ML19319D129

Terrestial Study Salt Drift Evaluation

ML19319D129
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	09/18/1974
From:	DAMES & MOORE
To:
Shared Package
ML19319D126	List: ML19319D125 ML19319D129
References
9602-014-09, 9602-14-9, NUDOCS 8003130698
Download: ML19319D129 (72)

Text

V 9

k

. O f

TERRESTRIAL SURVEY SALT DRIFT EVALUATION CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 9602-014-09 i

0008 Jgg{

~~

TABLE OF CONTENTS i.

~

SUBJECT PAGE INTRODUCTIOh 1

SCOPE 1

STATUS OF FINDINGS 2

SITE DESCRIPTION 3

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 7

FIELD P.ROCEDURES 7

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS 8

ANIMAL COMMUNITIES 19 MAMMALS 19-BIRDS 25 REPTILES 27 AMBIENT SALT CONCENTRATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION 43 FIELD COLLECTION 43 LABORATORY PROCEDURES 44 SALT CONCENTRATIONS IN VEGETATION ACCORDING TO HABITAT TYPES 45 SALT CONCENTRATION IN SOIL ACCORDING TO HABITAT TYPE 45 PROJECTED SALT DEPOSITION 53 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF SALT FROM COOLING TOWERS 57 FACTORS AFFECTING SALT DISTRIBUTIONS 57

-SALT EFFECTS ON VEGETATION 58 SALINITY IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AT CRYSTAL j

RIVER 62 IMPACT THROUGH LEAVES AND FOLIAGE 62 SALT IMPACT ON VEGETATION THROUGH SOIL 63 REFERENCES 67 DAMES B MOORE e

m e,

m-eg y

er--

_w--

w p-

r r

I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PhGE 1

Vegetation Survey Area 1 - Salt Marsh 12 2a Vegetation Survey Area 2 - Mesophytic 13 Hardwoods (Overstory Species) 2b Vegetation Survey Area 2 - Mesophytic 14 Hardwoods (Ground Cover Species) 3 Vegetation Survey Area 3 - Pine Flatwoods 15 4

Vegetation Survey Area 4 - Planted Pine 16 (Old Pine) 5 Vegetation Survey Area 5 - Planted Pine 17

[

(Young Pine) 6 Vegetation Survey Area 6 - Transmission-line 18 Right-of-Way 7

Mammals Observed in the Vicinity of 29 Crystal River Power Plant, Florida 8

Major Game Species Which May Occur in the 30 Crystal River, Florida Area 9

Threatened or Endangered Species Which May 32 Occur in the Crystal River, Florida Area 10 Birds Observed in the Vicinity of 33 Crystal River Power Plant, Florida 11 Migratory Birds Which May Occur in the 34 Crystal River, Florida Area i

12 Reptiles Observed in the Vicinity of 41 Crystal River Power Plant, Florida 13 Plants Collected for Salt Analysis -

47 Crystal River Power Plant, Florida 14 Salt Concentrations of Vegetation According 49 to Habitat Sites - Crystal River

[

Power Plant, Florida 15 Soil Salinity According to Habitat Type -

52 Crystal River Power Plant, Florida j

16 Comparison of Projected Salt Drift to 66 Ambient Soil Salinities - Crystal River Plant, Florida 1

(

onmesa moone

LIST OF PLATES PLATE PAGE 1

Location Map, Crystal River Plant, 5

Florida Power Corporation 2'

Vegetative Communities, Crystal River 6

Plant, Florida Power Corporation 3

Sampling Area Locations, Crystal River 42 Plant, Florida Power Corporation 4

Projected Salt Deposition from Cooling 56 I

Towers, Crystal River Plant, Florida Power Corporation I

/

}

l l

DAMES S MOORE

7 i

t 5.

A judgment is provided df the effects anticipated on the ecological communitias as a result of the operation of a cooling tower using brackish-or salt-waters.

A STATUS OF FINDINGS It is difficult to draw positive quantitative. conclusions in i,

this evaluation of the sensitivity of terrestrial ecological communities near Crystal River to increased levels of sea salt l

which may be added to this environment by cooling-tower salt depo-i sition.

Four reasons for the uncertainties in this evaluation are as follows:

1.

Additional research is required to define more precisely the sensitivity of plants to sea salt in soil and on plant surfaces.

i 2.

There is inadequate knowledge concerning complex interac-cions both within the soil and within the plant structure j

between the different ions comprising sea salt as well as between sea salt and other non-oceanic salts.

j 3.

The salt measurements reported herein both in soil and in plants were made at only one season:

late summer.

It is not likely that this was the season of maximum salt con-centration in the soil and in and on the plant structures.

4.

The salt-deposition data from the cooling tower provided 4-to this investigation were for an annual average condition.

Seasonal deposition rates probably show variation which g

might have an influence on the conclusions of the investi-gation.

In spite of the uncertainties listed above, it is our opinion that the results of *he investigation provide valid qualitative conclusions concerns ag the influence which brackish-or salt-water cooling towers may exhibit on terrestrial ecological communities near the Crystal River Plant.

2 oomc o moon,

..1

t INTRODUCTION The Crystal River Site of the Florida Power Corporation includes two fossil-fueled generating plants already in operation and a nuclear-fueled generating plant soon to become operational.

Both types of generating capacities have been designed and construc-ted to use once-through cooling systems, drawing water from and discharging into the Gulf of Mexico.

Regulatory authorities are l

asking the electric power industry to look at other cooling alter-natives, which, at Crystal River, are probably limited to brackish-or salt-water cooling towers.

Such towers, while reducing heat load I

on the Gulf waters, may add salt stress to the ecological communi-ties and habitats in the vicinity of the power plant because of drift loss from the towers to the atmosphere.

The investigation reported herein is part of the Florida Power Corporation's effort to evaluate the benefits and costs of the various available cooling alternatives.

SCOPE The scope of the investigation includes the following tasks:

i 1.

The extent and content of the several terrestrial ecologi-cal communities and habitats in the vicinity of the Crystal i

River Plant have been defined.

2.

The levels of salt which occur naturally in the soils and I

vegetation of the Crystal River Plant Site have been measured.

t 3.

By means of a literature search, the salt sensitivity of plant life similar to that found in the Crystal River 3

ecological communities has been investigated.

4.

Adding the natural salt levels as defined in Step 2, above, to the level anticipated from cooling-tower drift deposi-tion as provided by the Florida Power Corporation, projected levels of salt concentration in each ecological community are compared with the sensitivities investigated in Step 3, above.

DAMESB MOORE

~

w w

-e

---4

,w---,-

,,,-- w

p

w =., ~.

.m.

.v

.u m -

m l

+

[

I i

)

e i

I E!

-4 m

Cm a,

doZ i

2 a

2 i

k i

i h

i 3

4 i

e 4

?

)

?

h l

Laerr.

.m

..,,y,

_--y.

_m.w..yy. -

e SITE DESCRIPTION a.

Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River property is located on the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, approximately 70 miles north of Tampa (Plate 1). The site of the Crystal River Plant is approximately a mile and a half east of the Gulf at the edge of an extensive salt marsh (Plate 2).

The salt marsh in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant is j

characteristic of salt-marsh communities throughout much of th, middle western coast of Florida.

The low-energy wave action of the Gulf and the flat topography of the coastline allow extensive i

salt-marsh development, varying from one-half to one and a half miles in width near the site.

The salt marsh exhibits a conspicuous pattern of meandering creeks which serve as drainage channels and empty the marsh of salt water at low tide.

The tides have a great influence on the composition of the salt-marsh community as they not only determine the presence and distribution of plant species in i

the_ marsh, but also transport and mix essential nutrients between the marine and salt-marsh environments.

(

Scattered throughout the salt marsh are very conspicuous coast-al hammcsee that become established on slightly higher, somewhat drier regions of the marsh.

These hammocks are island-like in appearance due to the tall, woody vegetation occurring there.

They are dominated by tall palm trees; a moderate diversity of hardwood

- and pine species form a dense middlestory.

)

Landward from the salt marsh is a dense growth of mesophytic j

hardwoods.

The plant site itself is located on the northernmost finger of this vegetation band which extends southeast along the coast and merges with the Chassohowitza Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in southwest Citrus County.

This area is characterized by very poorly drained soils having a water table above ground level much of the year.

Thus many tree species common only to fresh-water swamps occur here in close proximity to the salt marsh Farther inland, the predominant community type is pine lands or pine flatwoods.

This vegetation type is the most common in DAMES 8 MOOnE w,

t w

(

Florida, comprising as much as 50 percent of the Florida peninsula (Edminsten, 1963).

The pine flatwoods is a sub-climax which is perpetuated by occasional fires.

The fires allow growth of the more fire-resistant conifers, such as longleaf pine, and eliminate hardwood trees and shrubs which generally cannot withstand fire.

The result is an open, park-like appearance in the flatwoods.

Apparently fire has been excluded for a number of years from cer-tain areas around the Crystal River Site as evidenced by a dense middlestory of native hardwoods which has become established under the pinas in these areas.

A large portion of the pine flatwoods east of the plant site has been cleared for establishment of pine plantations or past-It is likely that the harvestable timber was selectively cut ures.

I from these areas and all other vegetation removed by clear cutting.

Young pine seedlings have been placed on seed beds in areas con-verted to pine plantations; areas designated for pasture have been plowed and replanted in Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) or other

(

pasture grasses.

The last habitat type in the area of the Crystal River Plant is land disturbed by the construction and maintenance of the power plant.

Most conspicuous is the transmission-line right-of-way which runs directly east from the power plant.

The right-of-way is approx-I imately 450 feet wide and consists of two parallel 150 foot corri-dors separated by a scrip of native vegetation 150 feet wide.

The j

corridors are kept in an early successional status by periodic

^

mowing.

j Another disturbed area consists of spoil deposits and borrow pits located on both sides of the cooling-water intake and discharge canals and around the plant site itself.

These areas have become revegetated by various native woody plants.

4 DAMES C MOORE

I TR NR E

AO T

LC A

P P

L A

R P

M RE EW N VO OI P I

R TAL A CA D OT I

R LSY O R L C F C

h TIN NA g(

I ze AE r *m u

LC uec TO A

o o.

4 m

a m

s

^

u

-l i.

vs s

e e

1 m

n v

u, esn s

pX L

T L

ARN c r TSEA YVL RRIP C

o s

0 S

4 E

IL 0 M 2

F O O C o

I FX LE UM G

J

[

l! *,

)

I.

ii

}

l

o I

r N

0 SALT MARSH d,p O MESOeHvTiC HARDWOOD I

/

b PINE FLATWOODS W!

N_

b PLANTED PINE

/

4 1

'W M

O PASTURE AND CLEARED

%,\\

E TRANSMISSION LINE im LAND I

RIGHT -O F-WAY j..,,1

.i

,,,2 gu-p,

~

j

~,1k 4

h hr M i

I!

Nnmmmummimmmumun o+

="P l P.

t

,,,,,,,, m

=

' (:l0fOf',,g"-

p

.quc

<s i

lo

',ld.

..,t' F l l,lQ f:$$

\\

l h

,s;':-Edpjiu'pC' GULF j

OF

'I..

MEXICO 2

2 : $$ ~ ~7 1#,',?fia

' W" 3 1

g Q

' ';;.'i Q s

' ' '. :1 x

N l

e VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES SCALE j

O f

CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT i

FLORIDA POWER CORP.

Q 8

MILES

=

PLATE 2

VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES l

}

6 P

e r-a 1

k i

w b-

<e h e-

.. r,m n,y w,,, __

I e4 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES FIELD PROCEDURES Determination of the presence, frequency, and density of dominant plant species within the major vegetative communities was accomplished through the use of several methods of vegetation survey and analysis.

After the major vegetation ccmmunities had been identified on aerial photographs, survey areas were establish-ed in each community for analysis (Plate 3).

The following survey areas were located in the vegetative communities:

4

-t Vegetation Survey Area Habitat V-1 Salt Marsh V-2 Mesophytic Hardwoods V-3 Pine Flatwoods V-4 Planted Pine (old pine)

V-5 Planted Pine (young pine)

V-6 Transmission-Line Right-Of-Way I

Vegetation quadrats, or sample plots, located at predeter-mined distances along transect lines were employed for quantitative analysis in Survey Areas V-1, V-3, V-4, V-5, and V-6.

The place-ment and directions of transect lines were determined through random selection, with stipulations afforded to site accessibility.

