 we b N we e m- ** ==

mw ==

E " .$

• n,,

a

.= N @ ' N 4 N e == e 4 W $ h @

m = -e a. m 4 e ce e. OD. =@=a 4 == a2 me m GD m M .1 N N en E3 .O g e e e m. se m == N the he y me M O >

4 W e h w e Q. O

.=.

e t

- C G.

e a O O O O O OO OO O *C

.= 7 O -O C OO OO O

• a O O O O O .O. & m == ** C9 3 em N e e e N4 0 t * * *

• 1 * * * *

• O c

o. O O em m ** 4 == N 4. * *

-e == N en == ee

• e e@

Q ese ae a e e 5e n g

• = C 4 0 he a age O- 4 3 6.

A.

8 D

Q. .

A e

h O **

ee em E S

e in. E ee en e, c se e 3 e ne e4 % W w * = 0 3 A 4 3 4 e 0- 2 2 ese se 2 m o m D en u W

• se D

W C == e a e no e E = .at y

he w as m U en = 4 as ee ese 4 $ b he *e be one y We W b M W D b8 be ) M $4 % 4 EA [,,5 auf &s 3 *e be as b M ehT 4 > 3 wee b ne D 4 m he MM 2 Q.

& O 3 4 W 4 4 4w to Ge m

i m M M V W Q b U U M Q En te

- . - . . . - . - . - . . - . - - . - . . - . _ - . - . . - _ - . . - . - - . - . . - . - ~ . . . ~ . - . . . . . - . . . - . .

TABLE 3-25 O VELOCITIES IN CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM

• Velocity - Feet per Second Water 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 .l l

Narrow Section AHWL 1.13 0.96 0.69 l (River End) ALWL 1.69 1,44 1.03 Wide Section AHWL 0.45 0.38 0.27 l (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 f) 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.

i l

l L

O

TABLE 3-26 O. AVERAGE VELOCITIES AND TRAVEL TIMES IN CIRCt'LATING WATER SYSTEM *

(V in Feet per Second. T in Seconds) 4 Pump Operation 3 Pump Operation 2 Pump Operation V T V 1 V T Intake Canal AHWL .59 275- .50 325 .37 443 ALWL 1.00 163 .83 195 .62 261 Intake Struc- AHWL .59 101 .59 101 .59 101 ture 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 l'J4 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 Avarages based on volume and length of each portion of the- system.

O 9

fii[i; gi[f}ff{; lIsh{sf$l$[I!tP -

ji ]' . ; + 5 * ,5 [{;i [f! , iI$!!

O e- vr a s

ee arbat ou g et aag )

r n r u0 a e e c eF el 9 p pa p

• g 0 g e

nc i n6 mD 1

(

'0 0 o a n

0

~

0 n

a 40 00o i'

5 N

o d C3 T e( 0 2 1 0

1 1 l h 1 1 h 1

.lm a t 001 l

= a :

O I

T t

e ag a n

. t t eg r

e 9

x 7

m 6

m 4

a 9

0 4

0N C

o 3 7 s

7 0

4 0

C o

N 4

3 59.l.

1 81

s. 7 72 I

D ev t A na eh o4 t t 2 2 1 5 9 1 2 N t oh c c2 O s ns ms a C E i a At Fn W

O l e F e -

s aeug' r e .

R a r vt a et oag )

M r nb r u3 m c ea el 6 p e e M

U n c pa

2. (p 6- 6 ~ 0 g 3 '5 g $

n ~ 6} '

S i nF mD - 0 ~ n ~ - ~

o e( 0 o 0 1 0 a 0 O a 0 O00 l 1 1 001 _

E d C5T ) l 1 1 h 1 I h 1 a x :

1 a _

C  :

C A

P t

e a gan

.t t reg m

0 a

4 x

8 m

3 x

2 6 C

o 8

x 7

m 0 5 o

N 7

l.

21 29 1

1 7 1 3 _

F mv eh o1 4 2 7 l 1 0N 1 3 1 0 4 V a A eit t 1 A t ob oc3 s nn ms a .

R E a t AI F0 .. eg O

F e r _

e - er n ,

R s av u a .

F a r ot h V et b ag l c l r nar u6 e s i

p c e el 2 p d

incF p i mD5. (p I n t P o0 e( 0 n P dC1 T ) e e g eg g i f

I S

S e

t s gan

. t t m

r 6

0 6

0 0 a

a

~

0 8

0 n

a 40 ~

000 00 o

p I ev eh o1 1 1 4 '01 h t 1 h 1 1 1 1 x s 1 1

= 3 S iA nit t 2 x  : x C x x C S t ob oc6 1 7 6 6 4 2 5 0 0 3 257 24 I 3 s ns ms a o e. o d r

M Ei t AI F0 8 4 1 2 2 1 h 3 7 2 1 N 9 423 27 D o r f E  !

r H O T F - e R a t a

O2 N E r g I T et n W A s ni r 7 S W a et o

N ec a

- O Y r nl t 3 I B c ou c T aC c gx a E A E l r) v e f L R C eim AH B T R d gCp e n A N A ea p 6 0 0 n

g I '~ 4 43 ~ i s o .

T F H t rf( - ~ ~ ~ ~

C C s eo 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 00o 00 .t n N S ev r 1 1 1 1 h 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 ui O I iA ne x s x s c - x u x u x x l a r

C T

D M

t n nia E a tW ot 3 1

6 7

5 2

2 4

6 4

3 2M o

9 6

?.

1 8

3 9

I 9

6

-.5 1 97.l.

747 1

41 4

iDd N O .p E k ) o R F s bh E n ( s M o A i s e t d .n E a r

. gh ei V A t ra

, O Pi ed r c

- M E mt n aa A a aa 0 -

25 .h m

- 0 00 0 0 c S leLWtS 3 31

- - 9 9 00 05 34 00 3 1 st i n N b t e g gx - -

gn O a nt y - 6 - - - -

gx d e I ceat v v a 0 v a . gx m T i uti A AM 0 AM va v a t p A l l Sl - - - - - 6 3 - - - - - AM AM ni R pf a S S l - i u T pf ru S S C oq N AE oO T T pe E

C e e 2 e N t n n v O n t t d d' d i i' di

_ C e r r e e e r r nt

.dt i i v d v o o' ac E nn D D ) l n l l l a

_ T ao c o e p

o h h I o S -C , , ( s s C C i A l t t e s s s .dd W n n n i s u s r a

_ at c n e e i D e S a i

D e . a l l a or L ia g g z st s i et u' u . f A mt n r ' r a l d a l d n l d a d d r n C eu o e e r aif ' ai o aif i i sDS S ea I

M E

hl Cl o B r

o t

D e

t D

e d

H y

t l l oouil TSS p t l oo TS m

m A

t l l oou TSS H

p s

e R '

eOS RBT S

T

. t r s af f W .

H P c s C r e F

n e

me 0. ot 0f a O

'y t

s t

s y r 0.

0 og ri n Y m R S S e e 8 t i A t t 2 c r M s a s a o t

n t

n r r s rmc y t, wf G

M w U e e e w

ou toei d e

S e n w

o nn e

S m m t t t t . r r l e e e o a s e a s eh e e t t go f oi c g g h r yv r y ns F s n s nd i z r a a S eSi eS g u i e e i w rt a u n n n t s n al r l m r l o eur

_ o a a ,

enan en mF e a t T ol vl d

- S M M y G wr o Gwo s r a oB i i y r o ei or r. ns ep e en i C R DH e n e d md nt md t e en nu r g e r o n a we u awct di c at C e imn' t t t s r s u eogl e loel na e ws A w ) )

a c a o a a t l e o t l i or ea r e y V o W B W L SBRS SBEF CD DH P SS HT

• f (

• i !jjj ,. i ! i)!li1)')ii 4 1 ((lf,!l\!j j4,ii5 -ljj;l ii j 1 i! 1

-4 4& -- M 4, 4 A A M.AA m.Aba&a4 *- O _%4 a64E.O-MM 4 hMM h 24"M-# M M. A M A,m M .h eu MLAme h a held-N@etua m 4--- & n Jhp & +Lep- a m.4 as .,s.p w g e n'w amass-eme

-r p

1 r I i f

t I l'

+

I f

I 6 I

l l-l

{

l i l

L @

I i

i t

3 l.

f 1

1 i

f f

.-____.__ _ . ___---.-_..._-,._.. ,_,..._. _-._ _ _ _ _ _ .__,_ - -_.._ ~.__._, . . . . _ . - . , . . . , , . . _ _ , . . _ _ _ .

w

.\

O <

I,

\

• - '\, :ma -

1 r,

) . . . . . . .

s

\

e i

' \

• , \ i

\ --

• c ,

\ -

.J er= -..

,.m t

n'

(*n.::' 4

-w

• _/sru- .

Y~ _ [s\ $ ,

T ,

j g --

t wwA v.- ,_.

v i c. et, J? c ,k a.

[!

<i i

• • V %gfiy.$ m._T'N '**p .-K 4pt i f '05  !

y ............................ 4?

s - .m...*. t A.%p .t C,~1 tw., w,

h .. -

1 np,pm; -

m

~ .:. e:.

-r*~

e, . _ w b . c...

.n e  ::

1 r Qe-  ; i b<

I A,, ,y n

! 7 # gh w.7,,,'~,,,j:i ij i -

. !,frrT*J .--

l * *G j!! ~~

A ,

t..

l,i, n

~

i.~ s ,2, c ~~

1

.=. s . a sp o . e s . e e f. e~e . . . . ... . . . .u . .. .<:

l j

,i

!,f  ;

.,7, o 5. sg.,,s e n e ss .

-- p  :: '

2, n

' ~

l' d" *l l!

I j  !!

O

. h ll  ::

• ' *A bh! l'/

a  :: l,',

,, 4, C***** I  :.

n o.

i

! If JM.,!! -

h (1i. '~?M

\

\\

ll ll 1

ll..  !.!. 0

. \, \

\  :: ';

-l l: s as@ _, . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

S '\ >> a s s se ., sase y asses

_,7 y . .,r.~: s a % ..-m:==,_.  ! w :m~,w.m ,-m ,m ,. m m,:g i;

- ._ * ;l $

_9 .. { ((

ll U {

..*.'.,i"*" -

.t n .r.:e.:: t il a.

l n, e 1 :: ,

, ... ~

ll tl h -

- - - - - ---* **** g 1.

l ;; ..

