ML20079N375

Environ Monitoring & Ecological Studies Program for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant,1989 Annual Rept

ML20079N375
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	12/31/1989
From:	NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NUDOCS 9111110189
Download: ML20079N375 (111)

Text

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

_ ~

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR UE3 P l,T ATTACilMENT 1 0

MP Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program

" ort 7e O

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 4

1989 Annual Report O

EsA22A848S'22a1 1437 C PDR

><_m,

. _. _ _.. _. _. _.~..

..... ~

-___..._._..=._..4...

t u-t

)

4 goNTENTS i

6 PAGE INTRODUCTION..........................................

i WATER ANALYSEE 4

Water Temperature and Flow.......................

1 ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

_-Fish. Population Study............................

21 Pathogenic Amoebae' Study.........................

67 INTAKE' EVALUATION STUDIES Vertical ^ Traveling Screens Survival Study..-......

73

. Appendix A.............'............,.............

109 7

4..

!O 1

4

-44

.M 4.J.

.,w6--

y.

p g.g,.

y-

--.g g

._.ef..3_y p gysi 9

INTRODUCTION Resu.'ts of North n States Power Company's (NSP) 20th consecutive report of environmental monitoring studies at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) are contained in this publication.

The 1989 calendar year

. represents the fifteenth full year of two-unit operation for the Prairie Island facility.

Studies conducted during 1989 include a summary of the effectiveness of fine mesh vertical traveling screens in reducing entrainment impacts on fishes in the vicinity of PINGP and examines possible effects caused by increased thermal discharges to che Mississippi River.

These studies resulted from modification of the plant's circulating water system in 1983.

O)

Prepared by Environmental Sciences Section Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department Northern States Power Company.

~

l O

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT EHyIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1989 ANNUAL REPORT WATER TEMPERATURE AND FLOE C

Prepared for Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, Minnesota i

by G. M. Kuhl Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department g

Northern States Power Company G

i 1

WATER TEMPERATURE AND FLOW INTRODUCTION AND METHODS This report presents daily average water temperatures recorded by thormocouples in the vicinity of the Praliie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGp).

River inlet temperature is recorded in front of the new screenhouse, and site discharge temperature is recorded at U.S.

Lock and Dam 3.

Temperature data is for environmental purposes, not to be interpreted for temperature compliance as required by the NPDES permit.-

In addition, daily average site discharge flow (blowdown),

measured by PINGP personnel, and daily Mississippi river flow, measured at U.S.

Lock and Dam 3, are presented.

Daily average blowdown includes additional water appropriated to compensate for cooling tower evaporation loss (approximately 38 cfs when all cooling towers and fans are operating),

except for winter months when the cooling towers were not operating.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Daily average river inlet and site discharge temper ture data are presented in Table 1 by month.

As reported in past years, periodically throughout the spring and summer, dai.ly average river inlet-temperature may exceed average site discharge temperature due to morphological characteristics of.the river.

During the fall backwaters lose heat faster than the main channsl, resulting in a temperature difference between intake and discharge that is in excess of thermal input from the plant.

This was verified by periodic temperature surveys conducted during fall 1989.

A U

3

Table 1 also lists mean daily site discharge flow (blowdown) g recorded at PINGP during 1989.

Daily Mississippi River discharge flows are listed in Table 2.

Mean daily site discharge flows ranged from 150 to 1,313 cfs, whereas daily Mississippi River flows ranged from 2,400 to 38,800 cfs.

PINGP withdrew an annual average of 10.8 percent of the Mississippi River flow (Table 3), during 1989.

Table 4 shows monthly Mississippi River flows for the years 1983 through 1989.

Although monthly flow values during 1989 were somewhat below normal, there was a substantial increase over 1988 data.

O 6

i

,1

\\

1 4

l Table 1.

Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for January 1989.

-MEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FLOW l

DATE I HOURS II HAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OF HR3 (BLOWC-3WN) 1 24 24 33.2 34.8 700 2

24 24 33.2 33.3 695 3

24 24 33.2 33.9 695 4

24 24 33.1 34.3 695 5

24 24 33.1 35.2 695 6

24 24 33.0 35.9 695 7

24 24 33.0 36.0 695 8

24 24 33.0 34.2 695 9

24 24 33.0 34.8 680 10 24 24 33.0 34.9 680 11 24 24 33.0 36.9 670 i

12 24 24 33.0 34.9 670

)

13 24 24 33.0 35.9 670 14 24 24 33.2 36.2 690 15 24 24 33.0 35.6 690 16 24 24 33.0

5.d 600 17 24 24 32.9 36.0 680 650 l

18 24 24 32.9

.~

~ * '

650 19 24 24 32.9 20 24 24 33.0 35.,

640 21 24 24 32.9 36.4 640 22 24 24 32.9 36.9 645 23 24 24 33.0 37.3 645 24 24 24 33.2 37.3 640 25 24 24 33.4 37.8 640 26 24 24 33.3 37.5 640 27 24 24 32.9 36.7 640 28 24 24 33.1 36.9 640 29 24 24 33.2 36.8 640 30

?4 24 33.2 36.9 640 31 24 24 33.4 37.8 640

Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for February 1989.

MEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP S1TE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FIDW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP IIRS MAX FOR OP IIRS (BLOWDOWN) 1 24 24 33.8 35.9 640 2

24 24 33.2 36.0 645 3

24 24 32.9 36.8 655 4

24 24 32.9 36.7 640 5

24 24 32.8 36.9 655 6

24 24 32.5 34.8 655 7

24 24 32.5 36.0 640 8

24

~

32.6 34.4 640 9

24 24 32.5 36.6 640 10 24 24 32.5 36.5 645 11 24 24 32.5 36.5 645 12 7

24 32.7

.0 645 13 24 24 32.7

. 3. 5 645 14 24 24 32.6 36.5 640 15 24 24 32.6 36.6 645 16 24 24 32.7 35.8 640 17 24 24 32.7 35.8 600 10 24 24 32.7 36.7 600 19 24 24 32.7 35.8 645 20 24 24 32.6 36.5 575 21 24 24 32.5 35.5 640 22 24

.4 32.6 34.7 695 23 24 24 32.5 34.8 649 24 24 24 32.5 35.8 645 25 24 24 32.5 36.7 645 26 24 24 32.6 34.0 640 27 24 24 32.5 35.5 645 28 24 24 32.5 35.1 600 O

O G

O O

O Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature (OF) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for March, 1989.

MEAN DAILY SITE OPERA 77NG RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEPP DISCHARGE FLOW DATE I HOU7 II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BIDhTOWN) s 1

24 24 32.5-34.0 640

}

2 24 24 32.5 34.0 645 l

3 24 24 32.5 34.0 600 1

4 24 24 32.5 34.7 640

]

5 24 24 32.5 34.7 645 5

24 24 32.5 34.7 645 I

7 24 24 32.6 34.7 645 l

8 24 24 32.5 34.7 640 9

24 24 32.5 35.4 640 L

10 24 24 32.5 35.9 640 11 24 24 32.7 35.9 640 12 24 24 33.0 36.5 600 13 24 24 32.8 36.5 600 1.

14 24' re 32.7 36.6 640 i

15 24 24 32.7 36.0 650 16 24 24 32.8 36.0 650 f

17 24 24 33.2 36.0 650 j

18 24 24 32.5 35.4 699 j

19 24 24 32.5 35.8 675 20 24 24 32.8 36.0 654 21 24 24 33.3 35.9 650

~

22 24 24 33.1 36.7 650 23 24 24 33.1 36.7 605 I

24 24 24 33.6 36.7 630 1

25 24 24 33.6 36.7 605 26 24 24 34.7 37.4 650 27 24 24 37.9 37.7 526 f

28 24 22:15 37.8 39.0 404 i

29-24 0

37.5 37.8 310 30 24 0

37.1 37.8 268 31 24 0

38.9 37.8 150 i

i

l Table 1.

(Cont Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature (OF) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for April, 1989.

HEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FLOW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS HAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN)*

1

'4 0

38.0 37.7 188 2

24 0

42.5 37.7 188 3

23 0

43.0 37.7 188 4

24 0

41.6 37.7 188 5

24 0

44.7 31.7 183 6

24 0

45.1 37.7 183 7

24 0

44.7 37.7 186 8

24 0

43.9 39.4 186 9

24 0

39.4 37.0 186 10 24 0

40.7 37.7 186 11 24 0

40.8 37.9 188 12 24 0

42.4 39.0 185 oo 13 24 0

Out of Service Out of Service 185 14 24 0

46.1 41.0 188 i

15 24 0

47.4 12.0 188 16 24 0

50.1 44.0 188 17 24 0

49.7 44.0 188 1

18 24 0

49.1 43.6 188 19 24 0

51.3 45.6 188 20 24 0

Out of Service Out of Service 202 21 24 0

54.2 47.6 188

]

22 24 0

53.a 48.3 191 23 24 0

54.8 49.6 188 24 24 0

54.5 49.9 204 25 24 0

56.5 51.8 188 26 24 0

56.6 52.5 188 27 24 0

56.8 53.2 206 28 24 0

56.8 53.8 208 29 24 7:21 52.2 52.5 210 30 24 24 50.00 52.5 208

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation O

O O

i O

O O

fi L

i Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge. Temperature ( F) and i

j Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for May, 1989.

MEAN DAILY SITE

. OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHAME FIgW i

i-DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS HAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN) l-1 24 24 51.7 52.5 265 l

2 24 24 53.4 52.5 308 l

3 24 24 55.5 52.5 313 4

24 24 54.9 52.5 313 l

5 24 24 51.3 50.5 313

{

i 6

24 24 49.7 48.9 313 i

7 24 24 54.1 50.8 313 e

i 8

24 24 53.4 50.5 313 f

I 9

24 24 56.0 53.5 288 i

10 24 24 59.5 56.2 313 11 24 24 61.4 57.0 313 l

J 12 24 24 62.5 58.9 330 i

e 13 24 24 63.9 59.9 402 i

[

14 24 2.

66.1 61.9 964

{

15 24 24 67.7 62.9 1008 16 24 24 68.7 64.9 313

[

17 24 24 67.9 65.0 338

[

i 18 24 24 67.0 63.9 364 19 24 24 66.1 63.8 334 20 24 24 67.1 64.9 342 21 24 24 68.7 63.9 341 22 24 24-70.3 63.0 441 j

23 24 24 70.6 53.0 480

)

24 24 24

'ZO.7 67.2 480 l

25 24 24 68.8 67.C 438 I

4 26

'24 6:05 68.7 66.1 424

'I 27 24 20:07 67.9 64.9 316 l

28 24 24 67.3 64.2 338 j

29 24 24 66.4 63.0 338 30 24 24 63.9 62.6 338 31 24 24 63.5 61.8 342 i

t Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation i

i I

Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for June, 1989.

MEA!I DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP OISCHARGE Fy) j W

DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN i

1 24 24 66.8 63.3 338 2

24 24 67.0 63.3 404 3

24 24 c8.5 64.3 418 4

24 24 68.9 65.0 438 5

24 24 68.5 65.0 408 6

24 24 71.5 67.5 438 7

'24 24 71.0 68.2 438 i

8 24 24 70.6 67.3 438 9

24 24 64.8 64.3 438 10 24 24 67.8 65.3 338 11 24 24 68.9 65.3 448 12 24 24 68.2 65.7 448 13 24 24 67.5 66.0 438 s.

14 24 24 66.3 65.7 438 15 24 24 67.2 65.7 418 16 24 24 Out of Service Out of Service 714 17 24 24 Out of Service Out of Servica 778 18 24 24 70.8 68.9 788 19 24 24 75.8 71.3 813 20 24 24 74.5 71.7 838

'21 24 24 74.0 71.3 838 22 20 24 72.6 70.8 838 23 24 24 74.6 72.3 728 24 24 24 75.5 72.5 814 25 24 24 74.4 77.8 806 26 24 24 74.5 72.8 828 27 24 24 76.5 75.0 798 28 24 24 77.3 75.2 818 29 24 24 77.0 75.5 806 30 24 24 76.4 75.2 823

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation O

O O

O-O O

Table 1.

'(Cont). Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for July, 1989.

MEAN DAILY SITE W

OPERATING-RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE F g)

DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN

{

s' l'

24-24 76.4 75.9 1139

!!:i 11:

4 24 24 83.4 79.1 1188 i

5 24 24 82.9 80.2 1188 6

24 24 83.9 81.3 1138 4

7 24 24 83.5 80.6 1168 8

24 24 82.7 80.2 1138 i

9 24 24 82.5 Bl.1 1148 j

10 24 24 85.1 81.4 1168 i

i 11 24 24 83.7 80.9 1168 i

j 12 24 24 82.6 81.1 1138

[

i 13 24 24 81.9 81.2 1168 l:

U 14 24 24 83.8 80.3 1148 1

15 24 24 84.0 80.3 1148 l

16 24 24 84.5 80.4 1138 k

17 24 24 81.8 80.4 1168 18 24 24 80.6 80.4 1138 l

19 24 24 78.4 79.2 1213 l

20 24 24 80.7 78.9 1168 21 23:43 24 80.9 78.5 1268 i

l 22 1:56 24 Out of Servico Out of Service 1168 23 24 24 81.5 78.9 1168 j

24 24 24 81.6 79.7 1168

[

25 24 24 82.2 80.1 1218 26 24' 24 83.4 81.1 1138 j-27 24 24 83.5 81.7 1218

{

28 24.

24 82.4 80.4 1213 i

.29 24 24 80.3 80.3 1213 f

30 24 24 77.5 77.0 1278 31 24 24 82.6 79.0 1278

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation i

i t

Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature (OF) and I

Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for August, 1989 MEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FIgW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDGWN) 1 24 24 30.7 79.0 1218 2

24 24 81.5 80.0 1218 4

3 24 24 82.8 80.8 1218 4

24 24 82.8 81.1 1313 5

24 24 81.2 80.3 1208 6

24 24 79.3 78.2 1188 7

24 24 75.1 76.2 1208 I

8 24 24 77.2 77.4 1188 9

24 24 79.4 77.5 1208 10 24 24 79.7 78.5 1188 11 24 24 79.0 78.9 1188 12 24 24 77.6 78.5 1208 13 24 24 77.6 78.1 1208

~"

14 24 24 76.5 77.2 1217 15 24 24 75.9 75.4 1218 16 24 24 79.0 76.1 1178 l

17 24 24 77.9 76.1 1188 18 24 24 77.2 76.1 117R 19 24 24 75.4 75.8 1218 20 24 24 73.3 74.1 1218 21 24 24 75.2 79.2 1198 22 24 24 74.6 79.2 1188 23 24 24 74.1 Out of Service 1218 24 24 24 73.6 Out of Service 1218 25 24 24 72.4 Out of Service 1218 26 24 24 71.5 Out of Service 1188 27 24 24 74.5 Out of Service 1198 28 24 24 72.9 75.2 1198 29 24 24 72.0 75.2 1218 30 24 24 71.4 75.2 1238 31 24 24 69.0 75.2 1163

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation O

O O

O O

O Table 1.