Quad-rats provide information on density, abundance, and frequency of 1

major plant species in the community.

Vegetation Survey Area V-1 (salt marsh) was sampled using 1-10 square meter quadrats at inter-valslof 50 feet.

Survey Area V-3 (pine flatwoods) was analyzed with two by three meter quadrats for upperstory and middlestory species, and one square meter quadrats for ground cover.

The smaller quadrats were located in the southwest corner of the larger quadrats, and.these were also at intervals of 50 feet.

Ground vegetation in Survey Areas V-4, V-5, and V-6 was sampled with one by one-half meter-quadrats at fifty-foot intervals.

Planted pines which made up the overstory in Survey Area V-4 and a significant portion of the ground cover in Survey Area V-5 were enumerated by actual stem f

counts for determination of trees per acre.

I DAMES S MOORE

~

7

?

f A plotless method of forest inventory, the point-quarter tech-nique (Oosting, 1956), was used on Survey Area V-2 (mesophytic hardwoods).

Four transect lines were established through the wid-est portion of this community.

The lines were laid out with a hand compass; distances between points (fif ty feet) were measured by pacing.

Once a sampling point was reached, the area around the point was divided into four quarters.

The tree nearest the established point in each quarter was located, and the species, diameter at breast heignt (d.b.h. = 4.5 feet above ground level), and point-to-tree distance were determined and recorded for each tree.

Only l

trees with a d.b.h. greater than four inches were included.

All lesser vegetation (i.e., saplings, shrubs, and ground cover) was analyzed with a one square meter quadrat located at every fifth point and centered around that point.

The point-quarter technique yields information on the relative dominance, frequency, and den-sity of the tree species in an area.

A summation of these three

(

values provides an importance value which may be used to rank each species in the community.

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS The salt marsh is an important plant community in the tidal I

area between the marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

This community is composed of plant species which display various degrees of salt tolerance.

A narrow band of smooth cord grass (Spartina alterni-flora) is located at the edge of the salt marsh nearest the Gulf.

This species is very salt tolerant and is flooded by sea water for up to fourteen hours a day (Odum, 1973).

Black rush (J uncus roemerianus) occupies the greatest part of the remainder of the marsh.

Juncus is usually found at a slightly higher elevation than Spartina and is not flooded with salt water for long periods of time.

Scattered throughout the salt marsh are poorly drained areas which are dominated by such plants as salt grass (Distichlis spicata),

. Salicornia (Salicornia virginica), and Batis (Batis maritima).

These plants are generally found near the high-tide mark in areas inundated less than an hour a day.

8 5

D AMES G MOOnE e

There were approximately 1,540 live Juncus stems per square meter in the Juneus marsh.

Dead stems were not count-c ed but appeared to be two to three times as numerous as live stems.

Even with this abundance of stems, 82 percent of each sample quadrat was unoccupied by vegetation (Table 1).

Sur-vey quad' rats which fell on areas of salt grass revealed salt grass accounted for 11 percent surface coverage while Batis averaged 9 percent coverage of the quadrats.

The mesophytic hardwoods habitat owes its existence to the accumulation of water above the soil surface.

The swamp is too wet to support the occasional fires which are respon-sible for pine domination of the drier areas of the site.

The two most important overstory species in the mesophytic hardwoods were palm (Sabal palmetto) and oak (Quercus lauri-folia) which have importance values of 86.2 and 78.1 respec-tively.

Other species present were hickory, magnolia, sweet-gum, cedar, and others (Table 2a).

Middlestory and under-story plants are scarce in this vegetation type due to frequent standing water and a heavy litter layer.

There was an average of 90 percent bare ground in the understory plots and only i

bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and smilax (Smilax sp'.)were found in more than one plot (Table 2b).

Longleaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and loblolly (P. taeda) are the three main pine species usually associated with pine flatwoods in Florida.

Slash pine is the dominant species in the Crystal River area.

A very dense middlestory was apparent in the vicinity of Vegetation Survey Area V-3 and is probably the result of fire exclusion.

Common middlestory species in the flatwoods were palmetto (Sabal palmetto),.gallberry (Ilex glabra), waxmyrtle (Myrica ceriferal) and oaks (Table 3).

The areal coverage of the middlestory" species in this area was from 70 to 100 percent.

Ground cover in the understory plots was composed basically.

of seedling reproduction of middlestory species.

These smaller individuals accounted for an average ground cover of 37 percent.

9 DAMEG B MOO,1E

Areas of planted pine are quite extensive in the northern and eastern portions of the Crystal River Plant area and appear to include at least two age classes.

One area con-tains pines which were planted 12 to 15 years ago, and it was here that Vegetation Survey Area V-4 was established.

Vegetation Survey Area V-5 was located in an area planted in slash-pine seedlings within the past year.

The older planted pine area was found t'o contain approxi-mately 600 pines per acre.

The average height of the pines was 20 feet,and the average d.b.h. was five inches.

Scattered palms and laurel oaks were present throughout the area,as were dense thickets of blackberry (Rubus sp) and myrtle.

Ground cover between the planted rows was predominantly broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and wiregrass (Aristida stricta)

(Table 4).

There were approximately 350 pines per acre in the young planted pine area.

Several early successional grasses and forbs commonly occurred between the seedling beds (Table 5).

Large oaks, brush piles, and windrows occurred frequently throughout the recently planted pine areas.

Analysis of 40 cover points in the transmission-line right-of-way (V-6) revealed that an average of 83 percent of the right-of-way was vegetated.

A large variety of grasses, i

forbs, and small shrubs were present in this area (Table 6).

Approximately ten percent of the right-of-way corridors appear to be borrow pits which frequently contain standing fresh I

water.

Such species as willow (Salix caroliniana), pickerel-weed (Pontederia sp), arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.) and cattail (Typha sp.) occur in these wet areas and in the ditches along the entrance road to the Crystal River Plant.

No vegetation analysis plots were located in any of the spoil areas, but observations made at Salt Analysis Area S-5 may be useful in describing the vegetation common to these areas.

The dominant vegetation is sea myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and dog-fennel (Eupatorium capilifolium) on the drier sites, with willow occurring on wetter sites.

A large 10 DAMESB MOORE

swamp poplar (Populus heterophylla) is growing on the spoil area just north of the oil storage area on the plant site.

It is obvious that the area' surrounding the Crystal River Plant Site is made up of a diverse collection of plant communi-ties or habitat types.

Every stage of succession is represent-ed in this area.

The transmission-line right-of-way is main-tained in the primary stage of succession while much of the area cleared by construction activities is in an early success-ional stage but is being allowed to proceed to higher seral stages.

The a'reas planted into pasture are manipulated to favor one spegies of grass above all others, and similarly the pine plantations are managed for one species of pine.

The pine flatwoods areas are held in a sub-climax state by the forces of man and nature and represent the mcst common habitat type in Florida.

The mesophytic hardwoods area represents the climax stage of succession for this region of Florida.

i

=

0 DAmesc Moons m

TABLE 1 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 1 SALT MARSH COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELATIVE

(%)1 COVER (%)2 COVER (%)3 Black Rush Juncus roemerianus 53.5 17.6 9.4 Batis Batis maritima 33.3 9.4 3.1 Salt Grass Distichlis spicata 20.0 11.0 2.2 g

}

l l

s I

i 1

I l

1 Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X'100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 in quadrats where present (0.1 square meter) 3 in all quadrats sampled 12

TABLE 2a VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 2 MESOPHYTIC HARDWOODS (OVERSTORY SPECIES)

COMMON NAME SPECIES RELATIVE RELATIVE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE DENSITY 1 FREQUENCY 2 DOMINANCE 3 VALUE4 Palm Sabal 32 19 35.2 86.2 palmetto Laurel Oaks Quercus 30 17 31.1 78.1 l

laurifolia Magnolia Magnolia 7

5 10.0 22.0 l

grandiflora Sweetgum Liquidambar 6

6 6.6 18.6 styraciflua Hickory Carya 8

5 5.6 18.6 cordiformis Redcedar Juniperus 6

4 7.5 17.5 virginiana American Elm Ulmus americana 5 5

1.7 11.7 Red Bay Persea borbonia 4 3

2.0 9.0 Red Maple Acer rubrum 2

2 2.2 6.2 i

Number of individuals of species 1 Relative Density =

X 100 Number of individuals of all species Relative Frequency = Number of points of occurrence of species X 100 2

Number of points of occurrence at all points tal basal area of species 3

Relative Dominance = Total basal area of all species X 100 "Importance Value = Relative density + Relative frequency +

Relative dominance Ref.: Phillips, 1959 13

t '

l TABLE 2b VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 2 MESOPHYTIC HARDWOODS (GROUND COVER SPECIES)

COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELATIVE

(%)1 COVER (%)2 COVER (%)3 L

(

Fern Pteridium 40 2

0.8 l

aquilinum Smilax Smilax sp.

40 2

0.4

[

Grape Vitus rotundifolia 20 1

0.2 Beak Rush Rhynchospora 20 40 8.0 miliacea Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 20 1

0.2 French Mulberry Calicarpa 20 1

0.2 americana Sparkleberry vaccinium arboreum 20 1

0.2 l

t I

t r

i Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species i

X 100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 in quadrats where present (1.0 square meter) 3 in all quadrats sampled 4

14

TABLE 3 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 3 PINE FLATWOODS COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY RELATIVE

(%) I DENSITY 2 Slash Pine Pinus elliottii 90 6.1 Palmetto Sabal minor 90 3.6 Gallberry Ilex glabra 60 4.3 r-Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera 30 0.8 Oak Quercus pumila &

30 0.9 Q. incana Persimmon Diospyros virgiana 30 0.3 Sumac Rhus copallina 30 1.3 Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 10 0.2

(

1 i

(

t 1 -Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X 100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 Number of indi'riduals/ quadrat (6.0 square meters) e 15 m

TABLE 4 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 4 PLANTED PINE (OLD PINE)

COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELATIVE

(%)1 COVER (%) 2 COVER (%) 3 Broomsedge Andropogon 80 47.5 38.0 virginicus Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera 30 72.5 22.0 r

Blackberry Rubus sp.

30 31.3 9.4 Mullein Verbascum sp.

30 12.0 3.6 Sea Myrtle Baccharis 40 3.5 1.4 halimifolia Palmetto Sabal minor 20 2.0 0.8 Sumac Rhus copallina 20 3.5 0.7 Forb A 10 6.0 0.6 Black-eyed Rudbeckia hirta 20 3.0 0.6 Susan Dallis Grass Paspalum dilatatum 20 1.0 0.2 Fennel Eupatorium sp.

10 1.0 0.1 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 10 l'. 0 0.1 Bull Thistle Carduus lanceolatus 10 1.0 0.1 Wiregrass Aristida stricta 10 1.0 0.1 Smilax Smilax sp.

10 1.0 0.1 Rattlesnake Eryngium yuccifolium 10 1.0 0.1 Master Cycad Zamia sp.

10 1.0 0.1 1 Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X 100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 in quadrats where present (0.5 square meter) 3 in all quadrats sampled s

16

~

TABLE 5 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 5 PLANTED PINE (YOUNG PINE)

COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELATIVE

(%)I COVER 2 COVER 3

Fenne'l Eupatorium sp.

50 8.6 4.3 f

Runner Oak Quercus pumila 40 5.8 3.3 Forb B 40 10.5 4.2 Palmetto Sabal palmetto 30 10.3 3.1 Wiregrass Aristida stricta 30 25.0 5.0 Goldenrod Solidago sp.

30 20.7 6.2 Vaccinium Vaccinium sp.

20 3.5 7.0 Bluestem Andropogon sp.

20 15.0 3.0 Grass A 20 8.0 1.6 Evening Oenothera sp.

10 5.0 0.5 Primrose Crab Grass Digitaria sp.

10 10.0 1.0 Chickweed Stellaria sp.

10 30.0 3.0 Rabbit Tobacco Gnaphalium 10 10.0 1.0 obtusifolium Sedge Cyperus sp.

