ML083120222

Prairie Island, License Renewal Environmental Report Additional Information, Documents Requested During NRC Environmental Review, Surface Water, Binder 2 of 3

ML083120222
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/08/2008
From:	Xcel Energy
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML083120222 (994)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:jXcelEnergy PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION U.I I Documents Requested During NRC Environmental Review Surface Water Binder 2 of 3 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant NRC Document Request List Item Number .* '* -Document Liz Wexler 63 Bodensteiner, J. 1991 64 ESWQD. 2000.65 ESWQD. 2001....66 ESWQD. 2002.67 ESWQD. 2003.68 ESWQD. 2004.69 ESWQD. 2005.71 HDR. 1978.72 NSP. 1981a.73 NSP. 1981b.74 NSP. 1983.75 Corr Binder: Letter from Matt Langan, MNDNR, Aug 10, 2007 76 Corr Binder: Letter from John Stine, MDH, April 10, 2008 77 Corr Binder: Letter from Gary Wege, USFWS, June 20, 2007 Corr Binder: Letter from Terry Birkenstock, ACE, March 11 2008. If possible, include 78 attachment (2002 Clam Chronicle.pdf) 79 Corr Binder: Email from Tom Lovejoy, WDNR, Aug 31, 2007 80 Report regarding fish kill in 2000 Letter to H. Krosch and D. Knens from W. Jensen, Chlorination of Circ Water System 82 Fish Loss Report, October 14 83 NUS Corporation. 1976.84 Stone and Webster. 1983.Xcel Energy, 2007, PINGP Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program 85 2006 Annual Report.Xcel Energy, 2008, PINGP Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program 86 2007 Annual Report.87 NPDES Filing Cooling Data (Binder 14)89 From Aquatic Review Binder: ESE. 1999.91 DMR: 5/21/98 92 DMR 6/19/98 93 DMR: 10/21/98-94 DMR: 5/21/99-95 DMR: 7/20/01 96 DMR 11/21/01 97 DMR: 8/21/03 98 DMR: 5/20/05 101 Entire 316(b) Binder (Comprehensive Demonstration Study)102 Plume Modeling of Discharge Canal Discharge Sluice Gate flow into the river Page 1 of 1 Rev. 9/8/08 SECTION 316(a) DEMONSTRATION FOR THE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR RED WING, MINNESOTA NPDES PERMIT NO. MN0004006 L. M. GROTBECK AND L. W. EBERLEY PROJECT SUPERVISORS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA AUGUST 1978 PREPARED BY HENNINGSON, DURHAM AND RICHARDSON, INC.ECOSCIENCES DIVISION 804 ANACAPA STREET SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 93101.. -r TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

A. INTRODUCTION I-1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS I-i C. PLANT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING PROCEDURE 1-5 D. THERMAL PLUME 1-6 E. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGE 1-6 F. CONCLUSIONS I-l II. INTRODUCTION A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND RATIONALE II-i B. SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION 11-2 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11-3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS A. HYDROLOGY III-1 1. River Basin Characteristics III-1 2. Characteristics of the PINGP Vicinity 111-6 3. River Morphometry near PINGP 111-12 4. Discharge Rates 111-17 B. WATER QUALITY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 111-19 1. Temperature 111-19 2. Water Quality in the Vicinity of PINGP 111-27 a. General Background Information 111-27 b. Effects of PINGP Effluent 111-27 c. Potential for Toxicity to Aquatic Biota 111-35 C. GENERAL AQUATIC BIOLOGY OF THE MISSISSIPP RIVER NEAR PINGP 111-36 1. Introduction 111-36 2. Fisheries 111-37 a. Distribution and Abundances 111-37 b. Life Histories III-51 i CONTENTS (continued)

c. Thermal Data for the RIS 111-58 d. Spawning Areas and Migrations 111-58 e. Predator-Prey Interactions for RIS 111-58 f. Diseases and Parasites 111-59 g. Influences of Man 111-59 3. Macroinvertebrates 111-64 4. Zooplankton 111-69 5. Primary Producers 111-72 a. Phytoplankton 111-72 b. Periphyton 11I-74 c. Aquatic Macrophytes 111-75 6. Birds 111-78 IV. PLANT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING PROCEDURE A. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM IV-I 1. Description IV-l 2. Modes of Operation IV-5 3. Chlorination of Plant Cooling Water iV-7 4. Other Chemicals Used IV-9.B. PLANT PERFORMANCE AND COINCIDENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IV-12 CONDITIONS

1. Plant Availability and Plant Outages IV-12 2. Past and Proposed Modes of Operation IV-14 V. THERMAL PLUME A. DESCRIPTION OF THE HYDROTHERMAL MODEL V-I 1. Hydrodynamic Model V-i 2. 2-D Thermal Plume Model V-1 3. 3-D Thermal Plume Model v-3 B. CASES STUDIED v-4 C. MODEL CALIBRATION V-5 D. COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS WITH TEMPERATURE STANDARDS V-6 VI. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGE A. Fish VI-3 1. Field Studies Description and Critique VI-3 2. Temperature Criteria Vi-7 ii

• " CONTENTS (continued)

3. Attraction to and Avoidance of the Thermal Discharge VI-10 4. Effects on Spawning and Reproductive Success VI-33 5. Cold Shock Potential VI-37 6. Effects on Fish (RIS) Populations VI-38 7. Effects on Parasites and Diseases VI-41 B. MACROINVERTEBRATES VI-42 1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods Vi-42 2. Effects of Past Operation VI-44 a. Results of Data Reanalysis VI-44 1) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test VI-44 2) Student's One-Tailed t-Test VI-44 3) Multiple Regressions VI-47 b. Discussion VI-47 3. Predicted Impacts VI-51 C. ZOOPLANKTON

1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods VI-59 2. Effects of Past Operation VI-60 a. Results of Data Reanalysis VI-60 1) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test .VI-60 2) Student's One-Tailed t-Test VI-60 3) Multiple.Regressions VI-61 b. Discussion VI-62 3. Predicted Impacts VI-63 D. PHYTOPLANKTON VI-64 1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods VI-64 2. Effects of Past Operation.

VI-64 a. Results of Data Reanalysis VI-64 1) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test VI-64 2) Multiple Regressions VI-65 b. Discussion VI- 65 3. Predicted Impacts VI- 66 E. PERIPHYTON VI- 67 9 1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods VI- 67 2. Impacts of Past Operation VI- 68 iii CONTENTS (continued)

a. Results of Data Reanalysis

b. Discussion

.3. Predicted Impacts F. AQUATIC MACROPHYTES

1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods 2. Effects of Past Operation 3. Predicted Impacts G. BIRDS VII. CONCLUSIONS VIII. REFERENCES APPENDICES VI- 68 VI- 68 Vi--69 VI-69 VI-69 VI-7 0 VI-70 VI-70 VII-1 VIII-I APPENDIX APPENDIX A: B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX E.F.G.H.I.J.,K.L.DATA CATALOG DETAILS OF NON-FISHERIES STATISTICAL ANALYSES CROSS-REFERENCE TO STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS CROSS-REFERENCE TO REGULATORY AGENCY REQUESTS GLOSSARY CONVERSION TABLES AGENCY COMMUNICATION UNPUBLISHED OR OBSCURE REFERENCE MATERIAL THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS REGULATORY AGENCIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SPECIES LISTS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

DISCHARGE ELECTRO FISHING STUDY JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES: RIVER FLOW-BLOWDOWN RATE THERMAL SURVEYS AT PINGP A-1 B-i C-1 D-i E-i F-i G-I H-i I-i J-i K-i L-1 M-i N-i APPENDIX M.APPENDIX N.iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.Page No.Figure I-1 Figure III-i Figure 111-2 Figure 111-3 Figure 111-4 Figure 111-5 Figure 111-6 Figure 111-7 Figure III-8 Figure 111-9 Figure III-10 Figure III-11 Figure 111-12 Location of the Prairie Island Nuclear 1-2 Generating Plant Location of major streams and gauging stations 111-2 Longitudinal section of the Mississippi River from Dam No. 1 to DamrNo. 4 showing the relative locations of Pool No. 3 and PINGP 111-3 Stage-discharge diagram for Pool No. 3 111-4 Schematic diagram of how water level in Pool No. 3 is controlled 111-5 Typical Mississippi Valley cross section near PINGP 111-7 Major water bodies in the vicinity of the PINGP 111-9 Sturgeon Lake channel system for the hydraulic network calculations III-10 Downstream channel system for the hydraulic network calculations III-ll Sturgeon Lake discharge at Channel 42 versus total river discharge 111-14 Bathymetry of Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River near PINGP 111-15 Average monthly and weekly Mississippi River flows at Prescott, Wisconsin based on USGS data from June 1928 through September 1976 III-18 Monthly 7-day, 10-year low flows for the Mississippi River at Prescott, Wisconsin, and the percentage of time the daily flow-rate is less than or equal to the 7-day, 10-year flows 111-20 v LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)Figure No.Page No.Figure 111-13 Figure 111-14 Figure 111-15 Figure 111-16 Figure 111-17 Figure 111-18 Figure 111-19 Figure 111-20 Figure 111-21 Figure 111-22 Figure 111-23 Figure 111-24 Location of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) temperature recording station and the locations of water quality stations where temperature is routinely monitored Weekly average river temperature at Red Wing Cumulative frequency of occurrence. of daily maximum river temperatures at RWGP Maximum, minimum, and average dissolved oxygen levels for selected stations in the vicinity of PINGP, 1973-1977 Sampling locations for water quality, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrates Sampling stations for fish in 1970 (stations 1-6 only), 1971 and.,1972 Sampling locations for fish in 1973 through 1977 Sampling stations for Sectors I through III for 1977 DNR fisheries studies Larval fish tow locations for 1974 and 1975 Mean electrofishing catch per unit effort by season for each RIS in Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River from Brewer Lake.cut to Lock and Dam No. 3 combined over the period 1974 through 1977 Spatial distribution of RIS near PINGP based onelectrofishing data for the period 1974 through 1977 Mean number of larval fish per 50 m tow at locations 1, 2, and 4 near PINGP in 1974 111-21 111-25 111-26 111-30 111-31 111-38 111-39 111-40 111-41 111-44 111-45 111-47 0-)vi LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)Figure No.Page No.Figure 111-25 Figure 111-26 Figure 111-27 Figure 111-28 Figure 111-29 Figure IV-l Figure IV-2 Figure IV-3 Figure IV-4 Figure IV-5 Figure IV-6 Figure IV-7 Figure V-i Figure VI-I Figure VI-.2 Mean larval fish densities at PINGP in 1975 based on weekly sampling at the locations shown in Figure 111-21 Estimated density of RIS larval fish drift-ing past PINGP in 1975 Spawning temperatures and times for the RIS HDR station locations for biological studies conducted near PINGP during 1969-1976 Locations of macrophyte beds observed near PINGP during 1973 through 1976 Schematic diagram of the circulating water system Representative flow diagram of the circulat-ing water system Flow diagram for 50 percent recycle mode Flow diagram for a 100 percent helper cycle mode Flow diagram for a once-through mode with a maximum withdrawal rate of 1,410 cfs Frequency of occurrence and cumulative frequency of various blowdown rates from 1975 through 1976 Frequency distributions of proposed blowdown rates and the calculated blowdown based on an intake temperature of 29.40 F Boundary conditions and the grid network used in the near-field 2-D thermal plume analysis Empirical approaches to discharge impact analysis for invertebrates and primary producers at PINGP, using site-specific background data 111-48 111-49 111-52 111-66 111-76 IV- 3 IV-4 IV-6 IV-6 IV-7 IV-15 IV-16 V-2 VI-2 HDR designated station locations for inver-tebrate, primary producer, and water quality sampling conducted near PINGP during 1973-1976 VI-4 vii LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)Figure No.Figure VI-3 Figure VI-4 Figure VI-5 Figure VI-6 Figure VI-7 Figure VI-8 Figure VI-9 Figure VI-10 Figure VI-1l Figure VI-12 Figure VI-13 Page No.The predictive approach for analyzing dis-charge impacts on invertebrates and primary producers at PINGP using thermal plume pre-dictions and non-site specific thermal tolerance data Sampling locations for the DNR discharge electrofishing study Nomograph to determine the permissible maximum weekly average temperature (MWAT) in the plume during winter for various ambient temperatures Preferred temperatures for juvenile RIS Preferred temperatures of juvenile and adult RIS during various seasons Upper and lower lethal thresholds for various life stages of the RIS Mean number of. RIS collected per month in the PINGP discharge (Runs 1 and 5) and at control stations (Runs 4 and 7) near the intake during the period April 1976 through November 1977 Regression of number of total RIS collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5) and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river temperature for the period April 1976 through November 1977 Seasonal catch per unit effort at PINGP dis-charge and control stations for dominant RIS Regression of number of carp collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5) and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river tempera-ture for the period April 1976 through November 1977 Regression of number of gizzard shad collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5) and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river tempera-ture for the period April 1976 through November 1977 VI-5 VI-6 VI-3 VI-lI VI-12 VI-14 VI-26 VI-27 VI-28 VI-30 VI-31 viii LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)Figure No.Figure VI-14 Page No.Pathways by which planktonic organisms may drift through the PINGP discharge area VI-35 ix LIST OF TABLES Table No.Table III-1 Table 111-2 Table 111-3 Table 111-4 Table 111-5 Table 111-6 Table 111-7 Table 111-8 Table 111-9 Page No.Comparison of the computed discharges in Sturgeon Lake and Channel 42 with the field measurements Summary of the mean temperature dif-ferences between ecological monitoring stations and the Red Wing Generating Plant intake Average diurnal river temperature fluctuation measured at Lock and Dam No. 3 Minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations of water quality parameters in subsurface samples collected from 21 June 1970 through 13 September 1977 Selected Water quality for the Mississippi River at Lock and Dam No. 3, 1969 to 1976 Summary of ANOVA for water quality data comparisons for two stations (HDR Stations 10 and 11) upriver and two stations (HDR Stations 25 and 27) downriver from PINGP measured at the top and bottom of the water column for 1975 and 1976 Mean values for chemical parameters measured at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant during 1975 and 1976 Species composition (percent) of the major taxa of fish collected in the vicinity of PINGP during the period 1973 through 1976.Taxa of fish parasites and types of infes-tation 111-13 111-23 111-24 111-29 111-33 III-34 111-43 II -60 X LIST OF TABLES (Con't)Table No.Page No.Table III-10 Table III-1l Table 111-12 Table 111-13 Table 111-14 Table IV-l Table IV-2 Table IV-3 Table IV-4 Table IV-5 Table IV-6 Table V-1 Table V-2 Commercial catch (pounds) of carp, buffalo, catfish, and drum in Pool Nos. 3, 4, and 4a during 1970 through 1974 Creel census data for the vicinity of PINGP in 1973 through 1976 Percent-composition of RIS in the estimated sport harvest near PINGP for 1975 and 1976 HDR key to sampling stations comparisons between studies conducted at PINGP Pollution tolerance of selected benthic macroinvertebrates collected in the vicinity of PINGP Percentage of mean monthly Mississippi River flow entering the intake canal, January through September 1975 Modes-of operation for PINGP Typical residual chlorine concentrations in the discharge water and in the cooling water Summary of liquid discharges into the circula--ting water system including effluent limitations Chemical concentrations from neutralizing tank effluents Summary of availability factors, capacity factors, and plant outages for November 1976 through October 1977 Cases where the PINGP proposed NPDES thermal criteria were exceeded Computed monthly cumulative frequency (as percent) of temperature rise at Barney's Point assuming no wind and full dilution in Channel 42 111-62 111-63 111-64 111-67 111-70 IV-2 IV-8 IV-9 IV-10 IV-ll IV-13 V-8 V-9 xi LIST OF TABLES (Con't)Table No.Page No.Table V-3 Table VI-l Table VI-2 Table VI-3 Table VI-4 Table VI-5 Table VI-6 Table VI-7 Table VI-8 Table VI-9 Table VI-10 Computed monthly cumulative frequency of occurrence (percent) for river temperatures at Barney's Point assuming no wind and full dilution in Channel 42 Temperature criteria for the RIS in Centigrade Estimated potential effects of increased* temperature on the RIS in the vicinity of PINGP Predicted area in thedischarge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for walleye Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for white bass,, Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for channel catfish Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for northern pike Predicted area in. the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for gizzard shad Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for carp Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for black crappie Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for-:emerald shiner V-10 VI-9 VI-13 VI-15 VI-16 VI-17 VI-18 VI-19 VI-20 VI-21 VI-22 xii LIST OF TABLES (Con't)Table No.Page No.Table VI-11 Table VI-12 Table VI-13 Table VI-14 Table VI-15 Table VI-16 Table VI-17 Table VI-18 Table VI-19 Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for white sucker Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions for shorthead redhorse Results of the chi-square analysis of the discharge electrofishing data for the most abundant RIS by season Short-term thermal tolerances of larval fish Power calculations for non-fisheries biolo-gical data collected near PINGP Results of two-way ANOVA for biotic categories sampled near PINGP in 1973-1977 Results of Duncan's Multiple Range Tests for biotic categories sampled near PINGP, 1973-1977 Results of one-tailed t-Tests for invertebrates collected near PINGP from 1975-1977 Results of stepwise multiple linear regressions for biotic categories sampled near PINGP in 1975 and 1976 VI-23 VI-24 VI-32 VI-36 VI-43 VI-45 vi-46 VI-48 VI-49 VI-53 VI-54 VI- 5.5 vi-56 Table VI-20 Estimated drift tines for plankton through the thermal plume at PINGP for typical and proposed extreme conditions Table VI-21 Table VI-22 Table VI-23 Thermal matrix for response of the macroinverte-brate RIS, Stenonema, to conditions near PINGP Thermal matrix for the response of the macroinver-tebrate RIS, Pseudocloeon, to conditions near PINGP Thermal matrix for response of the macroinverte-brate RIS, Hydropsyche, to conditions near PINGP xiii LIST OF TABLES (Con't)Table No. Page No.Table VI-24 Thermal matrix for response of the macroinver-tebrate RIS, Macronemum, to conditions near PINGP VI-57 xiv I EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

A. INTRODUCTION' Thermal discharges, including power plants such as PINGP, are regu-lated by state and federal laws. All dischargers to surface waters are required by the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 ("the Act,"P..L. 92-500)' to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from an authorized agency. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been designated as lead agency to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and administers the law using the Act and MPCA Regulation WPC 36(u) (3).For this 316(a) demonstration, a predictive Type 2 approach was selected for assessing future impacts of the PINGP thermal discharge upon indigenous biota. This involves selection of representative impor-tant species (RIS), including fish and invertebrates, and relies primarily on literature data for thermal tolerances and on thermal plume models to estimate potential impacts. Appropriate site-specific data were utilized to supplement the predictive approach.B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS PINGP is located on the west. bank of the Mississippi River approxi-mately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) upriver from Lock and Dam No. 3 (Figure I-1). The plant intake and discharge areas are separated from the main river channel by a series of small islands that delineate the outlet channels of Sturgeon Lake, a backwater lake connected to the river by numerous small channels.The river is 300 t6 370 m (1,000 to 1,200 ft) wide near PINGP, and the banks of the main channel slope fairly steeply to the bottom. The Sturgeon Lake outlet area is quite shallow, and consequently, the intake and discharge areas have been dredged to a depth of about 3.1 m (10 ft). The thermal effluent flows approximately 610 m (2,000 ft) before entering the main channel of the river at Barney's Point.River flows are regulated to maintain a minimum pool level for navi-gation during ice-free months (usually mid-March to early December). The annual average discharge rate at Prescott, Wisconsin, was 16,200 cfs for the period 1928 to 1976. River flows have seasonal fluctuations with a peak in April (weekly average of 44,000 cfs) and a low in December (weekly average of 7,000 cfs). The maximum rate recorded was 228,000 cfs on 18 April 1965, and the minimum was 2,100 cfs on 14 August 1936. River I-1 ~9Ofl3-'0 5 10 15 20 SCALE (MILES .Figure I-1. Location of the Prairie Island.Nuclear.Generating Plant.I- 2 U wY~ ~The Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) upriver from Lock and Dam No. 3. Heated effluent is discharged into the southern end of Sturgeon Lake, which is separated from the main river channel by a series of small islands, and enters the river at Barney's Point.temperatures also have seasonal, variations with a low of OO C (320 F)- in winter when the river freezes over and a high of 290 C (850 F) in sum'mer.ýIntake temperature data from Northern States Power Company's Red Wing Gen-.ýerating Plant (RWGP) located 15 km (9.4 mi) downriver from PINGP were used to represent PINGP "ambient river temperatures since long-term data were not available near the plant. Daily temperature fluctuations are low in the river [1.10* C (20 F)] but may be fairly high in backwater areas. , In Sturgeon Lake, the average fluctuation was 20 to 3' C (3.50 to 5.41 F) with a maximum of 9.70 C (17.50 F) during ice-free months of 1974 through 1977.Extensive water quality analyses have been conducted by NSP .in the vicinity of PINGP since 1969 in addition to the U.S.G.S. measurements conducted at Lock and Dam No. 3 since 1969. Although dissolved oxygen'(DO) levels never reach critically low levels, the high nutrient concen-trations reflect the upriver discharge of domestic wastewater into the Mississippi River from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Sewage Treat-ment Plant. The Minnesota River also influences water quality in the 1-3 vicinity of PINGP through addition of suspended sediments, dissolved W solids, and other agriculturally related runoff. Elevated levels of po-tential toxicants such as ammonia, lead, mercury, and especially cyanide have been observed periodically at Lock and Dam No. 3, indicating that some biota may be pre-stressed before encountering the PINGP thermal plume.No significant non-thermal changes in water quality have been attributed to the operation of PINGP.The Mississippi River near PINGP comprises numerous habitat typeS, thus creating a complex ecosystem ..river is fairly eutrophic

,near PINGP as a result of runoff from agriculture and wastewater discharges from the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant. Biota in all trophic levels have been sampled in the vicinity .of 6 PINGP since 1969, and fr6m 'this information a list of represen.tative important species (RIS) was ,selected for assessing impacts in 'this demonstration. "The fish walleye, white bass, channel daatfish, northern pikeb ,'black,,-crappie,:

gizzardd shad;' -carp,. emerald 'sh-ner 'whifte-,sucker, h~rhead iOt"e.The mAcroinvertebrate§ chosen were -yrpsc , oea se -odi n Sacronemi~m. 1973 t.through 01.976 has ,indicated hat'gizzard: shad, white bass, freshwater drum, 'and carp dominated the::adult. ancJi vnil fish-populations near ,PINGP from[late may. through October. -Abundancis~' varied.both seasonally and annually Ifor the dominant speci~es,.'LLara!' fish were present in the water: column during spring and summer with peak iidensi-ties occ urring in July of 1974 and June of 1975. The most abundant 'species were white bass, emerald shiners, carp, and gizzard 'shad. Life histories,,, thermal tolerances!, migrations and spawning areas, predator-prey inter-actions, and diseases and parasites were included in the discussion:for the RIS.Both commercial and recreationalo.fishing occur in. ... f.: carp dre. -~ ~i~p~ the, Mqok yluable omel sc A, -~b5j a1 c p. ufQ: t. to -Pr J. -3 increased from 1970 throi'ghw. 1 1'i iie declining in Pool Nos. 4 and 4af4 Based. on creel census informa-i tion from 1973 through 1976, recreational: fishing pressure has remained lower in theoývicinity of PINGP than in the tailwaters of .Dam No. 3;however, fishing success was higher above the Dam.'-.' Walleye and bass were the RIS~most frequently caught near PINGP, while white bass dominated the catch in the PINGP discharge area during spring.A high diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate, zooplankton, and primary producer populations exists near PINGP. Marked seasonal variations in organism abundance were common in all groups. Many of the macroinverte-brates are larval stages of terrestrial and aquatic insects that emerge from the water during summer, while various taxa of phytoplankton and zoo-plankton bloom at intervals in response to changing levels of nutrients or food organisms and temperature. Aquatic macrophytes are present in many shallow backwater areas, but few occur in the PINGP discharge canal or the main channel of the river. Life histories and thermal tolerance informa-tion for all biotic categories except macrophytes are also discussed. I-4 Northern bald eagles and various waterfowl migrate through the Mississippi River Valley in spring and fall with some overwintering in areas of open water. The PINGP area does not appear to0be an important eagle overwintering area although the discharge may enhance the number of mallards overwintering. Peregrine falcons, an endangered species, are being reintroduced in former nesting areas along Lake.Pepin approxi-mately 48 to 80 km (30 to 50 mi) downriver from PINGP.C. PLANT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING PROCEDURE The PINGP circulating water system may be operated in four basic modes: closed, partial recycle, helper, or open cycle. Closed cycle is normally used during the cooler parts of the year, and blowdown is held at approximately 150 cfs. When the temperature of the mixed, makeup and recycled water reaches 29..40 C (850 F) at the condenser, partial recycle is begun and increased as hecessary to maintain the condenser inlet tem-perature at or below 29.40 C. In this mode, cooling towers are still used, but the blowdown and makeup water flows are increased. Helper cycle (no recycle) and open cycle operation are optional modes that have not been used in the past but could be used if needed.The circulating water syste% is not chlorinated since the condenser tubes are cleaned mechanically (Amertap method). The cooling watwr system, however, is chlorinated to prevent biofouling of heat exchanger surfaces, and this water is discharged to the circulating water system.The volume of the cooling water is only 4 percent of the circulatiM water volume, and chlorine may be lost to the atmosphere in the recycle canal. Measurements of total residual chlorine at the discharge gates have shown the concentration to be less than 0.03 pp#i.PINGP is a base load facility and each of the two units is rated at 507 MWe in summer and 523 MWe in winter. Refueling of one unit occurs during winter while refueling of the other is usually in early spring.These refueling periods are generally 4 to 6 weeks long. Based on past operation, the probability of a forced trip (outage) occurring while the other unit is being refueled is 0.55, and the probability of simultaneous forced trips is 0.00035.Operating modes should remain similar to those utilized in the past.During summer, however, full helper cycle is proposed from 16 June through 31 August to increase the efficiency of the plant. This would cause the temperature differential between ambient river water and blow-down to decrease, thus decreasing the maximum temperatures in the plume.during summer.I-5 D. THERMAL PLUME The thermal plume was modeled for various typical and extreme environmental conditions for each month of the year (61 cases total).A two-dimensional model was utilized for the near-field-area abounded by the intake approach channel on the north, the river bank on the west, the islands on the east, and the entrance to the main river channt at Barney's Point on the south-. For the main channel of the river from Barney's Point to Lock and Dam No. 3, a three-dimensional model (3-D)was utilized. The model descriptions and results are presented in Appendix 1, including plots of surface isotherms for representative conditions. Historic typical and extreme cases were based on 1975 and 1976 operational and environmental information, while proposed extreme cases were a combination of 7-day, 10-year low river flow, high river ambient temperature, a maximum blowdown rate, a southerly wind, and a high wet bulb temperature which would result in poor cooling tower per-formance. The models were calibrated with data from the September 1974 and August-1975 field thermal surveys.The thermal plume model results were compared with the proposed NPDES permit for PINGP, and 13 of 61 cases exceeded the proposed thermal limits.All but two of the cases that exceeded were for typical environment con-ditions in late fall and winter (October through March). These two cases, which were for proposed extreme conditions; exceeded the 300 C (860ý F)maximum temperature criterion at Barney's Point by less than 10 C (1.80 F). One case was in July and the other in August. The proposed, extreme cases, however, are one day events that occur with a proba1ility of 0.000005 (l hour every 278 years) per month. The criterion exceeded in the other 11 cases was the 2.80 C (50 F) AT limit at Barney's Point (edge of the mixing zone).For future operation during typical environmental conditions of river flow, ambient river temperature, and blowdown rate, a variance to the proposed NPDES'permit will be necessary to meet the thermal criteri4 without derating the plant.. An extension of the mixing zone boundary 488 m (1,600 ft) downriver for October through March would be sufficient to maintain compliance with the proposed NPDES permit.E. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGE q To predict the potential biological impacts of operating PINGP., both literature and field data were used along with the thermal plume model results. For fish, the predicti've approach based on literature infor-mation and model results was emphasized with some supportive use of field data. For invertebrates and primary producers, however, an exten-sive reanalysis of the existing field data was performed since literature information was limited.1-6 Based on preferred temperatures reported in the literature, all of the fish RIS would prefer to reside in some portion of the PINGP thermal plume when ambient water temperatures are low, and some species should avoid at least the warmer areas within the plume during summer. These predictions have been confirmed by field studies which indicated that white bass, carp, emerald shiner, walleye, and gizzard shad were definitely attracted to the discharge during winter and/or spring. Shorthead red-horse, white bass, carp, and gizzard shad showed a distinct avoidance of the warmest discharge areas during summer. Upper lethal temperatures were used to estimate the potential areas of exclusion for long-term use by adults during typical summer conditions. These areas were calcu-lated to be less than 4.4 ha (10.9 A) for all of the RIS fish and would occur only in July and August.... !

• i* % 'II The PINGP thermal discharge attracts fish during most of the year, although some species avoid the warmest portion of the-plume in summer. Impacts to the representative important species (RIS) of fish and.macroinvertebrates, however, are predicted to be minimal.1-7 The thermal discharge could induce premature spawning in fish which W7 reside in the plume during,spring.