(Cor.t)-Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature (OF) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for September, 1989.

I i

i MEAN DAILY SITE I

OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FIgW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN) i l'

24 24 68.2 71.7 1168 2

24 24 69.8 70.7 1218 3

24 24 68.8 11.1 1218 4

24

-24 67.9 70.1 1178 5

24 24 67.8 70.8 1218 6

24 24 68.6 71.1 1163 7

24 24 70.0 71.8 1113 j

8 24 24 69.9 71.8 1163 9

24 24 69.3 70.8 1218 i

10 24 24 6C.7 68.8 1218 i

11 24

24 66.0 67.4 1218 12 24 24 63.6 66,5 1208 i

w 13 24 24 65.0 66.5 1218

[

14 24 24 64.G 66.0 1218 15 24.

24 63.7 66.C 1258 i

i-16 24 24 64.1 66.0 1258 17 24 24 65.1 67.2 1218 18 24 24 66.0 L8.1 1218 l

19 24 24 66.3 68.1 1268 20 24 24 66.4 68.1 1I18 I

21 24 24 66.5 68.2 1218 22 24 24 65.9 68.2 1218 23 24 24 60.5 68.2 1218 24 24 24 58.4 68.3 1158 25 24 24.

58.2 68.2 1178 26 24 24 58.4 68.3 1238 27 24 24 57.9 68.3 1178 28 24.

24 58.0 68.3 1218 i

f 29 24 24 59.8 68.3 1195 30 24 24 60.0 68.3 1208

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation l

I

?

t

Table 1.

(Cont) Average River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for October, 1999 MEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FLOW DATE I IIOURS II MAX FOR OF HRS t!AX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN)*

1 24 24 60.7 68.3 1218 2

24 24 60.7 68.3 1188 3

24 24 56.3 68.3 1218 4

24 24 57.4 68.4 1218 5

24 24 57.4 68.3 1218 6

24 24 56.3 68.3 1113 7

24 24 54.9 68.3 1030 l

8 24 24 54.3 68.3 1067

)

9 24 24 54.4 54.0 1168 10 24 24 54.7 54.1 1113 11 24 24 54.8 54.1 1154 12 24 24 54.9 56.9 1113 13 24 24 56.0 57.0 1088 y

e 14 24 24 56.S 56.9 1113 15 24 24 57.2 56.9 1163 16 24 24 56.7 57.0 1213 17 24 24 52.6 57.0 1138 18 24 24 50.2 57.0 1144 19 24 24 49.3 57.0 1098 20 24 24 48.5 57.0 1030 21 24 24 49.2 54.3 745 22 24 24 49.7 54.3

]198 23 24 24 51.4 54.3 1157 24 24 24 52.4 54.7 1088 25 24 24 55.8 54.7 1088 26 24 24 57.6 60.3 1138 27 24 24 58.2 60.3 1163 28 24 24 57.2 59.4 1138 29 24 24 57.0 59.4 1165 30 25 25 56.4 39.4 1164 31 24 24 53.6 59.4 1138

• Includes 38 cfs for cooling tower evaporation O

O O

t

O O

O Table 1.

(Cont) Average River'Inlat and Site Discharge Temperature ( F) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) for flavember, 1989 MEA!I DAILY SITE OPERATIliG RIVER WATER IllLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FLOW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (BLOWDOWN) 1 24 24 49.7 59.5 1030 2

24 24 48.4 59.4 968 3

24 24 44.5 59.5 860 4

24 24 43.3 59.4 618 5

24 24 43.9 59.4 532 1

6 24 24 43.7 59.4 628 l

7 24 24 45.1 59.4 690 8

24 24 44.8 59.4 747 9

24 24 44.5 59.5 778 10 24 24 41.7 59.4 778 11 24 24 42.5 59.5 695 12 24 24 41.0 59.5 663 13 24 24 40.6 59.5 669

~*

14 24 24 40.5 59.5 663 15 21 24 40.2 45.7 679 16 24 24 39.2 42.2 672 17 24 24 35.9 42.5 698 18 24 24 33.8 41.8 698 19 24 24 35.5 44.9 718 20 24 24 36.4 46.2 694 21 24 24 35.6 43.8 718 22 24 24 34.2 42.9 700 23 24 24 34.5 43.4 700 24 24 24 34.7 42.8 708 25 24 24 34.7 42.5 688 26 24 24 35.5 43.2 703 27 24 24 35.5 43.6 706 28 24 24 33.0 39.4 724 29 24 24 33.6 41.8 728 30 24 24 34.6 42.2 713

Table 1.

(Cont) Averaga River Inlet and Site Discharge Temperature (OF) and Site Discharge Flow (cfs) December, 198?

MEAN DAILY SITE OPERATING RIVER WATER INLET TEMP SITE DISCHARGE TEMP DISCHARGE FLOW DATE I HOURS II MAX FOR OP HRS MAX FOR OP HRS (51 LOWDOWN) 1 24 24 35.6 43.3 738 I

2 24 24 35.1 41.3 738 3

24 24 32.6 39.5 738 4

24 24 33.3 41.3 738 I

5 24 24 33.5 41.6 738 6

24 24 33.8 40.1 713 7

24 24 33.8 39.5 738 8

24 24 34.3 40.0 725 j

9 24 24 34.1 39.5 738 10 24 24 34.2 39.8 738 11 24 24 33.8 39.5 G88 12 24 24 33.7 39.5 688 13 24 24 33.7 39.5 708 y

e 14 24 24 33.2 Out of Service 686 15 24 24 32.9 Out of Service 688 16 24 24 32.9 Out of Service 688 17 24 24 32.9 Out of Service C88 18 24 24 33.0 Out of Service 678 19 24 24 33.0 Out of Service 678 20 24 24 32.8 Out of Service 658 21 24 02:23 33.2 Out of Service 678 22 24 0

32.5 Ouc of Service 568 23 24 23:51 32.3 Out of Service 568 24 24 24 32.6 Out of Service 678 25 24 24 32.5 Out of Service 678 26 24 12:32 33.8 Out of Service 688 27 24 0

32.7 Out of Service 367 28 24 9

32.4 Out of Service 321 s

29 24-0 32.4 Out of Service 318 30 24 0

32.2 Out of Service 318 31 24 0

32.7 Out of Service 318 O

O O

l l

(])

Table 2.

Daily 1989 Mississippi River Discharge Flow Rate (>fs) at Lock and Dam 3 DATE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 1

5,900 7,500 7,100 38,000 27,300 27,100 2

6,100 6,600 7,000 36,300 27,800 23,900 3

6,300 6,500 6,600 34,900 28,200 22,900 4

6,300 5,500 6,300 33,200 27,700 20,600 5

6,200 4,900 6,400 32,700 29,300 18,600 6

6,300 5,000 6,400 33,227 28,600 18,100 7

6,300 5,200 6,300 33,500 27,700 15,800 8

6,200 5,800 6,400 35,200 27,100 15,100 9

6,200 6,500 6,600 36,700 26,600 13,800 10 6,200 7,200 6,800 37,400 26,500 11,800 11 5,800 7,100 7,200 38,500 26,800 10,900 12 5,400 6,900 8,800 38,800 26,300 11,400 13 5,400 6,800 9,200 38,700 27,000 11,100 14 5,500 6,300 9,300 37,700

.3,700 10,000 15 5,800 6,800 8,200 35,300 25,800 9,900 16 6,400 6,900 7,700 33,400 24,100 10,700 17 6,500 6,900 7,800 34,800 21,200 10,600 O

18 6,400 6,900 7,300 33,000 19,900 11,000 19 6,300 6,700 6,100 33,700 20,300 10,400 20 6,500 6,600 7,000 33,200 20,100 9,700 21 6,300 6,600 8,200 32,500 18,000 9,200 22 6,400 6,500 8,300 32,000 16,300 9,500 23 6,530 6,400 8,600 31,700 15,800 9,600 24 6,500 6,200 9,500 30,000 16,300 9,500 25 6,400 6,300 11,100 27,600 19,900 9,500 26 6,400 6,900 13,300 27,600 17,900 9,500 27 6,300 7,300 16,800 27,400 24,800 11,500 28 6,900 7,400 24,600 27,000 23,600 12,600 29 7,000 30,000 26,500 26,500 12,300 30 7,100 37,300 27,400 29,400 10,500 31 7,300 38,100 28,800 MEAN 6,294 6,529 11,300 33,264 24,287 13,237 MAX 7,300 7,500 38,100 38,800 29,400 27,100 MIN 5,400 4,900 6,100 26,500 15,800 9,200 0

17

Table 2.

Daily 1989 Mississippi River Discharge Flow Rate (cfs) at Lock and Dam 3 (Continued)

DATE JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1

11,400 6,800 5,300 7,200 6,200 5,800 2

15,000 5,300 9,100 7,600 7,000 6,800 3

12,500 5,300 7,500 7,400 6,900 6,200 4

7,000 5,400 7,300 6,900 6,900 5,"10 5

7,400 5,400 10,400 6,400 6,800 5,600 6

8,200 5,400 11,200 5,800 7,700 5,600 7

10,500 3,900 12,600

,800 8,200 5,300 8

10,200 3,900 11,800 6,300 7,500 5,100 9

10,100 3,100 10,600 6,500 7,700 4,900 10 8,900 2,400 10,700 6,600 7,700 5,200 11 8,100 2,900 9,400 6,400 7,800 5,300 12 8,200 2,900 9,600 6,500 7,800 5,400 13 7,500 2,900 8,800 6,200 7,800 5,000 14 6,800 4,400 8,800 C,200 9,500 4,500 15 6,400 5,900 7,500 6,500 7,700 4,300 ll) 16 6,400 5,800 7,400 6,200 7,900 4,100 17 6,100 4,300 6,900 6,100 7,600 4,200 18 6,100 3,800 o,800 5,400 7,300 4,300 19 9,100 3,800 6,800 5,400 6,400 4,600 20 8,900 3,600 7,300 5,500 5,000 5,400 21 7,400 4,700 7,300 G,300 4,200 5,300 22 7,400 4,700 7,800 6,300 3,600 5,000 23 6,600 6,300 8,100 6,300 5,500 4,700 24 5,300 6,200 7,200 6,300 6,500 4,300 25 4,600 4,600 6,800 6,200 6,400 4,300 26 4,700 4,600 7,300 6,200 6,400 4,200 27 4,300 4,600 7,200 6,900 6,300 4,300 28 5,100 5,400 7,200 7,000 6,200 4,400 29 5,100 5,400 7,300 6,100 6,400 4,700 30 6,300 5,400 7,200 6,200 5,900 4,600 31 6,800 5,300 6,200 4,700 MEAN 7,690 4,658 8,307 6,353 6,793 4,961 MAX 15,000 6,800 12,600 7,600 8,500 6,800 MIN 4,300 2,400 5,300 5,400 3,600 4,100 0

18

. -. -.. ~ _

O Table 3.

1989 Percentage of Mean Monthly Mississippi River Flow Entering the Prairie Island Plant Intake.

Mean Plant Mean River Percentage of Mean Monthly Hqnth Flow (cfs)

F104 (cfs)

River Flow Enterina Plant Intaka January 667 6,294 10.6 F6bruary 639 6,529 9.8 March 590 11,300 5.2 April 191 33,264 0.6 May 389 24,287 1.6 June 610 13,237 4.6

{)

July 1179 7,690 15.3 August 1207 4,658 25.9 September 1207 8,307 14.5 October 1129 6,358 17.8 November 719 6,793 10.6 December 635 4,961 12.8 Average 764 11,140.

10.8 19

O febte 4 Mean Monthly Mississippi River Flow for 1983 1989 Month 39 M

1987 1986 iM 1984 M

January 6,294 7,303 13,758 13,710 12,526 13,375 14,260 February 6,529 7,634 12,586 12,804 10,239 18,557 13.375 March 11,300 14,810 17,287 24,790 32,265 27,290 55,276 A5 i l 33,264 21,463 20,267 84,870 45,317 56,277 56,239 May 24,287 13,119 13,655 81,242 43,518 49,528 38,155 June 13,2'"

4,667 14,573 37,043 30,105 55,613 24,404 July 7,690 2,903 11,674 34,684 25,676 37,155 36,3)3 August 4,658 5,103 1 0,,,' T 30,813 18,216 13,826 14.141 4 r.

• e m b e r 8,307 6,080 7,183 41,957 29,655 9,678 14,213 ober 6,354 7,019 7,771 49,319 38,590 23,866 17 536 e

svember 6,793 7,919 u,693 24,260 21,337 27,157 15,108 December 4,961 6,487 9,016 17,774 14,094 15,903 16,729 Average 11,140 8,709 12,245 37,772 27,046 29,020 23,566 O

20

)

~j PRAIRIE IE.LAllp ITUJ;;_LEAIL.QDIEPATIliG PQUI EITVIRO!TMEliTAL MOllITORI!TG PROGRAM 1989 Atil1UAL REPORI

SUMMARY

OF THE 1989 FISH POPULATIOli STUDY I,_ 's LJ by K.

N. Mueller Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department Northern States Power Company

.__/

21 9

l IlfTRODUCTIQ1{

O Electrofishing was conducted on the Mississippi River near Red Wing, Minnerota.

The objective of the study is to i

monitor and assess the status of the fisheries in the Prairie Island Nucicar Generating Plant (PINGP) vicinity.

The study area extends from 5.8 kilometers upstream of the plant (River mile 802) to 17.4 kilometers downstream of the plant (River mile 787.5),

(Figure 1).

Sampling was done monthly May through October, within established sectors of the study area (Figures 2 through 5).

Trap netting data is no longer collected,but some information remains as summtarized data in this report for comparative purposes.

Parameters used to describo the fisheries include length-weight regressions, catch per unit effort (cpue),

percent contribution, and length-frequency distributions.

Discussion for selected species is provided in this report.

METHODS AND MATERIALS Fish were collected during daylight hours with a pulsed direct current (de) electrofishing unit.