10 5.0 0.6 Forb C 10 5.0 0.5 1Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X 100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2in quadrats where present (0.5 square m ;ter) 3 1n all quadrats sampled i

l

-17

9 TABLE 6 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 6 TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELATIVE

(%)1 COVER 2 COVER 3

Smallflower Ranuculus 50 9.2 4.6 Buttercup abortivus Bicolor Dichromata colorata 40 6.8 2.7 Broomsedge Andropogon 30 6.6 2.0 r

virginicus Grass B 30 28.6 8.6 Dallis Grass Paspalum dilatatum 20 10.0 2.0 Centipede Eremochloa 20 55.0 11.0 Grass ophiuroides j

Marsh. Fleabane Pluchea rosea 20 3.0 0.6 Black ' eyed Rudbeckia hirta 20 1.0 0.2 i

Susan Rattlesnake Eryngium yuccifolium 20 1.5 0.3 Master

(

Pepper-vine Ampelopsis arborea 20 4.0 0.8 Palmetto Sabal palmetto 10 1.0 0.1 Partridge Pea Cassia fasciculata 10 1.0 0.1 Bindweed Convolvulus sp.

10 20.0 2.0 Bulrush Scirpus cyperinus 10 5.0 0.5 Sedge Cyperus sp.

10 1.0 0.1 Morning Glory Ipomoea sp.

10 50.0 5.0 Sedge Cyperus haspan 10 10.0 1.0 Poison Ivy Rhus radicans 10 5.0 0.5 Red Maple Acer rubrum 10 3.0 0.3 Sea Myrtle Baccharis 10 1.0 0.1 halimifolia Mullein Verbascum sp.

10 5.0 0.5 Grape.

Vitus sp.

10 20.0 2.0 Forb D 10 5.0 0.5 1 Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X 100 Number of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 in quadrats wnere present (0.5 square meter) 3 in all quadrats sampled 18

~ TABLE 6 VEGETATION SURVEY AREA 6 TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY COMMON NAME SPECIES FREQUENCY AVERAGE RELAT.T.VE

(%)1 COVER 2 COVER 3

Smallflower Ranuculus 50 9.2 4.6 Buttercup abortivus Bicolor-Dichromata colorata-40 6.8 2.7 Broomsedge Andropogon 30 6.6 2.C virginicus Grass B 30 28.6 8.6 Dallis Grass Paspalum dilatatum 20 10.0 2.0

+

C entipede Eremochloa 20 55.0 11.0 Grass ophiuroides Marsh Fleabane Pluchea rosea 20 3.0 0.6 Black ~ eyed Rudbecki_a hirta 20 1.0 0.2 Susan Rattlesnake Eryngium yuccifolium 20 1.5 0.3 Master.

Pepper-vine Ampelopsis arborea 20 4.0 0.8 Palmetto Sabal palmetto 10 1.0 0.1 Partridge Pea. Cassia fasciculata 10 1.0 0.1 Bindweed Convolvulus sp.

10 20.0 2.0

.i Bulrush Scirpus cyperinus 10 5.0 0.5 Sedge Cyperus sp.

10 1.0 0.1 Morning Glory Ipomoea sp.

10 50.0 5.0 SedgeL Cyperus haspan 10 10.0 1.0 Poison Ivy Rhus radicans 10 5.0 0.5 Red Maple Acer rubrum 10 3.0 0.3 Sea Myrtle Baccharis 10 1.0 0.1 halimifolia k

Mullein Verbascum sp.

10 5.0 0.5 Grape Vitus sp.

33 20.0 2.0 Forb D' lt 5.0 0.5 1 Number of quadrats of occurrence of the species X 100 Number.of quadrats of occurrence of all species 2 in'quadrats where-present (0.5 square meter) 4

~ 3 in all quadrats L sampled 18'

i r~

ANIMAL COMMUNITIES MAMMALS Mammal studies were conducted over a wide area surrounding the Crystal River Plant.

Five trap lines were located in different habitat types to analyze small rodent populations (Plate 3).

Night lighting, observation of tracks and other signs, and road-kill data were used to study the occurrence of medium and large mammals.

All mammals observed are listed in Table 7.

Small mammal trapping was accomplished with Victor snap traps and Museum Special snap traps, using peanut butter as bait.

Animals captured in the traps were used to determine species occurrence in each habitat type, but were not intended to show population sizes.

Each animal captured was sexed, weighed, and measured for total length, length of tail, length of right hind foot, and ear length from notch to tip.

Night lighting for mammals was accomplished by driving paved and dirt roads throughout the Crystal River Plant area and observing

\\

all animals caught in either the headlights of the vehicle or the beam of a hand-held 200,000 candle-power spotlight.

Dirt roads and road shoulders were searched frequently for mammal tracks and drop-pings during the course of this study.

A Field Guide to Animal Tracks (Murie, 1954) was used in identification of animal sign.

J l

The largest portion of the mammals observed in the salt marsh were identified through the small mammal trapping effort.

Trap line T-1 was located along the edge of the salt marsh, parallel to the discharge canal and consisted of 20 traps at intervalsaof 50 feet.

An additional eight traps were added to the trap line on the third night.

A total of 96 trap nights were used in this 5

area.

Three cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and two Florida mice

.(Peromyscus floridanus) were captured in the salt marsh.

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were observed in and around the salt marsh, and Eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylviligus floridanus) were observed feeding along the canals in the vicinity of the salt marsh during the night-lighting activity.

i 19 oammsamoone

P Trap line T-2 was located in the mesophytic hardwoods east of the plant site.

Three parallel trap lines were established at random distances from each other and each line was approximately 500 feet in length.

Thirty traps were employed along these lines for four nights, giving a total effort of 120 trap nights.

Three

- cotton rats and three-Florida mice were collected in this habitat type.

An armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) was found dead (road kill) on the road leading to the plant site in the vicinity of the meso-phytic hardwoods.

This interesting native of Central America has recently expanded its range into much of the Southeastern United States and is common over all of Florida.

While this species was not actually observed in this habitat type, it quite likely occurs there since it prefers wet areas where it can easily burrow into the earth in search of grubs, insects, and other food items.

Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) were observed rooting in a swampy area on the Hollings Wood Ranch northeast of the plant site.

These hogs have only recently gained their freedom and cannot be termed " wild" hogs.

An adult fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) was observed in the pine flatwoods north of the plant.

This is the preferred habitat for I

this species, since it depends heavily on pine mast (seeds) for its food.

Two trap lines were located in the planted < pine habitat type.

Trap line T-3 was established in an area of 12-to 15-year-old

{

planted pine, while Trap line T-4 was located in an area of recently planted pine (Plate 3).

Trap line T-3 consisted of one line of ten j

traps placed in the planted pine area, while two additional lines L

of five traps each were placed along an adjacent dirt road and at an ecotone (habitat edge) between the planted pine and a dense thicket of myrtle and larger hardwood species.

Ten cotton rats were captured in the planted pine area in 80 trap nights, while only three were caught along the road and in the ecotone. One Florida mouse was found in both the planted pine area and in the ecotone.

A short-tail shrew (Blarina brevicauda) was also captured along the ecotone.

Trap line T-4 also consisted of three separate j'

20 DAMES O MOOME

trap lines.

One line of 13 traps was established along a fence row at the edge of the planted area.

Another line of 12 traps was placed along a windrow which was probably established during the time this area was cleared for planting.

A third line of 25 traps was placed in the pine plantation itself.

Five cotton rats and eight Florida mice were caught along the fence line, two cotton rats and one Florida mouse were caught along the windrow, and eight cotton rats were taken in the pine plantation.

Two hundred trap nights were used here.

Trap line T-5 was in an area influenced by the construction of the plant.

One trap line of four traps was located at the edge of a garbage dump area south of the plant site, and another in a construction-materials storage area in the vicinity of the first trap line.

No animals were captured in these traps, and after two nights (16 trap nights) these traps were removed and placed along the trap lines in the salt marsh.

Feral house cats (Felis domesticus) were frequently observed during night lighting in these areas.

Two other species were found in areas influenced by man.

Cottontail rabbits were common along the canals and in the transmission-line right-of-way.

Mounds of southeastern pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis) were found along the railroad embankment directly. east of the plant site.

These mounds are quite characteristic of the species due to their distinctive construction.

As the pocket gopher excavates its subterranean home, it pushes the dirt to the surface where it is t

deposited to one side of the opening, resulting in a fan-shaped 1

1 mound.

l While the whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was not observed at the Crystal River Power Plant, it is almost certainly a resident of the area.

Jim Hardee, a local game management officer, reports that a substantial number of deer live around the plant site, and he finds it necessary to patrol the area frequently to stop night-lighting efforts by deer poachers -(Personal communication July 17, 1974).

The whitetail deer is found throughout much of the United States and is an important game animal in Florida.

It occurs 4

L.

21 DAMES B MOORC

e in many habitats but prefers feeding and resting in areas of thick

~ ~

cover during the day and feeding in open areas at night.

The meso-phytic hardwoods and the pine flatwoods would be areas of cover at the Crystal River Plant, while the recently planted pine areas and the transmission-line right-of-way would offer a variety of food for night feeding in the area.

Major game species which may occur at the site are given in Table 8.

Upon analyzing the results of the small mammal trapping, it is apparent that the cotton rat resides in all the natural habitats in the area.

The Florida mouse was also present in all habitats but l

seemed to prefer areas which afford a greater degree of cover than those required by the cotton rat.

For example, the Florida mouse i

was not found in open fields or along roads but was present along field edges and in areas where ground cover was more prominent.

Other species which occur in more than one habitat type were the cottontail (edge of salt marsh and along right-of-way) and the

-raccoon (tracks found in salt marsh and along fields).

The fox squirrel seen in the pine flatwoods would be expected to be found primarily in this one habitat type since it prefers open pines, while its cousin, the gray squirrel, prefers hardwood areas.

The Crystal River area falls within the range of two federally

{

recognized rare or endangered mammal species in Florida (Table 9).

' ~

Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) populations have been seri-l ously depleted in modern times by heavy trapping and hunting pressure

.and loss of habitat due to land development.

There are an estimated 150 to 300 panthers in Florida.

This population has appeared stable since 1966 when panthers were first protected by Florida law.

There have been several recent sightings of panthers in Citrus County.

A panther was killed in 1968 while depredating stock in Citrus County, and transient animals were sighted in the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (southwest Citrus County) in 1969 (U. S.

Dept. Int-erior, 1973).

Since the mesophytic hardwoods area near the Crystal River Plant is an extension of the swamp habitat in the Refuge, it is e

22 DAMES S MOORE s

m w w

t

a:

l p

1 quite conceivable that a panther may wander through the area.

The i'

. main dan ~ger to a panther in the vicinity of the plant would be the possibility of being hit by a vehicle on the entrance road to the plant.

The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latriostris) is a large aquatic. mammal which was once found in coastal waters and lagoons from North Carolina to southern Texas.

Its range has been greatly reduced,'and it is now found mostly along Florida coasts.

In 1969 l

five resident manatees were reported at the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (Uw S. O. I.,19 73) which is less than 15 miles down I

the coast from the Crystal River Plant Site.

Manatees may occur at-l the plant site and should be afforded as much protection as possible.

l There.are several factors which exist at the Crystal River Site L

which may cause environmental stress among some animal populations.

The frequent manipulation of much of the land in this area by fire, logging, and grazing undoubtedly has an effect on those animals living in the manipulated areas.

For instance, the logging of a mature stand of pine would remove habitat useful to the fox squirrel,

'but at the same time the newly cleared land would be attractive to f

many animals like rabbit, quail, and small rodents.

Fire can cause an'immediate, short-term stress in a habitat according to the time j

of occurrence and intensity of the fire.

A fire occurring during i-the spring may destroy the nests of ground-nesting birds and mammals (quail, rabbits, cotton rats) and a hot fire may destroy all the i

i

~

hardwoods in an area, thus removing valuable mast (seed) producing plants.

.A wild fire, of course, can destroy all vegetation and animals in its path and completely devastate the area.

Fortunately it is for only a short period of time that a fire renders an area 9

unattractive to wildlife.

The process of plant succession starts almost immediately after a fire to revegetate the area with plant species that are stimulated by fire occurrence.

Some such species are sand pine (Pinus clausa),_ blackberry, smilax, legumes, and many grasses..Before long a burned-over area will be revegetated with new growth which is attractive to wildlife for many years.

i

_~~

i 23 l

, (

== muse moone i

s~

a

1

-Another~ factor which~may cause stress in the Crystal River t.

area is the abundance of fire ants (Solenopsis sp.).

.One third of the rodents caught in the small mammal trapping effort were

. partially or totally-devoured by fire ants while in the traps.

The fire ant is recognized as a problem pest in the southeast and may affect many wildlife species (Bellinger et al.,1965).

Cotton rats,-mice, and rabbits build nests on the ground which are quite susceptible to predation by these flesh-eating ants.

Recent studies indicate that fire ants may have a significant effect on small mammal reproduction in an area where.these ants are abundant (Hill, f-1969).