.. l .J .l -

o s en se.,se ss as i.k. issussi.su s s de as. .. st,j; 1

3.a. as -

Ik,s, h 1

11

,p 4 u 9

l 4

!l I !.!

d* *2,,"  !!

a 1;

sa" !1 h I {t  ;;

1

• h '. ':  ::

@M 6:: . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . Aw

. . . . o" . . . . . . . . . . . . o::

O ,

LOUI5 LANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO* ATERFORD 3 SITE AND Waterford $1eom NEARBY STRUCTURES 32 Electric Station

O 1200 - NOTE:

COWBINED DATA FROW TARBERT LANDING AND RED RIVER L ANDING 1930 1975 110 0 ~

blTA UTILIZED FOR THis CURVE IS B ASED ON WONTHLY AVE R AG E FLOWS 1000 -

900-E 800 -

I

[ 700 -

O h

< 600 -

5 500-l 400 -

l 300 -

l 200-100  ; 'g g g i l l l l 1 0 to 20 30 40 30 60 70 to 90 100 DURATION (% TIME)

EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED "L. .. . .. - g..

LOUISI AN A- Flevre POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterford Steam MIssisslPPI RIVER FLOW DU9.ATION CURVE

' 3-3 Electric Station '

. . _ - - - . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . .....__...--,.-__.,-.-.__,-_.._.,___-..._,__-...-_.m..

_. - . . . . _ ~ , - -, . . . , - , - - , , _ ,

O DitTANCI ACho&8 Alvt R. FT.

p 900 iD00 1000 to i i - i i > i - 1 o -

\ naten sumpact f _

20Ne of INtart 30 -

witweeawai g _

40 -

l, .

4 e so -

[

1 f

so -

e q.'#

%,,4 ioo 3*/

, , o ,, . L.1to n. ausu RIVER FLOW: 20(i,000 cf:

If.,.%.

.m..

u

o. ...u .,.ic.tio.

. u .,

e o. v s co.,s.ce e=

u , u.. co.it.ves o .o

. oo. ....e v. ,. . . i.,s . i.v.i . oi. e .s.

.. u .. ... o ..uis a i. .uc.

LOUISIANA I MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSS.SECTION p;9y,, '

POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterford Steam AT LITTLE GYPSY GENERATING ST ATION 3_4 Electrie Station

.- - . -_. _ . -= - _ - .-, ..

n V

1

• I I l I I I I I I I I I l

_ 30 e so y -. -- ..

25 m 9 uz e d

v 2 --

70 - --

g _. -

20 a0 m

3 5 8 -- d 2

co _- -- -- -- .

w w g --

~

o a 2 E

(]

u {w so -

'd ---

ioI -

~

- t' ..

. -- veomun ,

W - - Avereg. y

~

40 -

-- Minimum

~~

y i I I I I I I I I. I I I J F M A V J J A S 0 N O I

l

.?."."4g ; .::: [ '" ,

== .:~- -

,n LOUISIANA MONTHLY YARI ATIONS IN WATER TEMPERATURE Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. IN THE MI5515SIPPI R!VER NE AR Waterford Steam ST. F R ANCl5VILLE, L A-,195A68. 3-5 Electric Station

1 l

l O

i

) *** I s I l l llll111 I I I I I I I I Ill l I I l .

,ox - _ _. _ -

. I e ex -

~~  ;

$. wo l

]

5m -

I W .x - I -

E i' 5 >x 1 5

' l ix -

E I I

O is ,x -

i -._ ___

! m e - I l -

6 - -

ye -

l l 1

l 40 -

l l

g 30 _I! I l llllll1 I I I I I I I I I Ill I I CS I 2 S 10 to 30 $0 70 to 90 96 to to 99 8 .

PCdCENT OF fil*C IN0iCATED SUSPEN0(0 SEDWENT WAS EQUALED 08t EXCEEDCD i

i

\

I

! "" l0.' *O:'.".=:'O:::

=='

:::=.

. . . . r.

• "". r O'::' " *"

O LOUISIANA PIpro POWER & LIGHT CO. DURATION CURVE OF SUSPENDED 5EDIMENT CONCENTRATION Wotorford Steam MIS $1551PPI RIVER AT RED RIVER L ANDING, L A., 1949 63 36

. Electric Station i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ . . . _ - - . . . , . . _ - , . . . _ - . . - . . ~ . - . _ . . , _ - . . . . , _ . , - , _ . , . . . . . - , _ , . . . . . . - . _ . . . _ . , . , - _ . - . _ . , . . . . - . . ~ . .

l j

O O O

\y L*' hp "

\

.v b I J . .N

/ 7 4 r. ., \ .,

fk i

Ac\*e  ! , ,

,h\,

I -  ;

/y e

cfd 7

,/

I L, f,,) ,

j ,

5eg

. /

g\

(/ -

g- A N.

/

.,p i

~ ,is .l s  ;

%s . ,f . 6 l

/ *E; {kkB .!/

I p C

j i

e f:/ .

w e

.s 1

+ .s '

li ==tt

/ titut surst r

. e t samme ta m.

/

eiu mia s a .-

• ',. b owa etur  ;

fAj

( j,. '

• x 0. s

'* , j ,

- t

,. .s *:s 4 .wN

%['{?

., $s15 h  %

\

• • ~

.\

LEGEND - D 9 9 ==-

Uf m _. -~

gg ,, j Station s ,~- - i s.

D f' -

Benthos

"~ P N[1 .~$'

3 By}*

O Gill Nets '\ . , .

• 9 u.

if, ,

ii.

A Water Chemistry -

w.i. s. = w.

Otter Trawls

--- Midwater Trawls

.---.- Surface Trawls & Zooplankton LOUlilANA Figure i,

POWER & LIGHT CO. SAMPLING ARE AS IN THE MI55tS51PPI RIVER NE AR WATERFORD 3 Waterford Steam 3_y Electric Station

t

. t

" t. , '

1 ""-4 ,

O -;,') *

.t s se w

?6#

is T.

s

.o -  ;

j i[)', i d,-, .

s .c.- ,-

ky+ 9 s~~

c*'I L f

,H, - -

c'J* *- I - i.\a [--.

p?

/ -

.. . w -

g4 i i

, s 1.. s Ne C =~. ==.. 4 +

I afa.==

eL O , y g

m ,,..

l [ ,J) /g . m--

) (y;';-%bg.lA

, , s ., =

P f

=.: -

f f

.:. m

?

(

.g I i*.

ig 's ,, 2 - 'y.- - . .

- ,=

(\ b\ t%

\

t .s -

-r '/

e

%'s ,

e 4B T, 6-

,.Y[' /.-

jD 4

% \

\ .

3,~ \ .

. \ t , J T 4 -t . %G. .~::: . .

'A  ; _,

ehfZi'* l' '

i g, ,

'.s -

s' i .

s s.

K.

-Q,e .x 15.'<e#

ll.. .*

. g,' ::T. ... ,~.:.:.*. . "* ~"

a ..

O LOUlSIANA FI, vie POWER & LIGHT CO. WASTE SOURCES IN THE Waterford Steam LOWER MI551551PPI RIVER 38 Electric Station m . ~ . _ . , - - _ . - - - _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ - - _ . . - _ - _ _ _ .

S

> 1

- ~

1 g

3 .E i GM o g rnk r~

o C2C -so. , > l' ,,

E

' 62 P 5 ~ -- 1 1' _m $

f m"C5 '

390-- . so o MISSISS/PPI RIVE'S FLOW W MISSISS/PPI R/VER FLOW W

- o I 'D- - ao.o 5 - _

m3o  %. ~ - : ,- -- -

k.

m 1 e ,i -

e/ t ,e -

I.~. __ - _

2 -

• 08 8 E2 #

Ph

---

E p , _ _ ?,_. . ' .4 r J-..

s kk I[' '

- ... p x1 I

g$Ag g; g w.

~

, - ! .. :..1 -: J -,=

C __ n 1A .m.; a

.utoo . i , .-

,Y 3;

~~

-9 aa'  ;;

,o

-d. _ l J s i ,

.- -- f Il LII m /

~ -

. ~ . .. _ . ,

'7 zest t tavat ,

_u__

y '1' '[,

6.

$ _--[

j T i .. /- 7 ?T 8

" N IbI

. \,, -

/ ,  :

p A, #,

4 6

f_ gj __ __

u_ y - _

e

,.c o . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

_ , - %'> ct-

/

__r_._ _ __. - - - - --

lf.f f, ,

= < eoo ,

~ ~

I!] 5 F- ,%

• 3 4j ~,1 -

/'

./ 1:

h.Mt 3h-l A

t 5

I I!

i 4 {, ,.1 gr  : - qi "ps f

./pi t j ,

i.. . 3 .

I .

i.

/,  ! / t , i i n .

(  ;

l

, \ _ u en m_ q. o -.

• l

i l

t

.w .

o too ago i

)?o

"" gy APEllTURE (3

x_3 CARD i t

Also Available Ori Aperture Card

. 111 m -

.- _ ,,. ewe.-

.~. w.

m a

~ q~' (__ . -) ,__

gc

= 4- , , _

J j 1- --

o r i

n 4g::--

t ,

y q.;

e, e, <.,e-n , c m*= . . ;; g .i

,o: -

,, , , , r<

g [- * *I '

s .. .

n,ao,w .%nactoa,

, *h ee h IV T 3 y , ,,,,,

aft - " " '

, h, t

.:= i' q

,.-.. ,- ,1_

D,est3 % p

~ ~

Q; 1 2 C.-. 4 - 4 >

t -

r 9

m i

, . .. . a 1.1

..- ~

~

- '- ~

7////(0679-Of CUL ATING WATER S'/ S Y E M FIGURE GENERAL PLAN g shy % .sw

,- ,,- -r-. - -,

1 P

• - v n .c.

I'"W u o ...................... n w w

] g b j.-- - - iu- m u W masaseestasassassassay w u saimmte watt s k

• i ,

O a y

k

?*? _

! s

,e m: g <. _ ,

, p .

Lsu. . 2_ . - --

. s

{u. U *

,: 4

. 4. 4 L . 5,

r "i 4 (L*

E L E V. L-L Q tt N

..... INTAKE Lw.. s, ..a 4, .-.\ ......... .

' T.).

.ll .-

1 -

MISSISSIPPI  ;

9/ VCR 1?f =

i -

g fj , ,

i .-

V

, 'p 1,, / .