The unit consisted of an 18-foot flat-bottom boat' equipped with one anode, ten cathodes, dual safety switches, and a railing (Figure 6).

A Smith-Root type VI-A Electrofisher was used, and operated in a pulsed de mode with voltage ranging from 336 to 840 volts, and pulnn frequency of 60 pulses per second.

An attempt was made to maintain output between 4-and 6 amperes.

The power source was a 230 volt alternating current (ac) revolving field portable generator.

Shocking runs in Sectors 1 through 4 are illustrated in Figures 2 threngh 5.

The same runs were used in 1989 as in previous years of this study.

Each run was electrofished in an alternating on-off mode for apprcximately 400 seconds of O

actual shocking time, or until the end of the prescribed run 23 I

~

.. ~.... - -,.

was reached.

Stunned fish were captured with one-inch g

stretch mesh landing nets ecp pped with eight-foot inculated handles and placed in water-filled tubs until the end of each run.

Af ter each run, accumulated shocking time was

recorded, and the digital timer was reset.

Fish were identified, measured to the nearest millimeter, weighed to the nearest 10 grams, and released within tne area in which they were collected.

Electrofishing epue was computed as numbers of fish per hour for each sector.

Length frequencies in 20-millimeter intervals were calculated for all fish species.

Length-weight relationships were calculated using the length-weight formula log W = a + b log L, where W is the weight in grams, a is tv.

y axis intercept, b g

is the slope of the regression line, snd L is the total length in millimeters.

RESULTS Species collected during 1989 are included in Table 1.

Eicctrofishing epue for 1989 is presented in Table 2.

Length frequency distributions for selected species collected in 1989 are illustrated in Figures 7a through 12b.

Summaries for selected species are presented in Tables 3 through 8, and are based on electrofishing and trap-netting data for years 1977 through 1987, and on electrotishing data only for 1988 and 1989.

Trap-netting was discontinued prior to 1988 sampling as noted by Orr (1988).

These tables provide cpuu, catch composition (pe'; cent of annual total),

mean

lengths, and length-weight regression analysis, g

Comparison of annual average cpue fcf these selected species 24

are depicted in Figures 13-18.

Table 9 summarizes the

]

percent contribution of individual species in the annual catch.

Due to changes in electrofishing collection methods (Palmquist 1981), a direct comparison of electrofishing cpue prior to 1981 is inappropriate to later years (Donkers 1985).

Generally, young-of-the-year gizP,ard shad, freshwater drum, white bass, and all logperch and cyprinids (other than carp) are no longer collected due to their small size.

To ecmpensate for this size criteria, fish less than 160 mm in length, collected prior to 1981, were not included in cpue calculations for presentation in Tables 3-8.

Adhering to a size criterion primarily limits collection of young-of-the-year gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and white bass; few walleye or sauger have been eliminated.

Cpue for smallmouth bass and largemouth bass collected in 1989 mre included in Table 10, and are compared to annual averages of previous years in Figure 19.

DISCOSSION When dealing with a large river environment, a high degree of variability exists in habitat conditions and *herefore in fish distributions.

Fish avoidance of PINGP thermal discharge is not supported as suggested by maximum cpue values found in the plant vicinity and downstream sectors.

This interpretation, however, is simplistic and ignores the relative importance of habitat preferences and differences in eq11ection efficiencies.

Palmquist (1982) proposed the wide range in species abundance between study sections was largely due to habitat preferences of a speeles rather than PINGP induced.

A high degree of variability in species abundance also exists within sectors from year to year.

Differences in collection efficiency and year class strengths may explain this variability.

Q A qualitative and quantitative discussion for selected 25

species is given which includes:

1) rank with respect to g

other years 2) trends in cpue,

3) population condition as depicted by length weight regression analysis.

Trend analysis was performed by correlating annual average cpue against time for operathnal years 1977-1988.

GIZZARD SHAD Electrofishing cpue has ranged from 0.14 to 23 gizzard shad por hour (Table 3).

Since peaking in 1981, a general decline in cpue for shad has been observed, however, no significant trend exists for operational years 1977 - 1989.

Presently adult gizzard shad comprise less than 1 percent of the catch; previously it comprised as much as 9 percent of the catch.

It is presently ranked sixteenth in overall catch abundance.

O The general condition of gizzard shad collected has remained relatively high, as depieced by regression slopes in the vicinity of 3.0.

However, little can be said about trends in the population condition due to the small number of fish collected in recent years.

FRESHWATTR DRUM Freshwater drum are hardy

fish, common to the Upper Mississippi River.

Drum ranked fifth in the overall catch, with the highest densities collected in Sector 4 during 1989.

The last 13 years of cpue data do not suggest an increase or decrease in the drum population.

Two parameters suggesticJ no decline in the drum population are stable opue (Figure 14) and the p)pulation's good general condition (Table 4).

It is hypothesized that a h

declining population will have a poor general condition.

t 26

l l

Thu general condition of the population, indicated by the O

i avta-we1 a* resre==toa tone. =uese t=

e we11 ooaaittoaea 9

population, and the slope for 1989 is within the range of previous years.

SHORTHEAD REDHORSE There is an apparent increasing trend in the shorthead redhorse population over the pant 13 years as illustrated in Figure 15.

A change in k 1 skewed length distribution towards a shorter fish indicates stronger recruitment of younger year classes.

Data presented in Table 5 supports this statement, with a shorter aean length and large sampic size for those collected in 1988-89, compared to a longer mean length during 1981-87.

The increasing population trend is thought tc. be a result of the stronger recruitment of younger fish.

O rreviou 17 aorta a reawor e ooavri ea tro-taree to 12 percent of the catch, and routinely ranked fifth in abundance.

Shorthead redhorse cpua, which had increased in 1988, increased again in 1989 to 24.52 fish /hr, which is the highest epue observed during this study.

They are presently ranked second in abundance, comprising 16.9 percent of the catch.

This shift in ranking provides additional support that the increasing cpue trend is actually due to an increasing population rather than increated collection efficiency.

General condition of the population appears healthy, as depicted by the length-weight regression slope of 2.79, which falls within the range of previous years (Table 5).

This slope has been consistently rimilar to the length-weight regression slope (2.83) of another population of Upper Mississippi River sherthead redhorse as reported by O

cert aaer c19ee)-

27

WHITE BASS White bass are well represented in the electrofishing catch.

Cpus in 1989 averaged 19.9 fish /hr for the four sectors, fourth highest in the study period.

Maximum 1989 cpue, 40.3 fish /hr, was found in Sector 4.

White bass presentiv comprise approximately 15.3 percent of the catch and is ranked third in abundance.

The general condition of white bass, as denoted by length-weight regression slope, denotes a well conditioned population.

The mean length computed for white bass in 1989 is similar to 1988 and indicates a smaller, younger fish population than has been seen previously.

A variable cpue (Figure 16) and a generally well conditioned population suggests no trend in the white bass population.

WALLEYE AND SAUGER Walleye and sauger populations have both remained relatively stable over the last 13 years, as indicated by their cpue (Figures 17 and 18, respectively) and regression slopes (Table 7 and 8).

Since these species share similar niches they have similar collection biases.

nownstream sectors exhibit the highest population densities, contrary to historical data, walleye exhibits a higher abundance than sauger for the second consecutive year.

Walleye and sauger comprise 3.2 and 1.9 percent of the catch, respectively.

No long-term trend is evidant for either species.

Walleye and sauger have consistently comprised approximately two to three percent of the catch and have ranked in the top ten most abundant species, although sauger dropped to eleventh the last two years.

Length-weight regressions and g

the mean length for walleye sampled indicate a large, well 28

O coneitioned fish.

sauger 1ength-weight regression ene1ysis and mean length describe a short, but well conditioned fish.

Smallmouth bass and Laraemouth bass Both smallmouth and largemouth bass have been seen more frequently in the electrofishing catch during recent years in the PINGP study area (Tablo

1. 0 ).

Cpue data from 1981 through 1989 indicate recent increased abundance of smallmouth bass and largumouth bass (Figure 19),

with the change being most pronounced for smallmouth bass.

However, there is no significant long-term trend for either species.

Based on cpue, smallmouth bass abundance ranking was fourth (13.5 fish /hr) and largemouth ranked tenth (3.4 fish /hr) in the overall 1989 catch.

Smallmouth bass represented 9.4 percent of all fish collected in 1989, while largemouth contributed 2.2 percent of the catch.

Largemouth bass abundance ranking was highly variable over a wide range from eleventh to twentieth, with relatively low cpue during 1981-87.

Both cpue and rank increased in 1988 and 1989.

During the period of low cpua, variability in the catch of other species was-most likely responsible for the fluctuating largemouth bass rank.

Smallmouth bass cpue gradually decreased from ' 4. 65 fish /hr-in 1981 to a low of 0.85 fish /hr 1966, and has increased since to a high of 13.52 fish /hr and abundanco rank of fourth in the 1989 catch.

Prior to 1989, rank-remained stable ranging from seventh to ninth.

The population of both bass species _ appear to be in good general condition as-depicted by regression line slopes of 3.1 and 3.1 for smallmouth and largemouth, respectively.

29

These slopes compare well with those provided for undisturbed bass population by Carlander (1977).

SUMMARY

The 1989 fisheries study was conducted from May through October.

Electrofishing was used to sample the fish popula-tion in the vicinity of the prairie Island Plant.

Cpue, longth-weight relationships, and percent composition were among the parameters calculated.

The ten most abundant species, based on cpue from all

sectors, in order of abundance were

carp, shorthead redhorse, white bass, smallmouth bass, freshwater drum, bluegill, quillback, walleye, smallmouth buffalo, and large-mouth bass.

Since

1977, no trend in population changes could be distinguished for freshwater drum, white bass, walleyo, or sauger.

An increasing trend in the shorthead redhorse population has become evident over the past 13 years.

A decline in the numbers of gizzard shad collected had been observed for a number of years; however, cpue has increased during the past three years, but remains relatively low and stable.

No long-term trends in population ' changes are evident for smallmouth and largemouth bass, but increased cpue for both species over the last three years provide evidence that short-term population changes may be occurring.

The data does not support the hypothesis:

fish densities, as depicted by cpue, are lowest in the areas receiving g

thermal discharge.

I 30

O nerrnt" cts Carlander, K. D.

1969.

Handbook of Freshwater Fisheries Biology. Volume one. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Carlander, K.

D.

1977.

Handbook of Freshwater Fisheries Diology.

Vol.

2.

The Iowa State University Preos, Ames, Iowa.

Donkers, C.

A.

1985.

Summary of the 1985 fish population study.

In:

Prairie IWland Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1985 Annual Report.

Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN

orr, D. J.

1988.

Summary of the 1988 fish population r:tudy.

ID:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environ-O eate1 aoattorias vroere= 1981 ^aauet a Port-nertnera States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.

Palmquist, P.

R.

1981.

Summary of the 1981 fish population study.

ID:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1981 Annual Report.

Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.

Palmquist, P. R.

1982.

Summary of the 1982 fish population study.

'ID:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1982 Annual Report.

Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.

O 31

O

=

n

=

r ac

?

s re A

t e

e E

m R

o A

l I

i

?

N),_

K Q_

Y n

D i

1 e

U l

N T

a S

c

=

S

~

y N

Wi (5 O

o G

IT N

1 A

C I

W L

g U

?

D E

P f

R O

N P

S O

E IR a

mo E

u t

H a

S s

I a

F m

4 D

o 7

N t

%~

A

%3 O

L k

S N

s I

E G

e I

N A

R

~

1 e \\

I N%

A RA R

/

P e

k

+

s DNE

\\

AT f

1 tIsG e

T r

F u

IA R

9 ID 1F A P R

P

~

O ll lllll Il lliil 1

Figure 2.

ABOVE PLANT g

SECTOR 1 - STATIONS 1 THROUGH 20 i-ti we

'~re f.94 /

O

'O

1. y W)YS

~' o r,*/

a, O

88 e

\\

,4 9,

14 wr f

LEGEND _

GEAR

'e Electrofishing rA-e -E Trao Notting 9

y

,.%)(i; re:. '

a-PRA!RIE ISLAND

. =.~ a,9og 1

e euur 34

n e

I t~

PLANT AREA SECTOf f 2 - STATIONS 1 THROUGH 10 q

I

&g

}Ah

..:...,o a'-

b g

M; L

oo

/

n a

w l

bq),

/

q 2-2

/

y gn 72 r.

4 2-M8e

mu om a

%>,7 I

2-'

LEGEND

.y 2 yo GEAR Electrofishing 2-6 gfg ea.ww Trdo NettLg 9

)

g d

O 35

- - ~ - - - - - -

~-

P' l

rigure 4.

DOWNSTREAM SECTOR 3 - STATONS 1 THROUGH 10 g Loen a oAu a

+

s c-A N

r/

~q LEGEND _

f GEAR Elsetrofishing

/

Trap Notting i

N

\\

h 9

\\,

g,<

)

36

" "' 3

• DOWNSTREAM O

SECTOR 4-STIT10NS 1 THROUGH 20 l'

s

,.s

$,4 Vl:7 s.

MY,,..

e=T7 4-20 O

s N

p 4,

scwen Lut mun steuet w

4-to 4-e RED WING y.-,

LEGEND.

GEAR Eectrofishing W

Trap Netting 9

O 37 l

W J

i4,..

,5 tu 4J.

Au_

J_ema._.aJ

.4

,ha_.

4.

m

.2

_a

_M t_ _ - _

.w,..

d

a.. ~,

4y,,

O n,,...

i t

s

\\

{

i N/

a\\

i qq 4

m wi

=

i 2

k 4

g 1

i 5

3

~Y 38

- i O

i FIGURE 7a THROUGH FIGURE 12b l

0; i.

I I.

LO 39

~.

O 0;

O FIGURE 7a.

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1989 - LENGTH FREQUENCY SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 70 60-i

\\

50-O'~

~

~

z

[

30-f nn o

o a

q i

20-l

?

+

l 10-I 4

Legend q

~

i e'

o EM SECTOR 1 i

A E

~,

O SECTOR 2 1b0 15 0 2b0 2bo 3b0 3bo 4bo 4$0 Sbo 5$0 LENGTH mm I

i

!':!,ij,!

j li

(

Ill.l!llj l

l,j "e

P F kNo y70>-

R I

A.G 2

2 3

3 4

4 1

1 0

5 0

5 V

5 0

5 0

5 R

U I

O R

I E

E IS 7

1 h L

5, b

0 A

[

N g

D 2

~

0, 0

h 1

r 98 F^

9 2

5, 0

l I

I 3

0, 0

NG n

T L

g E3 H

t Ns

?