Fire ants could also affect nesting success of ground-nesting birds in an area.

The greatest number of fire-ant mounds in the i

Crystal River area was in the old field habitat on the Hollings Wood' Ranch were land had been cleared and a pine plantation had

' been established (Trap line T-4).

The fire ants seemed to be especially active along the field edges and in the windrows where a large portion of the small mammal trapping took place.

It is difficult to determine the exact effects of fire ants on wildlife in the area, but it is easy to visualize a possible 1

reduction of small mammal and ground-nesting bird reproduction due to ant predation, and conceivably these ants could even affect

-l larger mammals.

Any animal encountering fire ants during the nort.al course of feeding or resting would quickly become impressed by the j

painful stings inflicted by the ants and might alter its habits to i

i exclude this area from its normal feeding or resting range.

There-fore, fire ants have a potential for causing stress to wildlife populations existing in the same area.

In conclusion, the Crystal River area is suitable for supporting j

diverse populations of mammals.

The presence of salt marsh, fresh-water swamp, and pine flatwoods, as well as extensive areas under the direct influence of man (i.e., pine plantations, pastures, and rights-of-way) provides a great many habitats which should be attractive to many mammal species.

24 o.-..omoo==

i r

BIRDS Avian species occurring at the Crystal River Site were identi-fied and enumerated through direct observation.

Most observations were made from roads while traveling from one point to another in the area.

Binoculars ~ (7x30mm) were used to observe distinguishing characteristics of avian species, and Birds of North America (Robbins j

et al.,

1966)was used for identification of species. Nocturnal f

species were located with spotlights after dark.

j' Pruitt (1971) lists 233 species of birds which ray occur at Crystal River.

Twenty-nine species of birds were observed in the f

~

vicinity of the plant site during this study (Table 10).

The salt-marsh habitat contained the greatest variety of bird life.

A large number of shore birds we e obs erved in the marsh along the intake and discharge canals.

Least terns (Sterna albifrons) were present j

in large numbers as were immature and adult laughing gulls (Larus atricilla).

Common egrets (Casmerodius albus), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and several species of herons were seen wading and feeding in the marsh and in the canals.

A pair of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) were ooserved circling the marsh immediately to the northwest of the j

plant site.

Common nighthawks (Chordelles minor) flew above the marsh during the day and at night and were also present along the trans-mission-line right-of-way at night.

Approximately fifty least terns t

were found roosting on the ground at the westernmost section of the discharge canal during the night-lighting activity.

j Birds which occurred in other habitat types were red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus) and red-tailed (B. jamaicensis) hawks which were frequently seen flying over the newly planted pine areas.

Rufous-sided towhees (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) and red-bellied woodpeckers

]

(Centurus carolinus) were common in the pine flatwoods, while crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos and C. ossifragus) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) were present in or around all habitats.

A swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides *orficatus) was observed soaring over Highway 19 at the entrance to the main road to the plant.

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) were heard calling from the transmission-line right-of-way.

Personnel from the Hollings I

25 I

namese moons

r Wood-Ranch and Mr. Jim Hardee, the local game ranger, report the presence of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in an area north and northeast of the plant site.

The ranch hands frequently feed the turkeys corn at various locations around the ranch.

No turkeys or signs of turkeys were observed during this study, however.

T

-One and possibly two Southern bald eagles (Haliaeetus leuco-cephalus leuco'cephalus) have been reported as frequenting the area approximately a mile north of the plant site.

The Southern bald i

eagle is listed as a rare and endangered species by the U. S.

Department of Interior (Table 9), and its status is referred to as f-

" generally declining" due to disturbance of nesting birds by in-creased human activity in prim.ry nesting areas, illegal shooting, l

and possible reduced reproduction as a result of adult birds inges-ting pesticides (U. S. D. I.,19 7 3 ).

On the first day of the survey a large bird was observed nesting in a dead tree in the area where the eagle (s) have been seen.

This bird left its perch and flew at a high rate of speed to the east before identification could be made through binoculars.

It is possible that this was an eagle, but this is not considered a confirmed sighting.

i The diverse habitat types in the vicinity of the Crystal River Plant make this area particularly attractive to bird life.

The l

salt-marsh area by itself is attractive to shore birds.

The add-itional 22.5 miles of artificially created shoreline provided by j

the intake and discharge canals makes this area especially import-ant to shore and water birds.

The fresh-water habitat provided in i

the mesophytic hardwoods area, the abundance of grasses and other seed-producing early succession plants in the right-of-way, the recently disturbed planted pine areas provide a variety of feeding and nesting habitats for many species of raptors, game birds, and song birds.

[

Crystal River, like most portions of Florida, is either a feeding and resting location or a final destination for the hrn-dreds of-species of birds which migrate south each fall.

Table 11 lists some of the species which may migrate through this area.

i 26

+

DAMES B MOOne L

I j

t t

Manyfindividuals may stay in the area to become residents, but the I

. majority are seasonal visitors which may be look ng for temporary i

food and shelter.

The relative protection and increased water temper-ature of the canal area undoubtedly draw large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds. Sufficient habitat exists landward from the plant

-site to support a variety of " upland" bird. species.

REPTILES

,[

Reptiles were located by periodic hunting along roads, vege-tation transects, and trap lines in and around the Crystal River Plant.

Reptiles were found in the vicinity of the mesophytic hardwoods, in the pine flatwoods and along the transmission-line right-of-way (Table 12).

Several six-lined race runners (Cnemi-dophorus sexlineatus) were observed sunning on the railroad tracks which run through the mesophytic hardwoods east of the plant site.

A gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) was also found on these railroad tracks.

The gopher tortoise prefers open habitat with i

sandy soils where it can construct its characteristic underground burrow.

This burrow is also used by such species as the Eastern i

diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) and the Florida mouse.

A Florida box turtle (Terrapene carolina bauri) was observ-ed crossing a road in the pine flatwoods north of the plant site.

This colorful turtle feeds on a wide variety of vegetation and

)

insects and is found in many different habitats.

An Eastern mud 4-turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) was found along the transmission-line right-of-way in the vicinity of a borrow pit, which undoubt-ed.ly provid3s the aquatic environment enjoyed by this species.

The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) has been reported quite frequently by Florida Power Corporation employees i

at the Crystal River Site.

This large reptile has been on the rare and endangered species list for a number of years (U.S.D.I.,

1973)..

At present the alligator is making a comeback thanks to Federal protection and strict law enforcement.

While no alligators were observed during our survey, they are lixely residents of the area.

The heated water of the discharge canal would be an excellent 1

i~

I i

27 DAME

• 3 MOORE

place for alligators to congregate, and indeed several large specimens have been reported in this canal.

Abundant aquatic areas, open fields, sandy pine flatwoods, and salt marsh offer a wide range of habitats for many reptiles in the vicinity of the Crystal River Site.

Pruitt (1971) lists fifty species of reptiles as possibly occurring in this area.

The presence of diverse habitat types indicates a high possibility of many reptiles inhabiting this region.

9 h

I

'i

(.

d.

t k

i n

28 DAMESB MOORE 4

w-w w-

-e w

TABLE 7 MAMMALS OBSERVED IN THE VICINITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA July 15-23, 1974 Family Common Name Scientific Name Soricidae Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda Felidae House Cat Felis domesticus

(

Sciuridae Eastern Fox Squirrel

.Sciurus niger Cricetidae Florida Mouse Peromyscus floridanus Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus a

Leporidae Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Suidae Hog Sus scrofa

-Dasypodidae Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus t

i 1

i t

Ref.:

Burt and Grossenheider, 1964 i-29 t'

/

TABLE 8 MAJOR GAME SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA AREA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Mammals Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

. Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Wild Boar Sus scrofa Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus Avifauna Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Black Dock Anas rubripes Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula Gadwall Anas strepera Pintail Anas acuta Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Blue-winged Teal Anas discors American Wigeon Anas americana i

Shoveler Anas clypeata Wood Duck Aix sponsa Redhead Aythya americana i

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Canvasback Aythya valisineria Greater Sceup Aythya marila

[

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis J

Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo King Rail Rallus elegans Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 30

I e-

.p TABLE 8 (Continued)

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Avifauna Sora Porzana carolina American Woodcock Philohela minor Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura i

Ref.: Am. Ornithologists' Union, 1961, 1973; Pruitt, 1971:

L Robbins et al., 1966 r-4

?

'e 4-4 '

s 4

31

/

TABLE 9 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA AREA ENDANGERED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS 1 Mammals S, F Florida Manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris S, F Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi S

Florida Water-Rat Neofiber alloni i

Avifauna

(

F American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus S, F Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis S, F Southern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S

Wood Ibis Mycteria americana i

Reptiles F

American Alligator Alligator mississipiensis e

S Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais i

1S= State of Florida F= United States Ref.:

Lahart, 1973; Pruitt, 1971; U.S.D.I.,

1973 f

s 32

-r

TABLE 10 BIRDS OBSERVED IN THE VICINITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA, JULY 15-23, 1974 FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Pelecanidae White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos-Phalacrocoracidae Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus Cormorant Ardeidae Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Common Egret Casmerodius albus Louisiana Heron Hydranassa tricolor Little Blue Heron Florida caerulea Green Heron Butorides virescens Threskiornithidae White Ibis Eudocimus albus Cathartidae Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura l

Black Vulture Coragyps atratas Accipitriidae Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis j

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Pandionidae Osprey Pandion haliaetus Phasianidae Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Scolopacidae Whimbrel Nomenius phaeopus Willet Cataptrophorus semipalmatus Laridae Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Least Tern Sterna albifrons Rynchopidae Black Skimmer Rynchops nigra Columbidae Ground Dove Columbina passerina i

Caprimulgidae Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Picidae Red-bellied Centurus carolinus Woodpecker Corvidae Common Crow Corvus branchyrhynchos Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Mimidae Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Ploceidae House Sparrow Passer domesticus Icteridae Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Fringillidae Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

]

Ref.: Am. Ornithologists' Union, 1961, 1973; Robbins, Bruun, and Zim, 1966.

33

6 TABLE 11 MIGRATORY BIRDS WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA AREA I

FAMILY COMMON NAME

' SCIENTIFIC-NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S

F W

Gaviidae Common Loon Gavia immer u

c c

Podicipedidae Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus u

Procellariidae Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus r

r Pelecanidae White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos c

c c

Fregatidae Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens c

c c

o Ciconiidae Wood Ibis Mycteria americana u

c u

u Anatidae Whistling Swan Olor columbianus r

r White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons r

r w

A Snow Goose Chen caerulescens o

o o

Mallard Anas 'platyrhynchos a

a a

Black Duck Anas rubripes a

a a

Gadwall Anas strepera c

c c

Pintail Anas acuta a

a a

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca a

a a

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors a

a r

American Wigeon Anas americana a

a a

Shoveler Anas clypeata_

c c

c Redhead Aythya americana c

c c

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris c

c c

Canvasback Aythya valisineria a

a a

Greater Scaup Aythya marila r

r r

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis a

a a

. ~.,

_,. g.

TABLE 11 (Continued)

FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S

.F W

Anatidae Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula o

o r

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola o

o o

Ruddy Duck Oxyura iamaicensis o

o o

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus a

o a

Common Merganser Mergus merganser o

r o

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator a

a a

Accipitriidae Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipeter striatus u

u u

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus u

Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus c

c c

Falconidae Pigeon Hawk Falco columbarius r

wm Rallidae Virginia Rail Rallus limicola c

c c

Sora Porzana carolina c

c c

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis u

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis u

u American Coot Fulica americana a

o a

a Charadriidae Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus o-o c

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus o

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus o

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola o

o u

Scolopacidae Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres o

o u

American Woodcock Philohela minor r

Common Snipe Capella gallinago c

c c

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus r

r Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia c-c c

r TABLE 11 (Continued)

FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S

F W

.Scolopacidae Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria o

o Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes r

r Knot Calidris canutus o

o Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos r

r Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla c

c c

Dunlin Calidris alpitaa o

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus c

c c

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus c

c c

Stilt Sandpiper Micropalama himantopus u

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla o

o u

w Western Sandpiper Cali.dris mauri r

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa u

Sanderling Calidris alba u

Laridae Herring Gull Larus argentatus c

c c

Ring-billed Gul]

Larus delawarensis c

c c

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla u

r u

c Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia c

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri u

u c

Common Tern Sterna hirundo c

Sandwich Tern Thalasseus sandvicensis c

u u

u Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia o

Black Tern Chlidonias niger o

o Cuculidae Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus o

c o

Black-billed Cucnoo Coccyzus erythrophthalmus r

r

TABLE 11 (Continued)

FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S

F W

Strigidae Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus u

Caprimulgidae Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus u

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor c

c c

Apodidae Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica o

o o

Tyrannidae Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus c

c c

r Gray Kingbird Tyrannus dominicensus c

c c

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus c

c c

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe c

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens u

Eastern Wond Pewee Contopus virens c

c c

Hirundinidae Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor o

Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis u

'o u

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica o

o Purple Martin Progne subis c

c c

Certhiidae Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris u

Troglodytidae House Wren Troglodytes aedon o

o c

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes o

o u

Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis u

u u

Mimidae Catbird Drumetella carolinensis' c

c c

Turdidae American Robin Turdus migratorius c

c a

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina c

c Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus u

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus o

o Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus o

o

LTABLE 11 (Continued)

FAMILY.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S.