'X f t1. . .::.

m:

l : . : u. I

1. . . _ e r...::

i n u :.. _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . . . .... ...._ _ _ _ __ _ _..____ .... __ __ _ _.._. _ _ __ _ _

ELEV.A-A ,

\

i

-LOUlGIANA POWER & LIGHT Co.

Waterford Steam CIR Electric Station l

,e s 1_ _ _._ _ -_ _ . - - _ . _ _ - - ~ --- - - " - - - - ~ " - ' - ~ ' ' - - - - - " - ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " ~ " ~ ~ ~

. . - . - - .. - - - _ . ~ . - . - _ . . . - ...-. -. -..- - - - -

t INTAKE CANAL...-ICTAKE STRUCTUQE

. ncy

. _ _ - ~- -y .

r- 8 f i , .

\, li ..,

l r--

', .. . ,\_

s 1

.wi Ns blL...

r ,, .. . . 's r * *-'

1

... I k I. . . , . . .

I e

I k eta g l .

r... .

N 2 j 4

\ t t f r. . ..

4/ll si

%. s L-- APERTURE

// .

["'

1 j CARD

/' LJ f .-

Also Available On Aperture Card i i c A N Al -@---IN TA k E S T RUC T U R E ---u -

w:s_ .

It P l l

PLAN i

lll o 5o rtc1

=,

JL,

• W _

H

.l! .:

! l

. . . . . f;..b 9/ /WCC 77  :

)L ATING WATER SYSTEM FIGURE INTAK E CANAL 3-10 r

---.u+y.c, 9 , p,..,v. ,7.., . ' . ,,, _ _ , . , - , , , , , , , , . , . -,,p.,,, ,,,,gg_.,,,,,,,,,,gy,y,,,g%.,,,,,.7.pc .,,.,,,.pw_,,,a, a..,,gg., gy,,y,,%, 4h,

ig=g

[, h -

G1 %- && - .EA '8%,. . . . a 4... gA6 .r1 84

' 9

@)

.. a r e

• 3 -q

_ -  ; ._- .. :_ j __ pj }

N e E

=

e

'e t 't S

s

._ 4 -. >_q __. p ._ q _ _ _ . _ _ _

F_1

_ . _ _ . _ p i

e E

1 d

.t r o -

t.*.g_ .-,. . _ _ _ . .

4 .~_. 4 .

i W

= .,, e *

• .Or" /,

.E. .i 74 77 q l

_ . _ qja _ _ _ _ _ . .

t ..

m

{o g

b l'.

_ __. m L. 3 x -

, w... ,

a I

'4.r.r' _'.)(7._s t ,

i

= - _

\  !

l l

E F s

v ,**/

ei

-se i  !  :

a

. w1 t >m' ',.

4r

+

i 4

- . _ . _ .. m 4 .=u ew ~ ,i. w i ==

tg,. m g _ m ,gg M 31m m tyy., m agg m .J,E M w a PLAN NOTE: TWO OF THE FOUR INTAKE PUMPS SHOWN " * * * * * * * * * " " "

• LOUISlANA POWER & LIGHT Co. Rd Waterford Steam l Electric Station

. y_ . . _ _ - - . . _~

.. ____...._____-.__...___-,m_ ..-____._...______.~.._m.m._ .___. - __ . _ __ _ _ _ .. _ _._ _ _

I C --

ll' = 0 IJ g , J]O

!, <Il 0 s

5 a s

[ 4'. 0 1 - --- _, l

] f l .- 3

-  ; _- 7' 3

g

~~

~- a:cscE. '

O O O

!:'1 5

s .I

~

r_e m

e..

= _

. - - _ . - - - = . . . - . . _ - = , .

s  :

. SI E8 _.

._ _ _ . - APERTUIE O g O O CARD '

} '

r.o Also Availabic On i8 g

~]

N Aperture Card

. L ca a t D -

l L q . '

1

..I m

l  ; N - it a .__

l' a .

l ., -..

l a b$

t i I SECT A-A y 1

k 9/////0079'-03 L ATING WATER SYSTEM FIGURE qNTAKE STRUCTURE 3 - Il l

~.

l

. _ _ _ . , . , _ . _ . - . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ , . ____ . _ _ . _ . ~ . _ . . _ _ .

O

,. MISSISS/PP/ R/VER FL OC7 %>

l q .a -

A 1

9 P

m

(

'O vp . . 1

" ~ ~

DISCH ARGL C AN AL- '

l 1

A a

D I S C H A R G r. S T R U_C_T U_R E _,

~~

o,,

nB , Bn r- e  ?

m  ;

m l

F t

g .. ,

O ,

. += c 1

h~ m. k ,,.. , 2r . _ _ .

_ FLAN (NOT TO SCALE)

LOUISl AN A POWER & LIGHT Co Clfi Waterford Steam

, ,_, Electric Station DISCHI

v 44' 6" ~

g..

....., 01SCHARGE STRUCTURE - T ~~

.q _.

= ~

_=  : 2. , - -'

E E_- l

. ._x =i

. . L4._ _ = . . , , c.- -

/.,,,,

y-

+ .

t 1 o}- - -} 3 I

i \ ,

\ \ -

4, . e u,*;j;,,

' I i, e *

% ,J L

• _ a _* s * *

• __

' S' .ch.

G c l P

I F

) s0 70 '

( _ _ .- _ . l _.-_ .,_ .)

tttt SECT A-A >

SI -

APERTURE i CARD  :

i Also Availahlc On Apertiire Cud  ;

- e. s o w , . .  ;-*b'"*

{

• d *'

r, . . ~.4.o .- - .

., 4 g. ..

., ,. i . . . , .

_ . . = , r = x-  : .. . .: = -. ,: r .. =. ' >

b u...

'; T _: ~ '

- = ,- l l ~T ri l ** = . - . .

- " * * * * ~ i.,f~ ~~ I

... I _ . . .. #

^-

C _..

i i

i i.

i f  ;

,~.w-. ...--;e, _

-+-

. .>. 0 9 to t t_ >

fitt SECT. B-B  ;

l 1lSCHARGE STRUCTURE 9////lon?j!-nf WATER FIGURE SYSTEM lCULATINC 3-12 RGE STRUCTURE AND CANAL 4

i

.1

~.-..,... -. - - - .- , ,.~ -.., - . ; . . , , . . . _ , . . . . . - . - - . . , . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . - , , , . - . . - . . - - , . . , - . - .

i; i

I N

l

@ iI.

I f

I i

5 i

t 5

4 I

(

i i I j' i

i SECTION 4 ,

1 l

l I O .

L b

I 4

o G

L i 6 l

O- 4.0 BIOLOGICAL Cots!t'NITY IStPACT 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 fystem.

This percentage is usually less chan 1 percent of the annual average-flow (see Section 5.0). The combined total withdrawals for Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2, and Waterford 3 do not exceed 3 percent of the typical low flow of 200,000 efs.

This section contains a corsunity-by-community racionale for the cone 10sion 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 i

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 founa at Waterford aftst passage through the condenser is expected to be substantial during uost periods of the year (Gurtz and Weiss,1974).

4.2 ZOOPLANKTON Zooplankton densities are low in the Mississippi,.and the community is pro-O s s17 de ieetea $7 retirer w*iew re eet meaer < ea eorce rer ese <"s -

species present in the Mississippi. The percentage of the community i

,_4-.._, m , - wr w yvm+ " * = - ' - -

- - " ' * - ~ ~ ' ' " " ' * " ' ' ' " '

subjected to intake withdrawal is low. No commercially inmortant or en-i 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 / MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES The species likely to be aUected by intake withdrawal of Waterford 3 is the river shrimp, M_aerobr chium ohione. The river shrimp supports a smal' fishery in the Mississippi and Atchaf alya Rivers. River shrimr 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 icv notential for impact due to ane low volume of river water involved, the non-unique-ness of the Wataford 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 i

i Species captured during the Environmontal 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 endangerud.

Several species found have commercial value. Between Baton Rouga and the river mouth f reshwater drum, blue and channel catfish, and carp were taken from the Mississippi by commercial fisherman. The value of the- regions e m m rcial fishery is discussed further in Section 3.4. Sport fishing in the lowcr Mississippi River is not common (USAEC 1973).

O 4-2

4.1 FISH SPAWNING AND NL'RSERY POTENTI AL The Mississippi River at Waterf ord Joes not provide habitat suitable for spawning at many fish specie 5 It lacks the riffle areas preferred for s pawning by many cat fish (ictalurids) and :nos t sucke rs (catastomids), the shallow backsaters and flooded areas preferred by pike (esocids) and some of the shads (clupuids) and sunfishu (centrarc'iids), and the vegetated areas p.efarred by other sunfishes and perch (percids) (see Table 3-20).

Soue of the fish larvae sampled during the Environmental Surveillance Pro-grain must have been produced upstream of Waterford 3, since the habitat at Waterford does not m

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 September 719,100 -------

385,749 745,299 2111 2236 4720 l 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 1 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. -

l i

O

TABLE 5-2 ESTIMATED AVERAGE Nt!MBER OF ZOOPLANKTON ENTRAINED BY WATERFORD 3 Average Total 3

th/sec Average #

1. /M Intake Zooplankton Month All fears

• Waterford 3 Entrained /see January ** 8.4 39.30 331 February 250 39.30 9825 March 901.8 39.30 35440 April 386.6 49.72 19221 May 1292 56.55 73062 June 777 63.52 49199 July 309 63.32 19565 Aug 1794 63.32 113596 Ser ',er 1118 63.32 70791 (I oc 'se r 227 Ss.98 13615 Novembe r 956 47.66 45563 December 170.7 39.30 6708

• Average P/M for each month sampled. Three years pooled data.

• • 0nly one year sampled

't O

. . . = - - _ . - - - , . . . - - . _ - . _ . _ . . . . - , . . . - . . _ . . _ - . - - - - --

TABLE 5-3 ESTIMATED ICHTHYOPLANKTON ENTRAINMENT BY WATE# FORD 3, 3

1. /M Average Total Density Most Total All Stations Abundant Igtake Ichthyoplaiston Month All Years Family M /sec Entrained /see 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 .000 - - - - - - -

63.32 - - - - -

October .000 -------- 59.98 ------

l November .000 --------

47.66 ------

December .000 --------

" . 30 ------

O

TABLE 5-4 PERCENT OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW ENTRAINED BY WATERFORD 3 Average of Average of Monthly Averages Monthly Minimums Average Monthly Station Station Station Intaka Intake Intake River Flow as River Flow as Flow

• Flow **  % River Flow 7. River Month efs 1,000 efs Flow 1,000 efs Flow Jan 1,388 501 0.277 345 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 2,236 2,236 279 0.801 219 1.021 Sep 218 1.026 180 1.242 Oct 2,118 233 0.909 179 1.183 Nov 1,683 258 0.652 191 0.881 l De c 1,388 366 0.379 275 0.505 j

• Station flows based on pumping modes described in Section 3.4.