0 G

F T

g-R H

4P E

m 0i 4

- 4 O

N m0 U

O s

E

' 2 N

4 I,.

C 54 0

Y I;

S 50 H

0 O

RT 5

H 5,

0 E

h AD 6

0, 0

REDHO RS OM E

Le SS E Eg CC e TT O

OO n RR d 4 3

• jI!,1[

(!t i

i i(irf!

i i i !.

.il Ig l.

~

O O

O FIGURE Ba.

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1989 - LENGTH FREQUENCY WHITE BASS 20 - -

e 15 -

f a

3 i

z 0 $

to-8 E

~.

[

s-

?

S r-l Legend EEE SECTOR 1

[

l l

O SECTOR 2 10 0 ido 2$o 250 350 3$o 4$o 4do 5$o sbo 600 650 750 LENGTH mm I

FIGURE 8b.

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1989 - LENGTH FREQUENCY WHITE BASS I

,i40

~

12 0 -

10 0 -

U S0-8 s

[

60-n l

=

40-2 m

b m

o La E

20--

^] e

[

,2

=E Legend e

f

,I~

M SECTOR 3 d.

W a W g?, -

O SECTOR 4 0

10 0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 LENGTH mm

y

,o O

O O

~

FIGURE 9a.

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1989 - LENGTH FREQUENCY BLACK CRAPPIE 2.2 N

N N

2 --

1.8 -

'O 1.6 --

c. 5 l

8 i

Ld i

l 1.4 -

l i

l l

1.2 -

~

1-Legend EM SECTOR 1

0. 8 -

{

- 3 i

230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 LENGTH mm

FIGURE 9b.

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1989 - LENGTH FREQUENCY BLACK CRAPPIE 14 l

l 12 -

t 10-

mis enc'cu hirus

Table 1.

(Cont irud)

Species 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19*7 1988 1989 Green sunfish X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

tetxnis gyanetits X

PtsTA inseed X

X X

X tegxmais gitiosus Orangespotted smfIsh '

X X

t epanis htsmit is 8 ttkgill X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

i t eparais macrochirts Settanuth bass X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Micropterus dolernieci l

targemouth bass X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

o Micrecterus salmoides White cra[ pie X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Pomonis amuteris Black cragpie X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Pcunomis nigrcruculatus Yel'ou perch X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X Perca flavescens Sauger X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Stirostedion carx@nse Watteye X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Stirostedian wit-etta f reshwater drtsa X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Aplodinotus grumierw O

O

t @

%\\\\(g 4

sh T.1 & ',Y c

A l

'A t9 IMAGE EVALUATION O

</

[ g,,'Y g, NY//r// :['

4;)$#'

TEST TARGET (MT-3) j,!x N

Q ['(g)s k

@p[h, v

^1 (8'

~

g p

I.0 It O ??A L [?2 p 2.2 a

L drew 3

t f;

ils h=

l.l t

lil 1.8 insa 1.25 1.4 g i.6 n

4 150mm 4

6"

%7r]z

$'p+%

A,e e?7/

,3 g g, m ' 4, N m

,,7 q,q g,;yJ' qc, W

\\

Oy/

p a

'*h--

• 1E

,d w

i

/ (O e

R AI?

6;, & 'A;;h IMAGE EVAL.U ATION Ng

%,s 4~

O\\///

4thI9 TEST TARGET (MT-3)

</

1. A 16 N

[

k I.0 i: 2 n '==

b in $2A I

l.1 I

g

~

I.25 1.4

!,_1.6

==

4 150mm 4

6" b%

w,

++ A+

4,gf4 S j g f, ) jv/j/,

,7 y

gN

dgq, e.w

' \\ s //gWl p 'Nb@!G 9 4 \\ 'kf 1.0

i 2 UA o

la # E, j 2 27ll1Kf2 t I' Y i?llll 2.0 l 1:59 l,l {~ i B1lma L8 = Ill 1.25 l.4 '%.6 l == 4 150mm - 6" pw+ v,:. +,r .o + 0$ 'h 's , p,R' a ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ " * " ~ ~ ' ^ ~ ' ' ,l ll 4(%3 i V g%,, g/, y,%y 4f // t - - _ --_ - -_ _ _ i h 4 s. ] 7.y - i,; ff.BLE 2. PINOP CATCH PER Unit EFtott (fish /hr) FOR 1989 ELECit0Fl$NING e species sector #1 sector 82-Sector 83 sector #4 Att Sectors Averaged i g sitver tenerey 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.079 0.056 Lon9 nose ser-0.075 0.000 0.435 0.079 p.147 9 - Shortruse ger.- 0.150 0.r )0 0.435 0.000 0.146 lowf h 0.300 0.000 2.757 3.143 1.550 Amerleen eel 0.0'5 0.000 0.290 0.000 0.091 Olsterd shed 1.125 0.490 0.871 1.807 1.073 Mooneye 0.375 0.490 0.43$ 0.)93 0.423 Worthern pthe 0.000 0.000 0.435 0.157 0.148 7 Corp-23.853 28.556 37.001 23.652 28.266 River carpeucker.. 0.300 0.163 0.871 0.864 0.550 oultibeck 1.950 1.958 6.820 11.079 5.452 highfin corpsucker 0.00J 0.000 0.145 e 000 0.036 Carpsucker app. 0.375 0.000 0.145 0.079 0.150 White sucker-0.075 0.000 1.016 0.786 S.469 Spotted sucker 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.079 0.056 t Blue sucker - 0.0 75 : 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.051 'Smeltmoutn buffalo-1.72$ J.816 10.593 2.514 3.912 ligmouth buffalo 0.750 1.305 1.596 1.100 1.188 Silver redhorse 0.900 0.653 2.902 2.986 1.860 f7 Alver_ redhorse 0.000 0.000 0.290 0.000 0.0 73 'V Golden redhorse 0.300 0.163 2.322 0.629 0.854 therthead redhorse 24.304 23.008 35.840 14.930 24.521 Yellow bulthead 0.C00 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.041 -Channel cetfish 0.750 1.142 0.290 0.079 0.565 Flathead catfish 0.225 - 0.000 0.435 0.157 0.204 White boss -6.226 9.954 23.f07 40.310 19.999 Rock bees 0.450 0.163 0.726 1.572 0.728 Gr. eurif tsh .0.075 0.816 0.000 0.079 0.243 g- -Pumpkinseed - 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.036 stuositt -1.200 14.1 M 4.353 7.858 A.902 smettmouth' bees 19.353 15.339 16.542 2.829 13.516-

1. 1

Largemouth bees 0.075 5.222 4.063 4.243 3.401 White crapple 0.000 0.979 0.145 0.47.

0.399 Stock crapple 0.225 1.305 1.161 4.243 1.734 ' Yellow perch 0.075 . 0.326 0.580 0.550 0.383 Sauger 1.425 - 0.326 5.514 3.536 2.700 We t t oye - - 3.3 75 1.305 5.804 -6.286 4.193 Freshwater _ deus 12.452-6.853 10.738 22.630 13.168 TOTAL -102.613 115.691-179.637 159.199 139.285 4 N_ ?% ): 61 3---...... -_..m -inh TABLE-3. ' FISHERIES

SUMMARY

FOR GIZZARD SHAD 1977 - 1989.

ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH MEAN --

YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSITION N-LENGTH LEN':~~i F W T REGRESSION

.'1977 7.92 0.61 6

135' NA LOG W=3. lOl IDG L-5.163 1978

-10.20 0.20 8

73 NA IDG W=3.068 LOG L-5.073-1979-1.81' O.06 7

NA NA.

NA' 1980 10.83.

0.14 7

NA NA NA 1981 23.03 0.38 9

917 216 IDG W=2.748 LOG L-4.348

~1932 7.39 0.09 3

276 329 LOG W=2. 917 ' IDG L-4. 741 1983 3.57.

9.26 2

155 355 TG W=3. 029. "DG L-5. 04 9 1984.

0.84 0.08 1-48 281 AG W=2.684' "DG L-4.171 '

1985 0.81 0.01 1

31-325 W W=2.388 LOG.L-3.431 1986 0.14 0.06

<1 13 274 TG W=3.248 :[DG L-5.634 1987 1.08 0.05 1

55 256 MG W=3.030 :[DG L-5. 04 6

'1988 3.25

.NA 3

139 288 MG W=2. 629 :.DG L-4. 015 1989 1.07 NA

<1 47 323 2G W=3. 025 "DG L-5. 021 m

[

to t

TABLE 4.-

FISHERIES

SUMMARY

FOR FRESHWATER DRUM 1977 ~ 1989.

.i

' ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH MEAN i

YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSION N

LENGTH LE11GTH

_______________________________________________________-WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 7.49-5.27 33 569 NA LOG W=2.947 LOG L-4.756 1978 11.97

-6.28 17 422 NA IDG W=2.911 LOG L-4.710 t

1979 7.47 5.22 21 360 NA LOG W=3.068 LOG L-5.100 1980 5.89 3.83 18 520 NA IDG W=3. 052 LOG L-5. 02 6 1

1981 30.88.

4.76 12 1146 267 IDG W=2.891 IDG L-4.625

. r 1982 9.30.

11.00 24 2225 293 LOG W=2.888 LOG L-4.625 3

1983 8.80 8.18 22 1626 287 LOG W=3. 001 IDG Ic4. 92 7 -

1984 7.07 6.21 20 1212 288 IDG W=2.598 IDG L-3.919

.j 1985 10.15 7.92 31 1712 293 IDG W=2.846 LOG L-4.452 t

1986 8.33 0.39 22 856 310 IDG W=3.089 IDG L-5.139 1987 10.29 3.75 16 940 312 LOG W=2.874 LOG L-4.603

'1988 9.85

NA 8

419 280 IDG W=2.722 LOG L-4.205 i

1989 13.17 NA 11 570 294 IDG W=2. 9 08 IDG L-4.707 h

e e

O.

i

(.

O O

O TABLE 5.

FIS!!ERIES

SUMMARY

'FOR SHORTHEAD REDIIORSE 1977 - 1989.

j ELECTI<O TRAPNET CATCH MEAN YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSION N

LENGTli LENGTii

______g____________________________________

-WEIGHT REGRESSION:_g____ __ _g_

1978 2.96 1.09 4

125 NA LOG W=2.978 IDG L-4.917 1979' 2.08 0.45 3

67 NA LOG W=3.041 LOG L-5.090 1980 6.08 0.70 7

137 NA-IDG W=2.894 LOG L-4.678 1981 11.67 1.34 7

686 376

AG W=2.791 IDG L-4. 428 1982 13.56 0.92 7

675 392

AG W=2.814 IDG L-4.496 1983 8.96 0.79 6

454 387

AG W=2. 84 9 Im L-4. 590 1984 9.74 0.51 7

435 386

AG W=2. 571 ' I/M L-;. 8 4 0 1985 7.36 0.51 7

374 389

LOG W=2. 7 87 ' IDG L-4. 415 1986 7.07 0.19 8

319 398

AG W=2.911 IDG L-4.730 1987 13.80 1.24 12 722 403 lAG W=2.860' LOG L-4.608 1988 17.48 NA 13 667 381 "DG W=2.696 LOG L-4.176 1989 24.52 NA 17 902 370 LOG W=2.792 LOG L-4.448 m

u TABLE 6.

FISHERIES

SUMMARY

FOR WHITE BASS 1977 - 1989.

ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH HEAN YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSION N

LENGTH LENGTH

_______________________________________________________-WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977

'7.76 6.73 12 565 NA IDG W=2.441 LOG L-3.529 1978 7.11 5.67 14 369 NA IDG W=2. 9 56 LOG L-4. 813 1979 3.49 3.02 11 217 NA LOG W=3.055 IDG L-5. 057 1980 2.48 1.97 7

183 NA LOG W=3.064 LOG L-5.022 1981

'30.88 5.39 20 1996 240

LOG W=2. 8 4 2 IDG L-4.498 1982 28.11 0.07 18 1722 286

LOG W=2. 9 09 IDG L-4. 67 7 1983 17.50 4.52 17 1277 300

LOG W=3.041 LOG L-5.021 1984 13.53 2.89 15 435 304 1DG W=2.571 LOG L-3.840 1985 16.75 1.39 14 768 308 LOG W=2.773 LOG L-4.337

~

1986 14.23 1.63 18 732 3 "' o LOG W=2.926 LOG L-4.716 1987 9.70 1.44 10 589 32 1 LOG W=3.027 IDG L-4. 9 58 1988 22.90 NA 20 1009 242 LOG W=2.855 LOG L-4.525

-1989 20.00 NA 15 819 266 IDG W=2.94 5 1DG L-4. 765 3

1

TABLE 7.

FISHERIES SUMHARY FOR WALLEYE 1977 - 1989.

ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCli HEAN YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSIOP N

LENGTli LENGTH-WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 1.36 0.37 1

20 NA IDG W=3.137 IDG L-5. 3 77 1978 1.54 0.96 2

28 NA LOG W=3.056 LOG L-5.197 1979 1.57 0.31 2

34 NA IDG W=3. 2 2 5 IDG L-5. 64 0 1980 1.20 0.13 1

22 NA LOG W=3.250 LOG L-5.693 1981 3.53 0.39 2

189 335-IDG W=3.082 LOG L-5.240 1982 2.96 0.16 1

135 415 IDG W=3.097 IDG L-5.293 1983 1.63 0.21 1

90 432 LOG W=3.095 LOG L-5.295 1984 2.04 0.11 2

93 378 IDG W=2.852 LOG L-4.615 1985 2.64 0.13 2

119 413 IDG W=3.159 IDG L-5.461 1986 1.99 0.15 2

101 404 LOG W=3. 08 5 IDG L-5. 2 69 1987 3.00 0.09 2

132 386 LOG W=3.151 LOG L-5.446 1988 5.80 NA 5

234 450 IDG W=3.103 IDG L-5.272 1989 4.19 NA 3

173 408 IDG W=3.140 LOG L-5.379 m

V TABLE 8.

FISHERIES

SUMMARY

FOR SAUGER 1977 - 1989.

ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH MEAN YEAR CPUE CPUE COMPOSION N

LE11GTH LENGTH-WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 0.77 0.40 1

20 NA LOG W=2.984 IDG L-4.991 1978 2.43 0.38 2

38 NA LOG W=3.100 IDG L-5.354 1979 1.57 0.30 2

24 NA IDG W=3.009 IDG L-5.158 1980 1.79 0.17 2

16 NA IDG W=3.169 LOG L-5.509 1981 7.28 0.29 4

NA NA NA 1982 7.50 0.17 4

329 256 IDG W=2.864 IDG L-4.773 1983 3.80 0.25 3

188 285 IDG W=3.013 IDG L-5.144 1984 4.07 0.19 3

182 262 LOG W=2.648 LOG L-4.202 1985 4.57 0.21 4

199 283 LOG W=2.996 IDG L-5. 019 1986 3.29 0.24 4

178 294 IDG W=3. 3 3 6 LOG L-5.936 1987 4.94 0.12 2

114 262 LOG W=3.177 LOG L-5.556 1988 2.10 NA 2

79 236 IDG W=2.683 LOG L-4.285 1989 2.70 NA 2

104 237 LOG W=3.208 IDG L-5.639 O

O O

.~

j 0

LO

~

0; iii i i

\\-

I,a bl e : 9.

species Compositlon;of. Annual Catches'For Prairle: 1 stand NuclearL Genereting Plant Fisherles' Studies.

Electro.ftshing'and..Trapnetting Combined for. 1977"1987, and Electroffshing onty'for 1988 and ': 19 8 9...

WhiteL Freshwater Stack Shorthead

^

. Gizzard Year Carp Bass Drum Sauger Crappie Wedhorse!

'Watteye s~ ad

. Tot at : %

n 1977 14:

99 13 1

14 5'

1 4

71.

l.

1978 13 17 17 2

18 4

2 5

77 i

l 1979' 17 13-21 2

12. -

3 2

1 72 t

1980 20 9

18 2

if 7

1 7'

15 l

'1981.

17 20 12 4

15 7

2 9.

86 m

4 u

1952 23 18 24.

4 9

7 1

3 89' 4

4 1983 18 17 22.

3 16 6

1 2

85 t

1984 26-15 20 3

12' 7

2 1

86

{

u 1985 20 14-31 4

9 7

2 1

87 i

4 i

j 1986 21 18 22 4

9 8

2

. <1 84 i-1 i

1.

1987 27 10 16 2

11 12 2

1 81 k-1988-23 20 8

2 3

13 5

3 77 i

1 198?

20 15 11 2

1 17

-3

<1 70 i

t Electroffshing-only i

e t

O Table 10. Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass Average CPUE (fish /hr) For All Sectors Combined, and Abundance Rank Within the Catch, 1981-89.

Smallmouth Bass Largemouth Bass CPUE Rank CPUE Rank 1981 4.65 9

0.58 20 1982 3.72 7

0.41 18 1983 2.17 8

0.80 11 1984 2.19 7

1.16 11 1985 1.56 8

0.54 15 1986 0.85 9

0.21 20 1987 2.94 7

0.61 16 1988 5.72 7

4.06 9

1989 13.52 4

3.40 10 9

66

EBAIRII ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1989 ANNUAL REPORT SPECIAL STUDIES SAMPLING OF PATHOGENIC AMOEBAE IN THE COOLING WATER SYS7}3 OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT.

O Prepared for Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, Minnesota by Glen M Kuhl Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department j-Northern States Power Company O

L 67 l

i

i SAMPLIl{,G OF PATHOGENIC AMOEBAE IN THE COOLING WATER SYSTEM

]

'AT THE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PIANT INTRODUCTION Biocide treatment of the circulating cooling water system at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) has proved effective in reducing the population of Naegleria fowleri prior to plant refueling outages.

Past chlorination procedures have been conducted just prior to outage to reduce exposure of plant personnel to increased levels of the organism.

Naegleria fowlerl was not isolated from the sample collected within the circulating water system at PINGP during 1989 and treatment of the circulating water system was not conducted.

TESTING PROCEDURES A water sample was collected from the outfall of Cooling Tower 122 on August 1, 1989.

Water was shipped to Dr. R L Tyndall of Microbial Monitoring for analysis; in addition to methods previously used (Kuhl, 1981),

monoclonal antibody testing-was also used as confirmatory analysis.

TEST RESULTS Analysis of the sample revealed no pathogenic Naegleria in any of the 100 m1, lo al, 1.3 m1, or 0.1 ml aliquets tested (Table 1).

These results do not allow the assumption that pathogenic Naegleria do not exist in the circulating water systems however, the levels at which they might be present are below levels that can be detected.

DISCUSSION O

$ia ao 9 thos ato " egt.rie were 1so1eted from eny of the 69

aliquots of circulating water tested, no chlorination of the g

circulating water system was conducted.

Samp $s will be collected during the summer of

1990, c or.s.

ent with previous years.

LITERATURE CITED

Kuhl, GM.

1982.

Treatment of Pathogenic Amoebae in the Cooling Water System of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.

Illt.

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies

Program, 1981 Annual Report Prepared for Northern States Power Company. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

O O

l 70

=

Table 1 i<

Amoebic Profile of Water From The Prairie Island Site:

August 1983

'i Growth Volume at 43'c Moreholoav Flace11ation Pathocenicity 100 ml

+

NN NT NT A

+

NN NT NT D

+

NN Neg NT C

+

NN NT NT D

+

NN NT NT E

+

NN Neg NT 10 ml A

+

NN NT NT NA NA NA B

NA NA NA C

NA h.s NA D

NA NA NA E

1 ml A

+

NN Neg NT B

+

NN NT NT C

+

NN NT NT NA NA NA D

E

+

NN NT NT NA NA NA O.1 ml A NA NA NA B

NA NA NA C

NA NA

-NA D

NA NA NJ E

NN = Not Naegleria NT = Not Tested NA =-Not Applicable N

O 71 m_.___

._-___._.-_.___._____m.

I l

Table 1 Amoebic Profile of Water From The cs V,

Prairie Island Site:

August 1989 Growth Volure at 43*C Noreholoav Flace11ation Pathocenifd M 100 ml

+

NN NT NT A

+

NN NT NT B

+

NN Neg NT C

+

NN NT NT D

+

NN NT NT E

+

NN Neg NT 10 =1 A

+

NN NT NT NA NA NA B

NA NA NA C

NA NA NA D

NA NA NA E

1 =1 A

+

NN Nog NT NN NT NT B

+

C

+

NN NT NT NA NA NA D

NN NT NT E

+

NA NA NA (l

0.1 ml A NA NA NA

\\~)

B NA NA NA C

NA NA NA D

NA NA NA E

NN = Not Naegleria NT = Not Tested NA = Not Applicable

./

8, u) f 71

i PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING _P.LM{I ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 1989 ANNUAL REPORT FINE MESH VERTICAL TRAVELING SCREENS IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL STUDY AU.Q SAMPLING MORTALITY ASSESSMENT O

i Prepared for Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, Minnesota i

by B. A. Kuhl K. N. Mueller Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department Northern States Power Company i

O 73 i

c

-w-y.,...--r-,

s-.--

.v.,,,--

ry v..ew-s,

1. ..,.4 r

'"-e

~'

. _ =. - - _ - - ~.

INTRODUCTION

.A V

' Samples collected during 1989 represented the sixth consecutive year of assessing the effectiveness of fine mesh-(0.5 mm) vertical traveling screens in reducing entrainment impacts on fishes in the vicinity of the Prairic Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP).

In 1988 it became apparent that sampling induced mortality could have a pronounced impact on initial survival estimates.

Large amounts of zooplankton and phytoplankton appeared to be causing increased mortality of fish in the sampling uank and wars substantially increasing sorting time (Kuhl and Mueller 1989).

To address this concern, the larval survivorship study was adapted in 1989 by introducing test fish into the sample collection system.

To differentiate from naturally occurring larval fish in the samples, test fish were marked with a biological stain.

The resultant survival of test fish will be used to assess sampling induced mortality..

O zwie report 111 imotuae aeaeity eeti atee na eurvive1 or impinged fish, but impingement estimates and latent survival results are no longer reported.

BETHODS AND MATERIAL SAMPLE COT M CTION Sample collection commenced on April 4,

1989-and continued through August 31, 1989.

Beginning May 18, test fish were introduced into samples to assess sampling induced mortality.

During this period, samples were collected on Tuesday'and Thursday of each week.

Samples were collected by diverting 25 perce'nt (2 out of the 8 screens) of the screen wash water into collection tanks in the basement of the environmental lab.

Wash water flows by gravity from the screen wash trough, into a drop structure, and through an O

18-1=on aie eter vive tato the e=viron

1. t 1 1a* eeee ent-75

Screen wash water was channeled from the 18-inch pipe g

through a larval collection tank manufactured by Lawler, s

Matusky, and Skelly Engineers (Figure 1).

The collection tank filters screen wash water through 0.5 mm mesh nylon screen material.

Filtered water was returned to the circulation ir system via a 12-inch diameter drain pipe.

2 The screen wash trough was manually cleaned prior to sample collection on each date of the 1989 sample season, to reduce accumulated debris and fish in the fish return and sampling system.

During sample collection, physical parameters were recorded including collection time and duration, screen speed, number of screens sampled, river stage, and water temperature.

Volume of river water filtered by the intake screens was obtained from the PINGP monthly thermal effluent report.

O Test fish were introduced into the larval collection tank at the beginning of the sample.

Following a designated sampling duration, all fish and any debris were rinsed into two collection baskets located in the collection area of the tank (Figure 2).

These baskets were then removed from the

tank, the contents transferred to four-liter beakers, and transported to the fish handling and sorting area for further processing.

All samples were collected with the traveling screens in the " automatic" mode at a rotation speed ranging from 3 to 12.5 feet per minute.

With larval survivorship program changes instituted in 1989 all samples were used to estimate larval density and survivorship.

Samples in which test fish were introduced were also used to assess sampling induced mortality.

Methods for collection, preparation, and introduction of test fish, and survival estimates are presented in this report.

76

TEST FISH O

Beginning on May 18 test fish were introduced into samples.

Species and life stages introduced included walleye prolarvae and postlarvae, channel catfish prolarvae and

juvenile, catostomids postlarvae and juvenile, cyprinids postlarvae and juvenile, and Lecomis spp.

postlarvae and juvenile.

The test walleye were provided by Minnesota DNR, St.

Paul

Hatchery, from eggs of Pike River-Vermillion Lake stock.

Walleye were introduced from May la to June 8.

Channel catfish were obtained from MN DNR Waterville hatchery and were introduced from July 6 to August 3.

Catostomids, cyprinids, and Lecomis spp.

were collected from the Mississippi River in the vicinity of PINGP by dip netting and seining and were introduced throughout the sampling season.

Test fish were held in aquariums and flow-through trays maintained with river water.

Walleye were fed a constant diet of live brine shrimp to minimize mortality and cannibalism.

All other test fish were fed a dry food diet.

Marking of test fish was necessary to differentiata them from river fish naturally occurring in tha samples.

Catostomids, cyprinids, leconis spp.,

and channel catfish were-marked using the biological stain Bismark brown Y (Appendix A).

Since introduced walleye were at an earlier stage of development and more densely pigmented than walleye from-the: Mississippi River near PINGP, marking was not required.

INTRODUCTION METHODOTAGY With.he exception of walleye, a predetermined number of 77

I test fish were marked in a so ution of Bismark brown Y g

stain.

Number of fish marked ranged from 100-200 and depended on availability and size.

After fish were adequately marked they were removed from the stain solution and placed in a holding aquarium.

At this time water temperaturn was adjusted to river water temperature by placing the holding or ma; king aquarium into a tray with flow-through river water.

Approximately five to ten minutes before a sample was collected, 50-100 test fish were netted from the holding aquarium using aquarium nets or a pit s of screen mesh and placed in a glass dish to be transferred to the collection tank.

Depending on subsampling prior to the first sort, number of test fish recovered may have been reduced by half.

Also at this time another 50-100 test fish were netted and placed in an aerated aquarium to be ured as control fish for the sample.

Test fish were introduced into the collection tank at the beginning of the sample collection period when flow of river water into the tank began.

SAMPLES Samples were collected to determine larval fish density, survival of fish impinget. on the fine mesh traveling

screens, and survival of introduced test fish.

These samples underwent a "first" and "second" sort.

The first sort was designed to remove all live and dead " test" fish, and live and dead "other" fish; with emphasis placed on removing all test fish and all other live fish in a time efficient manner.

To minimize sorting time, dead "other" fish were not removed when substantial amounts of debris occurred in the sample.

Upon completion of sorting, the number of live and dead control fish was determined.

Control fish were placed in vials labeled control live and lead.

Sorted test and other fish were placed in vials h

-beled " test live" and "other live" or " test dead" and s

l 78

"other dead".

Live or dead was based on the presence or absence of movement.

The second sort was designed to assure removal of all remaining fish and eggs (Figure 3).

All fish - and eggs were preserved in. five percent formalin solution buffered with calcium carbonate, and retained for identification.

Sorting efficiency was maximized by pouring only portions of the sample at a time into glass baking dishes placed on a light table, which provides illumination from below.

After completion of the first sort, debris was rinsed into a Tyler No.

60 sampling screen and drained for 15 minutes.

Total weight of the screen and debris was determined and recorded.

Debris was then transferred to a graduated cylinder to determine debris vo3ume.

The empty screen was then weighed so a debris weight could be obtained.

The sample was then preserved in ten percent buffered formalin solution containing rose bengal stain.

The sample was resorted af ter the stain had an opportunity to penetrate any remaining fish and eggs.

Maximum uptake of rose bengal stain requires approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Fish from the second sort were included with the "other dead" from-the first sort.

DATA ANALYSIS METHODS FISH AND EGG DENISITY Fish and egg densities were calculated using data from all samples.

Using a combination of sample duration, plant blowdown, and identification data, density values were calculated as numbers of fish or eggs per 100 cubic meters of river water.

Values were calculated by it.dividual taxa and life stage for each date.

79

~

SURVIVAL ESTIMATES g

Survival estimates were calculated for fish impinged on the fine mesh traveling screens.

Percent survival was calculated as the number of live fish divided by the total number of fish sorted from sample.

Survival estimates were calculated for introduced test fish.

Percent survival was calculated as the number of live test fish recovered divided by the number of test fish sorted from sample.

Survival of control fish was also calculated.

Survival estimates were calculated by date and taxa and life stage for "other",

" test",

and " control" fish.

Test fish survival estimates were expanded to include all taxa and life stages for each

dato, j

IDENTIFICATIoli METHODOLOGY All fish and eggs collected were identified to the lowest g

practical taxon by life stage and developmental phase.

Life stages included egg,

larvae, juvenile, and adult.

Terminology and criteria are similar to those described by Auer (1982).

the larval stage was divifed into two developmental phases, prolarvae and post 2 4rvae, which correspond to Auer's terms yolk-sac larvat. and larvae, respectively.