Field studies have shown that carp, walleye, gizzard shad, and emerald shiner are the dominant species in the discharge area during spring; however, no premature spawning has, been observed during the field surveys. The warmest areas of the plume may preclude successful spawning in a small area, either by exclusion of adults or through thermal stress to embryos. The maximum area of poten-tial exclusion for typical environmental conditions is small [17 ha (42 A)for northern pike and less than 9 ha (22 A) for the other RIS], particu-larly when compared to the area of Sturgeon Lake [324 ha (800 A)] which has an abundance of suitable spawning habitat for most of the RIS. Further-more, the estimated exclusion areas may include little or no suitable spawning habitat for some species, and the maximum area of exclusion for each species occurs during only a portion of the spawning period. Thus, the potential for impact would be considerably less than that estimated from exclusion area alone. Larval fish drifting f-om Sturgeon Lake through the discharge area will be subjected to elevated temperatures, but literature data for larval thermal tolerances do not indicate that stress would occur at PINGP.Although the PINGP thermal discharge can affect various RIS life functions in the discharge area, no measurable effects are expected to occur in the fish populations of Pool No. 3. Potential premature spawning of carp and gizzard shad should have negligible effects since only a small poportion of their populations are calculated to be present in the discharge during spring. For walleye and emerald shiner, early spawning is also predicted to have minimal effects on river populations since it is unlikely that all of those in the discharge would spawn early, and even if they did, it is unlikely that all such spawning would be unsuccessful. Exclusion of adults.from potentialspawning, areas in the shoud hve negligible effects on 'riv~ o immediate d ischarge ge area shouild .have nevgb e e fee ? i r 'popu ýý11-1 lations.since many ,other suitable. spawning areas iae' present,-nearby-;.'.(e.g., Sturgeon and North lakes)..The potential for cold shock exists at PINGP during winter, from *..either of. bo"h' units or an unscheduled.trip while the other unit is down.:-FiShare 'attracte to the themalplume -in winter,. tempera-tures ý'e>cceedih4,' the-ia'Zrec6m~mendý!d. ma~ximum-weekly~averiage temperature.- for-cold shock protectiorf'! exist !n-ahen p and th probability of aiforced trip occurringý during refueling..of the other unit --is 0. 55 The thermal plumi is smaller, however, during one unit operation. The species most likely to be affected is gizzard shad since it is the dominant species present in win-ter and one of the most sensitive to cold shock. Potential mortality to gizzard shad is not expected to decrease river populations, however. This prolific species normally has large-winter die-offs as~ambient water tem-peratures approach 0' C (320 F), and the discharge and recycle canals may provide a temporary thermal refuge which would only delay. such natural die-offs.The PINGP discharge is not expected to affect any endangered species of fish nor inhibit any fish migrations. Predator-prey interactions I-8 as well as parasitism and diseases are likewise predicted to be negligibly affected.ý Fish population structure should not be changed although such Changes are very difficult to measure and are generally indistinguish-able from other influences, both natural and man-induced. Sport fishing has not been in the past and should not be degraded as a result of the PINGP thermal discharge. Fishing success in recent years has been higher above Lock and Dam No. 3 than in the tailwaters of the Dam, although the fishing pressure and harvest have been lower. In the immediate discharge area, fishing success should be enhanced during all but the warmest periods in sUiMier. 'Fishing pressure has been observed to be higher in the discharge during spring which indicates that some fishermen were taking advantage of the higher fish densities in the plume, and the catch at that time was primarily white bass.Site-specific invertebrate and primary producer field data were reanalyzed primarily for the operational years of 1975 and 1976. Data for phytoplankton from 1973 and from the first 6 months of 1977 for macro-invertebrates were also utilized. Between station and between date sample variability were computed by ANOVA, Duncan's Multiple Range Test, and the Student t-Test. Power calculations were also used to establish the likeli-hood that actual differences between samples would be detected as signifi-cant by the above tests. In addition to the sample variance testing, multiple regressions were conducted in order to determine whether or not temperature was highly related to abundances of biota on a spatial basis (i.e., between intake and discharge stations). From these reanalyses, impacts appear to be minimal or non-existent in most biotic categories 'The following characteristics of biotic cats-gories were found nqo to differ significantly between intake 'nd dischargei stations: phytoplankton species diversity or biovolume; periphyton density, species diversity, and phaeophytin a content; zooplankton species diversity and density; and-macroinvertebrate (dredge and artificial substrate) density. The power 6f these statistical tests, however, is limited by the inability to discern differences between station values as a result of the low number of replicate samples taken at each station The following characteristics' of biotic categories were found to differ significantly between intake and discharge stations: phytoplankton primary productivity, periphyton chlorophyll a, and macroinvertebrate species diversity for dredge samples. The significant differences in phytoplankton chlorophyll a between intake and discharge samples probably resulted from plant entrainment damage, while the significant differences between intake and discharge for dredge macroinvertebrate species diversity could have resulted from differences in substrate and current rather than, or in addition to, thermal effects. A study of aquatic insect emergence rates showed that only the mayfly, Caenis, may have emerged slightly earlier from heated water stations than from ambient temperature stations.All other aquatic macroinvertebrates including one RIS (Hydropsyche) 1-9 emerged at approximately equal rates and times from both heated and control W stations. Variations in the distribution of aquatic macrophytes between years in the discharge canal have not been definitely related to the thermal plume, but appear to be more dependent upon fluctuations in water level, siltation, and currents.Multiple regressions showed that although temperature was selected as the parameter most highly related (R 2 = 0.35) to zooplankton density (and its subgroups, rotifers and crustaceans),on an annual. basis, seasonal relationships were low (R 2 = 0.06). This indicates that annual variation (between intake and discharge) was negligible. Temperature was not significantly related to phytoplankton or macroinvertebrate ..(both dredge and artificial substrate samples) densities. Periphyton was not tested for significant correlations with~water temperature because of insufficient coincidental water quality data.Predictive impacts for non-fisheries biota were determined by comparing the most relevant thermal bioassay information with the thermal plume model results for typical and proposed extreme environmental conditions. Four RIS macroinvertebrates. were selected (Hydropsyche, Macronemum, Pseudocloeon, and Stenonema), all of which are aquatic insect larvae. Thermal tolerances for selected zooplankton, phytoplankton, and periphyton were also compared.with thermal plume configurations for indications of potential drift mortality or exclusionary areas.From this predictive analysis of comparing organism thermal tolerances, with plume configurations, the following results were found: no drift mortalities are expected for phytoplankton, .,zooplankton, or. macroinver-tebrates.. Most habitats. in the discharge canal that ,are otherwise,. suitable for aquatic macroinvertebrates will not be rendered unsuitable as a result of high temperatures, except for small portions during proposed extreme environmental conditions. For instance, the area in the discharge canal equivalent to. approximately one to six percent of Lake may be avoided by two macroinvertebrate RIS (Hydropsyche and Macro-nemum) .This does not mean, however, that these two taxa will be killed or even excluded from the discharge areas during extreme conditions, but that they will be less common at higher temperaturesr in the discharge area than in control areas. Site-specific information for these two species during the unusually warm, low flow year of 1976 indicated,. however, that they did not avoid the discharge canal.Based on literature data, a two-week acceleration of the, emergence schedules for most aquatic macroinvertebrates is predicted for, the entire area of.the discharge canal (equivalent to about 5.7 percent of Sturgeon Lake). These predictions, however, are not supported by site-specific study results conducted in 1974 (except possibly for Caenis) .In an.area comparable to. less than 0.5 percent of Sturgeon Lake, a five-month acceleration of emergence schedules is predicted, although this has not been observed in the past to occur in.the PINGP discharge canal. Other I-10 predictions indicate that warmer water areas of the discharge canal may favor more thermally tolerant taxa,.but this area would be insignificant compared to the area of Sturgeon Lake. The thermal plume should not favor the encroachment or proliferation of nuisance organisms, such as blue-green algae; blooms of these phytoplankton have occurred seasonally long before PINGP became operational. Moreover, no federally protected flora or fauna will be impacted by the thermal discharge. The operation of past and proposed discharge modes at PINGP, there-fore, have not and should not inhibit the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous invertebrate and primary producer biota. The discharge plume will cause neither appreciable harm nor adverse levels of impact to non-fisheries biota. No drifting forms are expected to or have been observed to be damaged by passage through the plume. Even during extreme environmental conditions, the maximum area of avoidance as a result of heated water for certain RIS macroinvertebrates is small in relation to the total area available in the adjacent backwater habitat of Sturgeon Lake. Moreover, emergence schedules of aquatic macroinver-tebrates are expected to be altered only slightly by the heated plume and only negligible losses are expected as a result of premature emergence. Finally, the occurrence and distribution of aquatic macrophytes near PINGP appears to be more influenced by fluctuations in water level, sedimentation, and current conditions than by temperature. Any losses of aquatic macrophytes that may result from the thermal discharge is small in comparison to the total distribution of macrophytes in Sturgeon Lake, as suitable habitat for these plants in the discharge canal is extremely limited.F. CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that the thermal discharge resulting from past operation of PINGP has not caused appreciable harm to any aquatic biota, and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous biota has been maintained. During future operation in pastor proposed modes, impacts are expected to remain similar to those in the past.1-11 II INTRODUCTION A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND RATIONALE The operation of all power plants in Minnesota is regulated by state and federal laws. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-ments of 1972 ("The Act" P.L. 92-500) require that municipalities and industries discharging into surface waters obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from an authorized agency.If the discharger can demonstrate that the required limitations are more stringent than necessary to assure the propagation of a balanced indi-genous population within the water body receiving the discharge, then alternative effluent limitations may be in order.Discharges from power plants in Minnesota fall primarily under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Pollution Contkol Agency (MPCA) which has been designated as lead environmental regulatory agency for this state by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MPCA administers the' law using both the Act and MPCA Regulation WPC 36(u)(3). The Minnesota guide for 316(a) demonstrations (MPCA, 1975) will be used as the primary source of information for developing this demonstration. The Interagency 316(a)Technical Guidance Manual (EPA, 1977) provides valuable ancillary infor-mation to the Minnesota Guide but will be considered tentative in view of its draft status and Edison Electric Institute and Utilities Water Act Group (1977) comments.After conferring with MPCA and EPA personnel, a Type 2 demonstration was selected for assessing the impact of the PINGP discharge upon indigenous biota. This type of demonstration involves selection of Representative Important Species (RIS) for discussion of potential thermal impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. At PINGP, these include several fish and macro-invertebrate taxa. Other trophic levels including primary producers and zooplankton are considered also because of their potentially high biological value to the aquatic ecosystem near.PINGP, but no RIS were selected. The predictive Type 2 demonstration relies primarily upon literature data for thermal tolerances of the RIS and other biota and modeling of the thermal plume in the receiving waters. In addition, some site-specific information will be utilized in this demonstration to supplement the predictions of whether or not the RIS and other biota are protected. II-I B. SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION The requirements for this demonstration have been outlined by the MPCA and the EPA as discussed above. The demonstration begins with a description of the environmental characteristics of the aquatic habitat near PINGP. These characteristics include hydrology, water quality, and general aquatic biology of the Mississippi River and its associated backwater habitats. Life history descriptions and habitat preferences of 10 fish RIS (black crappie, walleye, channel catfish, carp, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, white sucker, shorthead redhorse, white bass,ý and northern pike) are provided as well as four macroinvertebrate RIS (two caddisflies., Hydropsyche and Macronemum; and two mayflies, Stenonema and Pseudocloeon) .In addition, thermal tolerance data are summarized for RIS and other selected taxa from all trophic levels.A description of the plant and its operating procedures follows the discussion of existing environmental characteristics. The circulating water system and its modes of operation are described along with a summary of chlorination procedures and other chemicals used.. Next,"plant performance is discussed in relation to coincidental environmental conditions such as river temperature and flow. The occurrence of plant outages and potential recirculation of discharge water are then presented. Following the plant description is a section on the,-past and predicted characteristics of the thermal plume. Results of thermal surveys-from, 1974 through 1976 will be presented and discussed as~well as results of I the near-,and far-field plume models for various typical and .extreme.conditions. Finally, the observed and the predicted-plume will be compared with state temperature standards and the NPDES permit limitations.- Biological impacts of the thermal~discharge arediscussed in the next section. Predicted impacts to the RIS are analyzed in order to assess whether or not the propagation of these species is protected in spite of the PINGP discharge. In addition, biota for which no RIS were selected are also considered with respect to impacts of the thermal discharge. These biota include zooplankton, primary producers .(phytdplankton, periphyton, and. aquatic macrophytes), and:other biota (waterfowl and eagles).Finally, the conclusions of-the impact analyses including a discussion of whether appreciable harm or an adverse level of impact has or will occur are addressed. A complete list of all literature cited is provided.as well as a number of appendices. These include:. Appendix A.--Data:Catalog; Appendix B. -Details of Non-fisheries Statistical Analyses; Appendix C.-Cross-Reference to State and Federal Regulations; Appendix D.--Cross-Reference to Regulatory Agency Requests; Appendix E.-Glossary; Appendix F.--Conversion Tables (Metric to English); Appendix G.--Agency Communication (Federal, State, and Local); Appendix H.--Unpublished or Obscure Reference Material; Appendix I.-11-2 Thermal Discharge Analysis; Appendix J.-Regulatory Agencies Questions and Answers; Appendix K.--Species Lists; Appendix L.--Statistical Analysis: Discharge Electrofishing Study; Appendix M.--Joint Frequency Tables: River Flow-Blowdown Rate; Appendix N.--Thermal Surveys at PINGP.C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of NSP personnel have been instrumental in providing the voluminous information required to compile this 316(a) demonstration. The efforts and guidance of Mr. Larry Grotbeck, Mr. Richard McGinnis, and Mr. Lee Eberley are greatly appreciated. Also providing helpful information regarding plant operation, history, and design were Mr. Alex Simich, Mr. Don Brown, and numerous others at NSP. Drs. George Yeh and Y. Y. Shen of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation compiled the predictive modeling for the thermal plume and assisted in the develop-ment of the demonstration since its inception. Dr. J. S. Rao of the Mathematics Department at the University of California at Santa Barbara assisted in statistical analysis, and Dr. Charles Hanson of the University of California at Davis provided valuable comments in reviewing the manuscript. Mr. Larry Olson of the MPCA in addition to Mr. Gary Milburn and Mr. Vacys Saulys of EPA Region V in Chicago provided guidance and assistance in developing the demonstration outline and selecting the RIS.At the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Howard Krosch, Mr. Joe Geis, and Mr. Scott Gustafson generously provided data at our request and continually responded to our information queries. Various personnel from the Corps of Engineers Office in St Paul provided valuable input into the data collection process regarding river flows, operation of the lock and dam system, and barge traffic. Dr. McConville of St. Mary's College expressed interest in the demonstration, and recommended a number of unpublished theses and published articles that were useful in interpreting many of the field survey data results. Drs. Kathleen and Alan Baker of the University of New Hampshire supplemented information provided in the annual reports regarding primary producers, such as phyto-plankton and periphyton. Personnel at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Minneapolis and Dr. Harrison Tordoff at the Bell Museum of Natural History relayed information concerning waterfowl and eagles near PINGP, and personnel from the Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant in St Paul provided effluent water quality summaries defining nutrient and toxicant loads that may impact biota in the vicinity of PINGP.11-3 III ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS A. HYDROLOGY 1. River Basin Characteristics. The principal surface waters in the vicinity of the site are the Mississippi, Cannon, St. Croix, and Vermillion rivers, as well as several connected river lakes such as Sturgeon and North lakes. Water levels in the Mississippi River.and Sturgeon Lake are con-trolled by Lock and Dam No. 3 which is located approximately 2.4 km (i.5 mi)downstream from the site. The Vermillion and Cannon rivers enter the main stream of the Mississippi below the dam, while the St. Croix River joins the Mississippi River channel about 20.8 km (13 mi) above the plant site.The location of these streams are shown in Figure III-1. The USGS gauging station closest to PINGP is at Prescott (14 river miles upstream), and water quality is measured at Lock and Dam Nos. 2 and 3.The stretch from Lock and Dam No. 3 (796.7 river miles above the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers) to Lock and Dam No. 2 near Prescott is called Pool No. 3 of the Upper Mississippi River navi-gation system. This includes the portion of the St. Croix River extending upriver to Stillwater. Normal pool elevation is 674.5 ft above mean sea level (1929 Datum). At normal level, Pool No. 3 (excluding the St. Croix)covers approximatel' 7,264 ha (17,950 acres), and the total drainage area of the river at Lock and Dam No. 3 is 120,700 km 2 (46,600 mi 2) including 19,814 km 2 (7,650 mi 2) contributed by the St. Croix River. A schematic longitudinal section diagram from Lock and Dam No. 1 to No. 4 is shown in Figure 111-2.The primary control point (Corps of Engineers, .1974) for Pool No. 3 water level is situated at Prescott and is called Control Point No. 3.At low river flows 14,000 cfs), a constant pool elevation of 674.5 ft msl (Corps of Engineers uses 1912 Datum adjustment of 675 ft msl) is maintained at Prescott by controlling headwater and discharge from Dam No. 3. At 14,000 cfs, the headwater elevation would be 673.5 ft msl which is the maximum allowable drawdown for the pool (see Figures 111-3 and 111-4).The operating curve for discharges of less than 14,000 cfs (Stefan and Anderson, 1977) is described as: h = 674.5 -5.1 x 10-9 Q 2.0 for 0 < < 14,000 cfs, where h is the headwater elevation (ft msl) measured at Dam No. 3 and Q is the discharge at Dam No. 3.III-I 0 5 10 15 20 SCALE (MILES)Figure III-1. Location of major streams and gauging stations.111-2 a)N U-z 0 w-J UJ w oI H H H IA 547P-35 RIVER MILES ABOVE OHIO RIVER Figure 111-2.Longitudinal section of the Mississippi River from Dam No. 1 to Dam No'. 4 showing the relative locations of Pool No. 3 and PINGP (adapted from AEC, 1973).W I 685 D I--w CN I-LU LU I.-LM 0 ca.4 z 0 4 LL-J LU 683 681 679 677 H--H H*p.*675 673 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 RIVER DISCHARGE (1,000 cfs)547P-30 Figure 111-3.Stage-discharge diagram for Pool No. 3 (adapted from Corps of Engineers, 1974). (A) POOL IN PRIMARY CONTROL (constant elevation at Prescott): Flow 0 to 14,000 cfs TAILWATER L/D No. 2.."- CONTROL T. No.3673.5' (max. allowable drawdown)S PRESCOTT PINGP -.. TAILWATER L/D No. 3 DAM No. 2 DAM No. 3 (B) POOL IN SECONDARY CONTROL (constant elevation at headwater L/D No. 3): Flow 14,000 to 36,000 cfs* / 680.3'/.678.5'67 .' 674.5'67473.5'CONTROL PT. No. 3 PINGP (C) DAM No. 3 ROLLER GATES OUT OF WATER (open river, water surface rising at all points): Flow > 36,000 cfs NOTE: 7 INDICATES WATER LEVEL.'547P.29-2 Figure 111-4. Schematic diagram of how water level in Pool No. 3 is controlled. 111-5 After the headwater elevation reaches 673.5 ft msl, the discharge con-trol is shifted to the secondary control which requires that the headwater at Dam No. 3 be kept the same until the discharge reaches 36,000 cfs or h = 673.5 for 14,000 < Q < 36,000 cfs.During secondary control, the discharge is calibrated against the water surface elevation measured at Control Point No. 3 (Figure 111-3). At this control stage, the headwater at Dam No. 3 would be kept constant while the Control Point No. 3 elevation is allowed to rise due to the inflow from Dam No. 2 and the St. Croix River (Figure 111-4).After the river discharge reaches 36,000 cfs, all the roller gates at Dam No. 3 are raised to the maximum height (above the water surface), and the dam no longer regulates the flow of the river (i.e., the open river condition prevails). The empirical head discharge equation for this con-dition is described as (Stefan and Anderson, 1977): h = 673.5 + 2.5 x 10-9 (Q- 36,000)0-77 for Q > 36,000 cfs.When the river flow decreases, the gates at Dam No. 3 are returned to the water and secondary control is in effect until the stage at Control Point No. 3 is reduced to 674.5 ft msl, at a discharge of 14,000 cfs. If discharge continues to drop, primary control would then take place to hold the pool level constant (674.5 ft msl) at Control Point No. 3 and to allow the headwater at Dam No. 2 to rise while that at Dam No. 3 decreases to 673.5 ft. According to the discharge records at Prescott over the past 49 years, the river is in primary control about 70 percent of the time.The river is in secondary control approximately 20 percent of the time and the open river condition prevails for 10 percent of the time.A 2.7 m (9 ft) deep navigation channel is maintained by the Corps of Engineers between Minneapolis and the mouth of the Missouri River to facilitate transport Of commodities by barge. In 1976, 6,050 lockages were recorded for Lock No. 3 of which 2,377 were commercial (Corps of Engineers, 1977). On the St. Croix River, a 2.7 m (9 ft) channel extends from the confluence with the Mississippi River to Stillwater, Minnesota.

2. Characteristics of the PINGP Vicinity.

The PINGP site is a lowland terrace associated with the Mississippi River floodplain. The site is separated from the other lowlands by the Vermillion River and various small lakes on the west and the south, and by the Mississippi River and North and Sturgeon Lakes on the east and north. The topography is almost flat except for the low bluffs to the north. The hummocky nature of the terrain and the sandy soils on the site results in little significant surface drainage.In the immediate vicinity of the plant site, the surface elevation ranges from 206 to 215 m (675 to 706 ft) above mean sea level. A typical.cross section of the floodplain is shown in Figure 111-5. The normal elevation of 111-6 CROSS SECTION DISTANCE (METERS)0 1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 .5,000 720 219.5 S,-o 710 216.5 M (N oN 700 213.4 I Lu I-" wLUj RAILROAD IOA-.690 212.4 U H E H LI. *I > CATFISH SLOUGH MARSH >* .. O O o 600 V E R M IL L IO N ] 7 .3 Q j SLOUGH z Z r. _0 670 204.3...I ILl U.J LU 660 201.2 6501-- I I II I I I , I I I 1 I I I I I 198.2 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7.000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 CROSS SECTION DISTANCE (FEET) 547P-32 Figure 111-5. Typical Mississippi Valley cross section near PINGP (AEC, 1973). Pool No. 3 (at Prescott) is 674.5 ft msl, and the maximum recorded' flood level at Prescott was 692.61 ft msl on 18 April 1965. Due to the high permeability of the sandy alluvial soils underlying Prairie Island, the groundwater table is shallow and responds quickly to changes in river stage. The groundwater level almost coincides with the river surface, ranging from 673 to 674 ft. The general regional groundwater flow is from the higher, partially glaciated bedrock-areas toward the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Since Pool No. 3 is elevated by Lock and Dam No. 3, the pool surface is usually higher than the Vermillion River and its backwater lakes, which enter downstream of Lock and Dam No. 3.Consequently, the groundwater table at Prairie Island slopes south-westward to charge the Vermillion River.In Pool No. 3, there are two major backwater lakes connected to the river by numerous small channels and river runs. These two lakes are North Lake and Sturgeon Lake (Figure 111-6).Sturgeon Lake, from which almost all the plant intake water is withdrawn, is one of the largest backwater lakes in the area. Water in the lake comes primarily from the Mississippi River through numerous coulees and reaches and through channels from North Lake. A small amount of the inflow is through groundwater seepage; however, .this is believed to be insignificant, compared to surface inflows (Stefan and Anderson, 1977). The depth of Sturgeon Lake varies from 1.2 to 4.6 m (4 to 15 ft). Like many other backwater lakes in the area, it is probably the result of Pleistocene glaciation. The hydraulics of North Lake, Sturgeon Lake, and the Mississippi River near PINGP has been studied by Stefan and Anderson (1977).., They divided the river/lake region into two network systems: Sturgeon Lake. and the downstream area (see Figures 111-7 and 111-8). The Sturgeon Lake system consists of Sturgeon, North, and Brewer lakes; six river sections in the Mississippi River; and 13 river runs between the three lakes and the river. The down-stream system consists of a section of the Mississippi River near PINGP;plant intake and discharge channels, and channels among the small islands in lower Sturgeon Lake.The hydraulic networks were analyzed b'y applying the laws of conser-vations of mass and energy. Conservation of mass requires that the sum of all flows into and out of a channel junction be zero; however, this does not include water loss or exchange through seepage, evaporation, or evapotranspiration. Sturgeon Lake and North Lake were not treated as channels since the velocity in them is too low as a result of their large cross-sectional areas. Conservation of energy requires that the total head losses in parallel channels be the same and head losses in channels in series be additive. Head losses are from channel bed shear stresses and from wind shear stresses on the water surface. Twelve continuity equations (conservation of mass) and nine energy equations (conservation of energy) are necessary to compute the flow rates for the 21 channels specified in Figure 111-7. The details of the mathematical model can be found in Stefan and Anderson's report. The solution of this set of 111-8 ..LOC K &...-,DAM NO.54 Figure 111-6. Major water bodies in the vicinity of the PINGP.9 7P-1-1 111-9 547P-31 Figure 111-7. Sturgeon Lake channel system for the hydraulic network calculations (from Stefan and Anderson, 1977).III-10 547P-i8 Figure III-8.Downstream channel system for the hydraulic network calculations (from Stefan and Anderson, 1977).III-Il equations serves as the input to the downstream channel system analysis.For every river discharge and wind velocity, the outflows from Channel 1 and Sturgeon Lake are used as inflows for the downstream channel system, i.e., in Channels 34, 36, and 1.Similar sets of continuity equations and energy equations are con-structed for the 22 channels in the downstream channel system. The com-puted flow rates for Channels 36, 26, 27,28, 30, and 42 are in turn used for the thermal plume analysis described in Section V.The results of the computation of the downstream channel system were calibrated against limited field measurements conducted by the U.S. Geo-logical Survey and J. Gorman, Inc., of Minneapolis, and the results are presented in Table III-1 for Sturgeon Lake and Channel 42. As shown by, the data, the predicted flow rate in Sturgeon Lake fell within 5 percent of the measured values when the river flow was less than 40,000 cfs.During flood conditions (> 60,000 cfs'), however,.the calculated tvalue was 19 percent below the measured one. Thus,;-the trend is toward a flow deficit for the computed flow rate inSturgeophLake as the total river flow goes up. Since the primary emphasis in this study was on low river flows, the error at higher flows is of little significance. Predicted flows through Channel 42 for the three measurementsj.were 7 percent below, 17 percent above, and 94 percent below the measured values. The large error in the latter case could be caused by a variety of reasons, including the sensitivity of Channel 42 to winds from the west. to northwest and possible strong stratification during low river flows (2,890 cfs). Field instru-mentational errors could also be a cause, particularly during the low flow conditions, since most of the velocities in Channel 42 were less than the threshold value of the flow meter. Counter flows (or recirculating flows) could easily be overlooked. In general, the hydraulic network model developed by Stefan and Anderson is considered to reasonably predict" the flow rates,.'in Sturgeon Lake and Channel 42 as a function of total river discharge. The Sturgeon Lake discharge versus the Mississippi River dis-charge with no wind is shown in. Figtire 111-9. From this figure, it is calculated that between 19 and 32 percent of the total river flow at Lock and Dam No. 3 passes through Sturge6n Lake (Channels 34 and 36)_. The Channel 42 flow, with no wind, can also be approximated by the equation Q42 = 0.14 QJ.96 from the results of Stefan and Anderson's model.3. River Morphometry Near PINGP. The Mississippi River in the vicinity of PINGP is 300 to 370 m (1,000 to 1,200 ft) wide, and the bathymetry is shown in Figure III-10. The river banks slope fairly steeply to the river bottom,. and the navigation channel has required minimal dredging since 1935 (Cin, 20 October 1977).Sturgeon Lake is a very shallow lake and its important morphometric parameters'are summarized as follows:* Maximum length: 5.0 km (3.1 mi)o Maximum effective length: 3.5 km (2.2 mi)111-12 .Table III-1.Comparison of the computed field measurements. discharges in Sturgeon Lake and Channel 42 with the QRiver Qsturg. L. Q42 Wind Wind QP p Date (cfs) (c fs) Speed Dire Intake Discharge Source Qstur. L. 42 (mph) (cfs) (cefs)3/26/73 62,000 18,820 -8.6 700 0 0 JGG 15,270 6,150 5/02/74 40,400 10,900 -18.9 180I 185 150 U.S. .S.2 10,020 3,930 5/09/74 32,360 7,430 -8.0 1250 185 150 U.S.G.S. 7,140 3,110 7/01/74 21,880 4,590 --14.7 2250 185 150 U.S.G.S. r 4,740 2,060 11/26/74 10,400 -960 17.7 1450 185 150 JG 1,640 890 8/01/75 13,500 2,700 1,150 12.9 2000 1,095 1,060 JG 2,580 1,340 10/13/76 2,890 -1,070 18.0 2950 245 210 JG 1,150 70 MEASURED L-COMPUTED ]H H H IJ. Gorman, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1973.20.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Minnesota, 1974.(.. TOTAL RIVER DISCHARGE (m 3/sec)1,000 0 500 1,500 2,000 24,000 21,000 LU LU CC 0 z 0 LU 0, x-18.000 15.000 12.000 9,000 6.000 700 600 U 500 E LU 400 U 300 4 0 200 Cr I-CA)100 1"-I H H I 4'-'3.000 0 P' -I I i i I ii i i i I ,

• o 0 5,000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25,000 30.000 35.000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55.000 60.000 65,000 70,000 TOTAL RIVER DISCHARGE (cfs)547P-34 Figure 111-9. Sturgeon Lake discharge versus total river discharge (Stefan, 1973).S GO 6700 1 ;70 SCALE 6.0 0 2 00.FEV L4:Jr 0 so too~'METERS 660 /670 650\70670 665 660 go0 6507 MINNESOTA

/67 ~ 7 670 640 fl~. 660 INTAKE C.ANNEI.*FG o 656 6 657 INTAKE CANA, 0 60 0 6 660 S 665 z 670 070 6416550 PRAIRIE ISLAND / O S GNNUCLEAR L GENERATING PLANT ,7" WISCONSIN 670 " 657 Figure III-10. Bathymetry of Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River near PINGP (diagram dated 14 December 1976).06 5'67-I ..W NOTE: CONTOURS (IN FT MSLI BASED ON 1929 DATUM WITH SHORELINE AT 674.5 FT MSL.I SCALE II ml 4w.-. .FtEE" WISCONSIN U0 S f*\ .ME It FtS H-H MINNESOTA Figure III-10.(Continued) .Maximum width: 2.8 km (1.75 mi)* Direction of major axes: SE-NW* Surface area: 323.8 hectares (800 acres)e Mean width: 0.8 km (0.5 mi)e Volume: 6.7 x 10 6 m 3 (2.37 x 108 ft 3)* Maximum depth (based on water surface elevation of 674.5 ft msl): 6 m (20 ft).o Average depth (based on water surface elevation of 674.5 ft msl): 2.07 m (6.79 ft)* Shoreline: 17.3 km (10.7 mi)* Range of retention time of water: 3.8 hr to 42.6 hr (corresponding to river flows of 1,868 m 3/sec and 226.4 m 3/sec)Near its southern end, numerous small islands occur, and this is where the PINGP intake and discharge are located. In 1970, the approach channel (Class I structure).for the plant intake water supply was dredged to a bottom elevation of 664.5 ft msl (3.1 m deep at normal pool level) and a width of 183 m (600 ft),,.. The discharge canal (Class III structure) was dredged to a bottom elevation of 664.5 ft msl also, and the width increases from 30.5 m (100 ft) at the discharge gates to 122 m (400 ft )at a distance of 213 m (700 ft). The canal dikes were compacted fill and are constructed to appear as a natural channel. A survey of the channels in 1976 by J. Gorman, Inc., indicated no substantial sediment deposit.4. Discharge Rates. There are two major gauging stations on the Mississippi River near the plant site: at Prescott, Wisconsin, and at Winona, Minnesota. Prescott is about 24 km (15 mi) above the plant (811.4 river miles above the Ohio River), and the drainage areas is esti-mated to be 116,032 km 2 (44,800 mi 2). The St. Croix River enters the Mississippi River at Prescott, and there are no other major tributaries between Prescott and the plant site. Winona is about 135.5 km (84.2 mi)downstream from the plant site (725.7 river miles above the Ohio River), and the total drainage area there is about 153,328 km 2 (59,200 mi2).Because of the proximity of the Prescott station, flowrates from there are used throughout this demonstration. Prescott has a continuous discharge record since June 1928 (49 years).The average discharge for the first 48 years (up to 1976) was 16,200 cfs.The instantaneous maximum flowrate ever recorded was 228,000 cfs on 18 April 1965, while the minimum daily flow was 2,100 cfs, observed on 14 August 1936*. The average monthly and weekly-river flows are shown in Figure III-11.*On 13 July 1940, a record minimum flow of 1,380 cfs was observed. This was probably the result of an operator error at Dam No. 2 (see Preliminary Safety Report for PINGP).111-17 14-1 ci 0-j LL 50.000 4b.000 40.000 35.000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5.000 0 r MONT WEEKLY AVERAGE HLYAVERAGE 3B,6 08 29,933 W", 13,000 12.000 11.000-1,000 900 800 -E 100 w%24.213 H H H I--, 73363 7407 15,206 17,471 1Ipý115T 0-1,61 600 500 400 300 200 100 F-0-J u.1 1-1-4. 1 11 4. 1 I 4.-P U JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL TIME ,AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH S,411'21I 1 r Figure III-il.Average monthly Wisconsin based 1976.and weekly Mississippi River flows at Prescott, on USGS data from June 1928 through September It can be seen that the discharge usually peaks in April due to snow-melt runoff and levels off from September to February when the river is charged mostly by groundwater. Figure 111-12 shows the calculated 7-day, 10-year recurrence flows for each month. A standard log-Pearson Type III distribution was used in computing these numbers. Also shown on the figure is the percentage of time in each month when the 7-day, 10-year low flow was not exceeded. These values ranged from 2.2 to 8.4 percent and will be used in Section IV to estimate the probabilities of the joint-event occurrences. B. WATER QUALITY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER I. Temperature. Ambient river temperature data in the vinicity of PINGP provide necessary input for the thermal plume model (see Section V)as well as a reference for spawning and thermal tolerance information discussed in Section III C. The following discussion assesses the avail-able data to determine the most adequate record.The stations at which water temperature has been recorded regularly include the resistance temperature detector (RTD) station at the intake canal of PINGP, a temperature recording station in Sturgeon Lake maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR station), a station at Lock and Dam No. 3, several stations utilized for water quality sampling in the ecological monitoringprogram, and the intake temperature station at NSP's Red Wing Generating Plant (RWGP).The RTD intake station at PINGP is located on the river side of the intake canal barrier wall. Temperature sensors are vertically spaced at 0.6 m (2 ft) intervals on two pilings for a total of 10 sensors. All RTD readings are averaged by the plant computer and recorded hourly on the plant log. These recorded values enter the plant environmental event log only when discharge flow is adjusted. Even though the RTD data represent a continuous record, they cannot be considered representative of river temperature for several reasons. First, the period of record is too short since data are only available from February 1975 to present.Second, possible instrumentation problems exist which would make the data unreliable. And third, during high blowdown rates and southerly winds, intake temperature readings may be above ambient river temperature due to upriver movement of heated effluent.The MDNR station is on the river (northwest) side of Sturgeon Lake (Figure 111-13) at a depth of 0.8 to 0.9 m (2.5 to 3 ft). The station is located in shallow water since the rest of the lake averages 2.1 m (6.8 ft)in depth. Temperatures were recorded on strip charts 'during the ice-free months of 1975 through 1977. Due to lack of calibration and maintenance records, these data will be used only to indicate diurnal fluctuations in temperature. The observed diurnal fluctuations were fairly large, 111-19 /N 1 0000 9, W)(3 8,001)7.000 4,000 0-j LL 4,000 250 200 150 I r.0-1 1600 H 0 3.000 2.0011 1.000 JAN FEBt MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP .OCT NOV DEC MONTH b4IP'28.1 Figure 111-12.Monthly 7-day, 10-year low flows for the Mississippi River at Prescott, Wisconsin, and the percentage of time the daily flowrate is less than or equal to the 7-day, 10-year flows. Based on USGS data for June 1928 through September 1976. Figure III-13.547P-122 Location of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) temperature recording station and the locations of water quality stations where temperature is routinely monitored. 111-21 averaging 20 to 30 C (3.50 to 5.4* F) with a maximum of 9.7* C (17.50 F).Vertical temperature stratification is not expected to be significant at this station because of its shallow depth; however, no records are avail-able to substantiate this assumption. Daily maximum and minimum river temperatures -have been recorded at Lock and Dam No. 3 since 6 August 1969. Two temperature probes are used at this station: a primary probe located approximately 1.2 m (4 ft)below normal pool elevation on the upstream face of the dam, and a secon-dary sensor located on the downstream face of the dam which is used only when the primary probe malfunctions. Measurements were taken first by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District, then by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and presently by -the U.S. Geological Survey.Since Lock and Dam No. 3 is located only 1.6 km (1 mi) downriver from the PINGP discharge, temperatures may have been periodically influenced by thermal discharges from the plant. Thus, only the four years of pre-operational data may be used (the first unit of PINGP came on-line in December 1973), and this period of record is probably 'insufficient to define long-term temperature trends.In addition to the PINGP intake, Lock and Dam No. 3, and MDNR records, temperatures were measured at several NSP water quality stations shown in Figure 111-13 from 1972 through 1976. Surface, mid-depth, and bottom temperatures were taken once or twice a month with a thermister. Tempera-tures measured near the intake are probably most representative of PINGP intake water temperatures;ihowever, because of infrequent measurements (twice a month maximum) these data are of limited value.Temperature measurements at RWGP intake located 15 km (9.4 mi) down-river from PINGP have been taken manually since 1950. RWGP is a 28 MWe (summer rating) natural gas/coal-fired plant that utilizes once-through cooling. The plant initially operated as a base load facility, but became a peaking plant in 1974. Itloperates approximately 16 hours a day during weekdays, and intake temperatures are recorded hourly during operation from thermocouples located on the discharge side of the cir-culating water pumps. These thermoc0uples were calibrated on 29 March 1978 and the temperature readouts were found to be within 0.3' C (0.5" F)of a mercury thermometer (MbcGinnis, Zimmel, and Martin, 1978). Despite the lack of previous calibration, the RWGP data are expected to be within 0.60 C (1.00 F) of the true temperatures given the general accuracy of bimetal (thermocouple) measurements. Owing to the small heat rejection and circulating water flows from RWGP and the do0nriver location of the discharge, the intake temperatures are assumed to be free of thermal recirculation-. slightly higher than ambient readings of less than 1.10 C (20 F), however, might be expected during winter deicing operations. RWGP intake temperature is also considered to be unaffected by the PINGP thermal discharge since thorough mixing and dilution of the PINGP plume with ambient river water is accomplished by passage through Lock and Dam No. 3. Immediately downriver from Lock and 111-22 Dam No. 3, river temperature rise should be less than 1.10 C (20 F) 90 percent of the time (see Section IV B.1). Residual heat passing through Lock and Dam No. 3 should readily dissipate befolre reaching RWGP, 11.6 km (7 mi)downriver. /To test the validity of RWGP data, temperatures taken during the PINGP water quality monitoring studies were compared with RWGP temperatures for the same date. Surface, mid-depth, and bottom temperatures at Station X-1 (Figure 111-13) were averaged*, and the daily maximum at RWGP on the same day was subtracted to obtain a ATa. The positive arid the negative ATa's were then averaged separately for each year. Data presented in Table 111-2 indicate,,that temperatures were similar at both locations for the sample dates compared. The small differences observed may be the result of differences in the time of day when measurements were taken, flows, flow ratios, and wind. The RWGP data represent daily maxima which generally occur in mid-morning to late afternoon. Table 111-3 shows the diurnaltemperature fluctuations calculated from daily maxima and minima recorded at Lock and Dam No. 3. During the warm months (April through August) the average ATa is less than the diurnal temperature fluctuation. Thus, it can be concluded that RWGP temperatures are generally an acceptable representation of average river temperatures.. Table 111-2.Summary of the mean temperature differences (AT)between ecological monitoring stations and the Red Wing Generating Plant intake, ANNUAL AVERAGE YEAR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (C)+1 _2 1972 1.0 0.95 1973 0.9 0.47 1974 0.49 0.65 1975 0.60 0.86 1976 0.56 0.85 Mean 0.71 0.7630 F) (0,1. 4 F)1 PINGP field temperatures above RWGP intake temperatures. 2 RWGP intake temperatures above PINGP field temperatures.