• • Flows based en 35 year record at Red River Landing (1942-1976).

l O

s awm us we g. w m pse-

hMehad fAMW A4 4ME ms. de.6Didr4 m'aD44dels.@nn.ea r.pq- J.e  : d.e ies .wa m A.a e. e.3,p permous wne.ar J. wm s e e n. e Awoi,J 4,wA 4 auch M med.Si.a> 4J.ab4JE4Wm.

N 4

i 3

J e

I J t

f s

SECTION 6 t

5 1

r i

I L...-,--,,,.-_--,_,_m.__. _ ,....,,, _ ,. , . . . , _ , . . _ , , _ , , , , _ __ . , , , _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ , ,

6.0 IMPINGEMENT EFFECTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the anticipated impingecent of equatic 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 removed by washing to a trough and sluiced te ne 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 ef fect on the Mississippi River environment, it has been necessary to derive a mthod to calculate, as closely as possible, the rate of impingement which can be expected when Waterf ord 3 becomes operational.

~

The conclusions which can be drawn from predictive studies such as this one f have inherent limitations when compared to those based on actual measure-ments obtained at an operating intake. This report utilizes , howeve r, 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 Waterf ord

3. The use of this range of anticipated ef fects 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 f actors af f ecting impingement analysis is included and the general methodology utilized to calculate impingement rates is O

6-1

l detailed. The actual impingement expected to occur at Waterford 3 is described f or each important species likely to be af fected. 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 ef f ects to tha 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 Waterf ord 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 ef f ect on the-analysis that has been utilized to predict impingement by Waterford 3, and l therefore should be noted.

The most important locational factor influencing the ef fect of an intake is the nature of the water source f rom 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 diff erences in fish abundance between the stations sampled, as dis-cussed in Section 3.4.4, and that the specific intcke heation 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 pa r t , to the configuration of the river in the lacation f rom which water is withdrawn.

6-2

O The placement of an intake on a meander, oxbow, shoal, etc, because of variations in fish abundance, can af f ect rates of impingement when compared to withdrawals from relatively staight shoreline or channolized rivers.

The physical structure of an intake is another major factor in predicting impingement rates. One principle aspect f or this analysis is tha manner in which water is withdrawn from the water column. An intake relying upon withdrawal through a pipeline will remove water f rom a relatively restric-ted area, typically near the bottom. A structure utilizing a more open canal ce shoreline intake withdraws water from a larger portion of the wa te r colu mn . 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 ef fects. Factors such as the direction of the inflow current at the point of withdrawal, the current velocity within the st ruc-l O ture, and other design features should be considered in an analysis of impingement (EPA, 1976).

6.3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY UTILIZED FOR PREDICTION OF IMPINGEMENT l

l This section describes the general method which was utilized to derive a quantitative prediction f or the number of aquatic organisms expected to be impinged by Waterf ord 3. Specific methods for predictions by species are included in the discussion in Section 6.4.

6.3.1 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 analysis of species impingedent data gathered at Waterf ord 1 and 2. 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 i.. validate the comparison (Grose, 1977; Astor, 1978). Because of this potential limitation to the use of data from Waterford I 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 ef fective than the use ot 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 C0KPARIS0t1 0F 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 *..'aterford 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-l l 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 threngh a computerized

search of the " Power Database", developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum,

! Inc. (AIF, 1978). The data util. zed were derived from published impinge-6-4

me nt studies, intake evaluations, and 316(b) documents. This data search

() yielded inf ormation on two power plants in the lower Mississippi u d eight in the central basin which had suf ficient data and inf ormation to use in this study. These ten power plants utilized a total of twelve intakes f or which data was available. The general location of these power plants with-in the Mississippi River Basin is given in Figure 6-1.

to this The design, operational and locational characteristics of interest analysis were the f ollowing:

1) Intake location

2) Plant intake tYFe

3) Stream morphology at the intake

4) Operational data O 5) Intake temperature, including discharge recirculation This inf ormation is displayed in Table 6-1 for all of the intakes utilized i

in the analysis.

Because the differences in these intakes , in either physical st ructure or location, have influence to the impingement prediction f or Waterf ord 3, the capabilities of the two major categories to benefit or limit the analysis should be noted.

i 6.3.2.1 Lower Mississippi River Intakes 4

The operating intake closest to the Waterf ord 3 intake for which impinge-As indicated in Table 6-1, ment data are available is Waterf ord 1 and 2.

Waterf ord 1 and 2 uses submerged, siphon pipes located of fshore and ope-rates with smaller cooling water volumes than does Waterford 3. The prin-ciple benefit to the analysis f rom the use 'of impinge ment data from Water-O f ord 1 and 2 is their location relatively close to Waterf ord 3, as indi-4

~

6-5

cated in Figure 3-2. Although Waterford 1 and 2 withdraw water from an area which has dif f erent cu r re nt pa t t e r ns than those occurring at the Waterf ord 3 intake, as well as withdrawing water from the edge of a shoal, the fish community was found to be generally similar by the Waterf ord 3 En-vironmental Surveillance Program. This similarity is described in detail in the Waterf ord 3 Environmental Report.

However, there are substantial physical dif f erences between the Waterf ord 1 and 2 intake and that desigud and under const ruction f or Waterford 3.

These dif f erences have a limiting af f ect on the direct extrapolation of data f rom Waterford 1 and 2 to Wat(rford 3, and they are explored in detail in the Waterford 3 Environment 2A caport. In summary, actual impingement at Waterford 3 could te higher because of: 1) the potential f or - fish to gather in the low current velocity area within the intake canal; 2) the po-tential withdrawal or heated water f rom the Waterford 1 and -2 discharge by Waterford 3, and; 3) the higher intake volume of Watet ford 3. Waterford 3 could have lower impingement due tot 1) its withdrawal over the water column rather than from the bottom layers exclusively; 2) tbc greater po-i tential for fish to escape the intake canal af ter their entr. ace, and;

3) the greater capabilities of fish to escape the horizontal current pat-terns of the Waterf ord 3 withdrawal. The Waterf ord 1 and 2 intake is also I

an offshore intake, compared to Waterf ord 3's shoreline position.

The second nearest plant to Waterford 3 studied is Willow Glen, several miles upstream of Waterf ord 3, as shown in Figure 6,1. The Willow Glen station has two intakes, designated Willow Glen 1 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 1 has an of f-shore, inverted pipe intake with an average intake capacity of 200 cfs.

Willow Glen

• is similar, but with a horizontal pipe and an. average capa-l city of 400 cf s. Neither Willow Glen 1 and 4 nor Waterf ord 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 l

l this analysis f or their location and consequently their withdrawal f rom the same general aquatic comtranity. However, the physical and operatir n-6-6

- - - - . . . - - - _ . - . - ~. . . - - - .- - .-. - . . . - .. -- --- - -

l

() al dissim'.larities with Waterf ord 3, as well as dif f erences in pipeline i

withdrawal f rom the more restrictea bottom area of the Mississippi River habitat, u.dicated that additional data were needed f rom intakes of similar l

design to Waterf ord 3's.

6.3.2.2 Central Mississippi Basin Intakes The attempt to secure additional data from intakes with a more similac 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 Bluf f s.

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 syscem (the Mississippi or a major tributary) and the

() availability of impingement da ta . Two plants uith data had to be elimina-ted f rom further use becease of their intake withdrawal f rom saltwater and lake environments. One riverine plant was eliminated f rom use due to the incompatibility of the data with the format of that f rom the other plants.

While no attempt was purposely made to locate other plants in the areas more distant f rom Waterford 3 aolely on the basis of similarities in design and operational characteristics, the central basin plants located did of fer 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 f or this analysis. There was no reasonable method which could enlarge the data base beyond this without a corresponding decrease ht the applicability of the data to Waterf ord 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-O ford 3.

6-7

\

m _

---

c -y , , , - - , ,----~-y. , ,, -w

. --w -w, w - - - ,ww.,. . , - - . , - , , , - - , , - - - - y,--.-.-.r-< - ,-.

However, the use of intakes at such a substantial distance f rom Waterf ord 3 (i.e., at least 1,000 river miles) does have inherent limitations. This distance resvits in dif f erent environsental 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 da ta f rom the eight central basin plants with sid.lar in-takes and the information from those plants in the lower Mississippi of f ered a substantial da ta base for this predictive study of the Waterf ord 3 intake. The Waterf ord 3 Environmental Surveillance Program also provided significant inf ormation 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 satisf actory basis upon which to estimate impingement by Wa terf ord 3.

6.3.3 DATA ANALYSIS O The operating and design variables from the intakes analyzed all required some standardization to allow f or comparisons. Average intake velocities on impingement sampling dates were obtained directly from source documents f or 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 cf s) by the cross-sectional area of the intake opening. Table 6-1 gives the results of this analysis for each intake. as l

this table indicates, the intake velocity of Waterf ord 3 is slightly below the average velocity of all the intakes evaluated. Because there was not significant variability in the range of velocitia among the plants, a correlation becween rates of impindement and velocity could not- be drawn in this analysis. Theref ore, velocity inf ormation did not af f e ct the p re-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 calculas.ed for each sample and averaged to yield one daily rate for that 6-8 1 - - - , - . - - . . . . - - , - - - ,

._ ~. - . - -- . .. __ - . -- - ..- - - -- - _

l i

! da t e . Numbers of organisms impinged per unit volume of water withdrawn

() were also used to account f or dif f ering operating levels among the plants and to provide a basis for predicting impingement rates at the ave rage Waterford 3 intake flow.

Impinge me nt rates were, therefore, expressed in two forms: ave rage numbers impinged per day and average numbe rs impinged per 100,000 gallons of water I withdrawn. Average daily rates were used primarily i express the results of the analyses, and to calculate annual lossen, as well as biomass . losses, to the Mississippi River.