Terminology and criteria:

Prolarvae (Yolk-sac larvae) - Phase of development from time of hatching to complete absorption of yolk.

Postlarvae (Larvae)

Phase of development from complete absorption of yolk to development of the full compliment of adult fin rays and absorption of finfold.

Juveniles - Phase of development from complete fin ray h

development and finfold absorption to sexual maturity.

80

Based on these criteria, a postlarval phase does not occur O

ia on aa 1 o tri a2/,

f1 ene a o tri a, au11ae a,

aa madtoms.

All fish eggs removed from samples were counted and recorded but only freshwater drum eggs wer.3 identified, others were listed as " unidentified fish eggs".

No differentiation was made between live and dead eggs.

Egg data were included in density estimates.

A table of length ranges for developmental phases of each taxon, as established in previous years, was referred to as a life stage identification aid.

Identification aids included published and unpublished literature, recent manuals (Auer, 1982 and Holland, 1983),

reference specimens from previous studies, and dissecting microscopes with bright field / dark field bases and O

vet riziae citt r.

RESULTS A total of 50 samples were collected during. the 1989 sampling season.

samples provided data for approximately 8000' fish, 500 eggs, 2000 tost fish, and 2000 control fish, representing 36 taxa /lifestage combinations (Table 1).

Tables 2 and 3 provide a reference for lengths of test and control fish used, and lengths of other fish collected.

FISH AND EGG DENSITY Density estimates of fish and-eggs collected from the fine mesh traveling screens were based on 50 samples collected 1/ Text refers to fish by common name after Robins, et al O

198o-81

from April 4 through August 31 and ranged from zero to 90 g

fish or eggs per 100 cubic meters of river water (Table 4).

Mean density of fish and eggs for the 50 samples was 14.49 and 0.92 organisms per 100 cubic meters of river water, respectively.

Greatest fish density occurred in seven samples collected from June 20 through July 11 (Figure 4).

OTHER SURVIVAL Percent survival of other fish (fish collected off traveling screens) was calculated by date, for all species and life stages combined, based on 42 samples from April 4 to August 31 (Table 5).

Survival rates ranged from 0-100 percent.

Survival of other fish based on all species and life stages combined was 11.4 percent. Relatively low survival occurred from May 11 to July 27 (Figure 5).

Fercent survival for species and life stage, all samples combined, is presented in Table 5.

Survival of walleye prolarvae was 40.5 percent h

and sauger prolarvae was 18.8 percent.

Survival of gizzard shad, all life stages combined, was zero. Pcst and prolarvae freshwater drum survival was 9.9 and 9.2 percent.

Cyprinidas post and prolarvae survival was 8.9 and 1.4 percent, and survival of Cyprinidae juveniles was 88.1 percont.

Survival of carp post and prolarvae was 27.9 and 19.8 percent.

TEST SURVIVAL Test fish survival was calcuiated for 33 samples from May 18 to August 31 (Table 5).

Survival ranged from 0-100 percent.

Porcent survival of test fish for all samples combined was 84.7 percent.

Survival s'ignificantly decreased on four sample dates from July 3 to July 14, ranging from 0-15 percent (Figute 6).

Survival from July 3 to July 14 was zero or very low for all test species introduced (Table 7,

h Figure 7).

Estimates were based on sample sizes ranging 82

~.. - -. - -

. -. - -. -.. ~. -

A

=from 23 to 149: test fish.

Survival-data from_the remaining-i

]

sampling dates are relatively high for all cpecies, and life

_ stages.

CONTROL SURVIVAL

- Control fish survival was calculated from data collected May 18 to August 31 (Table 5).

percent survival by date for all species and life stages - combined ranged from 89.7 to 100 percent and was based on sample sizes of 21 to 140 fish (Figure 8).

- Survival for_all samples combined was 98.4

- percent.

Survival was high for all control fish species and life stages-(Table 6).

- DEBRIS Debris- (mainly zooplankton and phytoplankton) was measured

- by volume: (ml) and weight -(g) from April 18 to August 31 (Table 8).

Debris volume ranged from 17 to 2255

- milliliters.

Debris weight ranged from 16 to 2312 grams.

Maximum debris amounts occurred _on three sample dates, July 6,

11, 14 (Figure 9).

Mean density of debris for 44 samples

- was 1.052g/cc, and ranged from 0.9 to 1.8.

DISCUSSION

---

Test-fish were. introduced-.into 1989 samples to test the hypothesis - that ' excessive amounts of L debris - in the-samples and expanded sorting time.can significantly effect_ survival estimates of impinged fish.-

Results.of survival data support this. hypothesis.

Lowest test fish survival occurred for two weeks on four

- sample days July 3, 6,

11, 14.

Survival on these days-was 4.3, 0,. 0, ;and 15.2 percent, respectively.

Maximum. debris volume also occurred-on - these four dates:

July 3-730 ml, 83 y

.--,_,c.-

n

. ~...

--..-,.--,,,.,n,.

-.. - +.,

.e.,

, ~.

n n.-

e--

July 6-1859 m1, July 11-2255 ml, July 14-1660 ml (Tables 5,

g 8).

It is apparent from Figure 10 that debris volume had a substantial effect on survival of test fish during this period.

Four taxa of fish; Catostomidae-postlarvae, Cyprinidae-postlarvae, Leponta spp.-postlarvae, and channel catfish-prolarvae, were introduced on these four sample dates.

Survival was zero or near zero for all species (Table 7).

Decreased percent survival of test fish on sample days August 29 and 31 is believed to have been caused by apparent poor condition of the test fish introduced.

Decrease in percent survival is also somewhat evident for control fish on August 29 and 31.

Survival of test species Lecomis spp.

and channel catfish prolarvas is low, 15 and 24 percent respectively (Table 6).

Lecomis spp. exhibited the lowest percent survival because the majority of Lecomis spp. used in tests were introduced during the period of July 3 to July 14 when debris volume h

was highest.

The same accurred for prolarvae channel catfish which had proved to have impingement survival estimates greater than 50 percent in previous years (Kuhl and Mueller 1989).

control fish used represented the same number, species, and life stages as test fish and underwent the same handling procedures.

Control fish survival was 90 percent or greater for all samples.

During the period (July 3 to July 14) when excessive debris occurred and test fish survival was zero or near zero, control fish survival was 100, 98, 93, and 100 percent for the four sample dates.

This suggests that high mortality occurring during periods of excessive debris volume was not a function of handling or the hardiness of species used (Figure 11).

Survival results of other fish collected in 1989 is h

comparable to survival data summarized for 1984-1987 at 84

PINGP reported by Kuhl and Mueller in the 1988 annual i

O r vort-o e tro 1eae ae a 1 ta a 1o verceae urviv 1 "or prolarvae and postlarvae freshwater drum, gizzard shad, Lenomis spp., Pomoxis spp., white bass, and Cyprinidae.

Walleye prolarvae had 33. 3 - percent survival.

Greater than 40 percent survival was recorded for walleye postlarvae, catostomidae prolarvae, and juvenile Cyprinidae.

Channel catfish survival, generally greater than 50 percent, was 12.5 percent for juveniles and 20 percent for prolarvae, but these results are based on a relatively small number of channel catfish collected in 1989 (24 juveniles and 5 prolarvae) (Table 6).

During the period from July 3 to July 14 when excessive debris occurred the =urvival of other fish on three of tha sample dates was zero, and two percent survival on the fourth date.

(Figure 12).

Although survival is less than 20 percent on 23 of the sampling days, these four days are O

th oa1v a t - wa a 1oo perc at aort 11tv eccurrea ae#

there was a significant number of fish collected in the sample.

However, because of many variables to consider in the collection of other fish, impingement mortality estimates cannot be adjusted to reflect sampling mortality.

But since test fish results did exhibit high mortality with high amounts of debris, it is determined that excessive debris volume may have effected survival estimates of other (impinged) fish.

Data collected in' 1989 strongly represents increased mortality of test fish when excessive amounts of dobris occur in samples.

Further studies to assess sampling induced mortality will be continued in 1990.

To reduce variability of test fish results, introduction of the same species 'and similar size ranger through the sampling season will be reviewed in 1990.

Also because impingement survival

~O aa aea ity ti ete nave deea 11 t ati hea ia the 85

previous six y( srs, this portion of the study wil.1 he deleted.

O l

l i

l l

l 1

9 i

86

)

O ttrrnirunt c1rro Auer, N. A.

(ed.) 1982.

Identificat{on of Larval Fish of the Great lakes Basin with Emphasis on the Lake Michigan Drainage.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Special Pub. 82-3; 744 pp.

Kuhl, G.M.

and K.

N.

Mueller, 1989 Fine Mesh Vertical Traveling Screens Impingement Survival Study.

In:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1988 Annual Report.

Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, MN.

Holland, L.E. and M.L. Huston (ed.).

1983 A Compilation of Available Literature on the Larvae of Fishes Common to the Upper Mississippi River.

Prepared for U.S.

Army Corns of Engineers, Rock Island, IL.

364 pp.

Robins, C.R.,

R.M.

Bailey, C.E.

Bond, J.R.

Brooker, E.A.

Lachner, R.N.

Lea, and W.B.

Scott, 1980.

A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada.

American Fisheries Society.

Special Publication No. 12, Bethesda, MD.

O-87

a 0-O

^Oi

~

Collection Baskets.

2 i

p M agertal k

i-3.

t i

\\

1

&,sepyw x

)!kN\\tn!M M'ggy@...<sy pyyj". f!ff(fd,'

W i

%ggg Outlet +

k?

i 1.-

c

./

-(

t

[

3

\\

\\

i j

i

~

\\ nlet i

j 4

g i

e i

I arvai Fish Collection Tank i

l ricons 1.

i i

L l-l t

e4

~,

_____,____.__m

r:

Figure 2. Collection Basket.

O iS"O O

~

PgPE 9

-- STIFFENING RING BRIDLE FOR NET

,l

.-CPEN TOP NET

\\

o w l

n z ALUM IN UM C.' A M PS g

- GUIDE FOR

_ 4 SEATING B ASKET k

f

-- Gul0E FOR s

\\,3, m

INTER 10M GATE

, WIN DOW, A

-MESH A

l' /

SEALE0 BASE

%fh

[

1 PLAS Tic

~

(

BOTTOM PLATE'

~,

OETAll A

CO L L E CTION BASKET

'NO SCALE

{-

9 uk6 e n, A A v u s w.y s, sk t.LLY rNoiNa s.p s C /g 2, l-90

()

FIGURE 3.

SAMPLE FLOW CHART Introduce Test Fish sr Collect Sample s/

Sort Sample (First Sort)

Test Fish Other Fish Live ead Live

Dead, (Preserved for ID)

(Preserved for ID)

~( }

DetermineDobrisholumeandWeight N/

Preserve and Stain Sample Remains (Debris and any fish missed during first sort)

I se Resort Sample (Second Sort) s/

Dead Other Fish and Eggs (Preserved for ID)

• Dead other fish were not removed when substantial amounts of debris occurred in the sample.

O.

91 Y

FIGURE 4 LARVAL DENSITY;BY CATE g of forvol fish per 100 cubic meters of noter ENSITY 100--

90-ll 80-70-ti 1

60-(

l 50 i

40-30-20-10 -

0-

.. ~..

....... r w-

'r T -

r--r i -

i ---

03/29/89 04/18/89 05/08/89 05/28/89 06/11/89 07/07/89 07/27/89 08/16/89 09/05/89

.g',

o O

O FIGURE 5 PERCENT SURVIVAL OF OTHER FISH 1989 100 -

90 80-I 7 0 --

g 60-19 50 40 i

30

'20-J I

10-N O'gr.

W1",,vr,ri m rr,-r4rrrv,

'j y-

., v-r r 7,^.,,, r r-

, v-r y......, r, i,, r r,- -ve r y--

.,,x 03/29/89 04/16/89 0$/08/89 05/28/89 05/17/o9 O//07/89 07/21/89 06/16/59 09/05/89 DATE

,..;_...a...

FIGURE 6 PERCENT SURVNAL OF TEST FISH 1989

'00-90 -

g 80 I

, 70 -

,(

l 60-La 30-

[

L 40-

+

f 30-r

{

f j 20-l

! 10 -

1, i

0 3

T'~

'T

' "'r r

i +

~r' ' ' T v-

<rT' m'

-r' x

r mr i

j 13/29/89 04/18/89 05/08/89 05/28/89 06/17/39 0//07/89 07/27/89 05/1b/89 09/05/e9

'l DATE i

e G

1

^

O E)

N

~A O

w

\\

G

\\

t 4

. O t O t

',e*'

Y

- L g

2 po**,,-

u h

.3 L' o" W

y' "s

i-

~

9 s I

t C

'$3 b s\\s tR s

a I

s y

E R, 4

ho N g

• i.

s's r.

N IO i.%).ls*

'x E

s i

y 5

. 4 44d s s c-w t*.e A*J f *,: %.*J L*2 :'.*2 ' 2 7

• U2 l'd.'.'I 's J

s 1g

• • .; b h I$

O v&-

o; i

c-hr'

.E-

- =-

r g ;--

4 12 a

. a x

u5 3

0 o

/

4 9

/

~

/

i ta r/E Y' %

k if ro (N

n

- o 3

s

/

s 4

em (a h 2*

vo

'i i t o r

os b

sc N

- a w

2 4

Z I

-m O

l --

- s O

1 s

a g

R i

O O

C a

o-O y

a m

o.

o M

g

==*

f*

O mae>-><a

s..

.. m..

FGJRE 8 PERCENT SURVIVAL OF CONTROL FISH 1989 00 00 00 00 0"

00-sz-- -

90-80-70 60-50 -

40 30-l 20 l 10 -

O

~"

~r

~ * ~ '

"'T r ~

-T r..

3r,

e 15/18/89 06/07/89 06/27/89 07/17/a9 OM/06/69 08/26/89 09/15/89 DATL

,m

m

,.a4 abps.

$A_.

as a

am__a u

m4m un.--.

wa.smA.-

h..

ma

--.da-d-AA%445iaAE

-d G-h c 4 A 6.-__.A,364 A.4C-5.1__

h A d i 4h

.m4L_4.Mm2 av.4.