• This takes into account heat recirculation and stratification.

111-23 Table 111-3. Average diurnal river temperature fluctuation measured at Lock and Dam No. 3 (U.S.G.S., 1969-1976)1. MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE Diurnal Temperature 0.17 0.30 0.64 1.17 1.37 1.04 Difference (0.3) (0.54) (1.2) (2.1) (2.5) (1.9)in 0 C (OF)MONTH JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Diurnal.Temperature 1.16 0.4 0.68. 0.58 0.5 0.18 Difference (2.1) (0.7) (1:.2) (1.0) (0.9) (0.3)in 'C (OF)iThe record is based on the maximum and minimum daily temperatures taken at Lock and Dam No. 3.A graphical presentation of weekly mean river temperature for the period 1959 through 1974 is shown in Figure III-14. The river surface remains frozen in winter months until late February, and temperatures 0 gradually increase in spring.. After reaching a peak of about 240 C (760 F) in late July, -temperatures: decline until late December when the river surface again freezes. A maximum temperature at RWGP of 290 C (850 F) occurred on 2 August 1977., Weekly averages of daily minima, means, and maxima for the period 1959 through 1974 are given in Appendix Table A-i, and monthly averages are shown in Appendix Table A-2. Weekly and monthly average river flows are also included in these two tables for reference. Combining flow and temperature shows that, in general, both river flow and temperature! rise until late May when spring runoff reaches its peak. Then, river flow starts to decrease gradually while water temperature keeps rising as a result of increases in air temperature and warmer inflows from tributaries. After late August, both river flow and temperature decrease because of low rainfall and declining solar angle. In winter months, river flow is mainly supplied by groundwater, and temperatures remain near freezing.The tables also show that the difference between daily maximum and minimum temperatures for any given period is less than 1.10 C (20 F).Appendix Table A-3 shows the monthly and annual cumulative distribution of daily maximum temperatures. The range of temperature variations indicates that large fluctuations exist during spring and fall, and minimum fluctuations are observed in winter. The annual cumulative distribution (last column of Appendix Table A-3) is plotted on Figure 111-15, an d it can be seen that the river remains frozen almost 25 percent of the time!,.111-24 j -90 w wj a: 3o I- I-< BO0 H w 25 w Ln w w I- 70 20 20 60 15 50 to 40 O 32 JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC MONTH 372P-659-1 Figure m11-14. Weekly average river temperature at Red Wing (from the RWGP log, 1959-1974). 4.0 0 0~>0 X 0 a U,-1 0 I.-z Il'-II-10-_ _ __ _ _ _ 90 80 -___ -___-so 710 --____ -___ 70 30 3 --___ 0 2o -- -___ ___- 20 10 --___ 0 0 -0 _ _ _ _ _ __ _0O H H 0I 30 32 35 40 46 50 55 60 65 70 DAILY MAXIMUM RIVER TEMPERATURE (F)80 85 90 95 547P.123 Figure 111-15. Cumulative frequency of occurrence of daily maximum river temperatures at RWGP (from RWGP log).

2. Water Quality in the Vicinity of PINGP.a. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

The.segmentof theMississippi River immediately upriver from Lock and Dam No. 3 near PINGP is more of a lacustrine than a riverine habitat, characterized by low turbidity through-out most of the year.: The water is moderately hard and slightly eutrophic (Tables 111-4 and 111-5). Measurements of trace metals (Table 111-5)indicate that levels may be elevated above normal background conditions at In addition, toxicants such as phenols and cyanidehave been measured at relatively high levels in this section of the river.The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWTP), located approxi-.mately 61 km (38 mi) upstream from PINGP, contributes a substantial amount of the nutrient and toxicant load in the Mississippi River as far down-stream as PINGP. The MWTP was constructed in 1938, and provided primary treatment.Only. In 1966, secondary treatment was added to a'designed capacity of 218 million gallons a day (mgd), and additional facilities for activated sludge treatment were constructed in 1972. At present, con-struction is also underway to further expand the plant which will result in enhanced effluent quality in future years. Appendix Table A-4 summarizes the effluent quality in 1975 and 1976. Besides the gradual decrease in volume, it is also apparent that effluent quality has been improving (and is expected to improve in future years), thus further minimizing the influence of this domestic sewage upon water quality conditions in the Mississippi River. The enhanced levels of metals and other toxicants at Lock and Dam No. 3 may be a result of.-the MWTP discharge, although agricultural sources may also be a source of some constituents (Omernick, 1977). BOD levels measured at Lock and Dam No. 3 since 1969 usually appear to be well below the average dissolved oxygen levels, which may explain the consistently high dissolved oxygen levels-measured at Lock and Dam No. 3 (Table 111-5) and near PINGP.b. EFFECTS OF PINGP EFFLUENT.- Average, maximum, and minimum dissolved oxygen levels have been measured at seven water quality stations in the vicinity of PINGP from 1973 to present, and the concentrations usually averaged well above the minimum levels necessary for most aquatic life (i.e., minimum levels rarely dropping below 5 mg/l). In most instances, mean, maximum, and minimum oxygen concentrations were higher in surface>samples.than in those near the bottom, although in some instances (see Figure 111-16), dissolved oxygen inversion occurred. At Station 12 (see Figure 111-17 for location), a more measureable oxygen inversion was noted at Stations 21 and 25, located in the PINGP discharge. This may have been the result of less oxygen saturated thermal effluent floating above the colder, more oxygen laden ambient river waters. It should.be noted, however, that an oxygen inversion was, observed at Station 25 in 1973, also, when the plant was not operational. This indicates that dissolved oxygen inversions may periodically occur naturally in this area.During operational years (1974 to 1977), it appears that the dissolved oxygen content of water passing through the plant decreased slightly (compare Stations 12 and 18 in Figure 111-16), probably as a result of 111-27 Table III-4. Minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations of water quality parameters in subsurface samples collected from 21 June 1970 through 13 September 1977 (from NUS, 1976; Eberley, i977;NSP, unpublished)'. CONCENTRATION (mg/l UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)>PARAMETER MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN.Solids, Total 168 443 269 Solids, Dissolved 134 367 243 Solids, Suspended 1.4 85 27 Hardness, Total (as CaCO3) 110 268 182 3 Hardness, Calcium (as CaCO ) 76 180 117 Hardness, Magnesium (as CaCO 3) 34 100 65 Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO 3) 86 232 154 33 Alkalinity, Phenolphthalein (as CaCO 3 01 2.4. 3.3 Ammonia Nitrogen (N) 0 2.4 0.45 Carhonate 2 (CO 3) 0 29 3.1l Bicarbonate 2 (HC0 3) 103 235 176 Chloride -(Cl) 2 32.9 14.8 Nitrate'Nitrogen 3 (N) <0.01 4.2 0.87 Sulfate (SO 4) 10 110 38 Phosphorus, Soluble 3 (P) 0.005. 0.550 0.14 Silica (SiO 2) 0.1 16.2 81 Calcium 2 (Ca) 30.4 72 47 Magnesium 2 (Mg) 8..3 .24 16 Sodium, (Na) 3.9 28.5 13, Iron, Total3 (Fe) 0.0 2.36 0.57 Color 3 (APHA units) 15 100 50 Turbidity (JTU) 1 52 12 Conductivity (imhos/cm) 230 572; 393: pH / 7.4 9.4 8.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1.1 9.45 3.5 iPrior' to plant operation (1970-1973) samples were collected at the location of the intake and after 1973 the samples were collected in the main channel of the river just upstream from the intake.2 Minimum, maximum, and mean calculated for the period of June 1970 to September 1977.3 Minimum, maximum, and mean calculated for. the period of January 1970 to September 1977..9 111-28 Table 111-5.Selected water quality for the Mississippi River at Lock and Dam No. 3, 1969 to 1976 (U.S.G.S., 1967-1976).. WATER VJIALITY PAIOLMEI126 m-oo. Nil I).q/8110,.1 C., 1/ /1'i,. ,.qI zw/N. #q/1 VishI -Hui0 Ni, .011 Nýl IN). ",)/I NAX 12.0 5.4 0.6 M969 6.6 0.4 MEAN 0.4912 0. J4 MAX 14.2 4.8 1.0 1970 2M.2.0 MEAN 9.072 3.142 1971 2.M2 N MEAN 12.2,-6.2 4.6 6.1 2.753 NAX 2.8 4.5 0.11 1- 0.-I..1 -.3 1 .1972 SIN"6.1 7.6 1.4 0.9SI 0.11 9. 81.U.057 2.64W 0.4112 231)511 d'3d.01 14 L1.1111 7.d 12.2 8.0 KA7.4i 0.86 I0 23 to0 140.01 3.05 0.40 0.260 H1I 1.2 1.4 70 30 50 0 0.37 0.05 IS. b8l 3.255 0.568 0~257 0.057 0.005, 1.545 0.1s, MAX 13.0 11.0 II 1.85 1973 1974 mIN KMAN 0O.6 2.4 0 I .02 912 4.331'J.55k 4)11 sd3 1.105 1975 MAX Kim MEAN 12.7 6.5 9*41'3 4 2.0 7.746 3.5 1.2 2.43 to 0 5,1"7 1.1 0 U.401 213 00111 2. 13 30l }0 4.67 0.24 1.145 0.25 0.01 0..14 1976 MAX N0 K MEAN 12 7.6 7.2 2.4 4.866 10 0 4.67 213 ioo013 1113.1.7 0.04 0. !0.27 1 0.06 0.106.I * .":,ý v 1.531 o.201,-44I 0.28 ,:,I6 u::: 0..210:.04 0.35 0.5 I0.05 0.431 0.06 H-, H-H.-I0 EIvv,- M11tL~ly 0~U,1-,10.. ilyjl,-9i, OuulVl u,, tw, hloo,,thly v41we.".1 1- lO.IIL -~1-.o oboa0~y01.. ,.'lS-111~ -010.1,1 VdIoO. I-ltha uothl:.,'$U,,.00 -Ahl.y 021.0I 004bU-olyo,~ "101 oothlyvIN.. W, E Z LU X 0 LU 0 o.20 10 0 20 10 0 20 10 0 20 10 0 20 10 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1 +4 10 6 12 18 HDR STATION 21 25 27 547P.10 Figure 111-16.Maximum, minimum, and average dissolved oxygen levels for selected stations in the vicinity of PINGP, 1973-1977. Open bars indicate range of surface DO, vertical lines indicate range of bottom DO, and horizontal lines indi-cate mean levels of DO (Dieterman, 1974-75; Schmidt, 1977; NSP, unpublished). 111-30 547P-6 Figure 111-17.Sampling locations for water quality, phyto-plankton, periphyton, zooplankton, and macro-invertebrates. 111-31 increased water temperature, and therefore, lower oxygen saturation. Upon discharge from the plant, however, the dissolved oxygen levels quickly reached those of the receiving waters; thus, the. effect of plant operation upon receiving water dissolved oxygen appeared to be temporary and minimal.In order to determine quantitatively what effect PINGP exerts upon various water quality parameters, an analysis of variance was performed by Schmidt (1977) on data from two pairs of stations upriver and two pairs of stations downriver for 1975 and 1976. A comparison was also made between top and bottom samples collected at the same stations (Table 111-6).Significant differences between up- and downriver stations might indicate a plant effect; between surface and bottom samples, a vertical stratifi-cation effect; between months, a temporal effect. The basic expected plant effect would be temperature controlled parameters such as dissolved oxygen. Enhanced temperature might also indirectly alter nutrient levels by enhancing primary production. Plant effluents may also increase dissolved solids and conductivity in the immediate vicinity of the discharge as a result of evaporation of cooling water during the closed and helper cycle modes of operation. Plant operation might also disrupt sediment related density stratification as a result of turbulence in the discharge water. In general, depth stratification exclusive of plant effect may be expected for sediment related parameters (due to density) and dissolved oxygen (due to depletion, production, and re-aeration), which in turn may indirectly cause variations between top and bottom pH, alkalinity, and nutrient levels. No measureable'effect, however, is expected as a result of plant operation upon river water alkalinity and pH. Temporal variation in water quality parameters, in addition, is expected to occur mainly because of variations in river flow, temperature, allocthonous (originating outside the river) and autocthonous (originating in the river) inputs over time. Interaction between temporal and spatial (vertical and horizontal) values for all parameters may also result in significant variation, whether or not such significant variation was shown to occur without interaction. In both 1975 and>1976, water quality parameters varied significantly at the a < 0.05 level over time, that is, from month to month. Sediment related parameters, such as no'nfilterable residue and turbidity, varied significantly between top and bottom samples at all stations compared.Plant impact on dissolved-oxygen, conductivity, and ammonia nitrogen was also noted in-both 1975 and 1976. According to Schmidt (1977), the cause for the difference inupriver and downriver ammonia nitrogen levels is unknown, while that for dissolved oxygen was. probably a result of erroneous measurement. He also stated that increased conductivityr;i'eadings downriver from the plant may be the result of the PINGP discharge since evaporation in the cooling towers' increases the dissolved solids of ithe blowdown.Conductivity readings, however, were not corrected for temperature variations, which also may account forconsistently'higher levels measured in the discharge (Eberley, personal communication). Data for one station upstream and one downstream from PINGP are presented in Table 111-7 (see Figure 111-17 for locations). Eberley (1977), using a Student's t-Test on both years (1975 and 1976) combined, found no significant (a = 0.05 level) differences 111-32 Table 111-6.Summary of ANOVA for water quality data comparisons for two stations (HDR Stations 10 and 11) upriver and two stations (HDR Stations 25 and 27) downriver from PINGP measured at the top and bottom of the water column for 1975 and 1976 (from Schmidt, 1977).VARIATIONS SIGNIFICANT AT o < 0.05 BETWEEN ABOVE VS BELOW ABOVE AND BELOW BETWEEN BETWEEN DEPTHS ABOVE AND BELOW WATER QUALITY PARAMETER MONTHS PLANT PLANT BY MONTH DEPTHS BY MONTH PLANT BY DEPTH 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1Q75 1976 Phenolphthalein alkalinity x x x1 Methyl-orange alkalinity x x.Dissolved orthophosphate (P) x x Total dissolved phosphorus (P) x x Filterable Residue (TDS) x x Non-filterable residue (TSS) x x x 2 x 2 Ammonia nitrogen (N) x x x!Nitrite nitrogen (N) x x Nitrate nitrogen (N) x x pH x x Conductivity x x X3 Dissolved Oxygen x x x 4 Turbidity x x x 2 x 2 I~lUnknown explanation for significant variation. 2 Variation due to natural density stratification. 3 Variatio-npossibly resulting from PINGP effluents; conductivity measurements were not account'for a significant difference between upriver and downriver stations in 1976.4 Variation possibly resulting from erroneous chemical measurement. corrected for temperature, which may Table III-7. Mean values for chemical parameters measured at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant during 1975 and 1976 (Eberley, 1977).UPSTREAM (STATION 10)DOWNSTREAM (STATION 25)PARAMETERS AND UNITS 1975 1976 1975 1976 Solids-mg/l Hardness-mg/l Alkalinity-mg/l (as CaCO3 Gases-mg/i Anions-mg/l Cations-mg/l Miscellaneous Total Filterable Nonfilterable Total Calcium Magnesium Total Phenolphthalein 'Dissolved Oxygen Ammonia-Nitrogen (NM Carbonate (CO 3)Bicarbonate (HCO 3)Chloride (Cl)Nitrate-Nitrogen (N)Sulfate (SO 4)Phosphorus-Soluble (P)Silica (SiO 2)Calcium (Ca)Magnesium (Mg)Sodium (Na)Total Iron (Fe)Potassium (K)Color (APHA Units),BOO (mg/1)Turbidity (JTU)Conductivity (umhos)pH 236.00 213.00 22.80 165.0 107.0 58.0 142.0 0 9.80 0.410 0.50 172.0 14.360 1.090 27.50 0.1190 10.10 42.90 14.00 10.90 0.410 2.30 42.0 2.30 9.220 368.0 8.060 246.50 222.20 24.36 257.00 228.00 30.70 163.8 103.6 60.2 145.8 6.5 10.85 0.380 8.96 159.4 20.500 0.352 29.55 0.1007 5.09 41.53 14.63 17.51 0.208 2.37 43.6 4.74 9.355 386.1 8.582 170.0 i12 -.0 59.0.148.0 2.0 9.20 0.350 3.30 174.0 15.380 1.210 30.00 0.1240 10.40 44.70 14.30 12.00 0.590 2.40 43.0 2.90 12.840 377.0 8.240 257.00 226.40 30.53 173.0 108.8 64.2 152.4 6.7 10.02 0.301 8.03 169.6 20.375 0.400 30.92 0.1214 5.40 43.62 15.62 17.59 0.442 2.44 45.8 5.01 12.825 399.6 8.567________________________________________ ________ ________ J ________0 9 111-34 \between-the upstream and downstream stations for any of the water quality constituents. When comparing 1976 to 1975, however, some significant differences occurred for certain parameters. These'differences occurred in both the upstream and downstream stati6ns(phenolphthaleihi alkalinity, BOD, nitrate nitrogen, and silica) or in only the upriver stations (chloride andbcarbonates), suggesting that the differences were naturally occurring and not caused by plant operation.

c. POTENTIAL FOR TOXICITY TO AQUATIC BIOTA. Certain water quality parameters such as toxicants may interact with temperature to enhance their toxic qualities to certain affected biota (Jensen et al.,' 1969).However, most bioassays are conducted in the absence of thermal variation; the few tests conducted with variable temperature and toxicant levels tend to indicate that elevated temperatures enhance toxic responses by susceptible biota (Jensen et al., 1969). Alkalinity, hardness, and pH have also *been shown to potentiate or alleviate toxicity (Becker and'Thatcher, 1973,.p. M.2). Some water quality constituents measured in the vicinity of PINGP may be potentially toxic to aquatic organisms and may also contribute to or enhance any potential thermal impacts. Toxicants such as metals, phenols, and cyanides (for which data exist) are examined in relation to bioassay information in Appendix Table A-6.- The data indi-cate that several constituents may be toxic to some the concen-trations measured in the river near PINGP,'in the absence of'thermal synergisms.

It must be noted, however, that most'of these measurements were taken only once or twice a year, and, thereforer should be c6nsidered as conservative (i.e., they probably underestimate high or critical levels actually occurring in the river). The available bioassay literature""indicates that phenol and arsenic concentrations measured near the plant should not cause problems when' onsidered separately. Copper;' however,' may be detri-mental to certain phytoplankton,' zooplankton, benthos, and fish at the higher concentrations measured near PINGP and, thus, could be considered a critical toxicant at certain times of the year, either by itself or' in'combination with other toxicants and temperature.< Zinc, also, could damage some of the zooplankton at the higher concentrations measured near PINGP.Ammonia, at lOw levels, is considered a nutrient, whereas in high concen-trations, it can act as a toxicant. The latter condition appears to occur periodically near Prairie Island, as evidenced by a measurement of 2.4 mg/l of ammonia nitrogen. This concentration coulde cause damage to zooplankton, phytoplankton, and fish, as well as certain benthic organisms. However, the most toxic water quality constituent measured. near PINGP was cyanide ion, which in 1976 was recorded at 11 mg/l. This greatly exceeds the state standard of 0.02 mg/l, and although only one measurement was taken, the potential for damage at this high concentration is.exceedingly great.For instance, bioassay information indicates that most kinds of fish and other biota would be killed'or repelled by'this concentration if it were maintained over a relatively long period of time. It is likely, however, that the level measured was either an artifact in the measurement or an extremely temporary pulse of highly toxic water originating upriver of PINGP. Elevated lead and mercury concentrations have also been measured in the vicinity of the plant, and although the ecological significance of these levels is not well documented, there is a potential that they could also cause temporary damage to the aquatic ecosystem. It is important to 111-35 point out that the potential impacts of toxicants shown in Appendix.Table A-5 are presented for constituents tested separately. It should be emphasized that sublethal concentrations of toxicants occurring simultaneously could interact synergistically to create an environment incompatible with many forms of aquatic life. Such conditions may exist in the. vicinity of PINGP at certain.,times of the year as evidenced by the water quality data, causing mortality or decreases in diversity exclusive of any effects of PINGP. Moreover, unmeasured toxicants specified in the Clean Water'Act of 1977 may periodically contribute to and potentiate unfavorable water quality conditions near PINGP.C. GEI4ERAL AQUATIC BIOLOGY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP 1:. Introduclton. In this section, baseline ecological conditions in the Mississippi River and associated backwaters near PINGP are des--cribed. These data along with hydrological, engineering,.and thermal plume information will be utilized in Section VI, to describe .impacts of past PINGP discharges as well:as to predict~future impacts.., The Mississippi River near PINGP comprises numerous habitat types, thus creating. a complex ecosystem. In addition .to fluctuating flow characteristics and.water levels, water quality in the river influences the general dynamics and tropic structure, of. biota near. the site. Water quality near PINGP is altered considerably from that upriver of the Twin Cities,,- primarily as a result of the Minneapolis-St Paul urban complex. Large< quantities of. treated sewage enter the river from the Metropolitan Treatment Plant near St Paul (see Section. III B), and-the Minnesota River contributes. a considerable amount of sediments and other agricultural-related constituents from runoff. Flows from -the St. Croix River, which is relatively clean, tend to. dilute the influxes from the Metro Treatment Plant and the Minnesota River; nevertheless-, the zone near PINGP can. be considered a ",recovery," area, where the biota begin to benefit from added nutrients without the handicap of low dissolved oxygen.In addition, concentrations of toxicants from sources upriver usually attenuate by the time they reach. the recovery zone.Near PINGP, energy sources for the aquatic food webhave allochthonous (outside the river) and autochthonous (within the river)- origins.Detritus from runoff and sewage discharge provide a continual food supply for heterotropic metabolism, and autotropic organisms utilize the dissolved nutrients. The backwater lakes connected to the river providezexcellent. habitats for the proliferation of autotropic primary producers such as phytoplankton, periphyton,.-and-macrophytes, especially considering the abundance of nutrients. Activities of man, however, have reduced natural detrital'inputs to the river ecosystem. For instance, as water levels in the pools of the Mississippi River-,rose; the ratio of shoreline length to surface area decreased.: As this-ratio became smaller, the relative amount of organic matter (primarily leaf- fall) provided decreased. ii-i36 Moreover, removal of shoreline vegetation for agriculture and urbanization have also decreased availability of litter. Dissolved nutrients, on the other hand, have increased as a result of agricultural ruhoff and sewage disposal.The trophic structure in the Mississippi River near PINGP is very complex. The variety of aquatic habitats encourages a diverse biota with many organisms occupying different trophic levels (and possibly several levels simultaneously) during their lives. The lowest trophic level includes photosynthetic organisms (phytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes) and detrital feeders (some zooplankton and macroinvertebrate species). These organisms are preyed upon by other organisms, which then/become prey for higher level consumers. Bacteria complete the nutrient cycle by decomposing organic matter into useful nutrients. The Mississippi River near PINGP serves many functions other than.wildlife propagation. Fishing and boating are the primary recreational uses of the river and industrial or commercial uses include cargo trans-port, fishing, sewage disposal, and withdrawal of cooling water for power production.

2. Fisheries.

a. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCES.