F W

Turdidae Veery Catharus fuscescens u

u-Sylviidae Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa u

.u u

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus' calendula u

Motacillidae Water Pipit

.Anthus spinoletta u

Bombycillidae Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum u

u u

Virconidae Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons o

o Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius c

c c

Red-eyeu Vireo Vireo olivaceus c

c c

Parulidae Black and White Warbler Mniotilta varia o

o o

g Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea u

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus u

u Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata u

u u

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia u

c u

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia u

u Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina u

u Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens u

u Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata c

c a

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens u

u Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata u

u Palm Wtrbler Dendroica palmarum c

c c

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus c

c c

Northern Water Thrush Seiurus noveboracensis u

u Louisiana Water Thrush Seiurus motacilla u

u Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis u

u

TABLE 11 '(Continued)

FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY STATUS Sp S

F W

Parulidae Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens-u u

^

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina

~c c

c American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla u

u Icteridae Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus o

o Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius o

u o

Northern Oriole Icterus galbula u

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus c

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater o

Thraupidae Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea u

u Summer Tanager Piranga rubra u

c u

y Fringillidae Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus r

r Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea c

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea u

u Painted Bunting Passerina ciris r

r r

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis c

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis c

c a

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum u

LeConte's Sparrow Ammospiza leconleii u

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii u

Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta u

Vesper Sparrow Pocecetes gramineus c

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina r

r u

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla u

u u

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis a

a a

TABLE 11 (Continued)

FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME MIGRATORY-STATUS r:

Sp S

F W

Fringillidae Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana

,c c

c Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia c

c c-1 SP = Spring S = Summer F = Fall W = Winter a = Abundant c = Common u = Uncommon o = Occasional r = Rare

.Ref.: Am. Ornithologists' Union, 1961, 1973 ; Peterson, 1947; Pruitt, 1971; Robbins et al.,

1966 O

TABLE 12 REPTILES OBSERVED IN THE VICINITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA July 15-23, 1974 Family Common Name Scientific Name Chelydrical Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon'subrubrum Testudinidae Florida Box Turtle Terrapene carolina Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Teiidae Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlinealus i

Ref.:

Conant, 1958 s

f i

6 m

41

c l

x

("~

N S-1 THRU 12 SALT ANALYSIS AREAS i

s V-1 THRU 6 VEGETATION SURVEY ARE AS mrp

...J, I

T-1 THRU 5 MAMMAL TRAP LINES I

/

4r--4

/

"L M.

f

(

---,;W L

...t n"

,.f r ' '

sN h

'u

's A

Q y

-.l l

N 0

. 2

'6 4,

$..~;.h:3.~.0

,,:f

... ?

f@.

'5

. :.:::::::::g: ~. s :::

4 m

l W3..::

V h

?1

--o I g_iW:J P w h

JS-

l

- W 7

---

(

(

n y

wg.

88 -

, Q 3:':l: @g:; y [::g( f yp

-- b -<

s;

/

S-l a, ' 5,.

<.0.:.. :~._:.

.,.. s....:............

n 0::::;:::.::?::::::'q':.z:..

..fI:}blyy,, [::'.$)),:l:

p

' 'i:':::l::$:)':.Y..;:

_?5:::k h':

.......,.. ;..... +I.5 W.'s:*.:.$..U.

• 3.:..

I*:

GULF

. c.l:-:l.v::...n...':' [.,l.:;';[:;},f. f'.;h}:l:}v i

oF

..s....

.c.....: -

s MEXlCO

' * :::ll; j:j

........ s...... l

...... w....,.......,...

.a..

Q1 N

.. s::<:q:.

y:::::

-:.s:~:.::.: ~:a.*:.~

SCALE

~ * '..

SAMPLING AREA LOCATIONS

."J<,,

CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT i

I/2 o

i I

FLORIDA POWER CORP.

r, Q

MILES

..e 3

AMBIENT SALT CONCENTRATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION FIELD COLLECTION Soil and vegetation were collected from twelve sites in the vicinity of the Crystal River Power Plant and analyzed for ambient salt concentrations.

Factors such as habitat l

type, distance from the Gulf, and distance from the power plant site were considered in locating the salt-analysis areas.

Soil was collected at two depths (0-2" and 2-6")

I over a large area (approximately 25' square meters) with a j

soil-sample tube.

The soil was placed in separate one-I gallon plastic containers for shipment to the laboratory.

Leaves from dominant or otherwise important vegetation species were collected at each site and placed in perforated paper bags (Table 13).

Collections were made by hand, and all collectors wore gloves while sampling.

Sampling was not confined to one tree or shrub but was carried out on many individuals of the same species in order to get a truly rep-resentative sample of ambient salt levels in the species at the area of collection.

The locations of salt-analysis areas I

ar2 shown graphically in Plate 4.

The following is a list of these areas with their corresponding habitat types:

Salt-Analysis Survey Area Habitat S-1 Salt Marsh S-2 Young Planted Pine 1

S-3 Pine Flatwoods S-4 Young Planted Pine t

S-5 Construction S-6 Mesophytic Hardwoods S-7 Mesophytic Hardwoods S-8 Old Field S-9 Mesophytic Hardwoods S-10 Old Planted Pine S-11 Salt Marsh

'S-12 Salt Marsh i

names e moons 43

t-s LABORATORY PROCEDURES All soil and vegetation samples were b nt to the Dames &

Moore Environmental Laboratory in Cincinncti, Ohio.

There the samples.were analyzed for the six major salt ions found in sea water.

These ions were Na, Cl, Ca, Mg, K and SOq.

The laboratory procedures were as follows.

All soils were dried at room tempera-cures.

Distilled water was added to a weighed portion of the soil

,a (300-500 grams) until a paste was formed that had a sheen of water

{

on it.

The samples were then filtered through a Baroid Press under nitrogen pressure.

The total volume of filtrate recovered

['

was recorded and the filtrate evaporated to dryness in order to obtain the weight of the total soluble salts extracted.

The salts were then redissolved in 100 milliliters of distilled water and J

analyzed for Na, Cl, Ca, Mg, SOg,and K.

i The procedure for determining external salt on plants was as follows.

Vegetation samples were dried in an oven at 80 C for 24 to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

A weighed sample of the dried plant was twice

{,

washed in distilled vater for two minutes each time.

The extracts were combined and evaporated to dryness, and the weight of the total salt extracted was recorded.

The salt was then redissolved in 10 ml of distilled water and analyzed for Na, C1, Ca, Mg, K, j'

and SOu.

The determination of internal salts was as follows.

The same plant sample used for external salt analysis was redryed and ground into a fine powder in a blender.

A weighed sample of the r

ground plant was then treated with 30.0 ml of concentrated nitric acid and heated on a hot plate until all the plant material was

{,

digested and the resulting solution was clear.

The solution was then diluted to 100 ml with distilled water and analyzed for the salt ions previously mentioned.

In all of the above procedures, salt analysis was accomplished by atomic absorption for Na, Ca, Mg, and K ions (Perkin-Elmar Atomic Absorption Model 306) and mercuric-nitrate titration for Cl ions (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste concentrations were determined by the Water, 1971, p. 97-99).

Sou barium sulfate gravimetric method (Standard Methods for the 44 DAMES O MOORE

P i

Examination of Water and Waste Water, 1971, p.

333-334).

The results of So u analysis were found to be inconclusive and were

. therefore not included in the tables or discussions in this report.

i SALT CONCENTRATIONS IN. VEGETATION ACCORDING TO HABITAT TYPES The salt concentrations of vegetaticn analyzed in the labora-tory are described in Table 14.

The " internal" and the "cxternal" concentrations for each ion have been considered as one quantity, f

since current laboratory techniques for extracting only the

" external" salts do not insure against extracting some of the j'

" internal" salts.

Thus, the sum of the'" internal" and " external" salt is considered the most accurate representation of salt content of the vegetation at the Crystal River sites.

Results indicate there is a wide variance of salt content throughout the habitats.

There are no habitats that contain species with significantly higher salt contents than other envir-onments; i.e.,

the salt-marsh species do not contain nigher sali-nities than the mesophytic hardwoods or any other habitats farther inland.

In comparing one species at different sites, the slash pines at S-3 have 27,211 ppm, whereas the slash pines at S-10 and S-4 located farther inland have salinities of 86,043 and 62,110 ppm respectively.

These two examples thus indicate no relationship between salt content and proximity to the coastline.

F SALT CONCENTRATION IN SOILS ACCORDING TO HABITAT TYPES S-1, S-ll, and S-12 (Table 15) are in a salt marsh and are f

thus expected to exhibit high levels of salt in their soil as a result of periodic flooding by tides.

The salt-marsh soil (Medi-saprists-Aqualls; U.S.D.A.,

1973) is nearly level, with very poorly drained organic and poorly drained sandy over loamy soils subject to frequent tidal flooding.

The values of salinity at S-1, S-11, and S-12 are more than twenty times greater than salinities found at any of the other sites, in regard to both the 0-2" depth and L.

the 2-6" depth and in regard to Na,Cl, and total-salt concentra-tions.

45 aamoso moonc

~.

4 S-6 and S-9 are in a fresh-water swarap area (mesophytic C

~

hardwoods) and exhibit low values of salinity (Table 15), but the l

values are higher than the other inland soils in other habitats.

The fresh-water swamp soil (Terra ceia - Psammaquents; U.S..D.A.,

+

f 1973) is nearly level, with very poorly drained organic and sandy soils.over limestone and a high water table which occurs above the j

soil most of the year.

This high water table dilutes any accumu-i lation of salt, and some salt may be lost to run off.

,[

S-5 is ruderal (construction area) and appears to be created as a dredge spoil area.

It is characterized by shallow, sandy j'

soil over loose limestone.

Salt accumulation is not expected fue to the porosity of the soil; this would appear to be the cause of I

l the low salinities recorded in Table 15.

Values were only given I-to a depth of 2" because there was only 2" of soil at the site.

The remaining sites, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-7, S-8, and S-10, are 4

in different vicinities inland away from significant influence of salt spray from the sea, and thus exhibit low salinity.

These

. sites are in the Broward-Boca Association (U.S.D.A., 1973) a some-i what poorly drained, thin sandy soil over limestone with similar but well-drained soils.

This soil is associated with a seasonal high water table, varying in depths from 0-30", which influences the. salinity in the upper profiles.

i Noticeable differences in the distribution of salinity between 0-2" and 2-6" depths are not readily apparent between soil types b

or site locations (Table 14).

Investigations of salinity at deeper cross sections of soil, however, may better indicate the l

effect that leaching and porosity have on salt distribution.

It must be noted that the habitats exposed to tidal flooding exhibit significantly higher salinities in the upper 6" than the inland habitats, as would be anticipated.

L 46

==musamoons

~

3-TABLE 13 PLANTS COLLECTED FOR SALT ANALYSIS CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA SALT ANALYSIS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME AREA l

Black Rush Juncus roemerianus Wiregrass Aristida stricta i

Sea ox-eye Borrichia frutescens 2

Arrowhead Sagittaria sp.

Palmetto Sabal palmetto l

t Bahia Grass Paspalum notatum Partridge Pea Cassia fasciculata Poorjoe Diodia teres 3

Sumac Rhus copallina j

Palmetto Sabal palmetto i

Slash Pine Pinus elliottii i

Live Oak Quercus virginiana

. Myrtle Oak Quercus myrtifolia t.

j 4

Partridge Pea Cassia fasciculata Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium i

Palmetto Sabal palmetto I

Bahia Grass Paspalum notatum Slash Pine Pinus elliottii 5

Willow Salix caroliniana Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium c.