4_ Jim

.A.45 24 m_4A4 m*h,_,.gw_ i i

(

,- I2 O

o O

O O

O O

[

E s

k,%

?

t.

s A

i O

P

. N F

- m g

t CD c

n

[

\\

t v

L d Q]

t F-O

_s g

~,

gg

~m

~

b

.m.

o.r-

.I N

L s

.O t-;s; o

e b

]

e g

-O a,g s -

e#

Q Z

NC &

3

}* t a

<C w:

m 59 LU

. e o>j I h.C o-

. )

R I

e n

O W"

o v

5

X co p

m CC

• Is?8 CD LU

~

I! :

Q m

g #

N 5

(I : s

.r O

i O

N On i

\\

h O

o.

n O

O O

O O

O N

e a-sa-a--wze 97

~.

3

.J J - s - >- W Q: M o

O O

O O

O O

O O

n

~

i D

e&

o 8,......***

...........o O

g lC e

A b) 5 I

h

\\q a

/n

~

D.=m e

r p

CR

.~.

"/

k O g*

'~n cf) CO

/

~.

O OSV.

~.........'s"=~.=.% l

&p~ r N.

....,t 2

a. w w~~~

.a:

.i e

Os

a.,,............................... 2.s.r...... c '.

N

2

,p yD

.. " ~..g 5

l3 J

y9 r.......i v;n e@

f Ik

• r3

O

.D ~

as N

>0 C

a: >

@ CD m

m b

o..* 5.*..

'h C

s ay 7:

Z

,......e s

E

~o t_ %

C<

m

..T :. N 8

e ~

0

/4 c : m e

- \\

.~?

s,

• O i

9

. m C

N G

i i

i i

gv N

O O

O O

O O

O

,O O

O O

g m

o s

e n

~

c

. =. -.

O a

O

')

_Q L.L CO

[

O h"

5 i

@r I

C/)

a s

S+==

l H _%

l -

L C>

L

.. \\

Lu

~

u O

ZN f_n H<

0:

z o

Q w

0

- N b

E E

{

J o

UD h

2 I

l o

[

>L o

3 p

i

_s Z

i O

~ $

I 1

i i

j T

%O O

O O

O O

O O

CD W

v CN v-O 99

l:

ll

7

~

9 h

SURyl y 9s i

8f 0

0 0

0 8

6 4

2 0

1 9e r

3

/

r 8 1 h i

i t

r Lo i

i r

Af T1 T/

H Vo r8 S

'z T

I I

l F

a L

Vv 1

A V

Ri

. 3

~

R

~

v

,- 7 A

2 i /

9 Uru L

T 1

E E

T T

T R

Ss t

D G

A U

i i

I d

r F

Dn

- i/

i1 S

I a

i 6 R

N B

i rr E

e Am D

i T

r i

u i

Sl

- /

F o

f 2 IRv r

r 5 i

t 8 s

Bi 1

J

/

4 r

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Eb 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4

1 8

5 2

9 6

3 De 2

2 1

1 1

D ML 9

5

t t

O i,

f a

Table 1.

Number of Samplos, Fish and Eggs Collected, and Test and Control Fish Used in 1989.

liumber of Ilumber of liumber of liumber of llumber of samples other Fish Eggs Test Fish Control Fish 50 7837 549 1888 2323 0

l O

101

O TABLE 2.

Total Length Ranges (mm) and Lifestage Categories of Test and Control Fish Used in 1989 Sampling Studies.

Prolarvae Postlarvae and and Postlarve Juveniles Catostomidae 11.0 - 27.0 Channel catfish 10.5 - 17.0 16.2 - 31.0 Cyprinidae 6.4 - 42.5 lll Lecomis spp.

11.0 - 33.0 Walleye 7.1 - 10.1 O

102

O Table 3.

Representative Total Length Ranges (mm) for Taxa / Life Stage Combinations Established in 1984-1988 Fine Hash Impingement Studies.

Erg.

Post <

Iny.

Channel catfish 11.0 - 18.0 N/A 15.0 - 51.0 Walleye 5.6 - 10.8 9.8 - 19.8 21.5 - 87.0 Sauger 5.1 - 10.6 8.2 - 14.6 Lecomis spp.

4.3 6.2 4.2 13.5 14.2 - 66.0 Pomoxis spp.

4.2 5.7 4.1 - 15.6 16.4 - 75.0 White bass 3.6 -

6.5 4.2 - 17.0 15.0 - 57.0 Rock bass 7.1 -

7.1 7.3 - 12.1 14.0 - 32.0 Trout-perch 6.3 -

6.6 9.0 - 12.8 13.0 - 43.0 O

Mooneye 8.3 - 19.3 13.0 - 15.0 Burbot 3.8 -

7.6 84.0 - 84.0 Carp 4.8 8.5 5.9 - 18.5 19.7 - 59.0 Cyprinids 3.1 -

6.2 5.0 - 17.0 12.9 - 60.0 Catostomids 4.4 - 13.7 6.9 - 22.5 19.4 - 37.0 Freshwater drum 3.3 9.5 6.2 - 14.3 12.5 - 53.0 Flathead catfish 16.5 - 17.8 N/A 19.0 - 34.0 Tadpole madtom 10.8 - 11.8 N/A 14.5 - 21.0 Gizzard shad 3.6 -

5.6 5.5 - 21.7 19.0 - 50.0 Bullhead spp.

N/A 16.0 - 24.0 0

103

TABLE 4.

DENSITY FOR ALL TAXA /LIFESTAGE COMBINATION EXPRESSED AS NUMBER OF ORGANISMS PER 100 CUBIC METERS OF WATER FOR 1989 FISH EGG FISH EGG DATE COLLTIME DENSITY DENSITY DATE COLLTIME DENSITY DENSITY 04 89 1430 0

0 06 89 930 12.4703 1.72 04 89 1015 0.0358 0

06 89 930 7.3102 0.108 04 89 915 0

0 06 89 1530 29.9638 0.451 04 89 930 0

0 06 89 920 86.7551 9.777 04 89 930 0.1697 0

06 89 935 53.2667 1.686 04 89 915 O

O 06 89 915 85.3212 1.416 04 89 900 0

0 06 89 940 27.4571 0

04 89 900 0

0 07 89 1030 73.3241 16.171 o

04 89 930 0

0 07 89 1035 57.0265 1.324 04 89 930 0

0 07 89 1005 90.6244 0.645 04 89 900 0.2286 0

07 39 935 30.1875 0

(

05 89 900 0.1529 0

07 89 1020 1.5653 0

05 89 1430 0.9528 0

07 89 1000 2.0963 0

05 89 930 0.5995 0

07 89 920 1.469 0

05 89 1000 2.1878 0

07 89 1000 0.7732 0

05 89 730 4.7365 0

08 89 1000 3.4793 0

05 89 1000 0.707 0.707 08 89 1000 1.0824 O

05 89 1030 5.8211 0.129 08 89 1010 0.6342 0

05 89 930 5.2866 0.981 08 89 945 0.2774 0

05 89 1115 9.7115 3.335 08 89 950 0.6185 0

05 89

'1015 22.7905 3.70s 08 89 1015 0.4756 0

05 89 1015 13.7915 2.508 08 89 845 2.2592 0

06 89 1025 23.1251 0.139 08 89 945 1.9329 0

06 89 915 47.3191 0

08 89 1130

". ~/ 5 5 0

06 89 940 8.8152 1.075 08 89 1020 1.1741 O

MEAN FISH DENSITY: 14.49 MEAN EGG DENSITY: 0.92 NOTE: DATA FOR 5-19,5-23,5-25, IS AN AVEEAGE OF-2 SAMPLES O

O O

_____._______.---_..________..._.m.

O TABLt 5.

Survival BY Daft OF Olkit, itST, AND C0kiROL ALL $PEClt$ AWD LIFE STA0ES COM8thto CAff 01 Nit OtNit % ofatt fllt it$1

% ttsf CONTROL CONTROL %CoutROL LIVE DEAD SURvlVAL Livt DEAD $URVIVAL LIVE DEAD $URVIVAL 04/04/89 0

0 WA D6/04/89 1

0 100 07/D4/89 0

0 kA 11/04/89 0

0 kA 13/04/89 1

1 50 14/04/89 0

0 h4 18/04/89 0

0 NA

+

20/04/89 0

0 NA 21/04/89 0

0 NA 25/04/89 0

0 NA 27/04/89 2

1 66.7 C2/05/89 3

0 100 04/05/89 13 6

68.4 09/05/89 8

3 72.7 11/05/89 6

40 13 16/05/89 11 7.3 32.4 17/05/89 1

4 20 18/05/89 11 34 24.4 48 2

96 49 2

96.1 19/05/89 15 60 20 143 6

96 131 9

93.6

. 23/05/89 20 178 10.1 94 6

94 100 0

100 25/09/89 7

417 1.7 83 17 83 100 0

100 30/05/89 6

93 6.1 38 10 79.2 48 1

98 01/06/89 11 155 6.6 44 5

89.8 50 0-100 02/06/89 23 383 5.7 24 0

100 25 0

100 06/06/89

-4 78 4.9 74 1

98.7 70 2

97.2 08/06/89 35 81 30.2 95 7

93.1 92 3

96.8 13/06/89 6

62 8.8 48 1

98 50 0

100 15/06/89 52 214 19.5 49 1

98 49 1

98 20/06/89 86 686 11.1 36 9

80 42 2

95.5 22/06/89 82 392 17.3

'5 12 78.9 101 0

100 27/06/89 87 636 12 51 17 75 101 1

99 29/06/89 40 195 17 63 2

96.9 99 1

99 03/07/89 17 908 1.8 1

22 4.3 21 0

100 06/07/89 0

700 0

0 48 0

97 2

98 11/07/89 0

1124 0

0 46 0

93 7

93 14/07/89 0

368 0

5 28 15.2 48 0

100 18/07/89 4

27 12.9 43 1

97.7 100 0

100 20/07/89 0

26 0

32 4

88.0 101 0

100 25/07/89 5

14 26.3 64 -

3 95.5 100 0

100 27/07/89 2

8 20 59 6

90.8 94 0

100 01/08/89

- 37 8

82.2 69 1

98.6 101 0

100 03/08/89 8

6

$1.1 57 1

98.3 77 i

98.7 08/08/89 3

5 37.5 42 0

100 49 0

100 10/08/89 5

2 71.4 50 0

100 49 0

100 15/08/89 13 3

81.3 50 0

100 50 0

100 17/08/89 12 0

100 49 0

100 50 0

100 22/08/89 56 1

98.2 50.

0 100 50 0

100 24/08/89 50 0

100 50 0

100 50 0

100 29/08/89 123 0

100 18 14 56.3 13 2

92 31/08/89 29 0

100 26 18 59.1 26 3

89.7 TOTAL 895 6942 11.4%

1600 288 84.7%

2286 37 98.4%

O 105

I J

T 1

TASLE 6.

1 1999 SUPWIVAL SY SPECIES Amp LIFE STAGE

.l

1. AME LS OTHER GinEt % OTMES TEST TEST % TEST CONTROL 'CDETROL 2CouTROL LIVE DEAD SURWIVAL LIVE DEAD SURVivat LIVE DEAD SURvlYAL DUR901 Pt 2

2 50 0

0 0

0 0

0 i

-CAaP.

PO 24 62 27.9 0

0 0

0 0

0 CARP Pt 144 582 19.8 0

0 0

0 0

0 i

CATOSion!DAE JU 0

0 0

10 0

100 11 0

100 l

4 CATOSTOMIDAE PO O

O 0

263 24 91.6 304 2

99.3 l

CATOST W IDAE Pt 58 62 48.3 0

0 0

0 0

0 i-CNAmmEL CATTIS#

JU 3

21.

12.5 124 6

95.4 223 1

99.6 i

CameNEL CATFISE Pt 1

4 20

24 73 24.7 198 0

100 t

i CYPetm10AE AD.-

5 0

100 4

0 100 4

0 100 l

CYPettIDAE JU 325 44 38.1 455 39 92.1 557 5

99.1 CYPeIeIDAE 70 23 236 8.9 194 49 79.8 355 11 9T CTrainIDAE Pt 10 704 1.4 0

0 0

0 0

0 i

FRESuWATER DetM Ju 4

0, 100 0

0 0

0 0

0

~

FRESuuniER DRUM PO 12 '

-107 9.9 0

0 0

0 0

0 F9ESNWRTER DetM Pt 236 2317 9.2 0

0 0

0 0

0 j

ig CIZZAa0 SnAD JU -

0 2

0 0

0 0

6 0

0 o

.GlZZAa0 SMAD PO '

O 1995 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

CA CIZ2Aa0 SaAD Pt 1

597-0.2 0

0 0

0 0

0 LEPOMIS SPP.

JU 1

1 50 3

16 15.8 33 0

100 LEPOMIS SPP.

PO O

62 0

5 27 15.6 54 2

96.4 LEPtMIS SPP.

PR 0

143

. 0 0

0 0

0 0

0

' N00 METE Pt 1

1 50 0

0 0

0 0

0 PERCIDAE

.AD 1

0 100 0

0 0

0 0

0 PEtCIDAE PO 1

4 20 0

0 0

0 0

0 PERCIDAE Pt 10 33 23.3 0

0 0

0 0

0 l

P0MontS SPP.

JU -

1 0

ffA, 0

0 0

0 0

0 I

i'

- P(MONIS SPP.

PO 1

10 9.1 9

0 0

0 0

0 i-POMcKi$ SPP.

FR 0

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

i SAUGER PO 3

1 75 0

0 0

0 0

0 SAUGER Pt 6

26 18.8 0

0 0

0 0

0 tallDEWilFIED LARVAE PO O

3 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

i Im!DENTIFIED LARVAE Pt 0

593 0

0 0

0 0

P O

WITE SASS PC 3

51 5.6 0

0 0

0 0

WITE SASS Pt 1

148 0.7 0

0 0

0 0

j WLLEYE P0 1

2 33.3 106 14 88.3 130 i

98.5

(

WLL EYE Pt 17 25

-40.5 412 40 91.2 417 14 96.8 101AL 895 6942 11.4%

1600 288 54.7%

2286 37 98.4%

i i

G 9

4

ud

• N *.*.5

• 9 *

• N a * * * * *

• N a a.* * *.* *.* * * * * * * * * * * *

• Et **c88F8EE88cE82858888888888888888883838 w

gg gngoo-onnaensa-a-a-o ooo o aaaa a woo oo og oga 23 w

• • • ED 02*AC*2RWhR~'Wh*COR:R;7""*"SS"3"C"

• ~

42EE42442RR2442442RR242R242424284R9444R 55 5

3 5

3 5

2

$$35Wg5*gsgg5WW5gg5WWWWWWWWWWId*WWWWIWh u

ee issis ss !! ss-!!!!!!!!!!ee!!!!!efe U

EI EE!EEfEEEE5]fEEEEEEEEEEEIEEEEEIEI E

55 GG5bGvCC GC covCbCGGCCGut:5bCCGb 05 catamassmassaantattaastamassaammassaams-2:3k3k'g!'!'!'!'kck:::=k'g332kukungggggI'E5 555555!E EEEIIEEilh8555555E5BBBss E

~;W

• • • "**R*N******.*"*********.~.No.***.*******

• E 888%k33SE8888888kE88888C388838888******

R H

gg N44MgmeNMOOOOO-OWM--DOO go-NgCOOW-ggN4 a

W$ gr Sy3A5h="GN"3"323hb3SR~2*A"2cE"242"*****

g -.