Fish have been collected in the vicinity of PINGP since:1970 using a variety of methods including electro-fishing, gill nets, trap nets, seines, and trawls. Appendix Tables A-6 and A-7 summarize the methods and Figures 111-18 through 21 show the locations sampled. The species collected in the Mississippi River and its connected lakes near .PINGP from 1973 through 1977 are listed in Appendix Table K-1. Of the 67 species listed, only four were not collected above Lock and Dam No. 3, and no species on the state or federal threatened and endangered species list have been reported. From the list in Appendix Table K-l, ten species have'been chosen as representative of the biological communities and ecological interactions (e;g., trophic levels as defined in Appendix E) that occur iný this area. 'These representative important species (RIS) are walleye, northern pike, channel catfish, white bass, black crappie, gizzard shad,:emerald shiner, white sucker, shorthead red-horse, and carp. The first five species represent sport fish from several trophic levels while emerald shiners and gizzard shad are forage fish (food base for other species). The white sucker and shorthead redhorse represent lower trophic levels with the young providing-forage while the adults may be taken by recreational or commercial fishermen. Carp are generally considered a nuisance species, particularly when more desirable sport fish are available. However, this species is also commercially fished.These species will be used in assessing the potential impacts of the PINGP thermal discharge, both theoretically and based on field observations. IMl-37 WISCONSIN I W £1'MINNESOTA SCALE 500 0 500 1000 meters 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 STA I STA 7 LOCK &STA 3 feet 547 P-84 Figure 111-18.Sampling stations for fish in 1970 (Stations 1-6 only), 1971 and 1972. Station 6 (not shown) was at the confluence of the Vermillion River below Lock and Dam No. 3, and Station 8 (not shown) was from Lock No. 3 downriver 4.4 km (2.75 mi).0 111-38 SCALE 1 'A 0 1MILES 3000 0 3000 6000 1 5 0 1 FE KILOMETERS 4 47-N.E 0..... ... ... ........... SECTI O CN.i~~~.. ..."-I"DMno.k 547P-85 Figure 111-19. Sampling locations for fish in 1973 through 1977. Each section was subdivided into 10 stations, and Sections IV-VI were below Lock and Dam No. 3.-1 13-39 WISCONSIN N w C'V S I MINNESOTA PINGP LOCK &SCALE 500 0 500 1000 meters 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet 547PA- I Figure 111-20.Sampling stations for Sectors I through III for 1977 DNR fisheries studies.111-40 WI SCONSI N I w4@)~E S I'I.-.-%MINNESOTA 0 LOCK &SCALE o500 0 500 " 1000 meters 1000 0 1000 2000 3000. 4000 feet Figure 111-21.Larval fish tow locations for 1974 and 1975. Only locations 1 through 4 were sampled in 1974 (Gustafson et al., 1976).111-41 The relative abundances of the major taxa collected above the dam are presented in Table 111-8.. All five collection methods were combined for all years (1973 through 1976), and the effort expended with each gear varied from year to year. Furthermore, the efficiency of capture for each species varies with size and between gear types, and thus, the abundances presented are only estimates of the actual abundances occurring in the vicinity of PINGP. From the table, it appears that gizzard shad was the numerically dominant species during the warmer months of the year followed by-white bass, freshwater drum, and carp. The RIS were fairly abundant in the area with 9 out of 10 ranking in the 15 most abundant species. In addition, each of the RIS, except white sucker (0,.1 percent), composed more than 1 percent of the fish collected on an annual basis.Percent composition for each species varied from late spring through fall which may be related to movements or migration, reproduction (e.g., large numbers of young in summer and fall), and mortality. Annual variations in abundances are shown by season in Figure 111-22.for each of the RIS. These are probably not true seasons, however, particularly for spring and summer, since sampling began in late May or early June for "spring" and often extended into early July while "summer" was from the end of the spring sampling through August. Fall sampling.was in September and October'which should represent this season, at least based on water temperature. Only electrofishing data were used in order to maintain comparability of the data, and thus, actual relative abundances of species should not be inferred from this figure because of gear selectivity. In addition, all stations in Sections I, II, and III were combined, which includes two stations in'the PINGP thermal discharge. For all the abundant species, annual (between year) fluctuations in catch per unit effort (CPE) are quite evident (see Figure 111-22) as would be expected since- natural populations are seldom in a steady state. These variations may be the result of both density independent (e.g., pollution, changes in river flow, and extreme temperatures) and density dependent (e.g., parasites and diseases, cannibalism, and some types of predation) factors which act to regulate the populations. Shorthead redhorse and carp: show lsimilar seasonal trends of declining CPE from spring to fall each year.-while gizzard shad show the opposite trend. These seasonal variations in abundance may be related to numerous factors as noted previously in this section.The Mississippi River and its associated backwaters in the vicinity of PINGP provide a variety of habitats' for fish and thus may influence the spatial distribution of the RIS. Figure 111-23 shods the seasonal variations in CPE for the most abundant RIS over the period 1974 through 1977. The areas compared are Sturgeon Lake 4(10 'sta'tions), the Migsissippi River above,-the plant (10 stations in Section II), and the Mississippi River below PINGP (4 stations). On an annual basis, the abundances are surprisingly similar between areas considering the dissimilarity of habitats and would seem to indicate -that the areas are not so dissimilar-as far as these species are concerned. This may be due, in part, to the lock and 11T-42 '9 Table 111-8. Species composition (percent) of the major taxa of fish collected in the vicinity of PINGP during the period 1973 through 1976.1 TAXA 2 SPRING 3 SUMMER 3 FALL 3 ANNUAL Gizzard Shad*I 9.9. 10.7 36.5 20.8 White Bass* 22.3 12.1 13.5 15.6 Freshwater. Drum 10.1 24.6 5.6 12.8 Carp* 16.4 11.8 6.8 11.1 Emerald Shiner* 7.0. 4.8 4.5 5.3 Sauger 3.6 1.9 5.6 3.9 Shorthead Redhorse* 4.5 4.5 2.6 3.8 Bluegill 1.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 Black Crappie* 1.6 3.6 3.1 2.8 Channel Catfish* 3.1 3.6 0.5 2.2 White Crappie 1.6 1.4 3.1 2.1 Spottail Shiner 0.9 2.0 2.4 1.8 Shortnose Gar 2.0 2.0 0.9 1.6 Walleye* 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.3 Northern Pike* 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 Carpsucker sp. 2.1 1.6 0.4 1.3 N 12,962 13,976 18,067 45,005 1 The areas sampled are North and Sturgeon Lakes, the main channel from Brewer Lake cut to the PINGP intake, and from PINGP to Lock and Dam No. 3. The effort expended with each gear type varied from year to year so that the composition may not reflect the actua.. composition as a result of gear selectivity for some species.2 Asterisk indicates RIS.3 Seasons are not defined by water temperature but are those presented in the annual reports for the fisheries data.They are generally: spring = late May to early July; sum-mer = early or mid-July through August; and fall =-September and October.111-43 0 S- SPRING SUMMER [ -FALL 2 z 2 wi U.(2 3.0 -SHORTHEAD " = 1.12 2.0 II 05 WHITE SUCKER =0.03 0.0 0.5 BLACK CRAPPIE 0.31 00.- =2 0.5 NORTHERN PIKE = 0.04 0.0 -_ -- 47"2"',,, -CHANNEL CATFISH 0.31 00 A mmm,a,-~10.0 -WHITE BASS T 2.94 F-1 4.0 -3.0 3 (j 2.0 1.0 0.0 WALLEYE T = 0.5 1.0.1974 1975 1976 1977 YEAR GIZZARD SHAD T = 12.17 26.0 1-I 25.0 24.0 23.0 19.0 16.0 15.0 9:0 n:::;Ii;27.0 8.0 [-7.0 4.0 17" 11 F]rii ii 3.01-2.0 -1.0 V nF, i-I 1974 1975 1976 -1977 1974 1975 1976 1977 YEAR 547P-83 YEAR Figure 111-22.Mean electrofishing catch per unit effort (CPE) by season for each RIS in Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River from Brewer Lake cut to Lock and Dam No. 3 combined over the period 1.974 through 1977. This includes data for the PINGP discharge. Seasons are defined in the text (from DNR data). 1-SPRING [a SUMMERI f0-FAiL E] ANNUAL BLACK CRAPPIE 1.04 H H-H-U, 2ýLa 12 0 2 2.11'U SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 0 "-EMERALD SHINER I -" I l-IAKE RIVER II RIVER III LOCATION STURGEGN MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI LAKE RIVER II RIVER III LOCATION I~UJI LOCATION NO IE. S p biW. M,, l. s..IV JlIv. flhhhI -1 .~l ..... I July , W~j A~njI., -.d 6t.1 S.IUIW stdCcu.All s~l~ i --,ud lo Subwud , I I L.,i o~iLkt lI I' Io1 Willv d ,5UI I islo R-ino 44.6. 7 "1, i 91 I--1ill5- .lio I llns I -Ito Fs.pso U3 Al I.,, sVitunil Figure 111-23.Spatial distribution of RIS near PINGP based on electrofishing data for the period 1974 through 1977 (from DNR data).(.0 dam system which has created Pool No. 3 in this area. The one exception, emerald shiner, may be a sampling artifact rather than actual differenee in locality since the large fall CPE in Figure 111-23 was dominated by two samples (out of 40) .This species forms aggregations nearshore in the fall (Scott and Crossman, 1973, p. 442) and the sampling was conducted nearshore. Larval fish have been collected in the vicinity of PINGP in 1974 and 1975. Sampling was conducted weekly in May through August at the stations shown in Figure 111-21 and the larvae were counted but not identified. The data for 1974, although not comparable for abundances to those in 1975, indicate that spawning had begun by 8 May and was almost complete by 26 August with peak densities in mid to late July (Figure 111-24) .In 1975, spawning had begun before mid-May and was nearly complete by September with the peak density in early June (Figure 111-25). The difference in time of maximum abundance is probably a result of annual variations in spawning as related to water temperature. In May of 1975, water temperatures rose much faster than in 1974, and the maximum temiperature reached was 210 C (700 F) versus 780 C (640 F). The 1975 data show that densities of larvae were generally higher at the southeri-n end of Sturgeon Lake where water flows out and past PINGP than at the northern--end (locations 5, 6, and 7 in Figure 111-21). This would seem to indicate that spawning occurs in Sturgeon Lake and at least some of the larvae are flushed out past the plant.In 1975, larval fish were- alsol.sampled weekly at the bar racks of the PINGP intake for an entrainme~nt study. Each 24-hour period was, sampled at 4-hour intervals, and the-larvae were identified to the lowest taxa possible. The abundances of larval R+/-S'inl1975 were calculated by multiplying the mean density of larvae at locations -1, 2, and 4 (Appendix Table A-8), times the weekly percent composition for each species in the entrainment samples (Appendix Table A-9). For this 'calculation, the species composition at the intake was assumed to be the same as that for locations 1, 2, and 4 each week, and the sampling efficiency for each species was assumed equal for the two different sampling methods and equipment. The results bf these calculati6n are presented in Figure 111-26 for each of the RIS, except northern pike which were not collected. Northern pike generally spawn in April (Franklin and Smith, 1963) and May (June, 1971) with an incubation time of about 2 weeks (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 199-204) and, thus, may not be collectedýln mid-May when sampling began. No eggs of any RIS were collected as would be expected since the eggs of these species are not buoyant and most'are adhesive (see life history discussion). White bass, emerald shiner, carp, and gizzard shad were the dominant species. White bass larvae occurred primarily in late May and early' June while emerald shiners showed three abundance peaks: late May, early July, and late July. Carp appear to have spawned from May through July although the peak occurred in June. Gizzard shad also have an extended spawning period with major peaks in larval drift in early and late June. Few larvae of the other RIS were collected as can be seen from Figure 111-26. *The 111-46 620 610 I-600 F 590 1-270 -260, --I 0 I-E 0 U.0 wU in z 250 I-240 I-230 F-220 F-210 110 1 00 so I 40 I-30 F 20 I-10 1-.1$I.1 I ?P I T 0 10 20 30 10 20 MAY JUNE 30 10 20 JULY DATE 30 10 20 AUG 547P-21 Figure 111-24.Mean number of larval fish per 50 m tow at locations 1, 2, and 4 (representative of Sturgeon Lake) near PINGP in 1974.Sampling locations are shown on Figure 111-21 (data from Naplin and Geis, 1975).II-47 E LL 0 LU z L _ I .. .___ _ ,_ -'II ' I 'S , S -4 19-23 26-30 2-6 9-13 16-20 23-27 30-4 7-11 14.18 21-25 28-1 4-8 11-15 18-22 25-29 1.5 MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY JULY JULY JULY JULY AUG AUG AUG AUG SEPT Figure 111-25.Mean'larval sampling at 5, 6, and 7 WEEK 547P-22 fish densities at PINGP in 1975 based on weekly the locations shbwn in Figure 111-21. Stations represent upper Sturgeon Lake and Stations 1, 2, and 4 represent lower Sturgeon Lake. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean and NS is no sample (data from Gustafson et al., 1976).111-48 0 w U.0 z 0 w l-I-19-23 26-30 2-6 9o13 16-20 23-27 30-4 7-11 14.18 21-25 28-1 4-8 11.15 18-22 25-29 1-5 MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY JULY JULY JULY JULY AUG AUG AUG AUG SEPT WEEK 547P.23 Figure 111-26.Estimated density of RIS larval fish drifting past PINGP in 1975. No northern pike larvae were collected. Estimates were calculated from densities at Stations 1, 2, and 4, which represent drift from Sturgeon Lake (Gustafson et al., 1976), and the species composition in the weekly entrainment samples (NUS, 1976).111-49 0 o -I I I BLACK CRAPPIE 0 p IN S NS REDHORSE SR ,0.02, NS NS 1 WHITE SUCKER 0 .0031 1 1 NS NS 0 0.14 WALLEYE0 04I I 9 9 9 NS NS E 2 CHANNEL CATFISH W 0 9 i ri i*NS NS< 168 U,,.o GIZZARD SHAD ILl 22!z o 20 U3 I--186 W 16 14 12 " 10 -8 6 4 2 9 9NS NS 19-23 26-30 2-6 9-13 i6.20 23-27 30.4 7.11 14-18 21.25 28-1 4-8 11-15 18.22 25-29 1.5 MAY MAY JUN JUN JUN JUN JULY JULY JULY JULY JULY AUG AUG AUG AUG SEPT WEEK 547P-24 Figure IIi-26, (Continued). 1J-j.L --ý U r~edhorse, white sucker, and walleye are early spring spawners that usually migrate upstream to spawn, and thus, most spawning in Pool No. 3 would be expected in the tailwaters of Dam No. 2. Channel catfish and black crappie are nesters, and few larvae would be expected in the drift as compared to the other prolific broadcast spawners.b. LIFE HISTORIES. The following life history information for the representative important species (RIS) is presented as a background upon which to base impact analyses. The reproductive characteristics for these species are summarized in Appendix Table A-10, and the spawning temperatures and times are shown in Figure 111-27. Metric units were used throughout this section, and English conversions are given in Appendix F.Walleye. Walleye live in large lakes and streams from Great Slave Lake to Labrador on the north to northern Alabama and Arkansas on the south and west to Nebraska (Niemuth et al., 1972). They prefer water of low turbidity over a firm substrate and can survive temperature ranges of 00 to 320 C (Goodson, 1966a). Pollution in the Mississippi River below t-Minneapolis-St Paul and in parts of the Minnesota River has dras-tically reduced the walleye population in these areas (Eddy ,and underhill, 1974, pp. 369-373). This pollution has come from numerous sources, including agriculture, industries, and municipal sewage treatment plants.In the spring, usually just after the spring thaw, walleye make mass spawning migrations up rivers and streams to tributaries and lakes (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 369-373). Tagging studies in Oneida Lake, New York, showed that most walleye returned to the same spawning area each year (Forney, 1963). Spawning occurs at 60 to 170 C with the peak at 90 to 100 C. The eggs are randomly broadcast at a depth of less than 1.2 m with most laid in less than 61 cm of water on a clean substrate. with flowing water (Niemuth et al., 1972). The eggs are 1.5 :to 2.0 mm`in diameter and lose their adhesiveness after water hardening (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 690-691). Hatching is in 7 to 26 days, depending on temperature, and DO concentrations below 35 percent saturation increases egg mortality. Females longer than 38 cm lay 35,000 to 600,000 eggs with an average of 28.6 to 99.2 per gram of body weight (Niemuth et al., 1972;Siefert and Spoor, 1974). Males mature at 4 years and females at 5 years of age in Lake Erie (Goodson, 1966a)./walleye are predators. Young less than 75 mm in length feed upon plankton and then progress to insect larvae and fish with increasing size (Priegel, 1969)-. Their life span is approximately 7 years although some rhay exceed this. The maximum recorded length is 92 cm.and the weight 10 kg (Niemuth et al., 1972). The largest walleye caught by angling in Minnesota weighed 7.6 kg (DNR, 1977).111-51 H H H If cc.C-)I-E-JUN JUL MONTH Figure 111-27.Spawning temperatures and times for the RIS. The optimum or mean temperature was plotted on the river ambient and the verticaY bars indicate the range while the horizontal bars represent the time period. The dashed curves show temperatures of the 50 and 90 F ATs in the discharge while the upper curve indicates the monthly average temperature discharged by PINGP. White Bass. White bass are found from the St. Lawrence River west through the Great Lakes to South Dakota and south in the Ohio and Mississippi drainages to the Gulf of Mexico. Stocking has increased their range. They prefer clear waters since feeding and schooling are sight dependent (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 689-692).In the spring, adults move upstream into large lakes to spawn, some-times traveling long, distances (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 335-336).The fish form schools which may be unisexual and move into shallow areas when the water temperature reaches 12.80 to 15.60 C in late. May and June.The 0.8 mm adhesive eggs are broadcast near the surface or in midwater during the day and adhere to boulders, gravel, or vegetation as they sink (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 689-692). In Lewis and Clark Lake, spawning occurs when the water temperature is i4.4* to 200 C (Ruelle, 1971), and may continue for 5 to 10 days per population with the adults forming schools again after spawning. Incubation time is 46 hours at 15.60 C (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 689-692), and the newly hatched larvae are 3 mm in length (Ruelle, 1971) .Growth.is fairly rapid and the YOY may reach 126 to 162 mm by fall. Fecundity is 242,000 to 933,000 eggs per female with an average of 565,000 and varies with the size of the fish. Age at maturity is 3 years in Lake Erie (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 689-692), and 2 years in Minnesota (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 335-336).White bass are carnivorous. Young fish feed upon zooplankton such as Diaptomus, Cyclops, Daphnia, and copepod nauplii. and progress to aquatic insects and fish as they increase in size (Ruelle, 1971). In Iowa lakes, the adults feed primarily upon yellow perch, bluegill, carp, and black crappie, although some also eat crustaceans and aquatic insects such as mayflies. In other areas, small gizzard shad and minnows may form a significant portion of their diet (Scott and .Crossman, 1973, pp. 689-692).Channel Catfish. The distribution of channel catfish ranges from Montana to the Ohio Valley and south through the Mississippi.Valley to the Gulf of Mexico and into Florida (Eddy and Underhill, 1974). They occur in swift streams as well as lakes and large reservoirs, preferring sand, gravel, or rubble bottoms without vegetation (Miller, 1966). in Minnesota, they are found in the swift water tributaries of the Missis-sippi River (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 299-300).spawning takes place in nests in protected areas such as holes or under logs and occurs at 210 to 290 C with an optimum of 26.70 C (Clemens and Sneed, 1957). The eggs are 3.5 to 4.0 mm in diameter, are guarded by the males, and hatch in 5 to 10 days (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 604-610). The young remain in the nest for approximately 1 week before dispersing (Lopinot, 1960). Females produce 6.6 to 8.8 eggs per gram of body weight (Clemens and Sneed, 1952), and the eggs will not develop if the water is less than 15.6 0 C (Miller, 1966)._j III-53 Channel catfish are omnivorous, feeding upon fish, invertebrates, and plant material. They feed by sight, taste, or touch (Lopinot, 1960).The maximum size for this species is 90 cm in length and more than 11 kg in weight, although most are only 1.4 to 1.8 kg in Minnesota (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 299-300). The angling record in Minnesota is 17.5 kg (DNR, 1977).Northern Pike. Northern pike inhabit lakes and streams east of the Rocky Mountains and north of the Ohio River northwest into Alaska as well as in northern Europe and Asia (Eddy and Underhili, 1974, pp.199-204).Just after the ice melts in April, adults ascend smal~l streams or seek flooded grassy areas of lakes (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 199-204).Spawning occurs at 110 to 170 C in Lake George, Minnesota, and the eggs are broadcast on all types of vegetation except cattails (Franklin and Smith, 1963). The adhesive eggs are 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter and usually hatch in about 2 weeks depending on temperature. The yolk sac larvae attach to vegetation with adhesive glands on their heads and feed from the yolk for 6 to 10 days (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 357-359). The females produce 19,200 to 193,000 eggs. Males mature at 2 to 3 years of age and females at 3 to 4 years (June, 1971).The young feed on zooplankton for the first 2 weeks progressing to larger prey, such as fish fry, after that. They are cannibalistic if food is scarce. The adults feed by sight on fish such as crappie, sun-fish, suckers, and minnows (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 199-204).Pike grow to a length of more than 1 m and may weigh over 23 kg (Eddy, 1969, p. 64). The angling record for Minnesota is 20.7 kg (DNR, 1977).Gizzard Shad. Gizzard shad inhabit large rivers and muddy lakes from central Minnesota east to the St. Lawrence drainage and south to New Jersey and brackish waters along the Gulf of Mexico as well as into Mexico (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 147). Taylor Falls on the St.Croix River is apparently the northern limit of their range in Minnesota. Spawning occurs in spring and summer, generally in April through June when the water temperature is 100 to 210 C; however, it may take place when the water is as warm as 290 C. The eggs are randomly broad-cast at the water surface in shallow water and slowly sink tor the bottom.The eggs are 0.75 mm in diameter, adhesive, and hatch in 1.5 to 4 days, at temperatures of 26.70 C and 16.70 C (Miller, 1960). Fecundity for gizzard shad in Lake Erie ranged from 211,380 to 543,910 eggs and averaged 379,000 eggs for 2-year-old fish, and it declined with age. In Elephant Butte Lake (New Mexico), the mean fecundity of 3-year-old fish was 40,500 eggs (Jester, 1972, p. 40). Both males and females mature at 1 to 2 years of age (Carlander, 1969, p. 88).111-54 Young gizzard shad feed upon protozoa, rotifers, and entomostraca While the adults eat phytoplankton and zooplankton (Carlander, 1969, p. 89). Young-of-the-year fish generally school, but older fish do not.The young are important forage fish, and they tend to overpopulate in areas where predation is not sufficient to keep their numbers down (Eddy and Underhill, 1974i p. 148). Gizzard shad grow to 52 mm in length although most do not exceed 25 to 36 mm (Miller, 1960). -Carp. Carp are not native to the United States but were widely introduced from Europe in the 1800s. This species prefers warm waters and is generally not found in trout streams. In the Mississippi River, carp were found above St. Anthony Falls after 1920 and as far upriver as Little Falls by 1935 (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, p. 220). They thrive in eutrophic waters and can tolerate low dissolved oxygen, extreme temperature variations, and pollution as well as high turbidity. They are inactive at temperatures below 300 C (Burns, 1966)Spawning begins in late April or May when the water reaches 15.60 C (Jester, 1974, p. 38) with maximum activity at 190 to 230 C. Spawning continues through July but does not occur when temperatures exceed 28. C (Swee and McCrinmmon, 1966). Adhesive 'eggs 1 mm in diameter are randomly broadcast in very shallow water, usually over vegetation (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 407-411), and hatching occurs from 3 to 6 days up.to 10 to 20 days depending on temperature, (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, p. 220; Swee and McCrimmon, 1966). The eggs do not develop at temperatures above 42.50 C, and the rate of egg development is controlled by tempera-ture although sensitivity to temperature extremes varies with develop-mental stage'. For example, a 10 minute exposure to 410 C is lethal to all eggs during the first 6 hours of development, kills some eggs between 6 and 9 hours of development, kills all eggs between 12 and 20 hours of development, and has a diminishing effect therafter (Frank, 1974).Fecundity ranges from 36,000 to 2,208,000 (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966)and is about 220.8 eggs per gram of body weight, with males maturing at 2 years of age while females mature at 3 years (Burns, 1966).Carp are omnivorous, feeding on plant material, aquatic insects, crustaceans, molluscsi and annelids. They suck up bottom substrate, expel it into the water, and then select the food items. In addition, they sometimes feed on floating animal!S or algae at the water surface" (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 407-411). Their habit of stirring up the bottom and uprooting vegetation makes them a nuisance since this causes turbidity and may also ruin the feeding and spawning beds of other more desirable species; Carp may exceed 61 cm in length and 9 kg in weight with records of fish weighing more than 23 kg (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, p. 220).Black Crappie. Black crappie are found in medium-sized lakes and large streams from southern Manitoba to Quebec south to Florida and Texas. This species is absent from the deep lakes of northeast Minnesota, particularly in the Lake Superior drainage (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 360-362). It has been introduced elsewhere (Eddy, 1969, p. 212).111-55 Spawning occurs in May and June. The males make nests in water 1 WI'to 2 m deep and on bottoms that are often softer or muddier than preferred by most centrarchids (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 360-362),. These nests are 20.3 to 38.1,cm in diameter, 1.5 to 1.8 m apart, and may be in colonies. The eggs are 0.93 mm in diameter (Merriner, 1971a), are laid when the water is about 141 to 20-0 C, and hatch in 3 to 5 days. Black crappie have a very high reproductive potential with females laying 11,000 to 188,000 eggs, and both sexes mature at 2 to 3 years of age (Goodson, 1966b; Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 745-750).Their diet consists of aquatic insects, small crustaceans, minnows, and small fish. In winter they feed more actively than other species of centrarchids (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 360-362).Black crappie may reach an age of 8 to 10 years (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 745-750) but seldom exceed 30.5 cm in length. The record weight for Minnesota is 2.3 kg for a fish caught near the mouth of the Vermillion River in 1970 (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 360-362).Emerald.Shiner. Emerald shiners are most common in lakes and large rivers (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 253-254) from Lake Athabaska and the western Hudson Bay drainage in Saskatchewan to the St. Lawrence River system and Lake Champlain south to the Trinity River system in Texas and the Potomac River system (Hubbs and Lagler, 1964, p. 81). 1his species forms large schools near the surface offshore during summer and moves inshore' in the fall forming aggregations near piers and docks and in the mouths of rivers (mainly YOY). They move to deeper water for over-wintering and come to the surface at night during spring (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 440-443). This fish is an important forage species for fish as well as birds, and the population size fluctuates widely from year to year.Spawning generally occurs from Mlay through August (McCormick and Kleiner, 1976), while maximal activity is in late July and August in Lewis and Clark Lake (Fuchs, 1967). Spawning may occur more than once per season. The 0.01 to 0.67 mm diameter eggs are broadcast near the surface in open water when the water is 200 to 270 C, and hatching may be in 24 to 32 hours. The newly hatched larvae are 4 mm in length, and young fry are weak swimmers. The average fecundity is 3,410 eggs per female with maturity atl to 2 years of age, and the adults incur post spawning mortalities (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970; Fuchs, 19.67;McCormick and Kleiner, 1976).Young emerald shiners feed upon blue-green algae, rotifers, ciliated protozoa, and green algae while the adults primarily eat zooplankton with insects of secondary importance. The adults feed selectively on large organisms with Daphnia spp. often composing 90 percent of the stomach contents while forming only 20 percent of the plankton. Diap~tomus sp. is of secondary importance while Leptodora sp. is also preferred (Fuchs, i967).111-56 Their life span is generally 2 to 3 years with rapid growth during the first year, up to 55 percent of the maximum length (Fuchs, 1967).The usual length of adults is 102 mm although they may attain 127 mm (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 253-254).White sucker. The range of the white sucker is from the Mackenzie River Delta east to Ungava and Labrador and south to Georgia and Oklahoma (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 538-543). This species prefers clear cool waters over a hard sand or rock substrate; however, it is very adaptable and occurs in many other habitats including riffles, pools:, marshy areas, and soft bottoms (Schneberger, 1972).In the spring, ripe fish make spawning runs up tributaries (Schneberger, 1972), and the adults may home to certain streams (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 538-543). Spawning generally occurs in mid-May in Minnesota (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, p. 292), and begins when the water temperature reaches 7.2* C. The eggs are broadcast over riffles in streams or gravel in lakes with most activity at night. The yellow eggs are adhesive in quieter waters, and incubation time varies from 8 to 11 days at 100 to 150 C and 12 to 15 days at 100 to 11.70 C to 5 days at 15.60 'C. The fry remain in. the gravel for 1 to 2 weeks and migrate to the lake when 12 to 14 mm in length. Fecundity ranges from 20,000 to 130,000 eggs per female, but is generally 20,000 to 50,000 or '24.6/gram. The age at'maturity is usually 3 to 4 years (Schneberger, 1972;' Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 538-543)White suckers are bottom feeders that eat aquatic insects, molluscs, algae, and plant fragments. Young-of-the-year school while older fish do not, except for migration runs. They serve as forage for other species when young (Schneberger, 1972). Growth rates are quite variable, depending on numerous factors. The maximum age is about 17 years, and fish may attain a length of 635ýmm and a weight of 3.2 kg (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 538-543)Shorthead redhorse. The shorthead redhorse occurs from the Mackenzie River basin east of the Rockies to the Hudson Bay drainage and Quebec, south through the Ohio River drainage, and west to Arkansas and Montana (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 286-287). This species is more abundant in streams than in lakes or reservoirs. In the Des Moines River, the adults prefer fast flowing water over rocks, gravel, or rubble although some may be found over silt bottoms behind eroded bank vegetation while the young prefer fast water habitats (Meyer, 1962).In spring, the adults may migrate from larger water bodies into streams for spawning '(Scott and Crossman, 1973, p. 581) in riffles, but in slower flowing areas than for white suckers (Carlander, 1969, p. 518). -In the upper Mississippi River spawning occurs in late May and early June (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, pp. 286-287)'and when the water temperature reaches 110 C. Fecundity is 13,500 to 27,150 eggs for 3 to 6 year old adults, and maturity is at age 3 (Meyer, 1962).111-57 Fish longer than 10 cm feed primarily on benthic invertebrates such as chironomids, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera (Meyer, 1962). Their life span in Canada is 12 to 14 years. The maximum length recorded was 620 mm for a fish caught in Ohio, and the maximum weight recorded was 2.7 kg for a fish from Lake Erie (Scott and Crossman, 1973, pp. 579-583).c. THERMAL DATA FOR THE RIS. The temperature requirements and tolerance of fish are the basis for the predictive Type 2 impact analysis discussed later in this demonstration. Of prize concern are the upper thermal tolerances for survival. durinag the, spawning season and during summer, maximum temperatures for continued growth, and lower thermal tolerances (cold shock potential). The most pertinent literature thermal data for each of the RIS. are presented in Appendix Tables A-Il through A-20,and Appendix Figures.A-l through A-5.d. SPAWNING AREAS AND MIGRATIONS. No spawning areas have been.identified in the vicinity of PINGP during the field surveys. From the information in Appendix Table A-10, however, northern. pike, carp, black crappie, and emerald shiner probably spawn in all the backwater areas near PINGP such as North and Sturgeon Lakes. Walleye, white sucker, and shorthead redhorse prefer flowing waters and probably move upstream to the tailwaters of Dam No. 2 or up tributary streams. -White bass prefer shallow water over gravel and thus may spawn in areas. of riprap near the plant or in the main channel, as well as in natural areas of gravel...Channel catfish probably spawn in the main channel since they prefer protected sites, such as under logs or in holes, in areas with flowing water.None of the RIS undergo such spectacular mass migrations as salmon or eels, but walleye, suckers, and northern pike will migrate to appro-priate spawning areas. Walleye and suckers generally migrate upstream, and the distance is limited by the lock and~dam system in the Mississippi River. That walleye migrate to the tailwaters of the dams is evidencedý by the excellent fishing for this species and the closely related sauger just below Lock and Dam No. 3 in the spring.Tagging studies in 1974 (Naplin and Geis, 1975) and 1975 (Gustafson et al., -1976) showed that white bass and walleye were very:-mobile, while northern pike tended to remain in the area where tagged. In 1974, 24 white bass moved an average of 51.1 km (31.7 mi) and 7 walleye traveled a mean of 43.7 km (27.1 mi) while 6 northern pike averaged only 15.9 km (9.9 mi). In 1975, the mean distance traveled by .35 walleye was 27.5 km (17.1 mi) and by 77 white bass was 29.6 km (18.4 mi).e. PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS FOR RIS. The trophic relationships of the RIS in aquatic ecosystem near PINGP~are quite complex since feeding habits change with age as well as season and food availability. Appendix Table A,21 summarizes the food habits for each of the RIS during the larval stages as well as for juveniles and adults. Larvae of all the 111-58 species feed on algae, zooplankton, and aquatic insectllarvae. As the larvae develop into juveniles and adults their feeding habits change.Gizzard shad become herbivorous, feeding predominantly on phytoplankton. Emerald shiner-, carp, white sucker, and shorthead redhorse generally occupy low to intermediate trophic levels, and may provide forage for higher trophic level fish. Their diet includes algae, plant material, and a variety of micro- and macroinvertebrates. Channel catfish, black crappie, and white bass feed upon fish as well. as invertebrates, and thus, may occupy more than one trophic level. Walleye and northern pike feed primarily upon fish and other vertebrates as adults although juveniles (and occasionally adults) may sometimes feed upon macroinver-tebrates.In conclusion, the RIS feed upon a variety of prey (ranging from algae to vertebrates) throughout their life, and the piscivorous species prey upon some of the other RIS, particularly emerald shiners and young gizzard shad. These predators may also utilize young of other RIS as forage (e.g., white sucker, carp, shorthead redhorse, white bass, and northern pike).f. DISEASES AND PARASITES. Fish are host to numerous internal and external parasites ranging from fungi to vertebrates. Table 111-9 lists the general taxa of parasites and the types of infestation. Several bacterial or viral diseases, such as bacterial furunculosis and lympho-cystis, may infect fish, also. Most parasites and diseases of fish are species-specific and thus cannot be passed to humans. The broad tape-worm (Diphyllobothriuzr latum), however, can infect humans via ingestion of raw or partially cooked fish. Freezing or thorough cooking destroys most parasites although some may be aesthetically displeasing (e.g., large cysts in muscle tissue)The RIS chosen for this demonstration may be host to a variety of parasites. Gizzard shad are generally free of parasites which may be a result of their herbivorous diet (Miller, 1960). Carp apparently have few parasites, which are predomonantly external or gill flukes, while emerald shiners and shorthead redhorse also are slightly infested (Scott and Crossman, 1973, p. 443; Hoffman, 1967, pp. 321-406) .The other RIS may be infected with most of the parasites listed in Table 111-9. Two of the more noticeable parasites are externally encysted stage of trema-todes which are known as black spot (Uvulifer ambloplitis) and yellow grub (Clinostomum marginatum).

g. INFLUENCES OF MAN. The Mississippi River in the vicinity of PINGP has been altered by various activities of man for many years.The lock and dam system from Minneapolis to the confluence of the Missouri River was constructed to improve navigation on the upper Missis-sippi and has changed the free flowing river into, a series of lakes or pools. Depths and flows are controlled during moderate to low flows (see Hydrology section) while the areal extent of backwaters is increased.

111-59 Table 111-9.Taxa of fish parasites and types of infestation (from Hoffman, 1967).TAXA INFESTATION Fungi External, generally infect damaged or stressed fish Protozoa Wide variety of external and internal parasitism Trematoda (flukes)*Monogenetic Generally external, requiring only one host Digenetic Generally internal with multi-host life cycle Cestoda (tapeworms) Internal with multi-host life cycle Nematoda Mainly internal with two host life cycle, one of which is an invertebrate Acanthocephala Internal, usually require at least two hosts during life cycle Hirudinea' (leaches) External Crustacea (copepods) External, most common are Lernaea, Ergasilus, and Argul us Mollusca External, glochidia of freshwater clams encyst in fins or gills Vertebrata External, lampreys Physical conditions such as temperature and turbidity may also be altered during controlled flows. The biological changes that may have resulted from these alterations have not been monitored, but some estimates can be made. Species preferring fast flowing waters would tend to be found only in the tailwaters of the dams while species preferring lake-like habitats or backwater areas would increase in numbers. .Thus, the general aquatic community has probably shifted towards- a lacustrine community as a result of the lock and dam system.The navigation channel is maintainedby dredging,, although little dredging has been necessary in the vicinity of P.INGP (Cin, 20 October 1977).The river is heavily used by commercial and recreational interests during 111-60 W ice-free months, approximately 15 March to 10 December (Erickson, 15 June 1977). In 1976, a total of 6,050 lockages were recorded at Lock No. 3 just downriver from PINGP. Of these, 2,377 were commercial (barges), and 3,671 were for 11,390 pleasure boats (Corps of Engineers, 1977).If barge traffic were-assumed to be even throughout the navigation season, an average of 8.8 barges per day would pass PINGP (2,377 barges in 270 days).In constructing the PINGP intake and discharge, two channels were dredged in the southern end of Sturgeon Lake as described in the Hydrology section, and several areas were ripraped. The areas dredged, however, compose only 3.6 percent of the total surface area of Sturgeon Lake.Riprap was placed at the intake just prior to 'the skimmer wall, along the dike separating the refuge from the discharge, and along the west side of the discharge canal at Barney's Point. Dredging altered a small area of benthic habitat while the riprap provided a substrate for benthic organisms and fish.Both commercial and recreational fishing occur in Pool No. 3. The most valuable commercial species are catfish, carp, buffalo, and drum although some suckers, quillback, mooneye, goldeye, bowfin, gar, and turtles are takdn, also. The methods used are gill nets, seines, and set lines, and catch data for 1970 through-1974 are presented in Table III-10 for Pool Nos. 3, 4, and 4a (Lake Pepin). From these data it appears that the commercial harvest has been much greater in Lake Pepin than in either Pool Nos. 3 or 4, which is probably the result of greater fishing pressure (MDNR and WDNR records). The catch in Pool No. 3 has increased, and the catch in Pool No. 4 has decreased substantially while that in Lake Pepin has declined slightly. The increased harvest in Pool No. 3 has resulted from a dramatic increase in the catch of carp; the catch of catfish and buffalo has been declining over the same time period, while the catch per unit of effort (amount of gear or number of permits) has increased. For the other two pools, however, the catch per effort has declined. In all three pools, carp have dominated the commercial catch followed by buffalo, drum, and catfish in Pool No. 3; catfish, buffalo, and drum in Pool No. 4;and drum, buffalo, and catfish in Pool No. 4a.Recreational fishing is .open all year in the Mississippi River for all species, except sturgeon for which the season is 30 April through 31 October above Lock and Dam No. 3 (DNR, 1977). Little ice fishing occurs, however, because of limited accessibility and hazardous ice conditions (Naplin and Gustafson, 1975). The sport fishery in the vicinity of PINGP has been estimated by creel census since 1973 in the same sections used for the fisheries studies described previously. Table III-11 summarizes the fishing pressure and harvest in each section for 1973 through 1976. Although the fishing pressure h'as varied from year to year, it has remained substantially higher below Lock and Dam 1I1-61 No. 3 (Section 4) than in the immediate vicinity of PINGP (Sections 1, 2, and 3). The average number of man-hours (M-H) expended in Section 3 was lower than in either Section 1 or 2, but in terms of effort per unit of water area the fishing pressure has been higher in Section 3. Fishing success, as fish/M-H, has been higher above than below Lock and Dam No. 3 except in 1973; however, the harvest in terms of fish/ha has been sub-stantially higher below the dam. Thus, even though fishing pressure (M-H expended) and total harvest have been higher below Lock and Dam No. 3, the fishing success (fish/M-H) has been higher above Lock and Dam No. 3.Walleye and white bass were the dominant RIS in the sport catch (Table 111-12), particularly in Sections I through 3. The only other RIS reported in the sport harvest were channel catfish, northern pike, carp, and black crappie.Table IIl-10.Commercial catch (pounds) of carp, buffalo, catfish, and drum in Pool Nos. 3, 4, and 4a during 1970 through 1974 (data from NUS, 1976).POOL YEAR " 3 4 4a 1970 115,716 139,651 1,770,358 1971 37,963 221,690 2,289,455 1972 237,062 76,687 1,149,235 1973 357,581 53,363 1,468,224 1974 245,355 85,383 1,141,130/0 111-62 Table III-11. Creel census data for the vicinity of PINGP in 1973 through 1976.SECTION 1 2 3 4--YEAR AREA (ha) .324 180 83 257 Days surveyed 198 205 261 261 Estimated M-H (Total) 1,208 1,983 1,126 109,541 M-H/ha-da 0.019 0.054 0.052 1.633 19762 Harvest (Fish/M-H) 0.736 0.960 1.171 0.633 (Fish/ha-da) 0.014 0.052 0.061 1.034 (Fish/ ha) 2.77 .10.63 15.89 269.79 Days Surveyed 207 207 207 268 Estimated M-H (Total) 394 187 212 88,855 M-H/ha-da 0.006 0.005 0.012 1.290 19753 Harvest (Fish/M-H) 1.273 0.503 0.500 0.385 (Fish/ ha-da) 0.008 0.0025 I 0.006 0.497 (Fish/ ha) 1.58 0.52 1.24 133.10 Days Surveyed 218 218 218 218 Estimated M-H (Total) 812 696 153 46,311 M-H/ha-da 0.012 0.018 0.009 0.827 Harvest (Fish/M-H) 2.21 2.14 NO 0.63 (Fish/ ha-da) 0.027 0.039 NO 0.521 (Fish,, ha) 5.78 8.40 NO 113.58 Days Surveyed 180 180 180 180 Estimated M-H (Total) 200 670 500 41,210 M-H/ha-da 0.003 0.027 0.034 0.891 1973-Harvest (Fish/M-H) 0.36 0.75 0.33 0.69 (Fish/ha-da) 0.001 0.020 0.011 0.615.(Fish/ha) 0.19. 3.65 2.02 110.66!Section 1=Sturgeon Lake, Section 2=Mississippi River from Brewer Lake cit to PINGP intake, Section 3=PINGP intake to Lock and Dam No. 3, and Section 4-Lock and Dam No. 3 to Highway 63 bridge.2 Geis and Gustafson, 1977.3 Gustafson and Diedrich, 1976.4Naplin and Gustafson, 1975.5 Hawkinson, 1974.II1-63 Table 111-12. Percent composition of RIS in the estimated sport harvest near PINGP for 1975 and 1976.ECTION 19751 19762 SPECIES 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Walleye 33 100 50 14 56 14 3 9 White bass 5 0 50 17 24 43 74 32 Channel catfish 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 Northern pike 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 <1 Carp 0 0 0 <1 0 7 1 1 Total harvest 501 .94 106 34,119 853 1,973 1,333 69,981 (No. fish)IGustafson and Diedrich, 1976.2 Geis and Gustafson, 1977.3. Macroinvertebrates. The many uses of the river are both detri-mental and beneficial to the macroinvertebrates that occur in its numerous habitats. Some of the natural controlling factors which influence the distribution and abundance of macroinvertebrates include sediment type and currents. Sediment types vary with location mainly as a result of external inputs (e.g., leaves and sediments).and currents. The latter controls the sediment grain size with finer sediments occurring in slow flow or still areas and coarser sediments in faster flow areas. Currents in the vicinity of PINGP are generally slow, particularly in the backwater areas, because of the lock and dam system. In addition to currents, turbulence caused by the frequent passage of barge tugboats tends to scour the main channel more so than natural currents. Thus, the main channel of the river presents a formidable habitat for most macroinverte-brates. Along the main channel banks, however, manmade structures such as wing dams and bank stabilization mats provide a limited amount of relatively shallow stillwater habitat. PINGP is situated in a backwater area at the southern end of Sturgeon Lake. The plant creates its own intake and discharge currents which are superimposed upon those of the river, and these conditions also limit the distribution of certain macro-invertebrates. Iii-64 Because the Mississippi River near PINGP is a combination of lake:and riverine habitats, both fast-water and still-water macroinvertebrates

would be. expected therein. The damming of a river usually eliminates many of 2 the stream and current-loving fauna such as Trichoptera (caddis-flies) , Ephemeroptera (mayflies) and Plecoptera (stoneflies) which are replaced by chironomids (midges).