I Sea Myrtle Baccharis halimifolia Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 6

. Sea Myrtle Baccharis halimifolia Palmetto Sabal palmetto Willow Salix caroliniana Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora Spanish Moss Tillandsia usneoides Sedge Cyperus hospan

.Redcedar Juniperus virginiana t

47 L

TABLE'13, cont'd.

f' SALT ANALYSIS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME AREA 7~

Small Gallberry Ilex glabra Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua f

8 Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium Bahia Grass Paspalum notatum Sea Myrtle Baccharis halimifolia Palmetto Sabal palmetto 9

Red Bay Persea borbonia Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum Redcedar Juniperus virginiana 7

J Willow Salix caroliniana Grape Vitus rotundifolia i

10 Slash Pine Pinus elliottii Slash Pine (young)

Pinus elliottii i

Sea Myrtle Bacchoris halimifolia 11 Smooth Cord Grass Spartina alterniflora Black Rusa Juncus roemerianus 12 Marsh Elder Iva frutescens

(

Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus 6

I Black Rush Juncus roemerianus Sea Myrtle Baccharis halimifolia

\\

~

48

TABLE 14 SALT CONCENTRATIONS OF VEGETATION ACCORDING TO !!ABITAT SITES CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA SALT CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM IIABITAT SITE (INTERNAL & ' EXTERNAL)

TYPES NO.

PLANTS Ca Mg Na K

Cl TOTAL Salt 1

'Wiregrass 2,073 1,412 4,700 3,206 128,522 139,913 Marsh Rush 1,706 1,456 2,272 1,656 21,155 28,245 Sea Ox-eye 292 5,793 101,120 10,084 7,440 132,729 11 Cord Grass 6,692 3,023 31,120 5,982 26,932 73,749 Rush 1,122 1,059 8,450 4,368 31,982 46,981 12 Marsh Elder 4,078 1,553 10,132 7,664 16,804 40,161 Dropseed 2,588 1,670 9,400 2,498 58,688 74,844 Rush 2,007 1,203 7,030 6,524 44,970 61,734 Sea Myrtle 1,256 1,605 13,250 7,688 8,474 32,273 Mesophytic 6 Sea Myrtle 9,210 2,306 1,367 3,536 50,586 67,005 IIardwoods Palmetto 2,957 1,502 504 6,178 64,518 75,659 Willow 5,518 1,117 312 4,388 6,532 17,867 Tupelo 1,708 3,020 668 4,632 12,982 23,015 Spanish Moss 12,942 2,110 1,328 1,722 20,688 36,790 Sedge 2,686 1,418 6,840 1,220 77,380 89,544

a-TABLE'14, Cont'd.

SALT CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM.

HABITAT SITE (INTERNAL & EXTERNAL)

TYPES NO.

PLANTS Ca Mg Na K

Cl TOTAL Mesophytic'6 Redcedar 11,857 2,503 507 5,724 6,476 27,067 Hardwoods, 7 Gallberry 6,558 1,703 1,259 2,666 12,968 25,154 Continued Waxmyrtle 2,606 2,508 2,424 1,028 32,826 41,39h Sweetgum 12,706 2,235 3,004 2,340 52,002 72,287 9

Red Bay 8,107 5,007 756 4,024 82,864 100,758 Fern 7,227 3,522 272 4,360 22,272 37,653 Redcedar 11,855 1,701 202 6,209 8,512 28,480 Willow 8,758 1,705 312 6,292 20,648 37,715 Grape 674 1,910 206 6,912 4,478 14,180 y

Pine 3

Sumac 5,008 1,105 202 1,286 63,712 71,312 Flatwoods Palmetto 3,658 1,403 1,708 4,810 76,284 87,863 Slash Pine 3,758 1,206 1,059 1,360 19,828 27,211 Live Oak 4,204 1,401 102 2,259 12,562 20,527 Myrtle Oak 5,509 2,102 472 2,144 6,462 16,689 10 Slash Pine 1,857 1,105 1,490 1,374 80,217 86,043 Slash Pine (Young) 2,669 1,559 3,562 1,159 67,952 76,902 Sea Myrtle 8,508 2,104 2,812 1,009 40,833 55,266

TABLE 14, Cont'd.

SALT CONCENTRAt10NS IN PPM IIABITAT SITE (INTERNAL & EXTERNAL TYPES NO.

PLANTS Ca Mg Na K

Cl TOTAL Planted 2

Arrowhead 8,452 2,268 8,174 22,980 77,396 119,270 Pine Palmetto 3,306 753 1,880 2,224 25,096 33,259 Bahia Grass 4,212 2,256 2,006 2,868 87,398 98,740 Partridge Pea 15 1,308 752 2,308 7,538 18,215 Poorjoe 6,262 1,707 171 2,372 22,720 33,232 4

Partridge Pea 6,556 1,746 953 1,250 32,668 44,173 Fennel 9,296 1,474 1,600 6,788 62,022 81,180 Palmetto 2,008 1,104 3,008 1,409 26,682 34,211 p

Bahia Grass 5,766 1,405 113 4,792 26,289 38,365 Slash Pine (Young) 2,510 905 412 2,217 55,967 62,111 Construc-5 Willow 7,670 2,016 288 7,792 56,712 74,478 tion Fennel 10,116 1,270 1,090 8,400 18,688 39,564 Spoil Area Sea Myrtle 5,460 1,103

,3,426 15,400 36,752 118,711 Swamp Cottonwood 14,750 2,733 668 9,600 13,050 40,801 Old Field 8 Fennel 12,886 2,324 2,060 7,186 75,280 99,730 Bahia Grass 490 1,314 340 6,560 3,983 12,687 Sea Myrtle 9,057 1,402 12,300 6,584 30,904 60,247 Palmetto 2,358 902 1,358 3,312 54,372 62,302 m

TABLE 15 SOIL SALINITY ACCORDING TO HABITAT TYPE-CRYSTAL RIVER POWER PLANT, FLORIDA Habitat Site 0-2"/2-6" 0-2"/2-6" 0-2"/2-6" Types No.

Na (ppm)

C1 (ppm)

Total (ppm) 1 1

680/560 1470/1446 3230/3022 8*

?

11 133/73 3465/2263 8603/5573 g,rs 12 850/50C 2135/1325 4537/2775 6

2.6/3.6 2.4/2.9 83/73.4 P

9 1.1/1.2 2.7/316 116/863 Hardwoods 7

4.3/1.3 11.8/3.5 98.6/28.0 Pine 3

0.5/1.1 1.0/2.4 23.0/15.8 Hardwoods 10 3.2/6.8 8.1/3.6 104/354 Planted 2

0.6/0.4 1.2/.3 268.0/26.8 Pine 4

0.2/0.2 1.7/.2 6.4/6.0 8

0.9/1.6 1.8/3.1 22.8/40 Old Field l

Construction 5

0.9/-Limestone 1.8/-

59.8/-

I All Soluble Salts P

I 52

y w

n., u 1

i t

a t

t 5

3 30w M

i m

Q en>

c r-

-4 O

m e

-!o2 i

(

(

I i

r i

?

3 8

1

^

l i

)!

U afi

%v f',

Ln y

PROJECTED SALT DEPOSITION A study prepared by Hosler and Pena (1974) for Gilbert Associ-ates.was used to estimate the salt deposition resulting from the use of salt water as a cooling medium in cooling towers.

Results of the study show salt deposition quantities in lbs/ acre / year for four types

[

of cooling towers:

multicell mechanically induced draft, natural draft, circular mechanically indu:ed draft,and fan-assisted natural

' draft.

A drift rate or drift-mass fraction of 0.001 percent, i.e.,

-5 1 x 10 lb/lb. is assumed for each tower type.

Although this drift

{

rate represv'ts an extremely effective operation lying at the low end of the drift range estimated for modern cooling towers.

It is assened that the best available technology to achieve this drift rate would be employed on salt-water cooling towers. (It is a sir.ple matter to adjust from the deposition rates presented to updated valuus. reflecting the effect of other drift-mass fractions, if appropriate.)

There are two possible mechanisms causing the fallout of particles from an elevated plume.

One mechanism is analogous to ballistic trajectories where the predominant forces involved are gravitational attraction, plume rise, particle-fall velocity (as determined by air resistance and particle size), and wind speed.

The other mechanism involves the response of airborne particles to j

atmospheric turbulence and diffusion.

Generally speaking, the deposition of larger particles is more influenced by the first mechanism, and. smaller particles, by the latter.

Without describing in full the details of the model used in the Hosler and Pena (1974) study, it is important to note that the only deposition l_

mechanism considered by the model is the trajectory type, including i

the effects of evaporation.

Any error introduced by not consider -

ing the diffusion mechanism would depend on the size distribution of the drift particles.

Based on the size distribution assumed

'for each-of the four cooling-tower types, the largest error in-troduced by considering only trajectory deposition would be for the fan-assisted' natural-draft tower.

Hosler and Pena, intentionally confining-their model to consideration of trajectory deposition, have 53 names a moon.

l made calculations showing that omission of diffusion deposition does not introduce significant discrepancies for particle-size distribution identical to that assumed for the two mechanical-draft tower types.

The tower characteristics are summarized below:

the multicell mechanically induced draft, natural draft, circular mechanically induced draft, and fan-assisted natural draft towers are designated as Tower Types I, II, III and IV, res-pectively.

?

TOWER TYPES I

II III IV f

Tower height (ft) 59 450 67 103 Updraft velocity (ft/sec) 23.3 16.6 23.3 166 Mean Plume Height (ft) 600 2000 1500 1500 (Units 1 + 2 + 3)

Drift-Mass Fraction 1 X 10 -

lb/lb The notation " Units 1 + 2 + 3" indicates that cooling water flows for all three power generating units are considered.

The respec-tive water flows for the three units are 310,000 gpm, 330,000 gpm, and 682,000 gpm; a total with all unito in operation of 1,322,000 9pm.

Wind and humidity data required for the calculations are taken from Tampa, Florida, climatological records (U.

S. Dept. Commerce 1973).

f Salt-depositiot. calculations were made for each tower type assuming the salt content of the cooling water to be 29,000 ppm.

Results indicate that salt-deposition rates associated with the

. type 1, multicell mechanically induced draft tower, far exceed the rates for other towers, primarily as a result of the lower plume height, _ characteristic of this tower type.

Based on this finding, an additional calculation was made for the Type 1 tower i

using a more conservative salinity value of 35,000 ppm.

The annual i

deposition rates for the Type 1 tower at this higher salt-content level are shown in Plate 4.

These rates are considered to be the highest rates expected for any of the tower types under consider-ation.

It should be pointed out again, however, that the results shown in Plate 4 are applicable only for a drift rate of 0.001 per-54

. cent.but can be revised to correspond with any other drift rate simply by multiplying the desposition rates shown by a factor obtained from dividing the 0.001 percent value into any alternate drift rate selected.

f 1

I t

s v

1 1

55

I i

1 1

l

~

l i

l

[

'?

i l

\\

pc

%s n

e g

l

/y

-g

....g i

Sr---l

/

C S-1 THRU 12 SALT ANALYSIS

.g i

g AREAS i

r' &

~..

N 5

iW g's J!N h

\\

i LBS/ ACRE /YE A R SALT DEPOSITION IN 5

/,

\\_

g

-d

• 8 q

% 3 k

%jE:.5._

7.t}..

O

~..

,m.png

. ::!:%,5::.

h h

5 g

REF.* HOSLL.t AND PENA,197 4 S-1 i

1-A

_ f,St a gy.m N'

i/

g F K,;33 :.

7 S

s.

%+ ;.

3."..

i e 3

mi

+ s.O.:::

..:.s.;..Q..:y::q::: :q:.9 g

f'

.4 s2 as-I e 2.,..".+..... v..,.

i..

..-e p.*

,, s e-2.

b s. v,...,,..... v...,.....:. :.v:. 0.::s p o zoo e :., v : 0. p.:. y..:, v,

r vj v.

, v.,...

a

..s........:..

. s,

, s. s :.... h.,,

, p..,

/

u..

........v,

,a fv...p....:.......

..v..v.o. o...,a

..y i++:.y:b:.+;ss.,

-..:. v GULF

R:::i:i'.:::. NNli8?:l']::l:l5lR:.s:N:}:. U:'!:l:?V

\\

i 0F MEXlCO

^

~

.j,'l. : :::::;;j :::l:9,: :l;;j;_:;kj,:::l:::::},)

_:.,::.:....:k' o:0:

I

~ ~ '

Ql$.'DI.