The analysis escablished a list of dominant species, which in total, com-promised greater than 90 percent of the number of organisms collected during sampling. Af ter an initial range for overall impingement at Water-f ord 3 was determined, impin geme nt rates were estimated separately f or each of the dominant species. When applicable, dif f erences between impingement collections and baseline monitoring collections were considered to estab-lish judgements of species susceptibility to impingement.

l To overcome the limitations inherent in a prediction based on comparison with other intakes, two estimates of impingement by Waterf ord 3 were deve-loped. The first, reflecting conservative underlying assumptions, is the likely expected maximum rate. The second is a rate judged to le more i

likely to actually occur. This range of impingement rates can be anticipa-ted to envelop a reasonabic and realistic rate which can then be used to analyze the ef f ect on the Mississippi River resources. The assumptions utilized f or a particular species are discussed in the f ollowing section.

6.4 PREDICTION OF IMPINGEMENT AT WATERFORD 3 i

This section describes the estimated range of impingement which can be pre-l j dicted to result f rom the operation of the Waterf ord 3 Circulating Water System.

f 6-9 l

.-.7, . -- . , , + , . . . - - . - . , , ,,-,--e,.,/,,. ,, mere c, ,, ,, ,y,,. ..r, ew.,, ,,,e. . , w

- - _ _ - ~ _ _ _ . . ~ - - . - .- - - . - - - . - - . . - . - - . . . . - _ . . --

1 i

6 4. A AN OVERVIEW OF IMPINGEMENT ON THE MISSISSIPP1 RIVER O

An indication of the rate of impingement th rou ghou t the etudy area can be derived f rom 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 f or each of the generating l

stations studied. It is evident from this figure that impingement varies

{ considerably over time and amvag 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 , f rom October through March (days 280-0-80); whereas lower Mississippi River stations have relatively more constant impingement rates. Since impingement at the more 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 Waterf ord 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 f or 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. , Waterf ord 1 and 2, Hawthorn , Labadie, do not necessarily have the highest impingement races. 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, sad Wood River (Upper Mississippi River Conservation Comm. 1979).- The greater presence of sloughs, oxbows, shoals and backweters 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 Waterf ord 3.

6-10

l In the Waterford 3 Cnvironmental 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 I and 2, which may be due, in part, to its greater abundance in the surface waters and, in part, by its strong swimming 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 collectione (Hogarth, 1979, MacPherson, 1977, Southwest Research Association, 1977).

Therefore, because of its very low susceptibility to impingement, striped mullet is not considered ta 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 l

that, as an initial first approximation, impingement rates could be ex-I 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 i

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.

6.4.2 ESTIMATED IMPINGEMENT AT WATERFORD 3 O This section describes the prediction of impingement rates for fish and 6-11

.- . - ._ . - . .- . - . _ . . .~ . .- - . .

l shell fish species, and includes discussion of the characteristics of each slecies which were considered in deriving the predictions.

6.4.2.1 Methods of Estimation The method of a.stimating 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 1 and 2 ex-perience, baseline dats 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 i

look at each of the other generating stations impingement rates as though the shads (gizzard and threadfin) were not present. This is because l

l 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 lover Mississippi stations impinge relatively much lower numbers of shad, compared to other species, than the central Mississippi and Ohio stations. As pointed out l

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.

O 6-12

It is estimated that the impingement of the shad species will be about 45%

of the total impingement by Waterf ord 3. Forty-five percent is signifi-cantly higher than that experienced at the lower Mississippi Basin intakes (Waterf ord I and 2 and Willow Glen 1 and 4), which indicate shan 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 Waterf ord :* is based on two assumptions:

1) Shad will be more susceptible to impingement by Waterford 3 than Waterf ord 1 and 2 or Willow Glen 1 and 4 because the Waterf ord 3 intake will draw from 4. ge a t.e r po r t ion of t'ae 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 astimate was l 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 Missiusippi 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 princ1-pally on the fact that Waterford 3 will not drav river water solely from bottom layers, as does the Waterford I and 2 intake.

l l

The 50% proportion of the total impinsecent expected to be drum and catfish can then be added to the estimated 45% proportion f or shad. The postulated ratio of 5% of the total for all "other species" can then be added to l account f or the total impinge'nent by Waterford 3. Through the development of these ratica, calculation of the predicted impingement rate for catfish o-13 i

and drum will allow the derivation of the impingement rate for the remain-ing species. Impingement rates f or river shrimp are determined indepen-de nt ly.

6. 2.2 Fish Impingement Rates

1) Blue Catfish Blue catfish were the cost abundant species found in the Waterford 1 and 2 impingement study. Excluding shad, blue catfish comprised 55% of the total remaining specimens collected at Waterf ord 1 and 2; and 23% and 8% of the total remaining specimens at the two Willow Glen, in t ak e s. 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 f or the relatively higher impingement rates for blue catfish. Blue catfish are core 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 impingeme nt by intakes of the design (inverted pipes) and locational characteristics of Waterford 1 and 2 and Willow Glen 1 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 tz 0.034 fish per 100,000 gallons for Waterf ord 1 and 2, 0.003 for Willow Glen 1 and 0.002 f or Souix. A conservative rate of impingement f or Waterford 3 can be pre-dicted as 0.030 fish per 100,000 gallons, based solely on its close pro-ximity to Waterf ord 1 and 2. This rate can be anticipated to be a likely maximum rate of impingement of blae catfish by Waterf ord 3, due to the lack of consideration of the design dif ferences. At this rate, a likely maximum of 131,000 blue catfish per year can be predicted for Waterf ord 3, assuming 5

an average withdrawal rate of 8.3 x10 gp m. When the design differences between Waterford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3 are considered, it is more likely that Waterf ord 3 will impinge approximately 0.02 blue catfish per 100,000 ellons 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 intake.

If the average weight of 0.02 pounds per fish is assumed, based on data f rom the study at Waterford 1 and 2, the intake serving Waterford 3 will impinge an expected caximum of approximately 2600 lb/yr of blue catfish; however, a more likely rato is 1700 1h/yr. These estimaces 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 f or 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 Waterf ord 1 and 2 intake would be selective f or 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 f or blue catfish. A con-servatively predicted maximum rate for Waterf ord 3 would be 0.003 fish per 1.00,000 gallons, or 13,100 fish per year. Using the average weight per fish, gained from the Waterf ord 1 and 2 study, a likely maximum weight of oSO 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

-=- ... - _ - . _ - - - -. . __

O rates of drum impindement 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 1:tpingement was predicted for Waterford 3 based on the average of all stations except Riverside. This average is 0.02 fisn per 100,000 gallons of water, or 37,000 drum per year. The actual drum impinge me nt rate observed at Waterf ord 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 rata predicted f or Waterford 3 is greater than this, which is not likely to occur. A more realistic level of impingement of drum by Waterf ord 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 Waterf ord 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 saximum 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 f ollows:

0.053 x 50 - 45 50(x) = (0.053) (45) x = 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 l

likely average combined rate of 0.032 fish per 100,000 gallons for catfish and drum.

6-16

m O

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 Clen. It can be anticipated that Waterford 3 will impinge shad at this higher rate due to its with-drawal from thc 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 musceptibility 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. Thic 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 Icwer Mississippi River. Impingement of river shrimp was not reportec 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 bane and upon the biology of the species.

6-17

i O Average impingement of river shrimp was found to be less than 0.005 j

organims per 100,000 gallons at Nillow 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 l draw water from near the bottom, where shrimp are more likely to occur, l

and are expected to result in higher rates of impingement than Waterford 3.

! Nevertheless, a likely maximum rate of impingement of 0.06 shritap 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 equ!" lent to 260,000 shrimp per year or 1040 pounds per year, using an ave- seight of 0.004 pounds per shrimp.

i 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.

! O 6.4.3 TOTAL IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFORD 3 From these estimates, a likely maximum rate efs impingement by Waterford 3 can be predicted to be 0.100 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 cpproximately.720,000 organisms per year can be expected. This prediction has been based on conservative assumptions, explained above, and can he considered to be an upper limit to the rate of impingement which can be expected.

l 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. River 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 he anti-cipated to return some of the organisms to the river in a condition which 6-18 l

._ ._ , _. , _ - . . _ . , _ _r . ~

l l

would result in their survival. It should also be noted that, as discussed in Section 3.6.1, waterford '. 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 AIVER OF IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFORD 3 To evaluate the effeet of the predicted range of impingement of aquatic organisms by Waterford 3 to the Mississippi River as a whole, the poundags 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 j

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 Societ.y has calculated the cot t s of raising an individual fish of a cleaignated species to a specifici 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.

O 6-11 1

O Util' zing the average length of the individual impinged fish measured during the Waterford 1 nnd 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 reeaining 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 Watectord 3.

Table 6-5 indicates that the total costs of the fish and shellfish expected

() to be impinged ranges from a high of approximately S19,000 per year to an average of $10,000 per year. These values may be compared to the 1975 total value for the Inland District for fish and shellfish of $2.95 million (NOAA, 1976). Therefore, at the maximum predicted rate, the annual replacement costs for impingement is less than 0.7% of the value of-this l

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.

l l

l In evaluating the significance of this comparison, it is important to note that the fisheries resources of the Mississippi River make a very l small contribution to the commercial landings in.the Inland District. The I

Atchafalaya River and the surrounding bayous are the source of the great

, .najority of the districts' commercial landings (National Marine Fisheries l

Ser., 1979).

l I

C:)

6-20 4

,,y ,-_y- - , , - . . , , ,r--.,,,- ---e------ , , , . - - - ---w,----- --- = w .-e.- r v

i O

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 f rom a water source which has minimal contri-bution to these resources. The maximum replacement cost of less than 0.77.'

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 f rom an annual dollar increase of 43% to a decrease of 18% f rom the preceeding year.

An evaluation of the ecological effect of the predicted rate a' impingement is much more difficult than an analysis of ef f ect to the commet.:ial 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 ;eculative 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.

1 l

O 6-21

~ . . - - - . . _ . . - -. ._- . . . - - . - - -

CITATIONS - SECTION 6.0 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 Ecological 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

, O' River." Prepared for Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, July, 1976.

6. Geo-Marine, Inc., 1979 Richardson, Texas., Personal Communication, 197?. <

i l

l

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. Grif fith, and K. Devakumar,1978. "An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Impingement of Threadfin Shad at Power Plants in the Southeastern United States." In: L.D. Jensen (Ed), Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. E.A. Communications, l

Div. Ecol. Anal. Inc., Melville, N.Y.

O

10. National Oceani. and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1976. " Louisiana Loadings. Annual Summary, 1975".

In cooperation with the Louisiana kildlife and fisheries Comm.

11. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1979. Personal Communication, April 4, 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 Vater Intake Structures For Minimizing Adverse Environmental Imptet. 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.