Chironomids are predominantly filter feeders that can endure low DO and are exceedingly fecund. Second in abundance to chironomids and usually displacing, them at a later date are the oligochaetes (iquatic earthworms). Acari (aquatic mites) are usually the third largest group. In lakelike habitats where a gentle flow of relatively clean water occurs, certain sessile organisms such aslbryazoans (moss animals) may occur also (Baxter, 1977).Sampling of the macroinvertebrate communities near PINGP began in 1970 (see Figure 111-28 and Table 111-13 for locations), and since that time a variety of methods have been used to sample the multiple habitats in the area (see Appendix Table. A-22). To date, ;four different methods have been utilized: dredging, artificial substrates, dip netting/hand picking natural substrates, and collecting aerial stages of aquatic macroinvertebrates as they emerge from the water column. From these sampling efforts, at least 371 taxa of macroinvertebrates have been identified (Appendix Table K-2). From 1974 through 1976, 91 taxa were collected by various dredging methods, 103 on artificial substrates, 231 from natural substrates, and 53 in emergence studies. Fifty-three taxa were common to both the dredge and the artificial substrate sampling, whereas 45 were common to the dredge, artificial substrate, and natural substrate samplinq methods. Only 10 taxa were common to all four sampling methods.In addition, 176 taxa were collected prior to 1974 by a combination of the dredge, artificial substrate, and natural substrate methods but the specific collection method. for each taxa was not delineated. Dominant macroinvertebrates collected by dredging in 1974 through 1976 are ranked according to their abundance in Appendix Table A-23 at three locations in the vicinity of.PINGP. Tubificids (sludge worms)appeared to be numerically dominant near the plant, although dipterans also rated high in abundance. on artificial substrates (Appendix Table A-24), the naidids (worms) were by far the most abundant with a dipteran (Glypto-tendipes) second in abundance. Trichopterans and ephemeropterans were collected commonly on artificial substrates but rarely in dredge samples.Diversity in both the dredge and artificial substrate samples was relatively low indicating, thatý,,A few taxa usually dominated the samples. A wide variety of insects were collected in the emergence studies although only those of aquatic origin are relevant to the present study. Dipterans dominated the catch with trichopterans second (Appendix Table A-25). Most of the dipterans in the emergence studies were not identified to genus but the dominant trichoperan was Hydropsyche. 111-65 547P-6 Figure 111-28. HDR station locations for biological bonaucted near PINGP during 1969-1976. For key to NSP stations versus HDR stations see Table 111-13.I1-66 Table 111-13. HDR key to sampling stations comparisons between studies conducted at PINGP.NO R STATIONS FOR NSP STUDIES.STATION WATER !lOCATIO STAONS PHYTOPLANKTON PRODUCTIVITY PERIPHYTON ZOOPLAXTON MACROINVERTEBRATES QU T __I , SLU (1974)2 I 4I 2 4 32 4 5 5 3 SLL (1974).6 SL SL (197 7 2 (1974) L a 5 9S6 10 4 B-1 B-1 TB 11 3 B 12 X-1 X-1 X-1 13 16 14 18 9 Intake 15 X-2 X-2 16 17 17 3 18 X-3 X-3 X-3 RecirT. CanalT 19 16 8 Discharge 20 7 B 21 -1 Y-. Y-1 T 22 7 23 , 8 24 2 25 4 Y-2 Y-2 Y T.26 CC-1 -i 27 9 7 C-4 C-4 C-4 T 28 15 Four genera of macroinvertebrates (Hydropsyche, Stenonema, Pseudo-cloeon, and Macronemum) have been chosen as RIS for this demonstration, and limited site-specific information regarding their abundance and distribution near PINGP is available. Hydropsyche and Stenonema were frequently collected in artificial substrate samples with Hydropsyche being the most abundant (Appendix Table A-26). Maximum densities of both species occurred in mid and late summer and both organisms exhibited relatively patchy distributions. Little is known about the life histories and feeding habits of macro-invertebrate fauna in large rivers (Hynes, 1970, p. 299), and some of the available data are summarized in Appendix Table A-27. Of the selected RIS, Stenonema and Pseudocloeon (ephemeropterans) are hemimetabolous; that is, 11-67 a naiad (nymph) develops from an egg and then molts into a winged sub- * )imago which emerges from the water. The sub-imago rests and molts into a mature imago. The adult males swarm and the females fly through for copulation. After a few days, the female deposits fertilized eggs either by dropping them from the air or attaching them to trees, the water surface (in foam), or various other substrates. The other two RIS, Hydropsyche and Macronemum (trichoperans) , are homometabolous. In this type of reproduction, larvae hatch from eggs and develop into pupae. After several molts the adult insect emerges from the water usually just before sunset or during twilight. Adult trichoperans live from 1 to 2 months during which time mating occurs.In the north temperate U.S., the most common type of emergence is seasonal, usually occurring during mid-summer, and appears to be initiated by a combination of temperature thresholds and photoperiod. In addition to mating, emergence may aid in redistribution to compensate for down-stream behavioral drift of the aquatic forms or for catastrophic losses.This is substantiated by the observation that the flight of emergent insects is almost exclusively upstream (Shyne, 1977).Thermal tolerances of macroinvertebrates are summarized in Appendix Figure A-6 and Appendix Tables A-28 and A-29. Information presented in Appendix Table A-28 and Figure A-6 pertain to the types of macroinver-tebrates that are likely to drift and encounter the thermal plume from PINGP. It is these drifting macroinvertebrates that are primarily sampled by the artificial substrates. Appendix Table A-29 summarizes thermal data for those organisms that are primarily fixed or sessi~le and, there-fore, subject to elevated temperatures for a period of time considerably longer than for those drifting through the plume. It is difficult to classify major groups of macroinvertebrates with regard to their thermal tolerance because thermal tolerance is generally species-specific. Thus, two species in the same genus may have very different thermal tolerances. Thermal tolerances will be discussed in great detail later in this demon-stration (see Section VI).The only species. of macroinvertebrate that is designated as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Higgin's eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii). Since 1970, when sampling for benthic macroin-vertebrates began at PINGP, not a single individual of this endangered macroinvertebrate has been collected although another species of the same genus has been collected in the area (Appendix Table K-2).Nuisance macroinvertebrates occurring in the area include sludge worms (tubificids), leeches (Hirundinea), mosquitos (dipterans), black flies (dipterans), and midges (dipterans) (APHA et al., 1975). An abun-dance of sludge worms is generally considered objectionable since these organisms usually indicate the presence of "sludge" while leeches are undesirable because they are parasitic. Mosquitos are considered a nuisance as well as a potential public health threat. Mosquitos, however, do not dominate the dipteran macroinvertebrate fauna near PINGP and have not been implicated in any public health problems. Black flies create III-68: a rather ubiquitous nuisance in most northern latitudes during late spring and early summer, but outside of being rather annoying, they are generally innocuous. Midges, when emerging from the water in great numbers, can cause a navigation hazard to tugboat captains.Benthic macroinvertebrates may be classified as pollution sensitive, facultative, or pollution tolerant. The organisms in each of these categories collected near PINGP are listed in Table 111-14. The river near the-plant site is characterized by few pollution tolerant taxa while many facultative and pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates are present, thus justifying the classification of this section of the river as a recovery zone rather than a polluted or clean water zone.4. Zooplankton. It is generally understood that rapidly flowing large rivers support relatively sparse populations of zooplankton (Hynes, 1970, p. 110); however, lacustrine plankton populations may develop if the flow rate is less than about 0.2 rm/sec, although no simple flow criterion is universally applicable (Baxter, 1977). In general, reser-voirs contain regions of fairly rapid flow where plankton populations may be small and other areas of relatively still water where considerable. populations may develop. In the upper: reaches of a reservoir, zooplankton populations may. be small before they drift into quieter waters where they can accumulate as a result of the gradually slowing current and increase their numbers.Near PINGP, the slow flowing currents (0.2 to 0.5 m 3/sec average)and extensive backwater areas created by Dam No. 3 have allowed the sparse natural zooplankton populations in the Mississippi River to proliferate before passing, downstream. Turbulence in the main channel of the river tends to reduce zooplankton populations simply by limiting food sources and by mechanical scouring. A characteristic of the recovery zone of the river near PINGP is that rotifers seem to dominate the zooplankton population. According to Dieterman (1975), as the river progresses from a polluted state immediately downriver from the Twin Cities area, the d6minant zooplank-ton grade from ciliates and bacteria to rotifers near PINGP to crustaceans downriver from Lock and Dam No. 3. Moreover, while progressing downriver.from the metropolitan sewage treatment plant, the zooplankton population becomes dominated by individuals with greater longevity. Zooplankton have been collected near PINGP since 1970 either by pumpiag or pouring whole water samples through a plankton net to concen-trate the catch (Appendix Table A-22). The mesh of the net (probably 64 pm) concentrated most rotifers and crustaceans as well as a few proto-zoans. Stations were generally sampled both up and downriver (far-field) and in the near-field region of the plant (see Table 111-13, and Figure 111-28). Approximately 188 taxa of zooplankton were collected over the first seven years of pre-operational and operational sampling (Appendix Table K-3). If euglenoids and other flagellated protists areconsidered, then almost 200 zooplankton taxa were collected. Numerically, rotifers 111-69 Table 111-14. Pollution tolerance of selected benthic macroinvertebrates collected in the vicinity of PINGP (from Mason et al., 1971;Weber, 1973).POLLUTION-SENSITIVE' FACULTATIVE 2 POLLUTION-TOLERANT 3 Porifera Ecotoprocta Pectinatella magniflca Mollusca Pelecypoda Leptodea fragills Arthropoda Hydracarina Ephemeroptera Baetis spp.Hexagenia limbata Isonychia sp.Stenonema exiguum S. interpunctatum S. tripunctatum Plecoptera Isoperla bilineata Perlesta placida Taeneopteryx maura Neuroptera Climacea areolaris Trichoptera Agraylea sp.Athripsodes carsi-punctatus Hydropsyche frisoni Hydroptila sp.Leptocella sp.Neureclepsis sp.Dipteri Ablabesmyia sp.Corynoneura sp.Labrundinia sp.Nanocladius sp.Orthocladius sp.Simulium jenningsii Tribelos sp.Hydrozoa Nematoda Ectoprocta Plumatella repens Endoprocta Urnatella gracilis Turbellaria Oligochaeta Naididae Nais sp.Hirudinea Dina sp.Erpobdella punctara Placobdella spp.mollusca Gastropoda Ferrissia sp.-Goniobasis sp.Gyraulus sp.Lymnaea sp.Pleurocera sp.Pelecypoda" Sphaerium sp.Arthropoda Crustacea Asellus sp.Crangonyx gracilis group Gansarus lacustris Gammarus sp.Hyalella azteca Orconectes sp.!Ephemeroptera Caenis sp.Stenonema integrum Tricorythodes Sp.Odonata Enallagma.sp. Kemiptera.Corixidae Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche sp.Hydropsyche Orris Polycentropus sp.Potamyia ffava Coleoptera Dineutus nr. discolor Dubiraphia sp..Stenelmis spp.Diptera Conchapelopia sp.Cricotopus spp.Dicrotendipes sp...Palpomyia spp. group Polypedilum spp.Parachironomus sp.Psectrocladius sp.Rheotanytarsus sp.Oligochaeta Branchiura sowerbyi Hirudinea Helobdella stagnalis Mollusca'Gastropoda Physa sp.Hemiptera Belastoma .sp.Gerris sp.Coleoptera Berosus sp.Tropisternus lateralis Diptera Chironomus spp.Cricotopus sp.Cryptochironomus spp.Procladius sp.Tanypus sp.L & --IPollution-sensitive organisms are those which through bioassy tests and experience are known to require environmental conditions associated with non-polluted habitats; i.e., high DO, near neutral, pH, etc.2 Facultative organisms are tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions. 3Pollution-tolerant organisms are known to tolerate environmental conditions associated with polluted waters; i.e., low DO, oH, etc.111-70 dominated the zooplankton at all stations during all seasons of the year (Appendix Table A-30). Rotifers were dominated by Keratella cochlearis and Brachionus calyciflorus, with population densities greatest in summer and fall. Cyclops vernalis dominated the copepods while Bosmina longi-rostris and Chydorus. sphaericus were the most abundant cladocerans. Maximum copepod and cladoceran populations also occurred in summer and fall. Like macroinvertebrates, zooplankton showed patchy distributions, but their diversity was generally higher than that for most macroinverte-brate populations. Rotifers have shorter. lifespans than both copepods and cladocerans. Their fast turnover rate may be one reason why they tend to dominate the summer .zooplankton populations of the sluggish water habitats in the vicinity of PINGP. Appendix Table A-27 summarizes the life history and feeding habits, for most of the zooplankton taxa. Many of the rotifers and cladocerans are filter feeders although some cladocerans are predatory and the dominant copepod, Cyclops vernalis, is also carnivorous. Filter feeding zooplankton are often opportunistic and will feed on bacteria, detritus, or phytoplankton. According to Miller (1971), zooplankton appear to be entrapped among aquatic macrophytes but also reproduce there.Thus, submerged and emergent macrophyte beds in shallow backwater areas along the river are important for the propagation of zooplankton. Larger zooplankton, especially cladocerans and copepods, are favorite prey for almost all types of young fish as well as predatory macro-invertebrates. The thermal tolerances of zooplankton are summarized in Appendix Figure A-7 and Appendix Table A-31. Cladocerans are generally more tolerant of high temperatures than copepods, although certain members of each group may be more or less tolerant than members of the other group. Rotifers appear to be even more thermally tolerant than either copepods or cladocerans, although little information exists regarding the tolerances of specific rotifers.No zooplankton have been classified as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nor are any considered as nuisance or:objectionable species found near PINGP. Most protozoans and rotifers, besides being capable of withstanding high temperatures, are also noted for their ability to adapt to and dominate zooplankton populations in nutrient enriched waters.. Most cladocerans are in the same pollution tolerant category as rotifers and protozoans. Copepods, however, may be pollution-tolerant, intolerant, or facultative. Again, the composition of zooplankton populations near PINGP re-emphasize that the Mississippi River near PIN GP is a zone of recovery from upriver nutrient inputs.111-71

5. Primary Producers.

a. PHYTOPLANKTON.

As mentioned previously, the unlimited source of nutrients from upriver and the abundance of shallow water areas bordering the main channel provide the section of the river near PINGP with both allochthonous and autochthonous energy sources for the base of the food web. Phytoplankton utilize both nutrient sources to photosynthesize organic matter for consumption by herbivores. In the main channel of the river, phytoplankton populations may be somewhat depressed because of the higher turbidity and turbulence caused by barge traffic as well as stronger currents while backwaters such as Sturgeon Lake that have -lower flushing rates, longer residence times, and slightly higher daytime temperatures tend to enhance phytoplankton growth rates and allow more blooms to occur. Diatoms tend to dominate regions of faster current and blue-green algae areas of slow current, apparently since diatoms are more dense and do hot form-the same buoyant mats that often allow blue-green algae to float and accumulate in stagnant and slow-moving ,water. Further-more, southerly winds may pile up surface.,phytoplankton into massive concentrations and mats duringithe' summer to augment blooms.. Baker (1975) has stated that phytoplankton concentrations and productivity near PINGP, especially in Sturgeon Lake, are probably as high as in any aquatic system considering the unlimited nutrient supply and limited light penetra-tion. It was found that in both Sturgeon Lake and the main channel, primary production can occur only in the upper 50 cm of the water column (Baker, 1974).Phytoplankton have been sampled more consistently and over a longer timer period than most of 1the other biological parameters measured at PINGP (Appendix Table A-22). Whole waterksamples collected.since 1969 have been analyzed for phytoplankton density, taxonomy, distribution, productivity, and pigments. A large number of stations (see Table iII-13 and Figure 1II-28)have been established since the beginning of the studies in order to define the phytoplankton populations of the area. More than 300 taxa of phytoplankton and periphyton have been collected near PINGP (Appendix Table K-4) with more than 171 of those being phytoplankton. Incidentally, a total of 60 diatom taxa were common t6 both phytoplankton and pern-phyton collections. Temporal and spatial variations in the abundances of various phyto-plankton taxa normally occur in aquatic ecosystems with diatoms generally dominant during spring and fall, green algae in early summer, and blue-greens in mid-summer (especially in nutrieht-rich waters). 'Diatoms, however, dominated phytoplahkton year-round at PINGP, whereas greens were second in abundance during most of the year and blue-greens reached maximum abundance during summer and fall, sometimes surpassing green algae in density (Appendix Table A-32). Near PINGP, the centric diatoms, Stephan-odiscus/Cyclotella spp., were most abundant followed by Nitzschia aci-cularis. Densities of these diatoms were lowest in winter and highest in spring, summer, and fall. Scenedesmus quadricauda, Ankistrodesmus spp., 111-72 Chlamydomonas spp., and cryptomonads were the dominant green algae which were most abundant in the fall and summer. Blooms of blue-green algae, such as Aphanizomenon flosaquae and Oscillatoria agardhii,.occurred in surface waters during summer and sometimes in the fall. This seasonal variation in dominance by various phytoplankton taxa is somewhat consis-tent with the findings of Vollenweider et al. (1974) and Ward and Robinson (1974) for northern U.S. lakes.Massive blooms of blue-green algae have occurred in the vicinity of PINGP,...particularlyin Sturgeon. Lake, long before the plant became operational. The Mississippi River near PINGP has a Nygaard quotient of 18.5 as compared to 5.3 for the relatively clean Lake Minnetonka (Brook, 1970). The Nygaard quotient is calculated from the relative taxonomic composition of phytoplankton populations, and a high number indicates eutrophic conditions with possible contamination by sewage or cattle-waste runoff.. Several reasons for dominance of phytoplankton communities by blue-green algae during the summer have been postulated (Baker:, 1977;Keating, 1978). Blue-greens are usually more thermally tolerant to high ambient temperatures than are diatoms, tend to proliferate in nutrient enriched waters, and protect themselves by a form of self-defense known as allelopathy. The latter phenomenon involves the ability of one type of algae to inhibit growth of other types. This inhibition dissipates slowly causing the intensity of diatom blooms that follow blue-green blooms to vary inversely with density of the preceding blue-green algal populations. Phytoplankton distribution near PINGP was patchy, and annual variations in population densities were as large as 100-fold (Appendix Table A-32).Diversity near the plant ranged from relatively low to relatively high, depending on the time of year. Net productivity was usually relatively. high, especially in the summer, and the productivity in. 1976 was as much.as 3 to 4 times as high as that on similar dates in. 1974 and 1975 (Baker, 1977). Phytoplankton density was also twice as high in 1976 as in earlier years while pigment concentrations (i.e., chlorophyll a) were double or triple those in previous years.Most phytoplankton reproduce continuously with reproductive rates directly related to water temperatures. Some phytoplankton become inactive during unfavorable times of the year, and although they comprise portions of the phytoplankton populations at certain times of the year, this is no indication of their activity (Baker, 1977). Thermal tolerances of phytoplankton are generally higher than those for zooplankton and macroinvertebrates, and most phytoplankton can withstand temperatures much higher than those at which they usually occur (Appendix: Figure A-8 and Table A-33). Blue-green algae generally can withstand higher tempera-tures than diatoms or green algae (Bush et al., 1974).Although there are many types of algae that are considered objection-able or nuisance species, few can be considered truly noxious in fresh-water habitats. Blue-greens generally are the most undesirable phyto-111-73 plankton, and the genera most commonly associated with taste and odor problems are Anabaena, Anacystis, and Aphanizomenon. In addition, some diatoms (Asterionella, Synedra, and Tabellaria) and green algae (Volvox, Staurastrum, and Pandorina) are associated with objectionable taste and odor in water. Staurastrum is also an indicator of clean water while some of these phytoplankton are indicators of polluted water, especially the blue-greens, some diatoms (Nitzschia aand Gomphonema), and some euglenophytes (Euglena, Phacus, and Lepocynclis) (APHA et al., 1975).It should be emphasized, however, that many of these so-called polluted water or nuisance algae naturally inhabit unpolluted waters, and only when they reach extremely high densities do they become objectionable.

b. PERIPHYTON.

Periphyton comprises diatoms, blue-greens, and other types of algae that occur ubiquitously on substrates in freshwater habitats. They grow on whatever substrate is available-which at PINGP is primarily in the upper 50 cm of water where light can penetrate. Periphyton contain many of the same taxa that are found in the phyto-plankton and in fact contribute '*may of the planktonic diatoms that are collected in whole water samples. Periphyton communities near PINGP have been defined primarily as the diatoms that are capable of growing upon an artificial substrate (cleaned glass slides suspended just below the water surface over a period of two weeks) .The stations sampled are shown in Table III-13 and Figure 111-28 and the sampling methods are described in Appendix Table A'22.A total of 207 periphyton taxa (Appendix Table K-4) have been enumerated near PINGP, and these follow many of the same general seasonal trends as do the planktonic diatoms. Centric diatoms of the genus Cyclotell-a appear to be numerically dominant much of the year, except during winter.Navicula cincta and Nitzschia acuta occur abundantly throughout the year, including winter (Appendix Table A-34). It is of interest to note that in periphyton; as in many bther:groups of-organisms, different species of the saine genus may have remarkably different thermal optima with one species-abundant in winter while another is abundant in summer. Periphyton distribution at PINGP was characterized by sizeable temporal and spatial variations. Diversity, however, was consistently high at all stations where it was measured, as was chlorophyll a, except during winter.Phaeophytin a (a degradation product of chlorophyll a) increased relative to chlorophyll a during the summer, indicating increased mortality of periphyton at higher temperatures. Periphyton, like phytoplankton, reproduce continuously with'their reproductive rates related to parameters such as water temperature, nutrient levels, and light. In addition, they can become dormant during periods of sub-optimum environmental conditions. Thermal tolerances of periphyton are suanarized-in Appendix Tables A-35 and A-33 as well as in Figure A-8. In general,. those diatoms that can survive at higher tempera-tures are more abundant in summer or fall whereas those that prefer lower temperatures are more abundant in winter.111-74 Periphyton are among the first colonizers of solid substrates and may attract invertebrates and be grazed upon by many types. of fish.However, they often cause objectionable growths onhm an-made structures. These growths may be undesirable from a functional standpoint (e.g., reduction of water flow) or from an aesthetic viewpoint (e.g., unsightly growths on boats or piers). In fact, where surface friction is designed to be minimal, the use of biocides or mechanical methods are sometimes necessary to inhibit growth of these organisms.

c. AQUATIC MACROPHYTES.

The importance of macrophytes in any aquatic ecosystem cannot be underestimated. Wetlands and marshes provide both direct and indirect benefits to the organisms living on, among, or near them. First and most importantly, they provide an energy source for many large and small primary consumers (herbivores). Secondly, they provide important spawning and feeding habitats for zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish, and birds. The importance of these beds to migratory and resident waterfowl as well as predatory birds is well known. Thirdly, macrophyte beds provide shelter for many aquatic organisms and provide one of the most important fish nursery areas in any aquatic habitat. And fourthly, they provide a substrate for periphyton and many sessile invertebrates. Aquatic macrophytes in the vicinity of PINGP have been recorded by observation from landK and aerial photography since 1970. A total of 74 taxa were found near PINGP (Appendix Table K-5): 7 taxa of submerged macrophytes, 18 taxa of emergent macrophytes, and 49 taxa. of shoreline and island plants. The location of these macrophyte beds is shown in Fig re 111-29, and the taxa for each area are listed in Appendix Table A-36 ' The greatest concentration of macrophyte beds was located in the northern reaches of Sturgeon Lake, and these consisted of pondweeds, wild celery, and bull-rush. Very little.habitat for macrophytes was found in the main channel of the river or near PINGP. Pondweed was found in the intake area south to the discharge canal, while along the southwest shore of the discharge canal a variety of macrophyt:es, including pondweed, spike-rush, bullrush, and Phragmites occurred from 1974 to 1976. Distribution of macrophytes depends upon the availability of sui table substrate, water depth, and currents. Siltation, in addition to changing sand bars and mud banks, can bury macrophyte beds during floods and at other times of the year.Furthermore, large fluctuations in water level can obliterate macrophyte beds.Most macrophytes are flowering plants, requiring alternation of generations and pollen production for reproduction. Water level is critical for the growth and development of new plants, as is type of substrate. Little is known about the thermal t6lerances of various macrophytes, and it is often unknown which environmental factor(s)causes the disappearance or appearance of a particular macrophyte taxa.There are no known nuisance or objectionable macrophytes near PINGP, and for reasons stated previously, these plants are generally beneficial to aquatic habitats. Marshy areas may be considered as breeding habitats for undesirable insects, such as black flies and mosquitoes; 111-75 01)547P-5 Figure 111-29.Locations of macrophyte beds observed near PINGP during 1973 through 1976. For description of areas, see Appendix Table A-36.111-76 L L-Ifl (panu1luoo) 6Z-TII aanbvTj however, under normal environmental conditions, these populations of nuisance organisms are held in check by fish, macroinvertebrates, and zooplankton residing therein.6. Birds. Northern bald eagles, ducks, and other waterfowl migrate through the Mississippi River Valley in the fall and spring with some over-wintering in areas' of open water. A thermal discharge such as that at PINGP may influence the numbers overwintering by providing open water and by attracting fish and other organisms utilized as food by the birds.Eagles migrate into the PINGP area from late September to mid-December and are diffusely distributed until the water begins toý freeze (Faanes, 1975). The 'main concentrations during the faill and winter of 1975-1976. were near Prescott-, Trentonj Bay Point Park, Lock and Dam No. 3, with a few (about 4 percent) at PINGP. ConseqUently, the latter area does not appear rtoýbe an important eagle, overwinte ring area, and pIeak utilization of the plant area occurred in January (Faaries, 1975).: During the fall and winter of 1976-1977, similar numbers were' observed near PINGP, although few eagles were observed January through March which may be the result of the severe winter, and peak' utilization of the PINGP area was in mid-November (Hibbard, unpublished). Eagles in the area from Prescott to Lake Pepin fed primarily on gizzard shad although some suckers, redhorses, white bass, and goldeye were eaten (Faanes, 1975)_Ducks and other waterfowl utilize open water areas along the Missis-sippi River during their migrations, and some may overwinter in the vicinity of PINGP. Mallards are common, and the PINGP thermal discharge may enhance the numbers overwintering in the area (Hibbard, 14 November 1977). Other migratory ducks using the river in the fall of 1976 include goldeneye, lesser scaup, canvasbacks, and redheads along with waterfowl such as swans and cormorants (Hibbard, unpublished). Peregrine falcons., an endangered species, formerly nested in the Mississippi River Valley as far north as Diamond Bluff (Tordoff, 23 January 1978). Recently some have been transferred to previous nesting sites along Lake Pepin 48 to 80 km (30 to 50 mi) downriver from PINGP (Hibbard, 14 November 1977). None of these' have returned and nested successfully thus far but some a re expected this year. Experience farther east has shown that approximatebly 15 years of releasing peregrine falcons is necessary for reestablishment (Tordoff, 23 January 1978).This species feeds upon medium sized birds of many species, including small ducks.111-78 IV. PLANT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING PROCEDURE A. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM 1. Description. The circulating water system serves as a heat sink for both the condenser and the plant cooling water systems. Con-denser cooling water removes latent heat from exhaust steam leaving the low pressure turbine, while plant cooling water removes heat from the in-plant auxiliary machinery. Most of the circulating water comes from Sturgeon Lake, with little to none coming directly from the main river channel. The balculated percentage of total Mississippi River water in the circulating water makeup for 1975 is shown in Table IV-l. The maximum intake makeup water volume amounts, in general, to less than 5 percent of the mean monthly river flow. The amount of makeup water is small compared to the flow in the main river channel.The major components of the circulating water system are shown in Figure IV-l, and the flow diagram is presented in Figure IV-2. Note that the flow rates indicated in Figure IV-2 are for the closed cycle mode.The typical flow rates for various cooling modes are discussed in Section IV A.2.The approach channel has been dredged to a width of 183 m (600 ft)and a depth of 3.1 m (10 ft) at normal pool elevation of 674.5 ft msl.A barrier wall separates the approach channel and the intake canal. The function of this wall is to prevent warm water from the recycle canal from escaping to the river. The barrier wall also effectively prevents recir-culation of the blowdown discharge which may be blown upstream by southerly winds during periods of low river flow and prevents floating objects from entering the system. Circulating water is drawn from the approach channel into the intake canal and after mixing with recycled water enters the screenhouse. Trash racksi and traveling screens collect organisms and debris from the intake stream to prevent them from entering the circulating water pump basin.Four vertical shaft, volute type water pumps inside the screenhouse provide 1,350 cfs of water through 84-inch steel inlet pipes to the condensers, and two horizontal centrifugal motor pumps withdraw up to 60 cfs for the plant cooling water system. Each rectangular shaped, welded steel plate condenser is divided into an inner and outer water pass. Crossover piping connects the inner passes in series and also the outer passes in series. There are two interconnected condensers and two IV-1 Table IV-l. Percentage of mean monthly Mississippi River flow entering the intake canal, January through Septem-ber 1975.AVERAGE PERCENT OF MEAN NTH RIVER INTAKE FOW MONTHLY RIVER FLOW, (FLOW ENTERING INTAKE CANAL January 7,995 175 2.2 February 8,691 289 3.3 March 9,944 281 2.8 April 45,860 414 1.0 May 65,220 618 1.0 June 36,200 326 0.9 July 38,010, 761 2_6 August 111790 541 4.6 September l0,950 378 3.4 October 10,070 265 2.6 November 12,570 190 1.5 December 12,561 175 1.4 11975 USGS data (cfs) at Prescott, Wisconsin. 2 From PINGP Environmental Event Log.circulating water pumps per unit. One pump circulates water through the inner pass and the other through the outer pass so that circulating water makes one pass through the tubes of the interconnected condensers. The overall temperature rise through the plant is about 13.80 C (24.80 F). The circulating water carrying approximately 7.86 x 109 BTU/hr of rejected heat (total for both units) is then directed to the cooling tower pump.suction .bay through two concrete.-pipes (102-inch ID).From the cooling tower pump suction bay, four cooling tower pumps convey the heated circulating water through individual pipes to header pipes at the top of the four 12-cell crossflow cooling towers. Flow control valves along the header distribute water to the hot water basin which evenly dispenses the water through nozzles to the fill area below.Tower fill is PVC slats used to break the water into fine droplets.The water falls by gravity through the fill section and is collected in a concrete basin at the bottom of each tower.- Fans draw air through, this fill area to aid in the evaporative heat loss, and the heat is carried into the atmosphere by the air 'flow. From the basin at the bottom of the IV-2 OI* BARRIER INTAKE WALL APPROACH CHANNEL CANAL-- -SC RE ENHOUSE RECYCLE CANAL S POWER HOUSE RECYCLE CANAL GATES , 4 -10" X 12" aY-PASS GATES DISCHARGE GATES COOLING TOWER PUMP SUCTION BAY EQUIPMENT HOUSE, DISCHARGE CANAL COOLING TOWER PUMP HOUSE DISTRIBUTION BASIN COOLING TOWER RETURN CANAL " -COOLING TOWERS COOLING TOWER CONTROL HOUSES 547P-26.1 Figure IV-l. Schematic diagram of the circulating water system.IV- 3 Figure IV-2. Representative flow diagram of the circulating water system (closed cycle).towers, water flows through the cooling tower return canal to the dis-tribution basin. If desired, circulating water in the cooling tower pump forebay can can be routed.,directly to the distribution basin through interconnecting gates. Recycle canal gates in the north wall of the distribution basin route the water to the recycle canal for return to the intake canal.In order to avoid evaporative accumulation of dissolved solids (design concentration factor* = 1.25) in the circulating water system, continuous blowdown is needed. The thermal discharges from blowdowns in both-the closed and partial recycle modes are considered in this demonstration. The discharge gates are 10 x 12 ft motor-operated steel gates which can be operated remotely from the control room. After the warmed water leaves the discharge gates, it enters the discharge canal and ultimately the main channel of the river.*Concentration factor volume makeup volume blowdown + drift IV-4