PROJECTED SALT DEPOSITION N

0* ' *.l!; ?'*

FROM COOLING TOWERS SCALE

'[

s,.

CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT t/2 0

1 1

..v.

FLORIDA POWER CORP.

,(

-ll l:'~

i

(c, s

(

p g

....".1 I

l

,e Sr- -- -t "W

/)

l' i

S-1 THRU 12 SALT ANALYSIS

[

b j2 AREAS 5c s i

-~

g r

,q

\\

5 i

\\

SALT DEPOSITION IN N

..-g N

\\

H L8S/ ACRE / YE A R

/

\\.

g g u-s

-d s i 5

's 5

y

' $::$:h E:

7. *:g%g

)

)

h k

'h,jg *.J k'b R EF.: HOSLER AND PENA, 1974

.i

. 1..:

g g

(

g

\\

\\

S-i m;g y y

\\

s n

r-I 4 4

~L yxi' N_S-A wuO

sw-t

/

g j ib ;.s-97 M.[t F

i s

]

\\

m

..

. /..... ;.:.z.. s.x I2 xs -1 I

.+:.:::.:~: 0;!;:.p;:.:::.'.::+.::

k s: -

r c

.s.:..:

l 7,p...,s:p..

>0::p'.5llll'lpl!:

200

s :. :

!::::!:q,y,. ;'::}:::3:%:5 h l.1:llQ:.hL g,, f;:l$:}~~:*:

f.

p

'!! l l l.:

N 5

g'-x..

A GULF

. +.... o. :.:: 0.,.: 0.:s..:: s:.

s. g..:

e v.

5{:ll{ll::.~..~,.

6.

.s i00 Y

OF s

MEXlC0

' - +::-

~ _s.+:j:llv..

sllll:ll:j::l:};)l':l:[,J s

-:::}::l: ll

~, ;;;

~

,9.,::;;;,

i N

'222h*0<.' I > :0y PROJECTED SALT DEPOSITION

~

FROM COOLING TOWERS

..,y CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT SCALE

[

• s 1/2 O

I

. Q. Is' ?

FLORIDA POWER CORP'

'w

% myrh

' ' Y 'll&

MILES

/,,,

'\\ h 6

i PLATE 4

re a, 31 t

3

)

D 3

s 3

Hm Z2>

t-m 9

MmOH M

O m

M>r-H t

)

1 1

1 2

1 l

}\\

i 9+

e POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF SALT FROM COOLING TOWERS FACTORS AFFECTING SALT DISTRIBUTION The presence of sea salt over the land masses is attributed to airborne sea salt resulting from wave and surf action.

As bubbles in the salt water burst, small water droplets are project-ed into the air; some of these evaporate leaving salt crystals.

Onshore winds may then carry the water droplets and salt crystals inland to where they are removed.

Three processes are involved in the removal of aerosols from the atmosphere:

(a) fallout resulting from gravity; (b) impaction of the particles with

{

obstacles on the ground surface; and (c) washout, which includes removel by rainfall (Junge and Gustafson, 1947).

In general, salt concentration decreases with distance inland.

Salt carried inland may also affect regional shallow ground water.

This is of considerable agronomic importance because the presence of the shallow, saline ground water may be responsible for extensive areas of soil too saline for profitable cropping (Fann-ing and Lyles, 1964).

The salt concentration in the shallow ground water, however, generally follows a p&ttern similar to that in rain-fall, that of a decrease in salt content with distance inland.

In addition, Fanning and Lyles (1964) and Hutton and Leslie (1958) found that, in a given storm, as the quantity of rainfall received increased, the total soil salts decreased.

This reduction in salt

(-

concentration indicates that much of the salt, rather than accumu-

~

lateing, is washed out early in the rainfall period.

The threshold at which an increased rainfall decreases the total salt depends, however, on the leachability of the soil.

Slow internal drainage and a low topographical gradient may allow salts to accumulate in the soil.

i Sea salt is composed of many ione, including sodium, magnesium, calcium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, biocarbonate, carbonate, and bromide;'other ions constitute less chan one percent of the ocean's salinity (Odum, 1971).

The ions constituting sea water are found in. varying ratios inland and have complex relationships.

For

. example, Hutton and Leslie (1958) noted a decrease in the ratio of i

57 DAMES S MOORE

'r'-

sodium to calcium with distance inland.

They concluded that cal-cium removed from soil by rainfall was not entirely oceanic in origin and that the effect of terrestrial sources of calcium ions becomes more pronounced with distance from the coast.

It is also found that the carbonate added to the soil by rainfall is partic-ularly significant in its effect on the composition of salts found in the soil solution (Jordan et al., 1959).

Free carbonates in the soil solution combine readily with calcium and magnesium to form calcium and magnesium carbonates, which, because of their low solubility in water, readily precipitate.

This phenomenon may create, therefore, a greater proportion of soluble chloride and sulfate salts in the soil than in rainfall.

Litter fall and living biomass also acocunt for addition to an ecosystem of potassium, calcium, and magnesium (Art et al., 1973).

These inten scions between ions will affect the concentrations found in leaves and roots in plants.

Terrestrial species that are dependent on salt-distribution patterns, therefore, are controlled by many factors.

These in-clude proximity to the sea, direction of the prevailing winds, i

seasonal changes, fallout of salt particles from the atmosphere, impaction of salt spray against surface of vegetation, salinity of the ground water, amount of rain during one rainfall period, relationships of the different salts, and leaching of salts from the soil by rainfall.

r

(

SALT EFFECTS ON VEGETATION Other things being equal, the effect on plants due to accumu-lation of airborne salt on leaves and branches is related to the amount of salt on their surfaces, their tolerance to salt, and the time it remains there.

Dry particles of sea salt resting on the leaf surface, although potentially lethal, are no immediate threat to the plant.

Low humidity (<40 percent relative humidity) causes droplets to dry to crystals and reduces the possibility of uptake (Swain, 1973).

While daylight may cause the stomata to open enough to allow entry of salt particles despite the humidity, uptake normally occurs best when the salt is in some form of solution (Mulchi, 58 b

I.

es

' Personal communication, 1974).

High humidity (>75 percent R.H.)

levels cause the salt particles which have impinged on the leaf i

surface to remain in solution, facilitating uptake.

Rain, however, may act as a dilutant and cleanser of salt from leaf surfaces.

In coastal areas,-for vegetation exposed to sea salt, vege-l j

tation damage is believed.to be a result of chloride-ion action in

)

.the individual cells of the-vegetation (Cassidy, 1968).

In some plants, injury caused by sea salt (e.g., plants exposed to seashore conditions) is not immediate, but the plant accumulates chloride i

ions,resulting first in a decline of vigor and health, and even-tually resulting in mortality.

Leaves of deciduous hardwoods in coastal areas usually exhibit the effects of salt action at t

j the tips and along the margins of the leaves.

Necrosis of coni-ferous plant needles'can be seen as a characteristic orange color 4

after scorching and killing by sea salt (Donahue et al., 1971).

Basic research concerning the effects of various salt concen-

{

trations on foliage is somewhat limited (Roffman, 1973).

Moser (1972), however, related airborne sea-salt concentrations to injury suffered by vegetation growing in the coastal area of New Jersey.

His studies provide a few reference points in the complex matrix relating plant injury to the three factors of:

(1) salt concentration, l

(2) duration of exposure, and (3) type and ralt to' rance of plant.

Moser's reference points are as zollows:

(1) 100 pg/m3 over several hours will cause foliage damage during the growing season (2) 60 pg/m3 over a short period of time is not expected to cause injury (3) at any concentration and exposure time, avergreens are less susceptible to 1. jury than broadleaf plants (4) 10 pg/m3 over long term may affect the vigor and I

distribution of plant types 59

ametsamoo=

.m

-. -I

,-_my

_..,,,s_,,._..

-.r,_

(5) at concentrations below 2 ug/m3, no damage to foliage is anticipated in either coastal or inland plant communities.

(Moser, Personal communication, 1974).

Mulchi and Armbruster (1974) provide additional information which may give additional reference points.

They noted that 7.28 kg/

hectare / week (2061 lbs/ acre /yr) of salt sprayed on soybeans and corn (simulating ~ salt-water cooling towers) damaged both crops over an extended period of time.

Injuries were as follows:

(1) younger growth was more sensitive to salt on soybeans, and mature growth was more sensitive to salt on corn; (2) as soybeans matured, their leaves recovered from the initial acute effect of salt spray; (3) damage to corn was progressive with time and also with intensity of exposure (up to 14.56 kg/

hectare / week of salt - 4122 lbs/ acre / year);

(4) corn exhibited missing kernels, indicative of moisture stress.

Mulchi and Armbruster related their studies to the metabolic index.

The metabolic index is a measure of health in plants, as indicated by the calance of nutrients in the plant tissue.

This index is ca +

g+

+

defined by the equation: M.I.

in which a higher

=

p

.C value shows a healthier plant.

The salt-spray treatments signi-i ficantly decreased the metabolic index, and the soybean and corn yields were reduced by 18 and 39 percent respectively.

The leaf is the most critical route for salt entrance into plants, although in tobacco, the leaf and the roots are equally important routes (Mulchi, Personal communication,1974).

Even in the absence of appreciable leaf burn, the checking of growth by salinity may still affect quality by decreasing the size of fruits in fruit plants (Bernstein, 1965).

3 oil salinity sometimes interferes with normal plant nutrition.

High concentrations of calcium ions in the soil solution may prevent the plant from absorbing enough potassium, or high concentrations Go oammsamoone w

4

=

r -,

r v

~

s f

i, i

r of other ions may' affect the uptake of sufficient calcium.

Sodium levels in the soils were significantly increased by 4

salt treatments in experiments by Mulchi and Armbruster (1974).

~

This may have no immediate effect, but it is known that high sodium levels can replace other essential exchangeable nutrient

' cations (ca and Mg.are, exchangeable cations and may be replaced by Na) and ultimately be detrimen".al to chemical and physical properties of soils- (Hayward and Bernstein,1958).

When sodium 4-l occupies 5 to 15-percent of the total exchange capacity of the soil, the structure of-the soil begins to break down and permea-bility.to air and water decreases markedly.

The result is termed "sodic soil" (Donahue et al. 1971).

In most species sodium accum-ulates in the roots, lesser. concentrations occur in the stems, and still less in the leaves (Collander, 1941).

Elst fruit crops are more sensitive to salinity than are field, forage, or vegetable crops (bernstein, 1964).

The presence of saline ground water may also be responsible for extensite areas of soil too saline for profitable cropping.

(Fanning and Lyles, 1964).

[

It should be noted that ocean salt spray does not necessarily have to be detrimental to coastal vegetation.

Salts and organic f

materials deposited on land from aerosols of oceanic origin can L

actually be beneficial (Wilson, 1959 ).

Almost all of the nutrient j

elements necessary to support plant growth are found dissolved in the ocean, many in sufficient concentration to classify sea water as an effective fertilizer.

For example, in contrast to fresh-water'done ecosystems, where it takes thousands of years 1

i 4

.to' reach'the tree stage,. Sunken Forest, a barrier island (Fire

' Island).in,the Atlantic Ocean, has reached a comparable stage

]

of development in'only'200'to 300 years (Art et al., 1973).

'This. faster successional development-has been caused by the air-borne input offnutrients from the sea and suggests a positive in-i 5

fluence ~on successional stages of coastal vegetation by salt im-pact.

In other coastal areas-the natural background levels of

-salt have determined to a large degree the bi cic composition and 4

. community parameters-(Roffmhn, 1973).

4 61 DAMES S MOOME

_/ _

._____....._........._._,,_._..a,__.-._

~

l e.

4 i

l t

In conclusion, therefore, salt spray, whether from the sea or cooling towers, may cause foliar injury and hinder growth and the succession of vegetation; or, it may provide needed nutrients and thus have a positive effect on the terrestrial environment.

SALINITY IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AT CRYSTAL RIVER Salt can impact vegetation through deposition on foliage and through absorption from the soil.

The potential impact of cool-ing tower salt drift is evaluated for each impact in the following sections.

Impact Through Leaves and Foliage Table 14 lists salt concentrations found on and within leaves i

of vegetation near the Crystal River Plant.

These levels are not indicative of annual ambient salt levels in vegetation since they were taken only during one season.

The season of highest salt levels in foliage is expected to be the dry winter months when there is less rainfall to wash deposited salt from leaf surfaces.