O

i l TABLE 6-1 l

l LOCATION, DESICN AND OPERATION OF INTAKES AT THE ELEVEN ST"DY STATIONS AND AT WATERFORD 3 Facility Intake Type Location of Intake Average Intake Average Intake Water Recirculated

' r i

Capacity (cfs) Velocity (fps) For Ice Control 1 P

Waterford'1 and 2 Offshore (inverted pipe) Outer edge of shoal 870 1.3 no [

Waterford 3 Shoreline Straight shoreline 1840 1.3 No"

1. Willow Clen 1 off shore (inverted pipe) Outer oank of Meander 200 1.6 No

~

Of fshore (horizortal pipe) #00 1.2 No

[ Willou Clen 4 i

Wood River Shoreline Straight shoreline 600 1.0 ye, Meramec Shoreline 760 1.4 yes Sioux Canal 830 1.4 Yes Shoreline 20 1.4 Yes

. (Riverside Old ~

q Riverside New Shoreline SO 1.4 yes i.

4 Labadie Shoreline /o( Ir 4 River 1610 3.t? Yes llawt horn Shoreline Straight River 580 0.3 Yes Council Bluffs Shoreline Outer bank of Heander 140 1.3 ye, r

1 Callagher Shoreline Outer bank of Meander 410 0.9 Yes I i l'

• • Under influence of discharge from Waterford 1 and 2 i

l l

TABLE 6-2 O

MEAN (i) IMPINCEMENT PER 100.000 CALLON WITH $TANDARD DEVIATION (S.D.) AND STANDARD ERROR (SD/\k) 0F E'JTIMATE BY SPECIM i S.D. ,

Blue Catfish .003 .010 .003 Freshwater Drus .030 .038 .021 Channel Catfish .005 013 .004 i

River Shrimp * .041 .040 .023 Shad .236 .290 .087 Total Organisms .30 .33 ,

.10 Average Numbers /24 Ilts. 676 1030 286 (all stations)

Mtan Numb !/24 Hrs 12 SD/h = 104 to 1248/24 Hrs.

e Not recorded at all stations O

l i

TABLE 6-3 O

Nt'MBER OF SilAD IMPINGED AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL thPINGEMEE Capacity Avg Daily Shad

• River Basin Plant (cfs) Impingement ,, (% )

412 321 71 Ohio Galltsher Council 137 2 75 Missouri llawthorn 580 14 37 Labadie 1609 81 81 1481 78 Central Mississippi Wood Rivtr 515 3521 91

) Sioux 826 Riverside (old) 17 52 68 47 364 85 Riverside (new)

Meramec 756 1708 93 i

a 15 i tower Mississippi Willow cien 1 197 70 395 14 15 Willow G1sn 4 921 13 Waterford 1 and 2 869 Gierard and/or threadfin

__.___ _ . . m ...-_ _ _ . ..__ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . .

5 f

TABLE 6-4 I

ESTIMATED NLHBER OF ORCANISMS TO BE IMPINGED AT WATERFORD 3 FISit - LIKE Y MAXIMLH Vol . Ra';e per Species 100,000 r;al No./Yr* tbs /Yr**

Blue Catfish .030 131,000 2,600 Channel Catfish .003 13,000 650 Drum .020 67,000 8,000 Shad .048 210,000 17,000 Other .005 22,000 -

TOTAL .106 463,000 28,250 Y

FIS!1 - LIKELY AVERAGE Blue Catfish .020 87,000 1,700 Channel Catfish .002 8,700 400 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 Likely Average .010 44,000 180 At average intake rate of 8.3 x 10 5 gp, At average weights of individual commercially important fish impinged

() at Waterford 1 and 2.

, - ,, ,, _._, _... ._ -,, __ .. ...-.,_._..,._.. , ~ _._,,... ,_= . . . _ . . ~ . , , ,

TABLE 6-5 ECONOMIC COSTS OF PREDICTED IMPINGEMENT BY WATERFOP.D J Average Replacement length Cost No/Yr Pre- Total per per dicted to Replacement i Speefes 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 i Drum 2.7 in. $0.06 87,000 $ 5,220 Shad 2.9 in. $0.02 210,000 $ 4,200 4 other Fish Species * - - -

$ 831 l

0 Shrimp" ~

$1.43/lb 1,040 lb $ 1,487 TOTAL $18,943

\

l 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 O .

From Waterford 1 and 2 impingement study.

Bared on hatchery costs given int American Fisheries Society, O' The Pollution Committee, Southern Division, " Monetary Values of Fish". 1975.

Calculated value as 5% of total replacement costs of catfish, drum, and shed; based on proportion of total fish predicted to be impinged.

• • Costs, therefore, are A hatchery cost per shrimp is not available.

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".

O O

,re-r w ,n,~. , . , - v,r,---wr- , * - - r--,r--<--n w--~~~-e- -~w,--~rn.. , ,v,w'~----,w-,,,,-m__

O O O i  !