2. Modes of Operation.

The circulating water system can be operated in four basic modes: closed, partial recycle, helper, and open cycle.The closed cycle mode is described in III A.1. During, this mode of operation, up to 186 cfs of water is withdrawn from the intake canal, a maximum of 36 cfs is evaporated in the cooling towers, and the rest (150 cfs)is discharged into the Mississippi River. A flow diagram for a typical closed-cycle mode of operation is shown in Figure IV-2.During warm, humid weather periods, two factors act to increase the temperature of the inlet water to the condensers: (1) the temperature of the water drawn from Sturgeon Lake is higher, and (2) cooling tower outlet water temperature is-increased because of increased wet bulb temperatures. To maintain a design maximum of 29.40 C (851 F) at the condenser inlets, the volume of water drawn from Sturgeon Lake is increased while the volume of water recycled from the cooling tower discharge is decreased. The volumes of these two sources are thus regulated to maintain an average inlet temperature of no more than 29.40 C (85* F). Since less water is returned to the screenhouse from the cooling towers than under normal closed-cycle conditions, there must be a corresponding increase in blow-down. Functionally, the desired condition is achieved through control of the volume of blowdown water; the intake from the approach channel increases to compensate for the reduced return to the intake canal from the cooling towers, to maintain the required total flow of water through the screenhouse at 1,410 cfs.When more than 150 cfs of blowdown is discharged, the plant operates in a partial recycle mode. The amount of recycle is calculated as the ratio of makeup water volume to total circulating water flow'(1,410 cfs).Figure IV-3 shows a typical flow diagram for 50 percent recycle operation where makeup water is 705 cfs. As condenser inlet temperature increases, blowdown rate will be increased accordingly. When the makeup water rate equals the total circulating water flow,. the operation is considered helper cycle mode (Figure iV-4). In Figure IV-4, the total discharge to channel 42 (See Figure 111-8) via-the discharge canal is 1,374 cfs since a maximum of 36 cfs is evaporated in the cooling towers. Note that the discharged warm water has been cooled in the cooling towers.If the warm water bypasses the cooling towers and is passed directly to the discharge canal (Figure IV-l), the operation is called open cycle mode. In this mode, after the circulation water reaches the cooling tower pump forebay, the water is allowed to flow in'to the distribution basin via bypass gates. The water in the distribution basin subsequently flows into the discharge canal. A schematic flow diagram for the open cycle mode is presented in Figure IV-5.IV-5 MAKEUP 1410 cfs 547P-1 91 Figure IV-3. Flow diagram for a 50 percent recycle mode.TOWER LOSS 36 cfs.(MAX)0 CIS PLANT 60 cfs SERVICE COOLING cfs SCREEN 130'301-40 COOLING DI SCHARGE REEN *1ASH 5fh Figure IV-4. Flow diagram for a helper cycle mode.Iv-6 60 cfs.60 cft MAKEUP 1410 cfs 5 cfs Figure IV-5. Flow diagram for a once-through mode with a maximum with-drawal rate of 1,410 cfs.The helper and open cycle modes have not been used. Servicing cooling towers may result in bypassing part or all of the circulating water to the distribution basin and then to the discharge canal. -The main difference between open cycle and helper cycle modes is that during open cycle operation, circulating water is not cooled by the cooling towers before it is discharged to the river. The makeup flow requirements and the"blowdown rates for each mode of operation are summarized in Table IV-2.3. Chlorination of Plant Cooling Water. Condenser water at PINGP is not chlorinated to prevent biofouling of the condenser surfaces since the Amertap method* is used to clean the condenser tubes. The plant*(Amertap utilizes many sponge balls, whose diameter is slightly greater than the diameter of condenser tubes, to scrape any surficial deposit from the condenser tubes).IV-7 Table IV-2. Modes of operation for PINGP.COOLING WATER RECYCLE DISCHARGE MAXIMUM OPERATION INTAKE OR CANAL OR EVAPORATIVE MODE MAKEUP FLOW FLOW BLOWDOWN LOSS (cfs) (cfs) FLOW (cfs) (cfs)Closed Cycle 186 1,312 150 36 50 Percent Recycle 705 705 669 36 Helper Cycle 1,410 -1,374 36 Open Cycle (Once Through) 1,410 1,410 cooling water (service water), however, is chlorinated, on the suction side of the two cooling water pumps. The purpose of the chlorination is to prevent fouling of heat exchanger surfaces by growth of algae or other microorganisms. The current method of injecting chlorine is through an electric valve controlled by a timer. The valve is opened every 6 hours and remains-open for approximately .30 minutes. The amount of chlorine release is about 22.7 kg (50 lbs)/day or 5.7 kg (12.5 ibs) Per each 30-minute release.Chlorine is stored in liquid form at room temperature in standard 1-ton containers. As many as four containers may be stored at a time.Chlorination is carried out in a well-established procedure by injecting water with elemental chlorine gas. In aqueous solution, the active forms of chlorine are mainly the hypochlorite ion and hypochlorous acid.In open cycle or helper cycle mode of operatioy, chlorinated plant cooling water would mix with condenser circulating water and'discharge directly to the river. In a closed or recycle mode, part of the mixed water is returned, through the recycle canal, to the intake basin and into the plant curculating/cooling water systems. Elemental chlorine may escape into the atmosphere through surface contact with air in the cooling towers, the recycle canal, and the intake canal. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to compute the chlorine residual in the discharge water; consequently, a monthly measurement of residual chlorine is conducted on the river side of the discharge gates (Table IV-3). The lower threshold of the instrument used is about 0.01 ppm. From these data, it can be concluded that the residual chlorine concentration in the circulating water is too low to be of any biological significance and is much less than the 0.2 ppm specified in the NPDES permit. In IV-8 2 Table IV-3.T¶vpical residual chlorine concentrations in the discharge water and in the cooling water.DISCHARGE GATE (River Side) COOLING WATER CONCENTRATION (ppm) CONCENTRATION (ppm)November, 1976 0.03 -2 December, 1976 0.03 -2 January, 1977 -1 2 February, 1977 0.03 -2 March, 1977 1 2 April, 1977 0.05 2 May, 1977 0.03 2 June, 1977 -1 __ 2 July, 1977 0.03 -2 August, 1977 0.02 2 September, 1977 0'.01 1.10 October, 1977. 0.02 0.86 iBelow detection limit of 0.01 ppm or off scale.2 No measurement made.September 1977, measurement of residual chlorine in the cooling water system (before mixing with the circulating water) was initiated, and the data are presented

in Table IV-3 also. The values averaged about 1 ppm and reflect. typical. concentrations in the cooling water system.4. Other Chemicals Used.- Besides the small amount of chlorine residual in the plant cooling water and radioactive elements originating from the steam blowdown and pump seal water, several other chemicals are discharged into the river via the circulating water system. Three discharge outfalls are connected to the circulating water system: generator blowdown, radwaste effluent, and neutralizer tank effluent.The turbine building sump effluent comprises effluents from the condensate system blowdown, heating system blowdown, and the resin rinse effluent.Flow is from the sump to the cooling water return header and then to the circulating water discharge, piping. The flows and constituents of these effluents are surmmarized in Table IV-4.IV-9.

i I Table IV-4. Summary o~f liquid discharges-into the limitations. circulating water system including effluent ESTIMATED TOTAL OIL AND GREASE SUSPENDED-SOLIDS DISCHARGE 1AXIMUM AVERAGE' (mg/0) (mg/)) VALUE T IPOINT SOURCE FLOW FLOW CHEMICALS MONTHLY DAILY MONTHLY DAILY (cfs) (cfs) AVERAGE MAXIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM Silica, Steam Generator hydrazine -10 Blowdown 0.39 0.04 morpholine Radwaste Effluent 0.08 0.01 -30 100 25 4-10 Circulating Water Neutralizing Tank Effluent 0.23 0.12 2 3U 100 '25 6.5-8.5 Circulating Water.Condensate System Turbine Building Blowdown 0.39 0.05 -1 30 100 25 4-10 'Sump Heating System Turbine Building Blowdown 0.39 0.03 --30 100 25 4-10 Sump Resin Rinse Turbine Buiding EffluentO 0.02 --- 30 100 25 4-10 Sump Turbine Building Sump 0.77 0.31 1 0 153 30 100 25 4-10 Circulating Water 1 Essentially none.2Taable IV-5.3 Essentially free of visible oil.1,Well water flow ranges from 0.2 to 0.45 cfs.H H 0 Neutralizing tank effluents account for most of the chemicals dis-charged. Liquid effluent from the neutralizing tank is from regeneration of demineralizers for purifying makeup water. During normal batch opera-tion, effluent is released to the circulating water system at a maximum rate'of 20,000 gallons per day and at a minimum of 6-hour intervals.. Dissolved minerals include approximately 213 kg (470 ibs) of various chemicals occurring naturally in the well water and up to 327 kg (720 lbs)of regeneration and neutralization chemicals. Chemicals in the natural well water are typically Ca+ , Mg++, Na+, HC03-, SOL,, SiO 2=, and C1-.Chemicals from the regeneration and neutralization consist primarily of Na+ and SO4=. Table IV-5 lists:the estimated quantities of these chemicals discharged to the river. The equivalent discharge canal and river concen-trations were estimated by assuming complete mixing with the circulating water and the water in the discharge canal (1,410 cfs assumed) and with the river (11,000 cfs assumed). The equivalent increases in concentration are less than 0.8 percent and 0.1 percent in the discharge canal and in the river water flow, respectively. The percentage increase is thus inconsequential. Table IV-5. Chemical Concentrations from neutralizinq tank effluents (based on data from AEC, 1973).DAILY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT NORMAL DISCHARGE CANAL RIVER RIVER CHEMICAL DISCHARGE CONCENTRATION I CONCENTRATION 2 CONCENTRATION (lbs) (kg) (mg/i) (mg/£) (mg/Z)Regeneration Chemicals+Na 233 106 0.0300 0.0039 6 to 18 S0 4 487 217 0.0600 0.0080 10 to 75 Total 720 327 0.0900 Well Water Minerals 3 Ca++ 74.4 33.8 0.0092 0.0012 34 to 72 Mg++ 23.2 10.5 0.0029 0.0004 11 to 22 Na 4 12.5 5.7 0.0020 0.0002 6 to 18 HCCO3 285.0 129 0.0400 0.0048 66 to 235 S0 4= 31.3 14.2 0.0039 0.0005 10 to 75 ,SiO 2= 24.4 11.1 0.0030 0.0004 0.4 to 13*C1- 17.8 8.1 0.0022 0.0003 2 to 25 Total .. 470.0 213 0.0600 iAssuming a discharge dilution flow rate of 1,410 cfs which includes blowdown and natural dilution in the discharge canal.2 Assuming an average river flow rate of 11,000 cfs.3 Based on well water analysis of 5/2/72 and on 150,000 gallons of water purified per regeneration cycle (once per day).IV-ll B. PLANT PERFORMANCE AND COINCIDENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Plant Availability and Plant Outages. Each unit at PINGP is rated at 507 MWe for summer (May through. October) and 523 MWe for winter (November through April). Since the plant is a base-load facility, the projected load in 1979 can be considered constant throughout each time period (Forest, 2 February 1978).Prior to November 1976, plant operation was not considered to be representative of future operation because of mechanical problems with the cooling towers, particularly icing damage related maintenance...

These caused substantially lower availability factors and capacity factor.s in the winters- of 197.4 and 1975. Availability factor is defined as the percentage of time a unit is on line, regardless of how much electrical. power is delivered, while capacity factor is the ratio of actual MW-hours delivered to the rated MW-hours in a given time period, excluding scheduled or planned outages.During the winters of 1974 and 1975, one or more of the four cooling towers, were out of service due to severe gear box damage. In the spring and early summer when the cooling towers were needed most to maintain low makeup water requirements to protect larval fish, they were often being repaired. This resulted in high recycle canal temperatures and, subsequently, high blowdown rates.The operational period from November 1976 through October 1977 is considered to be more representative of future plant operation than previous years. The availability factor, capacity factor, and the number of outages for each month, are summarized in Table IV-6. In this table, outages are broken down into forced trips and planned trips. A forced trip is a shutdown triggered by built-in safety mechanisms (which auto-matically terminate the chain reaction in the reactor) because of equip-ment malfunctions or operator errors. Planned trips (scheduled outages)include scheduled-refueling, periodic inspections, major equipment-pre-ventive maintenance, reactor operator training, examinations, and plant modification. A planned trip usually involves removal of the main genera-tor from service and is always planned well in advance... Refueling typically occurs about once a year for each unit, and lasts about 6 to 8 weeks.Important equipment maintenance is normally scheduled during refueling periods; however, other scheduled trips are still necessary to fulfill requirements for preventive maintenance and inspection. As shown in Table IV-6, scheduled'refueling of Unit 2 was in October, November, and a part of December 1976 while refueling of Unit 1 extended from the latter part of March through April 1977.The probability, p, of a forced trip occurring when the other unit is refueling, is calculated from the equation p = i-(I -pt)%2 IV-12 H H F, Li Table IV-6. Summary of availability factors, capacity factors, and plant outages for November 1976 through October 1977 (Brown, 7 November 1977). See text.1977 PLANT OPERA'ION UNIT I UNIT 2 1NUMBER OF OUTrAGES fNUMBER OF OUTAGES DATE AVAILABILITY CAPACITY R AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FACTOR' FI At l' PORCED PLANNED VA(-PO, F.ACTOR:' FORCED PLANNED TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP I 1~Nov 76 98.1 97.4 (Inverter Failure, Refuelin.g Outage 14 lis)1 2 (Feed Water Ruau- (Testing and Duc 76 100.0 98.0 39.1 31.V latur Valve Con- Other Mi4sel-troltln 5 hra) lancous from Outage, JO hrs)Jan 77 98.1 96.4 (Rod Dirop; BDd 100.0 98.0 Fusj,, 14.2 hrs)I I I( Condiii stir-Feb 77 94.4 92.2 (Condenser 93.9 91.5 (0-unerator Cd111111(Cleaning) Executor Maifunc- 7.1 hlra)_________________t~oll) 71b 1' 1 1 (Inrvur tor Failure, (R tI i.q, 98.6 97.3 (1 C Error During C 17.1 lira) 34() liC ro)lI,r)Ap:t 77 Refueliit9 Uutage 100.0 98.4 2 2 (T.tili9 anld (Condu..e.r Vdavin9 Other Miscel- 9 9 XcError, 5 hrs;.May 7C9.0 O2.O -laneou. Itums 7. .4 Flow 2M Trans-from Outages, former, 10.6 hrs)726 irts)I 1 June 77 93.6 91.9 (Turbine Work. 97.8 95.0 (2M T'ransforumr, 46.1 hrs) lb irs)(ated Water Regu -100.0 98.5 July 77 98.8 97. aItor Value C:o£1-troflur, 8.7 firs)(Steamn-!a.d Water Aug 77 10U.u 98.2 .99.1 93.1 Valuus Failure, 6.7 fir.)Sept 77 100.0 95.8 100.0 98.0 1 1 Pll- (Turbijie Work, Oct 77 95.9 94.9 ahinJ Value Error, S.uam Leaks 100.0 98.4 3.1 hr.r) 27.1 lira)6 i 7 4 Total 6f 7 Trips II- ----- ________lPercent of time unit is on line, excluding p1lanned outages.2 Delivered energy/rated energy. where Pt is the probability of a forced trip on any day of the year.Based on the typical plant performance record shown in Table IV-6, forced trips occur about 6 times a year for each unit. Assuming that the planned refueling period is 6 weeks or 42 days (shown as the exponent in the equation), the probability for a forced trip on any day, pt, is 6/(365-42) = 0.0186. Thus the probability (p) of a trip during refueling is 1 -(1-0.0186)42 = 0.55. The probability of simultaneous forced trips is 0.0186 x 0.0186 = 0.00035 since they are independent events. Refueling outages are not scheduled to occur simultaneously. Table IV-6 shows that all of the forced trips lasted for less than 24 hours, but in the above calculation, each forced trip was assumed to last for a one-day period., which gives a more conservative estimate of p.2. Past and Proposed Modes of Operation. As described in Section IV A.2, the basic mode of operation is a closed cycle with 150 cfs of blowdown. As the condenser inlet temperature reaches 29.4' C (85' F), blowdown is increased to remove the excessive heat from the circulating water system. Based on 16,156 hours of operating data for 1975 and 1976, the frequency of various blowdown rates and the cumulative frequency of these blowdown rates were summarized in Figure IV-6.From Figure IV-6, it can be shown that the closed cycle mode was used more than 53 percent of the time during 1975-1976, and blowdown was less than 400 cfs about 81 percent of the time. Plant discharge exceeded 1,000 cfs for about 180 hours or one percent of the time. The higher blowdown rates resulted from the combination of warm intake water tempera-ture, high wet-bulb temperature, and malfunction of cooling towers.Blowdown rates necessary to maintain a condenser inlet temperature of'29.40 C (85' F) were calculated using the average river temperatures from RWGP, and wet/dry bulb temperatures taken from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport for the period 1965 through 1974. The calculated frequency of blowdown rates is presented in Figure IV-7 (dashed lines) and shows blowdown rates of less than 200 cfs would occur 314 days per year. This amounts to 86 percent of the time versus the actual 53.8 percent for 1975 through 1976 (shown in Figure IV-6) when cooling towers did not function properly. A blowdown of 800 cfs would be exceeded only a small percentage of the time..A proposed operating. mode consisting of helper cycle from 16 June through 31 August is also presented in Figure IV-7 (solid lines). With the two and one-half months of helper cycle and zero cooling tower outage, a blowdown rate of 150 to 200 cfs would be expected about 277 days (6r 76 percent) per year. Except during helper cycle (about 79 days), the necessity of having blowdown rates higher than 400 cfs during the remainder of the year is essentially eliminated. IV-14 100 10.000 60 9500 90- 9000 8684 Hrs.r-->. -8500 53.8% 8 z 50 80- D 8000 a w L 7500 I.U> to p~,, 70- 1*- 7000 (n~~CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY70I R 0 zz 40 D 3 wj 60- 6000 D :z U. 5500 cc U.o 0 a 50-. 5000>. 30 o0 Z 4500 =0"U 4000 d LA. z U--3500 I-20 -0 3012 -30O0 19-2500-2000 1394 -1500 8.6 826 -1000 5.1 636 598 682 3.9 I 3 0 3 0367 4, 04 4 500 45 9 "j 1 "30 I I.l ~ .-4 1, o 5 1,o 100 200 -300 400 500' 600 '700 `800' 900' 1000 1100 1200 '1300 1400 1500 BLOWDOWN (cfs) 547P.33 Figure IV-6. Frequency of occurrence and cumulative frequency of various blowdown rates from 1975 through 1976 (from PINGP Environmental Event Log).IV-15 innA ;6 i36E (DAYS) PROPOSED BLOWDOWN. FULL HELPER 6/16 -8/31 DAYS CALCULATED BLOWDOWN BASED ON ALL TOWERS ON LINE.850F INTAKE TEMPERATURE. AND 1965-74 RIVER TEMPERATURE AND WET BULB DATA 350 90 80 31- 8 1277 52'701-6a -o 50 tL 300 250 w-J LU._j I-4 200 z (n 0 w 150 z 100 50 401-30F 20 -101-~178ý____ o 3 7B 76 0 100 300 500 700 900 1100 13oo 1500 BLOWDOWN Wcfs)547P.25-2 Figure IV-7.Frequency distributions of proposed blowdown rates and the calculated blowdown based on an intake tem-perature of 29.40 C (850 F)-.IV-16 This proposed mode of operation is designed to increase plant efficiency during summer when the demand is high. Plant efficiency is increased by utilizing the maximum makeup of 1,410 cfs from the river (Sturgeon Lake)without having to recycle partially cooled water from the cooling towers.The total heat rejection rate is not greatly increased with the higher blowdown rate; however, the temperature difference between blowdown and ambient water is proportionally decreased. The monthly breakdowns of computed. .joint occurrences of blowdown rate and river flow are summarized in Appendix M. In the Appendix, Table M-1 lists the number of hours for a given set of blowdown rate and river flow conditions to occur.for the projected present mode of operation (29.40 C intake temperature and no cooling tower outage). Table M-2 lists the same information for the proposed mode of operation (29.40 C intake temperature, no cooling tower outage, and helper cycle from 16 June through 31 August).IV-17 V. THERMAL PLUME-A.. DESCRIPTION OF THE, HYDROTHERMAL MODEL.The numerical model for thermal plume predictions can be divided into three parts. A one-dimensional (1-bD) hydrodynamic model developed by Stefan and Anderson (1977) was first used. to calculate the, overall flow pattern in lower Pool No. 3. This overall flow pattern was then used as an input for computing the velocity field in the near-field region. Due to the irregular geometries of the: boundary in this region, a two-dimensional (2-D) model was used for computing both velocity and temperature fields. A closed-form three-dimensional (3-D) solution was used to simulate the thermal dispersion behavior downriver from Barney's Point because of the relatively well-defined river channel geometry.The computations for these three models (l-D, 2-D, and 3-D) are briefly outlined in the following sections.1. Hydrodynamic Model. The I-D hydrodynamic model formulated by Stefan and Anderson (1977) employed the simplifying assumption that flow in any channel section is uniformly distributed. The 1-D. hydrodynamic model is analogous to pipe flow analysis. The model computes the flow rates for all the :channels shown in Figures 111-7 and 111-8 for a given set of river flows, wind speeds, and wind directions. Laws of mass and energy conservation were applied in the computation. A brief discussion of the hydraulic network analysis is presented in Section III A.2, and'detailed descriptions can be found in Stefan and Anderson's report. The results of the channel flow rate estimates were used as inputs for the 2-D model, particularly Channels 36, 26, and 42 (See Figure 111-8).2. 2-D Thermal Plume Mlodel. The region in which two-dimensional flow was assumed is shown in Figure V-1 and this defines the near-field area. The input variables for the model were flows in Channels 36, 26, and 42 and intake and blowdown rates. Also shown in the figure are inflows into the region, indicated by a plus (+), and outflows from the region, indicated by a minus (-). The intake flow .always has a minus sign and the blowdown always has a plus sign while channel flows may have either sign. Typically, water from Sturgeon Lake flows into the 2-D region through Channel 36, and a part of it flows out to the river through Channel 26 while the remainder flows out of Channel,42. Occasionally, when strong southerly winds occur in conjunction with low river flows, the channel flows may reverse direction. V-1 CELL SIZE: 100' X 100'Y.CHANNEL 36IN-FLOW (+), -!F 0 200 400 600 10-547PN. 30 Figure V-l. Boundary conditions and the grid network used in the near-field 2-D thermal plume model analysis. Arrows indicate inflow (+) and outflow ()V- 2 In order to compute the thermal plume dispersion, the velocity field must be defined. For the latter, a grid network (Figure V-l) was selected to approximate the shoreline configuration in the region. The four small islands in the center of the region were assumed to be connected because of the relatively shallow depth occurring between them. The grid network consisted of a 19 x 35 matrix with the y-axis oriented toward north. The heavy solid lines in Figure V-1 were assumed to be closed (impervious) boundaries while the dashed lines indicate open boundaries which in this case were input flow rates.Since this is a 2-D model, flow was assumed to be constant with depth;therefore, only one velocity vector occurs at each grid point within the site boundary. A continuity equation was combined with two momentum equations to solve for the velocity vector at each grid point. In the momentum equations, the only driving forces were surface wind shear and bottom frictional stress. These three equations (continuity and two equations of momentum) were then normalized (with depth) and combined into a single equation by introducing the stream function. Subsequently, the stream function equation was solved numerically using a successive over-relaxation (SOR) method (Chu, 1968) After the stream'function value at each grid point was computed, the two velocity components at each point were calculated as inputs for the energy equation (heat flow equation). The energy equation was 'solved with the alternating directional implicit (ADI) method (Yeh, Lig, and Verna, 1973). Boundary conditions used for the energy equation were: uniform heat flux across the plant discharge points' ((1,14) through (1,18)], zero heat flux across the closed boundaries, and heat sinks on all the open boundaries. This model description and development is presented in detail in Appendix I.3. 3-D Thermal Plume Model. Downriver from Barney's Point in the main river channel a three-dimensional (3-D) thermal plume model was used for dispersion computation. A closed-form solution for an unsteady point source (Yeh, 1976) was employed for computing the temperature rise.(AT) in this region. As the river channel approaches uniformity in width, the 3-D model becomes more representative of the actual three-dimensional plume behavior. Assumptions for the 3-D model were: heat source uniformly distributed on the plane perpendicular to Channel 42 at Barney'sPoint (i.e., no initial thermal stratification), zero heat flux through the shoreline, and uniform velocity across the flow region. The heat source was based on the temperature output of the 2-D model at Barney's Point. The detailed description of the governing equation and its boundary conditions are presented in Appendix I.V-3 B. CASES STUDIED Sixty-one (61) cases have been modeled using the plume models described in Section V A. These sixty-one cases are: SMonthly typical operating conditions in 1975 (12 cases)Monthly typical operating conditions in 1976 (12 cases)* Monthly extreme conditions in 1975 (12 cases),* Monthly extreme conditions in 1976 (12 cases) and,* Proposed monthly extreme conditions (13 cases)The parameters used to, describe the operating conditions consist of blowdown rate (Qp), intake flow rate (Qi), river flow rate- measured at Prescott (Qr), wind speed (Wa) and direction (Wd), flow rates at Channel Nos. 36, 42, and 26 (Q36, Q42, Q26), blowdown temperature (Tp), and ambient river temperature (Ta). The breakdown of these values for each condition modeled is summarized in Table 5-1 through.. Table. 5-5 of Appendix I. Also given in these tables is the, predicted temperature rise (AT) at Barney's Point, for each condition.. For typical operating conditions, the blowdown rate, intake flow rate, river flow rate, and the river temperature (daily maximum) consisted of average values for the month. Blowdown temperature was computed using values for, intake temperature, wet bulb temperature, and the cooling tower performance curve. In general, typical conditions for 1975 are considered to be more representative of average conditions because of the low river flows that occurred in 1976.The extreme conditions for 1975 and 1976 were chosen as the date when the maximum daily blowdown rate was recorded'during .each month, For instance, the maximum blowdown rate in July 1975 was 1,,200 cfs on 8 July. Then, coincidental operating conditions on this day were-used as inputs for the analysis.. The proposed extreme conditions for each month comprised the worst possible environmental conditions of: 7-day, 10-year low river flow;expected maximum blowdown rate for future operation; maximum river temperature ever recorded at RWGP, except for winter months (from November through March) when river temperature was assumed to be 00 C (320 F); and upper fifth percentile wet-bulb temperature for computing blowdown tempera-ture.To assess the probability of occurrence for the proposed extreme conditions, it can be assumed that all the recorded environmental conditions are stati-sticaliy independent of each other. In other words, blowdown temperature, blowdown rate, river flow, and river temperature are not correlated within a given month. The 7-day, 10-year low flow frequency is less than 8.4 percent (see Figure 111-12) for a given month. The blowdown V-4 4 temperature would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time, and the maximuin temperature occurs less than once in the 27-year record, or 0.12 percent of the time. Thus, even if t*he proposed maximum blowdown rate remains constant throughout the month, the probability that the proposed extreme condition will occur on any day in a given month is 0.084 x 0.05 x 0.0012 =0'.000005 (or 0.000b5 percent)*. The model results for these typical and extreme operating conditions together with the proposed extreme conditions are presented in Figures 5-1 through 5-15 of Appendix I. These figures will be used as the basis for assessing biological impacts of the thermal discharge in this demonstration. C. MODEL CALIBRATION Seven field thermal surveys were conducted at PINGP from 1974 through 1976 (see Appendix N). However, only the thermal survey conducted on I August 1975 was used to calibrate the 2-D numerical model since it was the only one with comprehensive water velocity measurements taken in the near-field region. The 5 September 1974 field data were used to calibrate the 3-D model because of the relatively smooth isotherms found immediately downstream of Barney's Point on that date.The numerical constants derived from the field measurements are the longitudinal diffusivity (Kx) and the lateral diffusivity (K.) for the 2-D model. The values for these two diffusivities were found to be about the same, 75 f t 2/sec. These values were determined by adjusting. the diffusivities so that the computed surface isotherms were similar to those measured in the field on 1.August 1975. The comparison among isotherms based on the selected diffusivities and the field measurements is illustra-ted in Figure 4-3 of Appendix I.In the 3-D region, the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical diffusivi-ties are assumed to be proportional to the mean river velocity. The pro-portionality coefficients ax, ay .and az were calibrated against field measurements conducted on 5 September 1974. In this calibration, a 76 m (250 ft) wide by 1.8 m (5.2 ft) deep heat source was established as the input for the numerical model. ,A 1.8 m (5.2 ft) deep source was used since, on the day of field survey, warm water seemed to float in the upper 1.8 m (5.2 ft) of the water column. The proportionality coefficients were determined to be: ax = 15 m (50 ft), ay = 1.5 m (5 ft), and az = 1.5 cm (0.05 ft). The vertical proportionality coefficient (az) was assumed to be orders of magnitude less than ax and ay because of the natural buoyancy of water.In the cases studied, however, a full plane source 76 m (250 ft) wide and 3.1 m (10 ft) deep was used instead of a 1.8 m (5.2 ft) deep plane source. A negligible difference between these-two source configurations is expected 152 m (500 ft) downstream from Barney's Point because of the reflecting surface condition assumed in the solution. This set of proportionality coefficients was'also used to compare the model with the V-5 field data collected on 1 August 1975 (Figure 4-6 of Appendix I). W Predicted isotherms compared favorably with the field measurement within approximately 396 m (1,300 ft) downriver of Barney's Point.D. COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS WITH TEMPERATURE STANDARDS The numerical models previously presented in this section were used to describe the PINGP thermal plume since adequate field data were not available for all of the environmental conditions and months necessary f0i esti-mating biological impacts of the discharge. The models were calibrated with field data and thus can be assumed to provide a reasonable representation of the actual plume behavior. The model results will therefore be used for comparison with the state temperature criteria (NPDES permit)., The proposed NPDES permit issued by the MPCA specifies the following limitations:

1. The discharge shall not raise the temperature of the receiving water at the edge of the mixing zone specified below by more than 2.80 C (50 F) above natural based On the monthly average of the mum daily temperatures, above 300 C (860 F) at any time, or above the following weekly average temperatures*

whichever is more stringent: January 4.4 0 C(40 0 F) July 28.9 0 C(84 0 F)February 4.4 0 C(40 0 F) August 28.9-C(84 0 F)March 12.2 0 C(54 0 F) September 27.8 0 C(82 0 F)-April 18.3 0 C(65 0 F) October 22.8 0 C(73PF)May 23.9 0 C(75 0 F) November 14.4 0 C(58 0 F)June 28.9 0 C(84 0 F) December 8.9 0 C(48 0 F)2. Mixing Zone. The mixing zone shall be the confluence of the discharge canal and the main channel of the Mississippi River at the place commonly known as Barney's Point. The.Permittee shall determine compliance by the use of their temperature sensors as they exist at the time of the issuance. of this permit.3. Frequency of Monitoring andý Reporting. The Permittee shall monitor the temperature at the edge of the mixing zone continu-ously and report it along with other monitoring data to the Director.4. Natural River Water Temperature. The natural river water tempera-ture is the temperature of the river water at a point unaffected by the plant discharge or any other man made source.*Where the background weekly average temperature of natural origin is normally higher than that specified for a particular month, the natural weekly average temperature may be used as the limiting value which shall not be exceeded at the edge of mixing zone.V-6

5. The final thermal limitations specified above may be subject to modification after opportunity for a public hearing following the completion of the Permittee's 316(a) demonstration pursuant to WPC 36(s) (1) and WPC 36(u) (3).The natural ambient water temperature, as discussed in Section III B.1, is taken as the condenser inlet temperature measured at RWGP.These criteria apply to the 1975 and 1976 typical cases under study which are assumed to represent typical conditions for future operation, as well as the proposed extreme cases. Based on the model predictions, thirteen cases were found to exceed the thermal criteria listed above: six cases for 1975 typical conditions, five cases for 1976 typical condi-tions, and two cases for proposed extreme conditions (Table V-l). From this table, it appears that meeting the 2.80 C (5° F) temperature rise criterion is most difficult during the winter months since the low flow in Channel 42 would not supply an adequate volume of water for dilution before Barney's Point. Little problem would be encountered in meeting the daily maximum thermal criterion of 300 C (860 F) and the weekly average temperature criterion for each month.In Table V-l, the additional distances required to meet all the thermal criteria are also presented, based on the 3-D model numerical results shown in Tables 5-7 and 5-8 of Appendix I. The distances were interpolated on a log-log plot. These distances ranged from 91 m (300 ft)to 488 m (1600 ft) downriver from Barney's Point. For the August proposed extreme.condition, the required compliance distance was not computed because the assumption of strong southerly wind reduces the Channel 42 flow to only 1 cfs. In this case, most of the discharged heat would be blown upriver instead of being diluted in Channel 42.In terms of thermal criteria exceeded, it is apparent that the proposed extreme conditions do not represent the worst case thermal conditions at Barney's Point. Instead, the conditions reflect the worst case heat recirculation conditions because strong (10 mph) southerly winds were assumed in most cases. The estimated heat recirculation to the intake is summarized in Table 5-6, Appendix I, and varies from 10 to 44 percent for the proposed extreme conditions.