5 h13 EEEEEEE22222222222222424242424242222222 9

9i

~

W W W

• • WW WW WW W n eeWeaWWaeWWeeWWeWa$'s SWSW e

3W

=

wwwwwwwww!!!!ww!ww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-e-!

. c.

se====9 e=s s==s==ssr set set set-e I.e

=

s

-s s

s-1 1 535-r-r 9-355055cc5Ccc55cc558 h

-55355 505C1 55 50

.2 SSSSSSSSSt%28tSSSSSSSSSSESSSSEtaE2222a2 3&f' gyp 3h

sEsssee gggyigggMkgkhhhukkkggggkkyg s:

.a.

e

$$$888888 8888888E: s~~~ee~~ussssge ss ssss ss 888E8588EE88888osota.

8 e

O 107 I

c_

TABLE 8.

1989 DEBRIS DATA O

Density Debris Debris patg fo/cc)

Weicht (c)

Volume (nli 04/18/89 1.5 25 17 04/20/89 1.1 43 40.5 04/21/89 1

17 17.5 04/25/89 0.9 16 17 04/27/89 1.1 26 23 05/02/89 1.1 23 20.8 05/04/89 1

60 57.5 05/09/89 1

39 39 05/11/89 1

202 200 05/16/89 1.1 382 359 05/17/89 1

136 133 05/18/89, 1

189 182 05/19/89 1

95 92 05/23/89,,

1 97 92 05/25/89 1.1 276 260 05/30/89 1

52 50.5 06/01/89 1

21 21 06/02/89 1

47 46 06/06/89 1

46 44 06/08/89 1

158 155 06/13/89 1.8 30 17 06/15/89 1.1 22 20 ll}

06/20/89 1

407 390 06/22/89 1

226 223 06/27/89 1

378 360 06/29/89 1

200 190 07/03/89 1

739 730 07/06/89 1

1889 1850 07/11/89 1

2312 2255 07/14/89 1

1701 1660 07/18/89 1

428 410 07/20/89 1

720 705 07/25/89 1.4 347 240 07/27/89 1

802 770 08/01/89 1

478 490 08/03/89 1

289 283 08/08/89 1

126 123 08/10/89 1

206 202 08/15/89 1

465 465 08/17/89 1

204 195 08/22/89 1

352 337 08/24/89 1

259 252 08/29/89 1.1 331 310 08/31/89 1

344 343 Mean Density 1.052

• Data for 5/19, 5/23, 5/25, is an average of 2 samples.

I 100

t 7

i r

4 i

P k

I I

i 3, 0 t

W t

4 i

i

?

a a

I s

d r

fi 5

J I

I a

r 5

4 APPENDIX A i

?

i g

a 9

o a

T a

1 r

3 f,

O a

i s

f I..

i e

e

-1 i

?

4 r

h

?

i

?

9 D

109 ir w w w e - =

+e-*m.mu.--..

,._.._%.-w.,e,1r,-wm

.,w<-we#.w w ww. w w.. +.

gr* m r w=.- m -,--v+

APPENDIX A.

b MARKING LARVAL FISH WITH BISMARK BROWN Y TO INTRODUCE INTO TEST SAMPLES ABSTRACT Biologically stained larval fish were intreduced into samples to estimate sampling induced mortality.

Larval catostomids, cyprinids, channel catfish, and Lecomis app.

were max.*e.ed by immersing in solutions of Bismark brown Y stain.

Marking was used to differentiate test fish from other larval fish in the sam us.

Bismark brown Y marked test fish sufficient 3y and VI.i.e easily distinguishable from other fish.

Initial mortal tier, were low fe.: all test fish stecies immersed.

IllDODUqTLQH

(_

p As part of PINGP's larval fleh survivorship studies conducted in 1989, test firh were introduced into samples to determine effects of sampling on larval vurvivorship.

A nothod of marking was needed to differentiate test fish (introduced fish) from similar spt cios of Mississippi River larval fish that were in the samples, as a result of being impinged on PINGP's fine mash traveling screens.

The

.T marking method desired was or*/ which required short marking tima, low initial nortality,f and a distinct mark.

Initial mortality is defined as the number of fish which died during immersion.

Gerking (1963; cited by Lawler and Fitz-Earle, 1968 and by Jessop, 1973) concluded that the most suitable method of marking small fish for short-term experiments was by immersion in an appropriately diluted solution of biological stain.

For short-term marking Lawler and Fit:-

() _

Earle (1968) found Bismark brown Y to be far superior to other stains i.e., Neutral red indicator and Nile blue A.

111

Ward and Verhoeven (1963) concluded that Bismark brown Y stain was satisf actory for staining sockeye salmon f ry and that Neutral red cppeared to be highly toxic to uockeye salmon fry.

During 1988-89, experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using tetracycline, Neutral red, and Bismark brown Y in marking larval fish.

Experiments with tetracycline involved use of ultraviolet lighting and resulted in inadequate external body marks.

A literature review and brief experiments indicated that Neutral red proved unsatisfactory.

It was determined from literature review and positive experimental results that staining with Bismark brown Y was the preferred technique.

The following paper describes the experimental marking of larval fish using a 1:50000 concentration of Bismark brown Y solution at various immersion times.

The marked fish were g

then introduced into test samples throughout the summer of 1989.

}{ETHODS AND MATERIALE Larval fish comprised of catostomids, cyprinids, and Lkpsmi.g spp. were collected from the Mississippi River pool 3 using dip nets anJ. a beach seine.

These fish were identified to family (catostomidae and Cyprinidae) and genus (Lenomis).

The larval channel catfish used in these tests were obtained from Minnesota DNR Waterville Hatchery.

Composition of larval fish marked dr.panded on what species were available from the D!fR or present from the river at that time.

The number of fish used in experimental tests ranged from 70 to 130.

All water used in the experiments was Mississippi River g

water which was pumped into a large tank, then pumped into 112

smaller flow-through trays in which the test fish were held.

O The test fish were acc11 mated in these trays from 1 to 7 days prior to being used in experiments.

Mortality of test fish held in trays longer than 1 week increased, artially c

due to fungus.

Use of these fish in markinT.aperiments was minimized due to their poor condition.

A 5 gallon aerated aquarium containing 5 liters of river water was used for the marking experiments.

The fish were immersed in a Bismark brown Y so1ution, the concentration based on weight.

An analytical ba1ance was used to measure dye dosages.

For a concentration of 1:50000, 0.1 gram of Bismark brown Y stain was dissolved in 1 11ter of river water, then diluted to 5 liters.

The actual dye content of the Bismark brown Y stain was 53 percent.

The conversion-factor necessary to obtain the true dye concentration 16.

1.89.

Using this factor a concentration of 1150000 based on the weight of stain disso1ved was actua11y 1394500 in terms O

ef the dye contene <werd end verhoeven 19e>>.

Af ter immersion in the staining solution for times ranging frca 60-120 minutes and from 121-240

minutes, a

predetermined number of fish were netted and either placed in a holding tray to be introduced immediately'into the sample as tout fish, or were placed in a 5 gallon aquarium to be used as control fish for the sample.

Initial mortality of immersed fish was recorded at this time.

Since mortality due to marking was not the primary purpose of this investigation, contro1 fish were not held to investigate differences between marked and unmarked fish.

RESULTS Larval fish stained with Bismark brown Y were colored a

go1 den brown on their entire body.

Larval fish immersed at O

both time ranees were sufficiene1r stained and ees11v 113

differentiated from other larval fish in the samples.

g Mortality was low for all species and life stages at a Bismark brown Y concentration of 1 50000 and immersion times of 60-120 and 121-240 minutes.

Since fish were generally used in samples immediately after immersion, only initial mortality was recorded.

Immersions from 60-120 minutes at a concentration of 1150000 generally resulted ja 0-10% initial mortality for all species combined.

Initial mortality for cyprinids ranged from 0-10.8%, Lecomig spp. from 0-7.7%, and channel catfish from 0-5.0%

(Table 1).

Three experiment dates had fairly high initial mortalities, possibly due to poor condition of the larval fish before the experiment.

Immersions from 121-240 minutes at a cencontration of 1:50000 resulted in 0-5.8% initial mortality (Table 1).

Success of marking seemed to be affected by species and life stage.

Later stages (postlarvae, juvenile) and larger species (Catostomidae) required longer immersion times to g

obtain a sufficient mark.

It was observed that larval catostomids required longer immersion times for a sufficient mark due to their larger size.

ratostomids did not exhibit increased mortality due to long [immersiontimes (Tables 1 and 3).

Initial mortality d j %'

not seem to be species Itwasobservedthat,karvalchannelcatfishwere dependent.

hardier than other spacina marke&.

Channel catfish stained adequately in short immersion times with very low initial mortality (Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS It was decided from literature research and lab tests using tetracycline, Neutral red, and Bismark brown Y that staining with Bismark brown Y was the best method to use.

Bismark brown Y was found suitable for marking larval test fish to be introduced into samples conducted at PINGP in 1989.

h Larval fish stained with Bismark brown Y at concentrations 114

1 of 1 50000 were distinctly marked, resulted in low initial mortality for all species, and required a short immersion i

time.

These three factors enabled effective use of Bismark brown

's' to mark larval fish used in tvivorship studies.

REFERENCES Gerking, S.

D.

1963.

Non-mutilation marks for fish.

IC!!AF Spec. Publ. No. p. 248-254.

Jessop, B.

M.

1973.

Marking alewife f ry with bioloq'ical stains.

Progressive Fish-culturist, 35(2):

255-2t6.

Lawler, G.H.,

and M. Fitz-Earle.

1968.

Marking small fish with stains for estimating populations in Heming Lake, Manitoba.-

J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 25(2) 255-266.

i g

Ward.

F.J., and L.A. Verhoeven. 1963.

Two biolobical stains as markers for sockeye salmon fry.

Tr'ns. Am.

Fish.

Soc., 92(4): 379-383.

l I

O 115

TABLE 1.

19891ARVAL TEST FISH MARKING DATA IKMERSION TIME 60120 MINUTES (BBY SOLUTION 1:50000)

DATE SPECIES LIFE a FISH a FISH INITIAL STAGE IMMERSED DIED MORTALITY 06/05/89 CATOSTOMIDAE PO 150 3

2.04 06/19/89 CYPRINIDAE PO 120 4

3.3%

06/21/89 CYPRINIDAE P0 130 3

2.3%

06/26/89 CYPRINIDAE PO 130 5

3.8%

06/28/89 CYPRINIDAE Po 30 9

6.9%

• • 07/03/89 CATOSTOMIDAE PO 110 40 36.4%

07/05/89 LEPOMIS SPP.

PO 130 10 7.7%

07/11/89 LEPOMIS SPP.

JU.P0 53 0

0.04 07/11/89 CYPRTNIDAE PO 21 0

0.04 07/14/89 CHANNEL CATTISH PR 100 0

0.0%

07/18/89 CHANNEL CATFISH PR 100 0

0.04 07/18/89 CYPRINIDAE JU P0 120 4

3.3%

07/20/89 CRANNEL CATFISH JU 100 0

0.04 07/20/89 CYPRINIDAE JU,PO 120 0

0.04 07/25/89 CHANNEL CATFISH JU 100 0

0.04 07/25/89 CYPRINIDAE JU,PO 120 13 10.8%

('

07/27/89 CHANNEL CATTISH JU 100 0

0.04

(_}/

07/27/89-CYPRINIDAE JU.P0 120 0

0.04 08/01/89 CHANNEL CATFISH JU 100 4

4.0%

08/01/89 CYPRINXDAE JU P0 120 1

0.8%

08/03/89 CRANNEL CATFISH JU 80 4

5.0%

08/03/89 CYPRINIDAE JU,PO 100 4

4.0%

08/08/89 CYPRINIDAE JU P0 100 0

0. 0%

08/10/89 CYPRINIDAE JU,PO 120 2

1.7%

08/15/89 CYPRINIDAE-JU,PO 120-0 0.0g 08/17/89 CYPRINIDAE JU.PO 110 2

1.8%

08/17/89 LEPOMIS SPP.

JU,PO 10 0

0.0%

08/22/89 CYPRINIDAE _

JU 110 7

6.4%

08/24/89 CYPRINIDAE JU 136 6

4.4%

• • 08/29/89 CYPRINIDAE JU 110 60 54.5%

• • 08/31/89 CYPRINIDAE JU 130 40 30.8%

IMMERSION TIME 121 240 MINUTES (BBY SOLUTION 1:50000) 06/07/89 CATOSTOMIDAE PO NO DATA 06/12/89 CATOSTOMIDAE PO 120 7

5.8%

06/14/89 CATOSTOMIDAE PO 120 0

0.0%

06/21/89 CATOSTOMIDAE JU,Po 120 2

1.7%

06/26/89 CATOSTOMIDAE.

JU.P0 64 0

0.0%

06/26/89 CYPRINIDAE JU 56 0

0.0%

06/28/89 CATOSTOMIDAE JU,PO 44 0

0.0g

()

06/28/89 CYPRINIDAE-JU 76 0

0.06 Larval fish were in observed poor condition from stress and handling before marking in BBY solution.

r TABLE 2.

g 1989 Initial nortality ranges by species.

INITIAL SPECIES HORTALITY

~

CATOSTOMIDAE 0- S.8%

CYPRINIDAE O - 10.8%

CHANNEL CATFISH 0- 5.0%

LEPOMIS SPP.

0 - 7.7%

TABLE 3.

Longth ranges of marked fish used in 1989.

SPECIES LENGTH (mm)

CATOSTOMIDAE (PO,JU) 11.0 - 27.0 CYPRINIDAE (PO,JU) 6.4 - 42.5 CHANNEL CATFISH (PR,JU) 10.5 - 31.0 LEPOMIS SPP. (PO,JU) 7.7 - 24.0 0

118

. -.