i. Dm ~~

~~~ -~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I  !

% MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN t T

f h

i I

I I \ ]X / g%

l f '

s I

~~ - --

N i f 7 l

fg\

- W1 (

/ b I

)

I j

) ,

t----__

\r S E ,

f .I

~~

'?

g

\ I h\ wtassoc l

' '7 ~ ~

1__ c U ms ,

g

' i I l W s&sx )

I l s %q $ ,

t

} 1 AwTuonut wooo nivEn (

i 1 L AB ADa t w(RAMEC GALLAOHER i l oHic '~

l j

~ _

T' - L __ _ -- f 3-

_- e s ,

/

t P i

[*Y g ---t e 1

l NW, j l

~.

N y

l

.---__.]

l WW l

T N-x

/l$

/h l

' , r' --

~ ~ ~ _t k wat ow at= (

WATE R FORD l

Y W l LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co LOCATION OF ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES vmaa.

~ I i

Waterford Steam Electric Station INCLUDED IN IMPtNGEMENT ANALYSIS  !

I

t 4 TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBERS

"~

AVO 4,000 No. Pt R >

! f aciuty _ ra wn l

COUNCll 2 i

3,500 - GALLA0HER 321 HAWTHORN 14  :

l LABADIE B1 MERAMEC 1,708 AlVER$1 DEN 364 i

AlVER$1DEO $2

{ 3,000 -

SlOUX 3,621 l

WATERFORD 1& 2 921 g WILLOW GLEN'1 70 i tt WILLOW GLEN 4 14

' $ WOODRIVER 1,481 I 2,500 -

Z

a. .

5 2.000 -

o 2

w .

1,500 -

1,000 500 0 _

C I_.

G H L M R R 3 W W W W I O A A A E I I I A I I O l

' U L W B R V V (1 T L L O N L T A A E E t- E L L D C A H D M R R > R O O R I G O I E S S F W W I

l. H R E C 1 l C

• V E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R E E N O 1 N N Q FACILITY f 1 4 LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF FISH AND CRUSTACEANS IMPlNGED Waterford Steam Electric Station PER 24 HOURS 63

O 1.20 -

1.00 -

S g .80 -

o ,

8. -

.60 -

!s O i s

< .40 -

5 E

.20 -

0 -

s2 2 xt  : s: re W L 7 1 2 ? ? 8 I L t 8 i es? E  ! i

• 9 Py Py :

N G G E R E E D L L

• R N O 3 h h O FACILITY 1 4 LOUISlANA Figure W ter ord te m PER1 , O GAL ONS OF WATER ENTR Electric Station 64

i LEGEND:

! 1.00 -

alZZARD AND THREADFIN l

$HAD

$NQ% OTHER $PECIES l

i

.80 -

v>

I o i -j j $

f .60 -

s' i

~

{ $

l 9 g .ao -

8 O s

?

.20 -

s

,00 x- -

m -

C G H L M R R S W W W W ,

O A A A E I l l A 1 1 O U L W B R V V O T L L O N L T A A E E U E L L D C A H D M R R X R O O R I G O I E S S F W W l L H R E C i i O V E N D D R G G E R E E E D h h R N O 1 N N FACILITY O ANA LO Figure POWERq& JGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF Gl22ARDS & THREADFIN SHAD IMPlNGED PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTR AiNED, RELATIVE TO waterford Steam IMPlNGEMENT OF OTHER SPECIES 65 Electric Station

AVO

.04 -

NO. PE R F ACILITY 106 oAg COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .00 HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00 MERAMEC .00 RIVER $1DLN .00

- AlVER$1DEO .00

.03 slOUx .00 WATE RF ORDl1 & 2.03 3 '

WILLOW GLEN 1 .00 y WILLOW GLEN 4 .00 0 WOODRIVER .00 h.

k e

f . 02-5 ~

8 o

O s e

W -

4 .01 -

0 E C G H L M R R S W W W W O A A A E i i i A I I O U L W B R V V -O 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 O O R l G O I E S S F W W l L H R E C 1 1 O V E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R E E N O 1 N N 2 1 4 FACILITY LOUISl AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLUE CATFISH IMPINGED PER Waterford Steam 100,000 Gall.ONS OF WATER ENTRAIN ED Electr!c Station 66

O '

~

? ACll, tty AVO NO, Pt R 106 CAL COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHER .00 HAWTHORN .00 LAB ADIE .00 MERAMEC .00 RIVER $1 DEN .04 RIVER $10E0 .02

.03 -

slOUx .00 to WATE RFORD 1& 2 .00 h WILLOW GLEN 1 .00 j WILLOW OLEN 4 .00 o WOODRIVER .00 8

a:

E .02 -

5 9

o O 5 1

W

.01

.00 _

C G H L M W O A A A R S W W W E I I A I I O U L W B R J V O T L L 0 N L T A A 1 E U E L L D C A H D M 1 R X R O O R l G O I E L H R E C i S F W W l

- I O V E N > D R G G E R i E D L L R J O 1 iN N O FACILITY 2 1 4 LOUISl AN A p

POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHANNEL CATFISH IMPINGED Waterford Steam PER 100.000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 6 ,,

Electric Station

. . - - - . ~ . - . - - . .. . . - - . - . . . _ _ . - . - - . _ . - . . - . _ . . - . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _

i 1 l '

AVO O .,2-F A CILITY 100 0AL l

COUNCIL .00 GALLAGHEh .02 f HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00

.10 -

MERAMEC .01 i RIVERSIDEN

.10 i

! RIVERSIDEO .10 SIOUX .05

$ 'WATERFORD 1 & 2 .01 i O .

WILLOW GLEN 1 .01 .

I d - WILLOW GLEN 4 .00 i j .08 WOODRIVER .03 s'

tz:

$ .00 -

5 m

l b z

l o e 4 .04 -

l 6 i >

4

.02 -

.00 .-

C G H L M -

S W W W W O A A A E l A I l O U L W B R .

0 T L L 0 N L T A A i U E L L D C A H- D M i X R O O R I G O I E  ;  :

F W W l L H R E C O V E N 3 ) R G G E R i  : D L L R E E 4 3 1 N N FACILITY 1 4 2

O LOUl$ LANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF FRESHWATER DRUM IMPINGED Waterford Steam PER 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTRAINED 6-8 Electric Statio

. . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ . _ , .

l

. ~ . -

A \'O

.10 -

no. pt a F ACILITY 8 10 0nL l

COUNCIL .00 GALLA0HER .00 i HAWTHORN .00 LABADIE .00

.08 - MERAMEC .00 RIVERSIDEN .00 ,

HlVER$1DEO .00 l

to SIOUX .00 l

$ WATE RFORD 1& 2 .08

-j WILLOW OLEN 1 .04

< WILLOW GLEN 4 .00 0 WOODRIVER .00 h .06 l 8'

5 a.

5 co b .04 -

' O :o 4

5

! .02 -

l

.00 C G H L M 'l R S W W W W O A A A E , I A l l O U L W B R V V O 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 O O R I G O 1 E S S F W W' l L H R E C 1 i O V E N D D R G G E R E E D L L R E E N O 1 N N FACILITY 2 l 4 O '

LOUISl AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE NUMBER OF RIVER SHR!MP IMPlNGED PER Waterford Steam 100,000 GALLONS OF WATER ENTR AINED 6-9' Electric Station

O O O ,

i I O 7

f

- MISSISSIPPI O N\tl A N A.__

1.M h Wesseen Gestvist .::

TEXAS $ u . ,

gjj -:

g: ~

O i i  :

I f% ;j- f .  ; -

.....,. .. N,  :- -:#:-

- I

' - ,2 ,-

. _,  ; j 6 - . , ,,"' '

,$ , ,'{ , , ,, ,', [., . ' '

. . i

^

f Source: U S Dept of Commerce, htional

"ceanic and AtacHrderic Administration National b rine Fisheries Service j in cooperettoo erith the imuisiana U11d ,

Life and Fist:mries Coemisstoo Livision i of oyster and Weer rattoes and Commercial [

Seafood, New Orleans. Lowtstana 70130 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co FIGURE Waterford Steam Electric Station FISHING DISTRICTS OF LOUISIANA 6_10

I 1

t i e i

! l

> 1

! i

' t i

O i 1

I i t s  :

T i

i I t

i  !

l 4 t

~

I L

i ,

i ,I i

i

• r

.4 1

.t 7

4 P

t h

! APPENDIX A

, e I

l w

l l

l I

1 r

l l

r t

r 6

i s

r Y

't i

"T*W N W h44WM-tf*19 'P* DWW e W 'TPrW ** W ._ MWN"T+W'W NMT 9 w NF-=tPvw" F M "4 P,. .=r"rrryyg gy ygg.w gy.ygr,grg--p**4gey-p 'W p g g% @_ . _ . _, m rw a rgww si _

AP M WIX A Methods.Preoperational Environmental Monitorine Program Prior to beginning the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, the effects of the operation of Waterford 3 on aquatic life were initially pr6. :ted 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 cotznunities of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3, and is providing additional data necessary for a more accurate assessment of baseline conditions and environmental impact.

Tnis sec. tion dest ribes the Preoperationt.1 Environmental Surveillance Program, conducted by Gulf South Pescarch Institute, New Iberia, La., between April 1973 and September 1976.

Sampling Schedule and Locations i

Preoperational aquatic ecology data were collected on a monthly basis from

, April,1973 to 11ay,1974 (Year 1), 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 sumarizes 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 A, -

liabitat characterized by shallow depths and low velocity currents; used as control station l_

b) Station A g -

Habitat charact(orized by shalles 4pths **i low velocity currents; affected b, ..ee( discharge I from Vaterford 1 and 2 l

A-1

_.-_ ~---.--.- -..-.- - - .-_ - - _ _ - - . -. - ..-.- - . _ _ . _ - -

i.

O 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 c) Statien Bgg or Bel * - Habitat characterized by deep, fast-current water; to be affected by heated discharge of .

Waterford 3 (small temperature changes). In discus-sions of Years II and III data, Et1* is referred to as B gy.

Sampling Methodologias and Statistical Analysis for Years I-III ,

The methodologies described below have been used in the sampling progran 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) Alese

1) Attached Algae The benthic and attached algae were surveyed seasonally. Attach-l l od algae were collected from naturally occurring solid substrates l at each station, while the beathic forms were taken from shallow j water sediments. The algae obtained from these collections were preserved, labeled, and transported to the laboratory for identi-fication.

l

2) Phytoplankton To sample phytoplankton, a 100 mi subsample was extracted from each of three whole water samples and a 300 ml composite was ferned frou these subsamples. Samples were preserved with 3

() percent buffered formalin.

A-2

--,---u,.y.p-sg--r-+.g-=vy-----,syw-n-. v.w +vy w-, ,-w- -e- - ,-

---e-+- y- e.- *--w -- - >-e y----<w - - - - , wq $yg-,+- --g -w.

._.-. ~ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . - _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _

In the labotatory, slides sere prepared from the samples using '

the mathod described by Sanford et al (3) . Each slide was divided into forty fields, each with a diameter of 0.41 mm.

Phytoplankton were identified and counted using a Zeise RA research microscope. Keys used for the identification of the algae included:

Hustedt, F - 1930. Baci11ariophyta (Diatamese). In Pascher, A. ed. Die Sussvasser. Flora _Mittleuropas Heft,

10. G Fischer, Jena, 466 p.

Patrick, R and Reimer, C W - 1966. "The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska &nd Hawaii, Vol. I.

Fragilariaceae, Eunotiact:se, Achmanthaceae, Naviculaceae".

Acad Nat Sci Phti Monogr 13, 688 p.

() Patrick, R and Reimer, C W - 1975. "The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, Vol. II.

Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Comphonemaceae, Epithe-miaceae". Acad Nat Sei Phil Monogr 13, 213 p.

Numerically dominant organisms were identified to genus and/or species whenever feasible.

t i

Algae and phytoplankton identifications were verified by Dr.

Richard A. Pecora. Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, l La.

l l

! 3) Productivity l

l Productivity was measured using the CI4 method (4). The primary productivity bottles were incubated in the laboratory for four hours under high intensity light and ambient water tem-() perature, which probably overestimated actual productivity in the Mississippi River.

A-3

O b) Kooplankton Five-minute cows to sample cooplankton were taken at surface, mid-i depth and near the river bottom with a metered number six not, which has mesh openings of 0.243 cen. 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 ceneral Oceanics Model 2030 digital flovmeter, mounted eccentrically on the net, was used beginning in December 1974 However, since flovmeter data from the initial months were unavailable, the average reading for the other monthe sampled during 1973-1974 was applied to there 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 folluving references Hyman, L H - 1940. }he Invertebratest Protozoa Through ctenophora .Vol 3. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 726 p.

Maglitsch, P A - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology.- Oxford Univ Press, NY. 834 p.

Pennak, Robert W - 1953. Treshwater Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Co., NY. 769 p.

O A-4

O c) Benthic Invertebrates Beginning in June, 1973, benthic invertebrates were sampled with a shipek sdiment 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 11 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 Auguot 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. Scee samples were also filtered through a number 80 sieve (mesh openings of 0.177 mm) and used for miu chenthic 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 lovest identifiable taxon using the following references:

Hyman, L H - 1940. The Invertebrates: Prototoa Thrquf,h1 Ctenophora. Vol. 3. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 726 p.