For the typical cases, the maximum heat recirculation is 10 percent for 1975 and 28 percent for 1976. The higher the recirculation rate, the less efficient is the cooling system because the rejected heat returns to the intake and thus increases the condenser inlet temperature. The proposed extreme conditions, instead of representing the worst possible thermal conditions at Barney's Point, reflect worst operational conditions at PINGP. These conditions also reflect the worst possible thermal build-up in the near-field area. The warm water, in these instances, often flows out of the near-field region into lower Sturgeon Lake through Channel 36 and into the Mississippi River by way of Channel 26.V-7 Table V-1. Cases where the PINGP proposed NPDES thermal criteria were exceeded. The additional distance required for the discharged thermal plume to meet the criteria is also presented. BARNEY'S POINT ADDITIONAL DISTANCE REQUIRED TO MEET MONTH AT T CRITERIA 1 (C) (F) (C) (F) (m) (ft)January 1975 4.7 8.42 4.9 40.92 335 1100 February 1975 5.,0 9.02 5.6 42.12 427 1400 March 1975 4.4 8.02 6.1 43.0 274 900 October 1975 3.0 5.42 16.2 61.2 61 200 November 1975 3.2 5.82 10.0 50.0 91 300 December 1975 4.7 8.52 5.2 41.4 366 1200 January 1976 4.5 8.12 4.6 40.32 305 i000 February 1976 5.2 9.32 6.5 43.72 488 1600 October 1976 3.5 6.32. 14.9 58.8 91 300 November 1976 3.9. 7.02 7.1 44.7 177 580 December 1976 4.7 8.42 5.2 41.4 335 1100 July Proposed Extreme 2.2 3.9 30.5 86.92ý 107 350 August Proposed Extreme 1.5 2.7 30.9 87.72 ,3 1 Extrapolated from Tables 5-7 and 5-8 of Appendix I.2 Thermal criteria exceeded.3No distance calculated since and wind was southerly. flow atBarney's Point was only lcfs, V-8 To estimate the frequency of occurrence for various temperature rises (ATs) at.Barney's Point, a simple complete-mixing model was used. The flow rates in Channel 42 for each river flow during calm conditions were calcu-lated using the results from Stefan and Anderson's report (1977). The approximate relationship between these two flow rates, as described in Section IV A.2, is: Q42 = 0.14 Qr 0.9 6 The total heat discharged was based on the present operating mode and was assumed to be fully diluted (no recirculation) in Channel 42. Thus, the temperature rise at Barney's Point is only a function of total heat dis-charged and the flow rate in Channel 42. The frequency (percent of time)with which various temperatures and ATs are calculated to occur at Barney's Point for every month are summarized in Tables V-2 and V-3. A temperature rise exceeding 2.80 C (50 F) could be expected approximately 71 percent of the time during January and February (Table V-2), and the frequency would be less than 46 percent of the time during the remainder of the year. The frequency of occurrence for absolute temperatures expected at Barney's Point during each month is presented in Table V-3. As expected, the maximum daily temperature limit of 300 C (86' F) would be exceeded only during the warm water months of July, Augus't, and September. Based on the above analysis, it is evident that meeting the 300 C (860 F) limit would not be nearly as difficult as meeting the 2.80 C (50 F) temperature rise limit.The above comparisons and calculations indicated that PINGP will not be able to meet the proposed NPDES thermal criteria, particularly during winter. Therefore, a variance of an additional 488 m (1600 ft)distance downriver would be needed to provide sufficient dilution to meet the mixing zone thermal criteria without derating the plant.Table V-2. Computed monthly cumulative frequency (as percent) of temperature rise (AT) at Barney'.s Point assuming no wind and full dilution in Channel 42.CT F) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 19 0.2 is 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 17 0 .9 0.4 0.2 1.0 16 1.6 0.4. 0.4 1.9 is 2.3 0 8 0 .0.1 2.3 14 3.2 2.0 0.2 0.7 0.4 2.9 13 4.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.- 4.2 .12 8.0 8.5 1.2 0.2 0.7y 1.0 1.7 9.8 11 12.3 12.6 1.9 0.4 1.5 1.3 0.0. 1.7 6.7 10 17.1 17.8 Z.8 1.2 2.7: 1.7 0.1 2.3 7.9 9 24-.4 23.9 S.9 2.1 4.8 2.3 05. 4.2 .10.9 8 31.9 33.9 9.2 3.9 7. 0 3. 0 1.3 :6.4 17.7 7 49.0 91.2 15.5 S.8 10.2 4.5 3.1 12.4 32.7 6 70.6 71.0 26.8 0.7 0.1 9.0 14.1 .9.3 7.6 19.S '9.8 S 88.7 89.1 40.5 1.9 0.9 13.7 18.9 17.9 17.S 31.4 64.8 4. 98.7 93.6 S3.0 4.3 2.3 21.1 26.3 32.9 35.0 42.9 80.0 3 100.0 96.1 65.7 9.7 6.2 31.6 37.5 *91.3 52.1 49.0 90.0 2 100.0 98.6 80.9 15.3 6.6 16.9 47.9 61.6 78.0 69.6 73.5 99.7 1 100.0 100.0 93.7 55.2 53.1 S0.0 7S.2 90.0 96.9 91.S 98.0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.0.0 100.0 100.0 V-9 Table V-3.Computed monthly cumulative frequency of occurrence (percent)for river temperatures at Barney's Point assuming no wind and full dilution in Channel 42.(F)92 91 90 89 a8 87 86 85 as a e.33 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74, 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 6s 64 63 62 61 60 59 sa 57 56 S3 S4 53 SI 5o 49 48'7 46 45 44, 4,3 42 41 4.0 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 JAW FKB MAX APR MAY JUN JUL AU, SgP OCT NOV 0EC 1.4 2.12 3.~7 4.2 4.4 5.8 7.1 8.3'10.9 16. 0 32.9 39.0 47. 3 54.0 60.3 70.6 79.5 81 .S 87.0 90.6 94-.8 95.8 98.1 98.7 99.7 100.0 0.2 0.5 1.0 1,7 1. 1 6.2 8.3 12.6 18.6 24 .4e C9.8 36.8a'5.3 54 .8 66.6 78.3 87.7 90.7 94.4.9 6 i. 7 98.7 100.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 2. 4.4.1 5.9 8.8 12.9 18.3 23.0 29.6 37.6 4S.6 53.6 62.4 71.6'76.4 80.4 85. 0 90 .8 96. 0 97.3 98. S 100.0 0.a 0.5 1 .4 2.2 3.3 5.2 7.1 9.5 12.9.17. 7 23. 1 28.5 35. 9 43.1 51 .2 59.6 67.3 76. 1 8z.4 91.2 95.,4 96.2 97.3 98a.7 99.4 100.0 0.1 0 .2 0 .3 0. 4 0 S 0 .6.0.6 0.9 2.7 3.7 4.4.5.3 7.0 8.S 11.1 12.5 1S.3 21.8 23.2 34.4 42. 6 S2.6 62.5 691.7 79.2 87.0 8.9. 6 91.6 93.7 95.0 95.7 96.7 97.0 97.7 9.7.7 98.9 99.4 00 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.2 4. 1 8.0 12.3 17.1 2' .z 72.1 89.5 98.7 100.0 0.1 0.4, 0.8 2.0 3.9 8.5 13.2 18.3 24. 3 35.3 S8.9 75.9 91 .S 94..0 96.1 98.6 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.5 5.0 8.7 13.1 22. 3 32.3.47.9 60.0-70.8" 78.7 84.2 90.6 97. 0 t0o .0 0.3 1.7 2.S 5.3 7.0 10.2.:15.7 17.5 2-2. .8 27.2 33.2 38.1 51 .8 60 .0 66. 8'71.0 78. 0 81 .9 86.5 90.2 91 .7(94.3 96.3 98.7 99. 3 100 .0 0.1 0.1 o.S 1.9 3.2.5.2 7.3 9.s 12.3.14-9 18.3 23. 1 30.2 36.0 42. 5 51 4'61.1 65 8 72- 2 78.3.82.2 86.5 90.2 95.0 97.1 98.2 99.0 100..o 0.7 3.2 5.4 10.1 14.7 19.8 ZS.7 32. 4 42. 1 48 .7 53.9 62.7 69. 1 ,-77 .0 83..7 91 ..7 97.6 99.4 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.9 2.3 2.9 4.6, 8.1 11 .0-12.0 15.9 23.0 37.6 52.2 74.7 92.0 99. 2 100.0 100.0 0)v-10 VI. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGE Potential impacts of the PINGP thermal-discharge were predicted based on literature data for thermal tolerances and the thermal plume model results for typical and extreme. environmental conditions. In all cases, plant operation was assumed to remain essentially the same as at.present, that is, closed cycle in winter with a gradual increase in the amount of partial recycle used in summer followed by a decrease to closed cycle again. Site-specific data were also used as much as possible to supplement the literature data and the predictive, approach, particularly where literature information was limited.For fish, the predictive Type 2 approach was the primary focus for impact analysis with some use of relevant field data. Thermal criteria for maintaining growth, reproduction, and winter survival as well as for providing short-term survival'of juveniles and adults in summer and of embryos during the spawning period were developed for each RIS from literature data. These were then compared to the thermal plume model results (for typical and extreme environmental conditions) to calculate areas affected and time of occurrence. From this information and the field data, potential, impacts were predicted and related to fish popula-tions in the area.For invertebrates and primary producers,'however, information available for the Type 2 approach is limited so emphasis was placed on a reanalysis of the existing field data. A flow chart showing a conceptual summary of site-specific data reanalysis is presented in Figure VI-l and is discussed in detail in Appendix B. The primary approaches involved are: (A) analysis of differences between stations and between dates and (B) correlation between biological variables and water quality variables (including temperature). Each approach examined plant impact from different pers-pectives. Approach. A determined if spatial and/or temporal variations in biological parameters such as organism density and diversity existed in relation to the PINGP thermal discharge. Approach B, on the other hand, determined if organism density was related to water quality parameters, particularly temperature, regardless of time and space (location). In Approach A, two-way differences between stations and between dates were, first tested by ANOVA. If significant differences were found by ANOVA, Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used to group the stations or dates according to their quantitative similarities. Finally, VI-l 0.APPROACH DATA INPUT ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE EXPECTED RESULTS INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS A Are biological cate-gories measurably affected by past plant discharges? H B For each biological category: density VERSUS Water quality parameters, Table showing sig-Mulil nificant correlations Multiple regression -between biological and correlation -- categories and water quality parameters. If not, then past plant discharge effect small, or some other unmeas-ured parameter more important. If yes, then plant discharge may need mitigation. 547P.91 Figure VI-I.Empirical approaches to discharge impact analysis for invertebrates and primary producers at PINGP, using site-specific background data. the Student's t-Test established whether or not significant differences occurred between specific plume affected and control stations. The t-Test was utilized when ANOVA and/or DMRT indicated that significant differences might have occurred between intake and discharge stations. Approach B quantified by means of correlation or multiple linear regression the degree to which biological parameters may have been. influenced by heated water from PINGP. In most instances, only data from 1975 and 1976 were reanalyzed for invertebrates and primary producers, although phytoplankton density data from as early as 1973 were used. When multiple '.years of data were reanalyzed, all years were combined. In analyzing plume impacts, stations in the immediate vicinity of the plant (HDR Nos. 12 and 21, Figure VI-2) and far-field stations (HDR Nos. 10 and 27) were Compared in order to determine impacts inside the plume (within the mixkig zone)and in the main channel of the river above and below the confluence of the discharge canal.For the predictive (Type 2) aspects of the impact analysis, Figure VI-3, invertebrate and algal thermal tolerances were compared with thermal plume predictions for typical and extreme conditions of river flow and ambient water temperature. 'Such analysis showed, depending on the accuracy of the thermal plume predictions and relevancy of the bioassay information, the degree and extent to which PINGP may threaten the"protection and propagation" of biota near PINGP.A. FISH In this section, a description and critique of pertinent site-specific field studies are presented first followed by a discussion of the appro-priate thermal criteria. Then, predictions of potential impact to RIS in the discharge area are made for 'typical and extreme environmental conditions. In predicting the potential impacts, effects of attraction to and avoidance of the thermal discharge are considered in terms of spawning and reproductive, success, upper thermal tolerances, cold shock potential, general fish population stability, and the incidence of diseases or parasites. Attraction toind avoidance of the thermal plume is expected to occur at PINGP, and the effects of this are estimated from a combination of literature data (e.g.,, thermal tolerances), thermal plume model results (areas within various isotherms are in Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42), and site-specific field data. All predictions are quantified to the extent possible by estimating area and time period for exclusion of life functions (by RIS).1. Field Studies Description and Critique. Although this is pri-marily a Type 2 predictive demonstration, some of the field data are useful in assessing the thermal impacts of PINGP; Fisheries data have been collected since 1970 by several investigators; however, sampling locations, gear types, and effort have changed over time (within and between years). In addition, the sampling dates for each. "season" varied VI-3 WISCONSIN I N w £.5 I 2 MINNESOTA 3-NEAR-FIELD_. SCALE 500 0 500 1000 1- ;;;;a.meters 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 4 7 ,)-10-11 15 17'LOCK &28....I _ .-27 feet 547P-93 Figure VI-2.HDR designated station locations for invertebrate, primary producer, and water quality sampling conducted near PINGP during 1973-1976. Enclosed area indicates near-field. Ok VI-4 DATA INPUT RIS and biological cate-gory thermal tolerance data; thermal plume model predictions. INTERPRETATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE EXPECTED RESULTS Comparison of thermal Maps defining exclusion-plume configurations ary or stress areas of the with thermal tolerances. thermal plume.CONCLUSIONS Does plume exclude or kill large quan. If not, or area of impact small, tities or important representatives of then plant discharge is acceptable. biota, and upset the balanced indigen- If yes, or area of impact large, ous aquatic community? then mitigation may be required.547P-92.1 Figure VI-3.The;predictive approach for analyzing discharge impacts on invertebrates and primary producers at PINGP using thermal plume predictions and nonsite-specific thermal tolerance data.from year-to-year, especially for spring, and water temperature was not always recorded. Sampling from 1970 through 1976 has been summarized in Appendix Tables A-6 and A-7. In general, these data are inappropriate for assessing thermal discharge impacts for this demonstration type and have been used primarily in describing the area biology (Section III).The discharge electrofishing study begun in April 1976, however, has provided some very pertinent information. In this study, standarized 5-minute electroshocking runs were made at the 7 locations shown in Figure VI-4. Sampling frequency was generally twice a month on a bi-monthly basis throughout the year, and water temperatures (surface and bottom) were recorded at the beginning, middle, and end of each run (data are in Appendix Tables A-43 and A-44). Three of the sampling runs (1, 3, and 7) were located along riprap while the remainder were over sandy muck or mud substrates., For the analyses that follow, riprap and soft bottom runs were paired to help eliminate habitat-related differences (1+5 = immediate discharge, 2+3 = far discharge, and 4+7 = control). Run 6 was not used since this area was intermittently influenced by the thermal discharge. During the winter, Runs 4, 6, and 7 were usually ice covered and could not be Sampled.VI -5 STURGEON LAKE!2 63ýSKIMMER WALL 0 6'ýQ 5 5.SCALE' 200 O 0 iirm@0 0 I Figure VI-4.Sampling locations for the DNR discharge electrofishing study. Runs 1, 3, and 7 are riprap while runs 2, 4, 5, and 6 are sandy muck or mud (Gustafson and Geis, 1977).e)VI-6 Data from the discharge electroshocking study were used in the following impact analysis to strengthen the predictions based on literature informa-tion.2. Temperature Criteria. EPA recommended temperature criteria (as defined in Brungs and Jones, 1977) for protecting fish during critical life stages throughout the year are utilized in this report, and the following discussion summarizes these criteria. To maintain growth, reproduction, and winter survival, water temperatures in the thermal discharge should not exceed a maximum weekly average temperature (MWAT)that is calculated as follows: For growth, the :LAT is the optimum temperature for growth plus one-third of the, upper incipient lethal temperature minus the optimum for growth (M[AT = optimum growth T +(upper incipient lethal T -optimum growth T)/3]. This criterion should be applied considering the normal spatial distribution of the species during the season in which growth occurs (i.e., would the species normally occur in the area influenced by the thermal discharge during its growing season). This criterion, however, does not apply within the mixing zone.For spawning, the MWAT is taken to be the optimum spawning temperature, and if this is not available, the middle of the spawning temperature range is used. The MWAT for winter survival is taken from the nomograph in Figure VI-5.Short-term exposure to moderately elevated temperatures can be tolerated by fish without adverse effects, and the maximum temperatures depend upon past thermal history of the fish (acclimation), duration of exposure, and AT. The relationship of exposure' time (minutes) to temperature (CC) is described by the equation: log time = a + b (T)where a is the Y-axis intercept, b is the slope of the line, and T is temperature in 0 C.. Appendix Table A-45 summarizes a and b values deter-mined at different acclimation temperatures for some of the RIS. The maximum temperature for short-term (24 hours) survival in summer can be calculated from this equation by choosing aanddb for the acclimation temperature closest to the MWAT for growth. The safety factor of 21 C (3.60 F) must be subtracted from the resulting temperature to ensure survival of 100 percent of the population since a and b were determined f:'om LT 5 0 data. The temperature for short-term survival of embryos during the spawning period is estimated as the maximum spawning temperature or maximum for incubation and hatching, whichever is higher. For adults, short-term survival (24 hours) during the spawning period is calculated using the time-temperature equation for acclimation temperatures closest to the MWAT for spawning. Table VI-l summarizes the above criteria for each of the RIS to be used for impact analysis in the following sections.VI-7 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (F)32 30 59 86 2 w-j ca 0.LU Lu25 U-LU< 15 LU 77 ?.Uj;68 D-j 59 LU CL U-LU C-Ul LU LU 10 5 50 41 i5 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (C)547 P-122 Figure VI-5. Nomograph to determine the permissible maximum weekly average temperature (MWAT) in the plume during winter for various ambient temperatures (adapted from Brungs and Jones, 1977).VI-8 Table VI-I. Temperature criteria for the RIS in Centigrade (Farenheit in parenthesis). MAXIMUM WEKYMAXIMUM WEEKLY MAXIMUM AXIMUM MAXIMUM WEEKLY TEMPERATURE AE*TEMPERATURE TEMPRAGER AVE RAGE AVERAGEAVERAGE SPECIES AVERAGE FOR SHORT-TERM TEMPERATURE FOR SHORT-TERM TEMPERATURE S P E C I E S T E M P E R A T U R ET E E R U ET M P A U E SURVIVAL IN SURVIVAL DURING FOR GROWTH SUMMER 3 FOR SPAWNING SW SPA GURVIVALDRWINE7 EMBRYO 5 ADULT 6 Walleye 24.5 (76) 29.5 (85)8 7.5 (46) 19 (66) 25. (77)9 10 (51)White Bass N.D. N.D. 1.6.5. (62) 26 (79) N.D. 10 (51)Channel Catfish 31.9 (89) 35.2 (95) 27 (81) 29 (84) 33.6 (93) 10 (51)-Northern Pike 28.4 (83) 30.*1 (86) 8.4 (47) 18 (64) 24 (75)10' 10 (51)Gizzard Shad N.D. 34 (93)11 19.5 (67) 29 (84) 31 (88)i 10 (51)Carp 30.2 (86)12 38 (100)8 21 (70) 33 (91) 30.5 (87)9 10 (51)Black Crappie 26.7 (80) 31 (88)8 17 (63) 20 (68) N.D. 10 (51)Emerald Shiner 29.6 (85) 30 (86)13 23.5 (74) 27 (8i) 29.5 (85) 10 (51)White Sucker 27.7 (82)12 28.4 (83) 7.2 (45) 21 (70) 23.3 (74) 10 (51)Shorthead Redhorse N.D. N.D. 11 (52) N.D. N.D. 10 (51)H]Data used for the calculations are from Appendix Tables A-11 through A-20 and A-45. References are listed with the data.2 MWAT = Optimum for growth + Ultimate incipient lethal-Optimum 3 3 24-hour survival calculated from log time = a + b(T) at an acclimation temperature of the MWAT for growth and with the: 2 0 C safety factor subtracted. 40ptimum or mid-range for spawning.5 Maximum of incubation and spawning temperatures. 6 24-hour survival calculated from log time = a + b(T) at an acclimation temperature of the MWAT for spawning and with the 2°C safety factor subtracted. 7 From Figure VI-5 when ambient is< 2.5'C (December to mid-March at PINGP).8 Ultimate lethal -2WC since no regres-sion equation available. 9 Upper lethal of juvenile -20C since no regression equation available. 1 0 Upper lethal of larvae -2°C since no regression equation constants for 18WC acclimation. 1 iAt an acclimation temperature of 300C.1 2 Based on data for larvae.1 3 At an acclimation temperature of 25 0 C.

3. Attraction to and Avoidance of the Thermal Discharge.

Warmed waters in the discharge canal may attract or repel fish depending on temperatures in the discharge and preferred temperatures for each species.Thermal data for each of the RIS have been presented previously (Appendix A), and the preferred temperatures at various acclimation (ambient)temperatures and seasons are shown in Figures VI-6 and 7. Based on these data, all of the RIS should be attracted to some portion of the discharge when ambient river temperatures are low while some species should avoid at least the warmer portions during summer. Table VI-2 summarizes these data and shows that walleye, white sucker, emerald shiner, and northern pike would probably not frequent the mixing zone [> 2.80 C (50 F) above ambient] when ambient temperatures are warmest (253 C) in summer. Areas in which the temperature is increased 8* C (140 F) or more during maximum summer temperatures would not be preferred by the other species, except possibly carp.Even though preferred temperatures of many of the RIS are exceeded in the thermalplume during summer, these species may not necessarily be excluded from this area; it only means that they do not prefer these temperatures. Fish may avoid the areas above their preferred level but enter occasionally for feeding or predator escape. Based on the results of the thermal plume model, the maximum calculated area within which temperatures exceed 31.30 C (88.50 F.) is typically 0.7 ha (1.7 A), and, the area within which they exceed 27.20 C (81 F) is typically 14 ha (34.6 A) in July. Thus, the areas which exceed the preferred temperatures of some of the RIS are small compared to the available area in Sturgeon Lake [624 ha (800 A)], for example. These calculated areas would be 0 larger during the proposed extreme conditions, but these occur very infrequently (see Section IV B for calculation of occurrence). Upper lethal temperatures of the RIS more accurately define the areas in the plume that may be excluded from long-term use by the RIS. The upper lethal levels for each species acclimated to ambient temperatures are shown in Figure VI-8. From this figure, it appears that exclusion of some species would begin at the 50 C (90 F) isotherm during, the highest ambient temperatures, and estimated exclusion for each species is summarized in Table VI-2. The latter estimates of exclusion, however, must be inter-preted carefully since they were derived from the highest reported lethal temperature for each species, and many.other factors are involved (as discussed in Bush et al., 1974). For example, the data are based on laboratory experiments that undoubtedly did not simulate all of the conditions near PINGP that influence thermal tolerance. In addition, the data are based on a 50 percent survival rate at a specified time and acclimation temperature. Small changes in temperature near the upper tolerance limit can cause large increases in mortality (Bush et al., 1974), and exposure time is important.. VI-10 N-H H-H-a 4.Figure VI-6.30 25 N\ 2o N 20 lb 10\ NNN 0 OCT NOV DEC 04)p.I 3t .1 data are plotted using river For these species, pre-JUN JUL AUG SEP MONTH Preferred temperatures for juvenile RIS. These ambient temperatures as acclimation temperature. ferred temperatures are always above ambient. 60 iZ I-50 45 40 35 30 Dr 2-20 15 in 0 30)JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL MONTH AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure VI-7.Preferred temperatures of juvenile (J) and adult (A) RIS during various seasons. The values plotted apply to the entire season, although they are located arbitrarily within each season. Seasons are defined as winter = < 50. C; spring = 5 to 210 C; summer = < 211 C; and fall = 21 to 50 C.Most of these fish would prefer temperatures above ambient, except for a few species (e.g., white sucker) when waters are warmest. O Table vI-2.Estimated potential effects of increased temperature on the RIS in. the vicinity of PINGP.0 TEMPERATURE RIS NOT IN ESTIMATED C (F) PREFERRED RIS TEMPERATURE1 EXCLUDED 2 20 (68)21 (70)22 (72)23 (73) white sucker 24 (75)25 (77)26 (79) walleye, emerald shiner 27 (81) northern pike 28 (82) shorthead redhorse 29 (84)30 (86)31 (88) white bass, black crappie emerald shiner, white sucker 32 (90) gizzard shad walleye, shorthead redhorse, 3 white bass 3 33 (91) channel catfish northern pike, black crappie 34 (93)35 (95)36 (97) carp 37 (99) gizzard shad 38 (100) channel catfish 39 (102)40 (104)41 (106) carp 1 Based on maximum preferred temperature in Appendix A.2 Maximum upper lethal temperature (LT 5 0) at highest reported acclimation temperature for juvenile fish. Adults generally have a slightly lower upper lethal temperature.. 3 From Bush et al., 1974.The maximum area excluded from use in summer for each RIS was calcu-lated based on short-term survival information presented in Tables VI-3 through 12. The largest area excluded during typical conditions is 4.4 ha (10.9 A) for white sucker, and the area is less than 1 ha (2.5 A) for all the other species except walleye and northern pike. No data were available for white bass or shorthead redhorse, but these species should be similar to the other species. For extreme conditions of 7-day 10-year low river flows, maximum daily river temperatures, and maximum blowdown rates the exclusion areas in summer are predicted to be less than 0.5 ha (1.2 A) for channel catfish, gizzard shad, and carp. The areas of exclusion ranged from 0 to approximately 45 ha (0 to '\ 111 A) during May through September with the VI-13 S 60 bb 45 401 ft 4 Er H 0~G 30 2b 20 is 10 0 30 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL MONTH AUG SEP OCT NOV DJEC A IP3811 Figure VI-8.Upper and lower lethal thresholds for various life stages (A = adult, J and L = larvae) of -the RIS. Upper lethals were plotted for acclimation ambient while lower lethals were plotted for acclimation to the maximum temperature. = juvenile, to river discharge O/Table VI-4.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.SPECIES: White Bass TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED REMARKS PARAMETER Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short-term survival in N.D.summer Maximum for short-term survival of Spawn late May and June.adult during N.D.spawning Maximum for incubation and 26 0.3 8 May May *Ambient river tempera-larval development 2.6 June June* ture exceeds tempera-ture criteria.Maximum weekly average for N.D.growthh H lFrom Table VI-l.From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer 3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour printout for June. , every 278 years for each month. Table VI- 3.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.H SPECIES: Walleye TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA) 2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short- 2.6 0.5 to July May term survival in 29.5 1.5 n, 45 August through sumrmner Sept Maximum for short-term survival of tdrm duriva 25 0.5 15 May May Spawn April to mid-May.adult during spawning Maximum for 0.Apl *bient river tempera-incubation and 19 0.8 April May* ture exceeds temperature larval development 9.0 May criteria.Maximum weekly 1 10 May Main river channel average for 24.5 -* -* July* June* -(barge channel) may not growth % 40 August Sept* be suitable habitat.1 From Table VI-l.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer output for April, June, and July., 3 probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month. Table VI-6.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.o H I SPECIES: Northern Pike TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short- 1.8 < 0.5 July May term survival in 30.1 0.9 > 18 August August summer Maximum for short- Spawn April to early May.term survival of adult during 24 0.8 " 30 May May Probably do not spawn in spawningdischarge area.spawning Maximum for *Ambient river tempera-incubation and 18 1.1 -* April April* tube excee tempera-larval development 17 May May* ture crera mostao ture criteria. Most of discharge area not suit-Maximum weekly 40 July able for spawning.average for 28.4 0 -* -August*growth-LJ 1 From Table VI- 1..2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer printout for April, June, and July.3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month. Table VI-5.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.H H-a SPECIES: Channel Catfish TEMP. AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA) 2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short- July Small area near term survival in 35.2 <0.2 <0.5 August August gates.summer Maximum for short-term survival of 33.6 0 <0.5 July Spawn May through July.adult during spawning Maximum for incubation and 29 0.9 1 June May larval development 2.8 > 20 July July Maximum -weekly average for 31.9 0 -r 3 August growth.lFrom Table VI-I.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer printout for June and July.3 probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month. Table VI- 7.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. exclusion are also given.-Estimated time periods for H H w SPECIES: Gizzard Shad TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short- July Small area near term survival in 34 <0.2 <0.5 August August smlareanear discharge gates.summer Maximum for short- < 0.5 May term survival of 31 <0.1 <64 June June Spawn April through June.adult during spawning Maximum for incubation and 29 "U 1 June May larval development Maximum weekly average for N.D.growth lFrom Table VI-.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer printout for June.3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month.4Extrapolated from May and August values.0 B[0 Table VI-8.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.I 0 SPECIES: Carp TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION REMARKS PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3.Maximum for short-term survival in 38 0 0 summer Maximum for short-term survival of adult during30.5 0.5 " 84 June June Spawn May through July.spawning 1.4 -164 July July Maximum' for -Small area near discharge incubation and 33 0.1 <0.54 July July gates but probably not larval development suitable for spawning.Maximum weekly average for 30.2 0 %40 August growth lFrom Table VT-I.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A"42 and computer printout for June and July.3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every-278 years for each month.4 Extrapolated from May and August values. Table VI-9 .Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.H SPECIES: Black Crappie TEMP.1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA) 2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical. Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short-term survival in 31 1 < 0.5 July May summer 0.3 "18 August August Maximum for short- Spawn May and June.term survival of Little suitable spawning adult during N.D. in discharge. spawning Maximum for *Ambient river temperature incubation and 20 5.4 May May* exceeds temperature criteria.lv June*dJune* Most of discharge area not suitable for spawning.Maximum weekly average for 26.7 A,40 -* July July*growth 3 August August*1 From Table VI-I.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 ,through A-42 and computer printout for July.3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month.0 0.Table VI-10.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.!'Mo SPECIES: Emerald Shiner TEMP'. AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short-term survival in 30 0.9 -0.5 August summer , 45 August Maximum for short- 0.7 0.6 June May Spawn May through term survival of 2.6 July August.adult during 29.5 1.5 ' 50 August August spawning Maximum for 1.4 4.8 June May *Ambient river incubation and 27 b 6 _, July July* temperature exceeds larval development 7.6 _, August August* temperature criteria.Maximum weekly average for 29.6 0 "'25 August growth'From Table VI-l.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer printout for June and July.3 Probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < 1 hour every 278 years for each month. Table VI-li.Predicted area in the discharge from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.SPECIES: White Sucker TEMP. AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA)2 EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme 3 Typical Extreme 3 Maximum for short- 1.1 1.6 June May *Ambient river term survival in 28.4 4.4 July temperature exceeds summer 2.7 August August* temperature criteria.Maximum for short- Spawn late April term survival of 23.3 1 50 to mid-may.adult during May May spawning Maximum for No suitable spawning incubation and 21 0.5 April area in discharge. larval development 3.4 -* May May*Maximum weekly average for 28.4 0 u 45 July growth -* August*lFrom Table VI-l.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-42 and computer printout for April, June, and July.3 probability of occurrence is < 0.000005 or < I hour every 278.years for each month..H M 1.) Table VI-12.Predicted area in the discharge'from which various life functions would be excluded under typical and extreme conditions. Estimated time periods for exclusion are also given.SPECIES: Shorthead Redhorse TEMP. AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION PARAMETER (C) FUNCTION (HA) EXCLUDED REMARKS Typical Extreme. Typical Extreme Maximum for short-term survival in N.D.summer Maximum for short- Spawn late April to earlýterm survival of June. Probably do not adult during N.D.Jue Prblydno spad ding Nspawn in discharge area.spawning Maximum for incubation and N.D.larval development Maximum weekly average for N.D.growth I'-1 From Table VI-I. maximum occurring in August for walleye and emerald shiner. The maximum area of exclusion for northern pike and black crappie was about 18 ha (44.5 A) and for white sucker was 1.6 ha (4 A). No data were available for white bass or shorthead redhorse, although these species probably are similar to walleye in their, tolerances. During typical summer conditions the areas excluded would only occur in July and August. For extreme conditions, the areas excluded would probably occur only in August for channel catfish and gizzard shad while the area would vary from May through September with a peak in August for the other RIS. The probability that the proposed extreme conditions would occur in any month is less than 0.000005 or a frequency of 1 hour every 278 years. These calculated areas of exclusion represent the maximum in which thermal mortality could possibly occur since the 20 C (3.60 F) safety factor was subtracted from the median tolerance tempera-ture.Field data collected in the discharge electrofishing study described previously generally support these predictions. Figure VI-9 shows that the mean number of RIS collected in the immediate discharge area (Runs 1+5 in Figure VI-4) is inversely related to the ambient river temperature while the mean catch in the control area (Runs 4+7) shows little relation-ship to ambient temperature. Regression analyses of total RIS collected in the immediate discharge and control areas versus ambient temperature were performed (see Appendix L). Both polynomial and exponential curves were drawn, and an exponential curve of the form Y = ea+b(T) provided the best fit (Figure VI-lO). In this equation, Y is the number of fish, a is the intercept, b is the slope, and T is temperature in OC. The coefficient of determination (R 2) for the discharge regression was 0.60, which indicates that the number of fish collected in the discharge was moderately related to changes in ambient temperature. The regression line has a negative slope which indicates that attraction to the discharge occurs as ambient temperatures decrease. The regression of total RIES ,in the control. area versus ambient temperature (Figure VI-bO) shows that the number of fish was less related to temperature. (R 2 = 0.35), as"'would be expected. The regression line has a positive'slope_ Iwhich indiclates that more fish were found in the control area when the water was warm than when cold.Figure VI-11 shows the mean catch per unit effort in two areas of the disc6harge and 'in the control area by season for the dominant RIS.Gizzard shad followed the same seasonal trends in attraction to and avoidance of the plume as for total RIS as would be expected since this species dominated the catch. Carp, the second most abundant species, showed a preference for the southern part of the discharge canal (Runs.2+3) during spring through fall and 'the immediate discharge area in winter.White bass apparently avoided the discharge in summer but were attracted to the immediate discharge in spring and fall. The number of shorthead redhorse and emerald shiners collected was very low in most seasons precluding most analyses. The redhorse, however, was more abundant in the control area in summer than in the discharge, and emerald shiners were more abundant in the discharge than in the control areas during spring.VI-25 Regression of carp and gizzard shad abundances in the discharge (Runs 1+5) and control (Runs 4+7) areas versus ambient river temperature are shown in Figures VI-12 and 13. The numbers of these species in the discharge are only moderately related to ambient temperature since R 2 values were 0.49 for both. The slopes of both discharge regression curves are negative indicating attraction to the plume as ambient temperatures decrease. The numbers of carp and gizzard shad in the control area were poorly related to ambient river temperature. The R 2 values were tested for significance by calculating an F value (Harnett, 1970, pp. 343 and 348) from the equation F = (n-2) R2 -(1-R 2)where These and 1 400 390 160 IS 1 00 0 90 so--Z70 0 n is the number of samples (21 for control and 24 for discharge). F values were then compared to critical F values for n-2 samples degree of freedom (Harnett, 1970, pp. 512-513). All of the R2 U Z Lu J F M A M J A S 0 N D_MONTH s47p.13.)Figure VI-9.Mean number of RIS collected per month in. the PINGP dis-charge (Runs I and 5) and at control stations (Runs 4 and 7)near the intake during the period April 1976 through November 1977. The mean temperatures for the samples are also shown (open and closed circles) as well as the number of samples per month (N). NS = no sample.VI-26 Lii i..LAI W1 H IJ II 10 AMBIENT RIVER TEMPERATURE (C)Figure VI-10.Regression of number of total RIS collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5)and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river temperature for the period April 1976 through November 1977 (calculated from DNR unpublished data).I.O. 0 234.0 51.0 50.0 46 .0 41.0 TOTAL RIS 40.o L z[0_=z wJ 39.0 F 20.0 20.0 7 w V/4k I V/I,~~ I I U r1iaJ.~2 19.0 F 18.0-1670 16.0 WnAI I t'/!A I I J U, LU z 29.0EMERALD SHINER 22.0 22.0 2.0 O 0.0 I PIG SMER AL WNE um, _,,_ , SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER SEASON SPRING SUMMER F ALL WINTER SEASON'STATIONS 1+5 IDISCHARGE) =STATIONS 2+3 (DISCHARGE)-STATIONS 4+7 (CONTROL)547P. 12 4 Figure VI-lI.Seasonal catch per unit effort at PINGP discharge and control stations for dominant RIS. Data were collected from April 1976 through November 1977, and seasons are defined by water temperature with Spring = 5-21 C, Summer = >21* C, Fall 21-50 C, and Winter = <50 C (drawnifrom DNR unpublished data).0)VI-28 H 12.0 13.0-12.0 11.0 111(1 l .U z ,UO 4.U 2 t NJ.110 1.0 4.11 CARP z f w u.01 NJ 0 z[Fz ZV i ND1 S.EASON SPRING SUIMMER FALL SEASON WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER SEASON STATIONS 1-5 0DISCIRAGE, IDISCHARGEI STATIONS 417 U(CONTROL) 547P-123 Figure VI-l (Continued). + CRRP IN DI5CHRREE +CRRP IN CONTROL : tL..< 'La H U ~ 20-0 " + DI5CHRRGE 4++CEONTROL R SR.= 0.3+IB1 523 0. ]IM13 I ENT RIVER T'EMPERR'IURE (C)Figure VI-12. Regression of number of carp collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5)and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river temperature for the period April 1976 through November 1977 (calculated from DNR unpublished data). U1 La..La..cz3 H LI AMOIENT RIVER TEHPERRTURE (M)Figure VI-13.Regression-of number of gizzard shad collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5)and control (Runs 4+7) areas against ambient river temperature for the period April 1976 through November 1977 (calculated from DNR unpublished data).0. values for the regressions were significant (a =.0.05), indicating that the number of fish in the discharge and control areas was related to ambient river temperature. To determine if the apparent differences in numbers of fish collected in discharge and control stations were statistically significant, a chi-square test for independence was performed using the paired run catch data for the most abundant species (data in Appendix Table A-45).The null hypothesis for this analysis assumed an equal catch rate among the three areas (2 discharge and 1 control) during each season (expected situation based on habitat alone), and was rejected when p < 0.05 (i.e., 95 percent confidence level). Seasons were defined by ambient river temperatures with winter < 50 C (410 F), spring 50 to 210 C (410 to 700 F), summer > 210 C, and fall 210 to 50 C. The chi-square values and proba-bilities (p) from this test are presented in Table VI-13, and the null hypothesis was rejected in all cases where sufficient data were available for a valid test.. This indicates that the abundances of RIS in the dis-charge and control areas were not the same as was predicted on the basis of habitat alone. Subtle differences in habitat may exist among the three test areas; however, the major difference is the elevated water tempera-tures in the two discharge areas. From these analyses, it is concluded that shorthead redhorse, white bass, carp, and gizzard shad a'void the discharge during summer while all species for which sufficient data .are available are attracted to the discharge during one or more of the other ,seasons.Table VI-13. Results of the chi-square analysis of the discharge electrofishing data for the most abundant RIS by season. The null hypothesis is that the discharge and control areas are the same, and the hypothesis was rejected when p < 0.05.SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER Chi 2 p Chi 2 p Chi 2 P Chi 2 p Walleye 38.2 0.00 -1 22.8 0.00 _1 White Bass -_ 14.5 0.001 8.4 0.02 12.5 0.0004 Gizzard Shad 83.5 0.00 35.4 0.00 131.3 0.00 529.9 0.00 Carp 33.4 0.00 17.2 0.0002 16.7 0.0002 28.3 0.00 Emerald Shiner 105.2 0.00 -1 _1 _1 Shorthead Fedhorse -1 27.91 0.00 _1 _1 iSample size too small for valid statistical test.VI-32