The high re1.ative humidity during the winter which averages 50 to 87 percant, may greatly affect salt entrance into foliage at this l

period.

As previously discussed, high humidity facilitates salt accumulation by foliage.

It is not possible to predict new levels I

of foliage salt as a result of the deposition rate of cooling-tower salt which has been estimated in terms of pounds per acre per year.

It is know, however, that certain plant species are more salt tolerant than others.

Salt-marsh vegetation unquestion-ably has extremely high resistance to leaf scorch or damage from salt exposure.

In a study of the effects of short-term applications of salt water to selected species, Moss (1940) found that certain i

pine species generally had high resistance (0-20% leaf damage) while certain oaks and winged sumac, for example, had medium re-sistance (20-50% damage) to leaf scorch.

Smooth sumac, ash, sassafras, and grape exhibited high (70-85%) to extremely high sensitivity (85-100% damage) to leaf scorch from atmospheric salt.

With this in mind it would appear that the mesophytic hardwoods would contain more salt-sensitive species than the pine flatwoods S

62 ommes a moons

i or the pine plantations.

The close proximity of the cooling towers to portions of the mesophytic hardwoods indicated the probability that the more salt-sensitive plants in this area are most apt to be impacted.

Unfortunately there are insufficient data on the pro-jected salt concentration in the air and the salt tolerance thres-holds of the majority of the native species in this area to make pre-dictions of the magnitudo or extent of the damage or impact to vege-tation that may result from the operation of the cooling tower.

l Salt Impact on Vegetation through the Soil The direct effect of airborne salt on leaves cannot be separ-ated from that of salt in the soil and in the ground water.

Sodium tends to accumulate in the roots (Collander 1941), and therefore roots and. soil are as important in the consideration of salinity effects from cooling towers as are the leaves.

Sodium replaces other exchangeable cations (Ca, Mg) and may ultimately decrease the permeability of the soil (Hayward and Bernstein 1958).

The projected salt-deposition rate (Plate 4) in pounds per acre per year, is not easily related to the amount of salt which

.will be added and remain in the soil.

Salt in the soil cs a re-sult of uynamic processes:

deposition, runoff, salt solution entering the soil, and rain leaching salt from the soil.

In the analysis which follows, a gross conservative assumption has been made in order to estimate the salt added to the soil by towers.

J The assumption is that the increment of salt added to and retained by the soil from the cooling towers is the annual deposition of salt from the towers.

Thus, if the cooling tower is' depositing 400 lbs/ acre / year at a point (projected maximum in mesophytic hardwoods), it is assumed herein that the soil will retain at that point 400 lbs/ acre more than it retains in the absence of the tower.

This assumption is undoubtedly conservative because the site receives 50 to 60 inches of rain each year which has the effect of washing and leaching away salt accumulation.

However, since most-of the rainfall is in summer and fall, a sizeable fraction of the' annual deposition may be available for addition 63 oammsamoone

~.

0 to the soil during the dry season.

Bernstein (1964) has suggested that the salinity of the soil for crops should not exceed 2560 ppm during the sensitive stages of crop growth.

This is a conservative threshold in relation to 9

natural vegetation because crops are a sensitive type of vegetation.

A standard conversion factor of 2 lbs/ acre = 1 ppm (Bauer, 1963),

was used to convert the values of the salinity isopleths from cool-ing towers at Crystal. River in lbs/ acre to ppm for comparison with the threshold value of 2560 ppm.

This conversion factor (2 lb/ acre equals 1 ppm) is based on a standard measure of an average mineral 6

soil 6-2/3" deep in a plowed field, weighing 2 x 10 lbs/ acre.

l Table 16 compares the natural soil salinity to the projected salt drift from the cooling tower and relates these values to the threshold value.

The soil salinities for 0-2" and 2-6" are combined to yield soil salinities for 0-6".

In this way, the soil salin-ities are comparable to the salinity values for the standard measure of an average mineral soil 6-2/3" deep.

The depth of 6" of soil will also include seedlings and root zones of the indig-enous vegetation (Dr. Corlander, Personal communication, 1974).

At sites S-1, S-8, S-10, S-ll, and S-12 the annual addition of salt from the cooling tower will be less than the natural soil salinity,whereas at sites S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, and S-9, salinity from salt drift will sometimes be as much as five times greater than the natural soil salinity (Table 16).

Table 16 also shows the ratio of salinity threshold for crops (2560 ppm) to the natural soil salinity and the ratio of the threshold value to projected salt drift.

These ratios indicate the annual proj-ected salt drift is not expected to be greater than 0.12 times the salinity threshold for crops except in the salt marshes.

When comparing these data, however, it must be remembered that the pro-jected salt deposition is the very highest amount expected to be deposited on the site and that it will be deposited over a period i

of one year.

During that time there can be substantial leaching l

and run off which should greatly lessen the impact on the environ-ment.

i 64 DAMES B MOOHG l

i Sensitivity of vegetation communities at Crystal River to salt-water cooling-tower drift has been examined from the viewpoint of the two pathways through which salt could damage plant species.

These pathways are increases of salt in the soil and increased deposition on foliage.

It has been concluded that the increases of salt in the soil are not likely to reduce the health and vigor of the plant communities at Crystal River.

Because of uncertainties concerning i

the sensitivity of the plant species to foliage salt deposition,

.and the uncertainties concerning.the salt deposition anticipated, I

it has not been possible to determine if salt water cooling tower drift on plant foliage will adversely affect the health and vigor of the Crystal River Site vegetation communities.

It can only be stated that the mesophytic hardwood are more likely to receive damage than the other communities indentified at the site.

I I-t t

t 5a DAMES 8 MOORE

~..

w -?

...~

t..

A.

TABLE 16 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED SALT DRIFT TO AMBIENT SOIL SALINITIES CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT, FLORIDA

' Ambient Projected Ratio of Salt Ratio of g

Salinity in' Salt Deposition Added Annually Ratio.'of Threshold Value l

Sites

' Soil (0-6")

per year by. Towers to Threshold Value to Salt Added (ppm)

(ppm) the Ambient-to Ambient Soil Annually Soil Salinity Salinity by Towers 1

3091 200 0.06 1,207 0.078 2

25 100 4.00 0.010 0.039 3

18 100 5.56 0.007 0.039

'g 4

6 25 4.17 0.002 0.010 5

60 "300 5.00 0.023 0.117 6

77 200 2.60 0.030 0.078 7

52 100 1.92 0.020 3.039 i

8 34 25 0.74 0.013 0.010 i

9 93 200 2.15 0.036 0'.078 10 58 50 0.86 0.023 0.020 j

11 6583 300 0.05 2.572 0.117 12 3362 200 0.06 1.313 0.078 I

Threshold for crops - Ref.: Bernstein, 1964 s

i i

i i

REFEE.LNCES American Ornithologists Union.

1961.

The A.O.U. checklist of North American birds, 5th ed.:

Port City Press, Baltimore, 691 p.

American Ornithologists' Union.

1973.

Thirty-second supplement to the A.O.U. checklist of North American birds:

The Ark

v. 90, p. 411-419.

Art, H.,

et al.

1973.

Barrier-island forest ecosystems - Role of meteorologic nutrient inputs:

Science v. 184, p.

60-62.

Bauer, L. D.

1963.

Soil physics, 3rd ed.:

John Wiley & Sons, London.

Bellinger, F.,

et al.

1965.

A review of the problem of the imported fire ant:

Bull. Georgia Acad. Sci. v. 123, no. 11.

Bernstein, L.

1964.

Salt tolerance of plants:

U.S.D.A.,

Agri.

Info. Bull. No. 283.

i Bernstein, L.

1965.

Salt tolerance of fruit crops:

U.S.D.A.,

Bull. No. 292.

Burt, W.

H. and Grossenheider, R. P.

1964.

A field guide to the mammals:

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

284 p.

Cassidy, N. G.

1968.

The effect of cycle salt in a maritime environment, - The salinity of rainfall and of the atmosphere:

Plant and Soil, v. 18, p. 106-128.

Collander, R.

1941.

Selective absorption of cations by higher plants:

Plant Physiology v. 16, p. 691-740, i

t

Conant, R. 1968.

A field guide to reptiles and amphibians:

l Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 366 p.

Donahue, R.

L.,

Schecklume, J.

C.,

and Robertson, L. S.

1971.

Soils - An-introduction to soils and plant growth, 3rd ed.:

Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

Edminsten,. J. A.

1963.

The ecology of the Florida pine flatwoods:

Ph.D dissertation, Univ. Florida, 108 p.

Edwards, R. S. and Holmes, G.

D.

1968.

Studies of airborne salt deposition in some North Wales forests:

Forestry, v. 41, 155 p.

Fanning, C.-D.

and-Lyles,.L.

1964.

Salt concentration of rainfall and shallow groundwater across the lower Rio Grande Valley:

Jour. Geophysical Research v.

69 No.

4.

\\

^ Hayward, H. E. and Bernstein, L.

1958.

Plant growth relationships on salt-affected soils:

Botanical Review v.

24, p.

584.

67 i

r

Hill, E.

P.

3rd 1969.

Observations of imported fire ant pre-dation on nestling cottontails:

S.

E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., Proc. v. 23, p.171-181.

Hosler, C.

L. and Pena, J., 1974.

A comparison of fallout resulting from eight possible cooling tower arrangements for Crystal River units 1, 2, and 3:

Report to Gilbert Associates 33 p.

Hutton, J. T. and Leslie, T.

I.

1955.

Accession of nonnitrogen-ous ions dissolved in rainwater to soils in Victoria:

Australian Jour. Agri. Res. v.

9: p.

492-507.

Jordan H.V.C. -et.

al., 1959.

Sulfur content of rainwater and atmosphere In southern states as related in crop needs:

U. S. Dept. Agri. Tech. Bull. 1196.

I Junge, C. E.

and Gustafson, P.

E., 1957.

On the distribution of sea salt over the United States and its removal by pre-3 cipitation:

Tellers v. 9, p. 164-173.

Lahart, D.

1973.

Florida's endangered dozen:

Florida Wildlife, Feb.

Moser, B.

1972.

Forked River nuclear station.

Unit 1:

Natural draft salt water cooling tower, assessment of environmental effects:

Rutgers University.

Moss, A.

E.

1940.

Effect on trees of wind-driven salt water:

Jour. Forestry v. 38, p.

420-425.

Mulchi, C.,

and Armbrustcr, J., 1974.

Effect of salt sprays on the yield and nutrient balance of corn (Zea mays, L.)

and soybeans (Glycine max., L. ) : Paper presented at Cooling Tower Environment Symposium, Univ. Maryland.

i

Murie, O..J.

1954.

A field guide to animal tracks; Houghton j

Mifflin Company, Boston, 374 p.

Odam, E.

P.,

1971.

Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd ed., W.

B.

Saunders & Company, Philadelphia, 574 p.

Oosting, H. J. 1956.

The study of plant communities, 2nd ed.:

W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 440 p.

i Peterson, R. T.

1947.

A field guide to the birds:

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 230 p.-

i l

Phillips, E. A.

1959.

Methods of vegetation study:

Holt.

I Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 107 p.

{

68 DAMES S MOO 3tB L_ -

Pruitt, Jr., B.

C.,

ed. 1971.

Environmental surveillance'for radioactivity in the vicinity of the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant, an ecological approach:

Univ. Florida, Gaines-ville.

Robbins, S.

C.,

Bruun, B.,and Zim, H. S. 1966.

Birds of North America:

Golden Press, New York, 340 p.

Roffman, A.

1973.

The state of the art of saltwater cooling towers for steam electric generating plants.

Appendix G -

Effects of salt on the biota and water bodies:

Westing-house Electric Corp., Environmental Systems Dev., Pittsburgl.,

Pennsylvania.

Swain, R. L. 1973.

Potential effects of salt drift on vegetation:

Thesis, Rutgers University.

Swain, R.

L.,

and Moser, B., 1971.

Potential effects of salt drift on vegetation:

Unpublished manuscript Rutgers Univer-sity.

United States Department of Agriculture.

1973.

General soil map, Citrus County, Florida:

Soil Conserv. Serv., Gaines-1 ville.

United States Department of Commerce.

1973.

Local Climatological Data, Tampa, Florida:

4 p.

United States Department of the Interior.

1973.

Threatened wildlife of the United States:

Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D. C.

289 p.

Wilson, A. T. 1959.

Nature v. 184, p.

99.

69 DAMES S MOORE

.--