I Meglitsch, P A - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford Univ Press, NY. 834 p.

1 Pennak, Robert W - 1953. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Co., NY. 769 p.

In those casa.s where positive _ identification could not be made, the organisms were shipped for verification to Dr. H. Dickson Hocse, a taxonomic specialist at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Iafayette, La.

A-5

L O

The density of the benthic organisms in each sample was also deter-mined and the results were expressed as numbert per square meter.

d) Fish Fish populations at each station were scupled by surface trawl, otter trawl, electrofishing and gill net. Midwater (mid-depth) trawls were conducted at all stations, eacept At and Ae , because at these stations, during most seasons, the water was too shallow.

In general, three five-minute otter (bottom), surface and midwater

- travis were conducted at each sampling station (except at midwater depths at Ac and Ag) 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 01.ER, Table 6.1.1-7 The surface trawl was conducted usine a circular net having a five foot opening. A 16 foot semi-ballc,vn net was used for the otter trawl. The midvater trawl had a 6.4.56 ft opening 2

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 peneis of 1 inch, 1.5 inch, 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch bar mesh, were set for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> at each station. Experimental gill nets, which trap dif ferent size fish by snagging their gill covers or other body parts with appropriately sized mesh openings, usc 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 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, was controlled by a timer that is an integral part of the unit.

A-6

--- - - . ~ ._ .. - - ~ _. - - . - - - - - - _ -.-.._.---.---- -.- _.-

l Each specimen was weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram and l measured to the nearest millimeter. The data were recorded on survey sheets.

e) Ichthyoplankton -

During the 1973-1974 study (Year 1), 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 en mesh opening) planktca net with a 1/2 meter ditmeter mouth opening. Five minute tows were conducted at the ourface and bottom of stations Ae and At, and at the surface, bottom and mid-depth of stationc Bc Bt and B.

Additional ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted twice monthly from

()) June-August 1976. The samples were preservdd and the densities of the ichthyoplankton in the samples were determined in the same manner as wero zooplankton densities.

Identifications of ichthyoplankton were made using:

A preliminary Kev to the Identification of Larval Fishes of Oklahoma. with Particular Reference to Canton Reservoir. In-cluding a Selected Bibliography. Oklahoma Department of L'idlife 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 subject 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 r---.- ---,-ig. y g w .-i 9 -w.t'-- w--9 9.. p -ys-%up.9c.--,, -

9 g,,-mpo-.- ,q, y .r. .-rw, g - p, -9 ye. m,e-,p--.we.w w.-wyye,,ww.grig m,w-9 n_gpm--+ . , .-p-eg--u-'y e-m-m,i-*

O at Waterford 1 and 2, which are operative. The study was done from February 1976 to January 1977. It involved semi-monthly monitoring at the intske screening structures of Waterford 1 and 2.

A 24-hour period was sampled on each sampling date. The screens vere rotated, washed and cleared at the outset of each period. Baskets were then placed in series within the sluiceway carrying impinEed 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 taentification. Physical injuries were noted. All fish and crustaceans were individually weighed and measured, with the exception of some bay anchovy and river shrimp samplet. 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 i 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 restrum 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 appr>priate wells, and pH was measured within 30 minutes of sample collection.

O .

A-8

O Methodology of Sanpline - Program Continuatien (1977-1979)

During 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Enviroreental Surveillance Program of the aquatic ecology of the Mississippi River was and will be continued, utilis-ing essentially the same sampling locations, techniques, and methodologies that are described above. Howaver, there are some slight modifications in order to c mply 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 Comission.

O 1

l l

l O

A-9

. . - . . - . - . . . - . - . - . , , . . - - . - . - . . . - , , . . . - ~ . . . . . , . . - - . . _ - . . . .

l TABLE A-1

! SAMPLING STATIONS ro.'t PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONbENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FOR SURFACE WATERS Station Rationale Identification Location for Location A

e Behind an island on the west Station is not expec-bank (right hand descending) ted to be directly of the Mississippi River, in af fected by discharg-a shallow back-water area es from Waterford upstream of Waterford ! 1, 2, or 3; ano and 2. therefore, has been designated as e con-trol station.

A E

On the west bank of the Back eddy current

, Mississippi River, in a reeults in transpor-shallow area characterized tation of heated dis-l.

by low-velocity currents. charge from Waterford Immediately upfttsam of 1 and 2 apstrea.o to Waterford 1 and 2, in a this station.

back eddy current.

B e On the east bank of the Intended as unaffec-Mississippi River opposite ted contrcl 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.

1

B t

immediately downstream of Station located in j Waterford 3 discharge, area of river influ-t enced by heat dis-

! charge from Waterford 3.

B gg Along the west bank, near Abandoned af ter first River Mile 127. yetr of sampling, and

, replaced by Station B

l t1**

B gg* On the west bank near River ' Replaced Station Mile 127.8. B in second year oII sampling. Loca-tion is just upstream of an adjacent ther-i mal discharge, and further downstream 1

from the discharge of Waterford 3 than Sta-tion B g.

i

l l .

l O O O i

l TABLE A-2 (Sheer I of 4) 1 \

i. pWEOPERATIOftAL towlTopl% pa0 GRAM - A0MATIC Erol.DCT SAMPLl9er. SCP9fstti i

4 1971 - 1974 1974 - 4975 1975 - 1976 Communiey Frequenc y Sampling ' Fregmency Smept im feetweecy Seepting Sempted of Saecling Cear of Sampling cear of Samplier tear

{ FISa Ptoothly ( April-April); Otter Trawl (all Once during the months Saee as tomt hl y (oc t o*-er - Smee as

! five minute trawle statives). eid- of Jose. AoFest. flowee- 1973-1974 September); see, as 1971-1971 3 water trewl (St. ber, February. April 1973-1974 j Bt y. 8,). ser - and Avrest-seme as 1973-4 face trewt (all 1974 stations), rill net j Monthly; 48 heers at earli f all statioes)

{ station 4

j Monthly; 2 boot s at Electroshocbing j each st ation fell statices) i BENTHOS Monthir (June-April); 6 grab Shipek S.septer The Shipch was weed Shipek *s.r :'.t v ( Oc t ober - Shapek

.I saeples at each stat ion All stations der s ey t he mont hs of Snepler September) Sampler

!; June. A gest. %,eeeer. (al l St e-

} February. April and tiens)

I

• A=cest .

I Seith-Meist yre was used Seith Mc-f only in A=cest. Necember, intyre Aprel and Aerest. (sII sta-4 tiens)

I ZoortAMKToft 9 toot hl y (Jwee-8>ec . and Feb-May); 0.1 enter dia- Orw e der iez t he w hs twtil Feb- Not hl y (Oc t ober - Saee as j- 2 samplee neare takes in April. =ct er M of A seest. movemb.r. reary 1975 Sept eobee ); 1973-1974 4 Samples takes at sur f ace, mid- (0.26) em nesh) February. April o=4 a 0.1 meter A stations - S an-l S depth and bette pl aabtee net Aerest and 7 t imes in diameter 9 st at ions - S.4.5 h Jwne met was

,r- 1 j es .

Febr uary j 19 75 ca.

, a 1/2 meter j 4 i amet er i' A f o.7M )

) e, ee sh )

)

pleehe ee, 1

.q

( 54 _: 2 et 4)

TABLE A-2 TatopEstAT!*M84L 90stlT0919C Frat, tut - AWATIC ECDt eCY SAMTLIM SOMErmi.E 1978 - 1979* *479 - 1960*

1977 - 1978* Seepinng Fre w eev S eplaag Seeplong Fregocecy Communaty Fregnency Ce ar Ot_Saertseg _Cear of Saepliep Sampled Of Sampling Gems Samme as abet hl y Same ao Once during the 3rd week ef Trewte ease as Some so 1977 - 1978 19 71 - 9 9 ?a FISH 19 F F19 74 each of the sollowing months, 1973 - 1974 Joly. September, Janwory.

April; five simete trawle for all trawls Two 24 hoer periods et each cill met etation dering es b sampti v (all st at ione)

I period Electreebocking Two hours at esch station during each esepting period (ell stat ions)

SENTHOS Once a moeth during time 'emith McIntyre following months: July, Crab September, Jameery and April Same as Pkm*hly same as At least 4 semples takes at Saee.as' 1977 - 1978 1977 - 1978 1977-1979 each asepling station on

• s each sampling date Same as *bathly Saec ao once a month 4aring the 1/2 meter die- Se.e as 1977-1975 1974-1975 ZOCPULNKTON a:eter #6 (0.24) 1974-1975 following months: Jelv, September, January and April me oesh) plankten A stations - S and 8 wet (same as B etations - 5. M. B 1974 - 1975)

!sor ~ finalized at dat e of pr int init .

~

O O O TAELE A-2 ( Shu t 3 of 43 FREOPERATlosAL MontTotlMC FROCRAst - Arft'ATlc ECoton.T SA=FLluG SCuristilt 1973 - 1974 1974 -- 5975 197$ - 1976 Sempting Freqvency S.asptana Frequencv 5ampIaeg Cosamenity Freqwency Ceer of Sampline Cear of Saattany (W er Sampled of Se pling Once dering the months mole mot hl y ( Oc t ober - Same as PNTTOPLAwKTOM Monthly except Jencery, 1974 Wole water and April.- 1974!- near sur f ace semples of .fane. August , water Sept ember' 5971 - 1974

! seeples I of each st ation; proJoc+.ivity F4reery. April.

Fredectivity also also run fin vitro) run (in vitre)

ATTACHED ALCAE Seasonal Collected from Se=e as 1973 - 1974 Saoe as notwest emb-- 19F3 - 1974 strates and sedioent ICMTHYOPLANETON- See cooplanktca See cooptenktos teove=ber. February 1/2 meter Moeithly Sam. es (1973-1974) April and Aegwet d ieset er e nc ept l 9 74 - 1975 (1973 - 1974) 80 (0.578 June ,

- ame oesh) July and pl enat om Aerost

. when 2 seenthly semples wre t onew

lf O

i i

UATE 05/15/78, TYPIST: gw Page?

. TABLE A-2 (Sheet 4 of 4)

PREOPERATIONAL MONITORINC PROCdAM - AQtfATIC FTLOCY SAMPLING SCHEDULE i

1977 - 1978 s978 - 19,9 1949 - 1980 Conenunity Frequ cy Sampling Faequency Sampling Frequency Sampling Sampled Of Samp.ing 'Cear of Sameding cear of Seepting Cear PHYTOPLANKTON Outce a month during (L a follow- Same as 1973 -

• m as 1977 - 1978 Monthly Same as

'ag mot.ths: July, Sept nber 1974 1973 - l

• 74 January and April just below Pr odec t iv i t y l

the wurface in vivo and in vetro  !

Productiv' -:y also run (in vivo ~

and in vitro ) -

< ATTACHED ALCAE Same ac 1973 - 1974 Same as 1973 - 1974 Saec as 9973 - 1974 ICif f HYOPLANKTC3 Once a uonth during the One meter dia- Same as 1977 - 1978 M.mt h l y same as following months: meter 80 (0.57 em 1977 - 1978 July. September, Ja::uary and mesh) plankton '[

April net A stations - S and B .

B statius - S. M, 8-each tow at least 20 minutes duration i i

C.

^

O O O

/

7 L __d W#3]

- # N.

'.\

N ..

W Ach )\ ".

y )/

l 79 -

\ -

et$

u .:

y. _

.l ,/l .

f [ f [ N, *

!) / N f ,,M.h.

/..

<; a j ,l -

, g .

1 f 5 ,OC / 2i

• Tp '

"s i

/ i LliiLE 6'Pif 1 sunff orms f m femma

{'

Elit spiA g g* h

• f '..

l.,_\. ge'.,,si,*>.Nj%

- (

/ -

<-c L s,- ~_ .

. fitCTSIC .,

4 ....

'. iiAll0lt -

"I

a --

' ~ ~ '

k Station s s,

La Hwy 33

- 'b E Benthos

((

B ,3lC Brsi ' m g Gill Mets

.-N Tl N

'.s -

I A Water Chemistry o

.., n. or u.

s===c. - - - -

u. . i.

Otter Trawls

.-- Midwater Trawls

.... ....-.. Surface Trawls & Zooplankton LOU 15l ANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO.

Watefford Steam SAMPLING ARE AS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NE AR WATERFORD 3 A-I Electric Station

O O O~ ,

k TO RIVER O

m h SAMPLING BASKETS N

J3

]

SLUICEWAY ,

SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN UNIT 2 IINIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 WEN EAST WEST EAST SOURCE: ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATIS, lesC, " ANNUAL DATA REPORT-WATER FORD POpWER STATIObs UBetTS 1 AND 2 SCREEN thAP9000EtAENT STUDIES-FESRUARY 19FS-JA8004RY 19FF".

LOUl51ANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO.

Waterforcl Steen LOCATION OF SCREEN lMPINGEMENT SAMPLE SITES AT wt.TERFORD 1 AND 2 A-2 Electric Station

%