4. Effects on Spawning and Reproductive Success.-

Alterations of natural thermal regimes in aquatic ecosystems may adversely affect spawning and reproductive success of various organisms. Short-term temperature fluctuations that result from irregular water uses for projects such as electric power generation, irrigation, and navigation appear to have greater ecological effects than uniform elevations of temperature by a few degrees (Coutant, 1972, p. 13). Shifts in spawning time of up to a month occur as a result of natural changes in temperature regimes, and this suggests that constant thermal additions may not be harmful as long as temperatures for migration, spawning,. and development are not eliminated for important species.PINGP is a base load facility and thus discharges a fairly constant amount of heat to the Mississippi River. Prolonged residence of fish in the thermal plume may 'induce premature spawning in those species for which temperature is the predominant controlling factor since suitable temperatures would be available sooner than normal (see Figure 111-27).Such altered spawning has been observed at several power plants for white sucker and several species of catfish (Coutant, 1970, p. 375). Premature spawning has not been observed during any of the field studies at PINGP although it could occur in walleye, carp, gizzard shad, and emerald shiners.Field studies have shown that these are the dominant RIS in the discharge during spring, and suitable spawning areas for each of these species exist in the discharge area, although walleye may migrate upriver. Suitable spawning areas also exist in Sturgeon and North Lakes as well as parts of the main river channel. All four species are prolific broadcast spawners, and carp and emerald shiners have an extended spawning period (3 to 4 months). The potential impacts of premature spawning in these species to river populations will be discussed along with other effects on river populations in Section VI A.6.Temperatures within the thermal plume are calculated to exceed the maximum for short-term (24-hour) survival of adults during the 'spawning period for most of the RIS (Tables VI-3 through 12) During typical conditions, however, the areas within these potentially lethal tempera-tures are small [less than 2.6 ha (6.4 A)], particularly WHen compared to areas in the vicinity of PINGP [e.g., Sturgeon Lake is 324 ha (800 A)]which contain abundant spawning habitat. In addition, not all of the discharge area excluded would be suitable spawning habitat for each RIS.For the proposed extreme conditions, the calculated exclusion areas are less than 16 ha (40 A) (less than 5 percent of the area in Sturgeon Lake)for walleye, channel catfish, gizzard shad,'and carp while exclusion areas for northern pike, emerald shiner, and white sucker may be 30 to 50 ha (74 to 124 A). The proposed extreme conditions,' however, are expected to occur less than 1 hour in a given month every 278 years (see Section IV B) and thus probably will not occur during the life of the plant. These calculated areas of exclusion are the maximum which adults would avoid as being lethal.VI-33 The temperature limits for embryo development are lower than those W for adult survival which indicates, that adults could lay eggs in areas not suitable for their development. The areas calculated to exceed the limits for embryo development are listed in Tables VI-3 through 12 'for each RIS. The maximum areas excluded during typical conditions are 17 ha (42 A) for northern pike and 9 ha (22 A) for walleye in May, which is the end of the spawning period for these species. For the other RIS, exclusion areas are less than 7.6 ha (19 A), and these occur during only a portion of the spawning period. The calculated exclusion areas for ty'pical and extreme conditions are the maximum necessary for complete protection of development; that is, the 20 C safety factor has been included for adult survival, and the most conservative upper limits for development have been used. Furthermore, the areas may include little or no suitable spawning habitat for some species, such as northern pike and white sucker, thus reducing the potential for impact considerably.

• Larvae produced upriver may also be. affected by drifting through the PINGP thermal discharge.

Based on a hydraulic study of the area (Stefan and Anderson, 1977), most larvae drifting through the PINGP discharge would have originated in Sturgeon Lake. *The horizontal and vertical distribution of these larvae in the water column is not known but probably is not uniform since sampling at the bar racks of the screenhouse has shown densities to be highest near the bottom (NUS, 1976, p. 185).Several possible drift pathways through thel discharge area are shown in Figure VI-14 for typical, conditions, although southerly winds and eddies would lengthen these pathways considerably. To calculate the drift times, average flow rate through. ,the discharge area was assumed to be 6 cm/sec (0.2 fps) based on velocity measurements taken in the August 1975 thermal survey (see Appendix N), and the longest pathway (A) in Figure VI-14 was utilized. The period of time each species is most likely to occur in the drift was estimated from Figure 111-26, and then, short-term lethal temperatures (minus 20. C for 100 percent survival) for each RIS (Table VI-14)were compared to the thermal plume model results for typical conditions in the appropriate months. These data indicate that drifting walleye, white bass, northern pike., carp, and white sucker larvae acclimated to ambient river temperatures would not be thermally stressed. The potential for thermal stress to channel catfish larvae drifting through the discharge area exists in July *and August since larvae could be exposed to 316 C (880 F) for 23 minutes and 290 to 310 C (840 to 881 F) for 73 minutes in July and 290 to 3 0 0 C (84 0 to 860 F) for 50 minutes in August. The upper tolerance limit of 310 C (50 percent mortality) in Table VI-14 is for an unspecified time of exposure (probably 24-hours or longer) so that shorter exposure (approximately 1 hour) to this temperature would not be expected to have adverse effects on drifting larvae. Furthermore, channel catfish guard their eggs and larvae (see Section III C.2.b) so that few would be expected. to occur in the drift.VI -34 Figure VI-14.547P-3-1 Pathways by which planktonic organisms may drift through the PINGP discharge area (without considering recircu-lation).VI-35 Table VI-14. Short-term thermal tolerances of larval fish.S S LARVAL ACCLIMATION TERN TEMPERATURE LT 5 0 REFERENCE STAGE CcE(C)Northern Pike 1 day old 6.1 22.2 24 hrs. Hokanson et al., 1973 11.8 28.2 24 hrs.'17.6 .28.0 .24 hrs.free 7.2 23.5 24 hrs.swimming 12.6 26.3 24 hrs.17.7 28.4 24 hrs.White Sucker new hatch 8.9. 29.0, 24 hrs. McCormick et al., 15.2 31.0 24 hrs. 1977 21.1 31.5 24 hrs.swim-up 10.0 28.5 24 hrs.15.8 30.7 24 hrs.21.1 32.0 24 hrs.Walleye 2"5 days 6 211 72 min. Smith and Koenst, old 11 212 72 min. 1975,'Channel Catfish 29 31 -West, 1q966 White Bass pre- 21.5 32 17 min. Coutant, 1974 feeding 21.5 34 7 min.Carp 3 days old 25 37 24 hrs.3 Coutant, 1974 9 days old 25 36 24 hrs.19 days old 25 38 24 hrs., 2 LT 2 2 3 After a 10 minute exposure to test temperature VI-36

5. Cold Shock Potential.

Cold shock may occur during winter when fish that have become acclimated to temperatures in the thermal discharge and recycle canal are suddenly exposed to ambient temperatures either from sudden removal of the heat source (both units shut down) or from swimming out of the plume (predator escape, etc.). Effects may be sublethal (e.g., loss of equilibrium) or lethal depending on temperature differential, species of fish, ambient temperature, and physiological state 'of the organism. Although not directly-lethal, loss of equilibrium may result in death through increased susceptibility to predation. To ensure protection of all warm water fish species a MWAT of 100 C (500 F) when the ambient temperature is 2.50 C (370 F) or 150 C (590 F)when the ambient temperature is 50 C (41' F) should not be exceeded in the plume (Figure VI-5). At PINGP, maximum weekly ambient temperatures are less than 50 C (410 F) from mid November to early April and less than 2.50 C (370 F) from December to mid March. Temperatures in the plume routinely exceed the recommended MWAT. During typical winter conditions (December 1975) when ambient temperatures were near 00 C (320 F), plume temperatures exceeded 100 C (500 F) in an area of approxi-mately 4.4 ha (10.9 A). This area is sufficient for fish to congregate and acclimate to the elevated temperatures; thusi, the potential for cold shock at PINGP exists. For proposed worst case conditions of 7-day, 10-year low flows and low ambient temperature, the area with temperatures greater than 100 C (500 F) is predicted to be 6.9 ha (17 A).Both units may shut down simultaneously during, winter,, and the probability of this has been calculated in Section VI B. During refueling of one unit, the probability of a trip at the other unit is 0.55 (55 per-cent), and the probability of simultaneous unscheduled trips is 0.0004.Since refueling occurs during winter and early spring, the probability of simultaneous shutdowns and potential cold shock to fish residing in the plume is at least 0.55 per year.Based on thermal data for the RIS presented in Appendix A (Tables A-11 through A-20), cold shock (direct lethal effects) to fish acclimated to about 200 C (680 F) is predicted to be minimal for channel catfish, northern pike, and white suckers. Cold shock may occur in walleye and emerald shiners acclimated to 200. C (680 F) or higher, while gizzard shad would be very likely to suffer cold shock. The area within the plume (2 unit operation) where temperatures are above 200 C is 0.6 ha (1.5 A)for typical conditions (December) and 0.9 ha (2.2 A) for proposed extreme conditions (January). The areas would be somewhat smaller during one unit operation during refueling. No data are available for predicting cold shock potential in the other RIS; however, shorthead redhorse are probably similar to white suckers in their tolerances, and carp would probably not be adversely affected by cold shock.Data from the discharge electrofishing study performed at PINGP in the winter of 1976-1977 indicate that gizzard shad and carp are the most abundant RIS in the discharge along with some white bass and black VI-37 crappie. Thus, cold shock mortality is predicted primarily for gizzard shad. During past operation of PINGP, forced trips have occurred when one unit was refueling, although no surveys were conducted to assess cold shock. Based on past operating experience, procedures have been devised to minimize potential cold shock when a forced trip occurs during refueling. The cooling towers will be bypassed and the discharge gates lowered to allow a more gradual temperature decrease.To summarize, cold shock effects are predicted to occur at PINGP at least once every two years during the winter refueling of one unit. The species most likely to be affected is gizzard shad, although some white bass, black crappie, and carp may be killed also.. Current operating procedures at PINGP are designed to reduce the effects of cold shock, and the potential impacts' of cold shock mortality on river, populations are discussed in, the next section.6. Effects on Fish (RIS) Populations. In general, the "effects of environmental perturbations on fish populations are difficult to assess, particularly in a large river such as the Mississippi. 'An inordinate amount of sampling would be necessary to determine anything except large changes,' and such long-term data are not available for most water bodies.Furthermore, the evaluation of a single perturbation such as a power plant discharge are often complicated by other activities of man (e.g., sewage disposal, dredgingi building dams, etc).'The PINGP discharge could affect fish populations primarily through altered spawning, exclusion of spawning areas, thermal stress to drifting larvae, cold,shock, blockage of migrations, species shifts, and altered growth rates. Most of these have been discussed for the discharge area in previous sections with quantitative information where possible.Spawning a few weeks early should not have adverse effects on' river populations unless a large proportion of the population were involved and this' spawning were unsuccessful.. Since population estimates for the RIS are not available for various habitats near PINGP in spring,' electro-fishing catch per unit effort will be compared to assess relative abundances. Walleye, gizzard shad, and emerald shiner were more abundant in the warmest parts of the discharge than in the intake area (Figure VI-lI)while carp were more abundant in the cooler parts of the discharge. A comparison of catch rates during spring in the intake and discharge areas (Figure VI-I1) with those in Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River (Figure 111-23) shows that the density near the intake was similar to the density in Sturgeon Lake for most of the RIS while the catch rate for walleye, gizzard shad, emerald shiner, and carp was considerably higher in the discharge than in either'Sturgeon Lake or the Mississippi River.The difference, however, may not be as great as noted here since the two studies were not conducted simultaneously. This may be particularly true for walleye which spawn in April to mid-May. The discharge study data were collected in April and early May while the river study data were collected primarily in late May and June.VI-38 To estimate potential effects of premature spawning, relative abun-dances must be known for the discharge canal area and the area outside the plume for each of the RIS. To calculate abundance from catch rate, two assumptions were made: equal sampling efficiency at all locations, and the locations sampled are representative of the areas to be compared.The first assumption is probably true while the second may not be since fish are usually not evenly distributed in a water body. Mean catch per effort (15 minutes) for each location (from Figures VI-lI and 111-23) was multiplied by the surface area of the locality sampled: 324 ha (800 A)for Sturgeon Lake, 180 ha (445 A) for the Mississippi River from Brewer Lake cut to the PINGP intake, 83 ha (205 A) for the Mississippi from the PINGP intake to Lock and Dam No. 3, 4 ha (10 A) forRuns 1+5 in the discharge, and 3 ha (7.5 A) for Runs 2+3 in the discharge. From these calculations, an estimated 13 percent of the walleye collected near PINGP were found in the discharge areas during spring while only 2 percent of the carp and 3 percent of the gizzard shad occurred there. Emerald shiner, on the other hand, appeared to concentrate in the discharge with an estimated 50 percent of the population present there in spring. Two factors,, however, weaken the reliability of this estimate. Emerald shiners school and remain offshore in spring and summer seeking deeper waters during the daytime in spring (Scott and Crossman, 1973, p. 442). Electro-fishing in Sturgeon Lake and the main channel of the Mississippi River was conducted along the shoreline during daytime and, thus, probably under-estimated abundances considerably in spring.Based on the above calculations, potential premature spawning of carp or gizzard shad in t~he discharge canal is predicted to have negligible effects on river populations since relatively few fish of these species are present in the discharge during spring. For walleye and emerald shiner, which are calculated to be relatively abundant in the discharge in spring, potential effects of premature spawning on river populations are predicted to be minimal. The relative abundances of these species in the discharge are probably overestimated as a result of differences in the time periods sampled and their patchy distributions, and it is unlikely that all of the fish in the discharge would spawn early. Furthermore, premature spawning in itself should not-affect general population levels unless much of it were unsuccessful. Emerald shiners have an-extended spawning period (May through August, with maximal activity in summer)and may spawn more than once per season (see Section III C). Thus, spawning a few weeks early by part of the, population would be expected to have little affect on the whole population. Another potential effect of the PINGP discharge on river populations is the exclusion of fish from otherwise suitable spawning areas. Based on data presented in Tables VI-3 through 12, however, the areas potentially excluded from reproduction are less than 10.8 ha (26.7 A) for those species expected to spawn in the discharge, and this is less than 2 percent of.the area in Sturgeon Lake and the Mississippi River from Brewer Lake cut to' Lock and Dam No. 3. Therefore, exclusion of spawning areas is predicted to have negligible effects on river populations since adequate alternate areas exist nearby.VI-39 Thermal stress to larvae drifting through the discharge is not predicted to adversely affect any of the RIS (see Section VI A.2); conse-quently, no impacts to river populations are expected. Cold shock in winter is predicted to occur primarily to gizzard shad when one unit trips while the other is refueling (greater than ,55 percent chance per year); however, no adverse impacts to river populations are expected from such phenomena. Gizzard shad naturally have large winter die-offs (Jester, 1972, p. 46), and the PINGP discharge may provide a thermal refuge for those individuals residing in the plume during the colder months, thus reducing their natural winter mortality rate. Cold shock mortality resulting from plant outages would then represent delayed natural mortality. A further consideration is that this prolific species needs cropping to control population size (Eddy and Underhill, 1974, p. 148).The PINGP thermal discharge should not inhibit any fish migrations in the area. The discharge is located in a backwater area off the main channel of the river, and the plume entering the river remains along the west (Minnesota) bank of the river which is also the navigation channel.In addition, the temperature increase in the main channel generally does not exceed 2.8' C (50 F). Thus, most of the river is not influenced by the plume and is available for migrations. Walleye and suckers are the only species that may migrate to spawn, and these species can easily avoid the plume.Less than large scale changes in fish population structure are: difficult to predict and nearly impossible to measure as noted previously. Many factors are involved in population structure stability including natural density-dependent compensatory mechanisms and influences of man including fishing, navigation, and pollution.' Any potential dhifts in fish population structure as a result of the PINGP thermal discharge could be masked by other man-induced or natural changes.'No impacts to endangered species are predicted since no endangered species 'have been reported in the area.\Potential effects of the PINGP discharge on sport fishing are expected to be beneficial. Fishing pressure in the immediate vicinity of PINGP (Section 3 of creel census) is light compared to that in the tailwaters of Lock and Dam No. 3 (Section 4 of creel census) and occurs mainly during open water months (see Section III C.2.g) .Fishing. success, however, has remained higher in the vicinity of PINGP than in the tail-waters below Dam No. 3 during plant operation. Fishing success should be enhanced in the immediate discharge area (approximately 6 ha) during spring and fall when fish are attracted to the plume, an area that repre-sents 7 percent of Section 3. This is corroborated by the fact that fishing pressure in the discharge has been observed to be somewhat higher during March and April (Geis 'and Gustafson, 1977) .Thus, some fishermen were apparently taking advantage of the situation, and the catch was primarily white bass.VI-40 The PINGP thermal discharge is expected to have negligible effects on RIS predator-prey interactions in the aquatic ecosystem near the plant. The area of potential influence is small (less than 10 ha) in relation to the area of lower Pool No. 3 (587 ha). Forage species (e.g., emerald shiners and gizzard shad) may be subject to somewhat higher predation rates when they are attracted to the discharge in large numbers, primarily during the cooler months of the year. Walleye and white bass are the only piscivorous (fish-eating) RIS which show an increased abundance in the discharge that is concurrent with the congregation of forage species, and it is unlikely that increased predation by-these fish would deplete the forage stocks in the general area. In fact, the predators,. which are important sport species, could benefit from such prey concentration. Lower. trophic level interactions among fish and invertebrates should be relatively unaffected by the discharge. Growth rates of fish may also be influenced by the PINGP thermal discharge and subsequently affect populations through physiological changes such as altered age at maturity. During typical conditions, temperatures outside the mixing zone are not expected to exceed the MWAT for growth for channel catfish, northern pike, carp, emerald shiner, or white sucker (Tables VI-3 through 12). For walleye and black crappie, however, most of the plume is expected to exceed the MWAT for growth during August and July, respectively. Ambient temperatures in July exceed the criterion for walleye. The plume beyond the mixing zone is located along the west*bank of the river main channel which is also the navigation channel.Thus, this area is probably not very suitable for residence by most species, particularly quietwater species such as black crappie. Con-dition factors (relation of length to weight) for fish collected inside and outside the plume were not found to differ significantly (Krosch, 25 October 1977). Consequently, thermal plume. effects on growth and river populations are expected to be negligible. During extreme environ-mental. conditions, the areas affected are larger, but the frequency of occurrence (0.000005) of these conditions is so low as to have no measur--v able effect on fish growth. -7. Effects on Parasites and Diseases. No specific parasitological studies have been performed near PINGP to determine if parasitism or diseases in fish-are influenced by the thermal discharge. During routine field sampling, however, the incidence of external parasites and diseases has not been observed to occur more frequently in the discharge than in other areas. These observations are supported by studies at a power plant on the White River, Indiana which have shown no definite influence of the thermal discharge on infestation rate by the ectoparasites, Lernaea cyprinacea and Argulus sp. The occurrence of Lernaea on centrachids did not appear to be related to the effluent (Proffitt and Benda, 1971, p. 60), and this parasite was not found on carp, gizzard shad, channel catfish, or black crappie, while less than one percent of the emerald shiners in both discharge and control areas were parasitized (Whitaker et al., 1973, pp. 81-91). Argulus was only found on one carp (Proffitt and Benda, 1971, p. 61).V1-41 The incidence of other parasites, particularly internal parasites, is not expected to increase as a result of the PINGP thermal discharge. Several of these require intermediate hosts which may-be terrestrial during their life cycle and thus may not be influenced appreciably by PINGP.B. MACROINVERTEBRATES

1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods. The chronology and.methodology of sampling are summarized in: Appendix Table A-22. Although a number of methods were utilized for collecting macroinvertebrates near PINGP, the two primary sampling methods during the last two years (1975 and 1976) were dredge and artificial substrate.

The basic criticisms summarized by Murarka (1976) covered most of the shortcomings of the macroinvertebrate data collection at PINGP. These included the changing or 'dropping of stations and methods unjustifiably or without intercalibra-tion'. These inconsistencies, possibly a result of changing consultants while monitoring was in progress, have rendered much of the preoperational data useless for statistical comparisons with operational periods. Another problem with the macroinvertebrate data was that the number of replicates collected at each'station after the monitoring methods had become relatively standardized was inadequate to show anything but large temporal or spatial variations between stations. Weibe (1971) has shown that Single samples collected at two separate stations would have to vary by a factor of four to be significantly different. Replicate samples were taken at some stations during later years, although only one value was reported for each 0)station as a result of replicate pooling. Table VI-15 shows that with -no simultaneous replicates taken at each sampling station, only large differences between stations were likely to appear to be statistically significant. Generally, as the number of replicates increases, the power of a statistical test for showing differences between 'stations increases; that is, the percentage difference between stations required to demonstrate a significant difference decreases with an increase in the number .Of replicates. The same argument holds for demonstrating the significance of temporal variation at a single station. Further discussion regarding the power of sampling procedures is provided in Appendix B.The wide variety of sampling techniques used to assess macroinverte-brate populations near PINGP, however, enhances the utility of the information. McConville (1975) summarized both dredge and artificial substrate procedures tested for sampling, efficiency near PINGP. Appendix Table A-22 describes the various methodologies used. Even though sampling methods were not standardized until operational years, information on macroinvertebrate populations have been accruing since 1970. This is important in defining the variety of macroinvertebrates occurring near PINGP, especially the occurrence of uncommon taxa which may include unusual, nuisance, or endangered species. The number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected (see Appendix K) is large for midwestern rivers; however, VI-42 Table VI-15.Power calculations for non-fisheries biological data collected near PINGP (no simultaneous replicates taken).H4.rI (A PROPABILITY (AT a = 0.05) OF DETECTING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATIONS WHEN.SIZES OF DIFFERENCES ARE EXPECTED TO BE: BIOTIC CATEGORY (From Appendix B)S-MALL (f = 0.10)1 MEDIUM (f = 0.25)1 LARGE (f 0.40)1 flacroinvertebrate Density (Dredge)2 ,4 0.09 0.36 0.80 Macroinvertebrate Density (Artificial Substrate) 2 ,4 0.08 0.31 0.71 Macroinvertebrate:Species Diversity (Dredge) 0.08 0.28 0.66 Macroinvertebrate Species'Diversity (Artificial Substrate) 2 0.07 0.18 0.42 Zooplankton Density 2 , 4 0.11 0.53 0.94 Zooplankton Species Diversity 2 0.07 0.23. 0.61 Phytoplankton Density 3 ,#o 0.09 0.43 0.86 Phytoplankton Type I Productivity 2 0.10 0.60 > 0.995 Phytoplankton Biovolume 2 0.08 0.28 0.66 Phytoplankton Species Diversity 2 0.08 0.28 0.66 Phytoplankton Type III Productivity 2 0.06 0.46 0.84 Periphyton.Density 2 ,4 0.08 0.31 0.67 PeriphytonChlorophyll a 2 0.08 0.31 0.67 Periphyton Species Diversity 2 0.07 0.23 0.53'Effect size index defined in Appendix B..lTwo-way ANOVA.3 Crossed and Nested two-way ANOVA."1Natural log transformation. O the federally endangered Higgins Eye pearly mussel has not been collected 0 during the seven years of sampling near the site. Such information is critical in assessing impacts at PINGP because the same mussel has been found both up and downriver from the site at a distance of less than 81 km (50 mi) (Krosch, 25 October 1977).2. Effects of Past Operation.

a. RESULTS OF DATA REANALYSIS.

The following section presents only the results of the data reanalysis. A discussion of the biological rele-vance of these findings is presented later in Section VI B.2.b.i) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test.Table VI-16 summarizes a reanalysis of the macroinvertebrate data. For operational years, ANOVA indicates that macroinverte-brate densities for both dredge and artificial substrate samnples varied significantly among sampling dates. Comparisons of macro-invertebrate densities among stations for dredge and artificial substrate samples indicate that the densities were also signifi-cantly different during the same period. Further analysis of the dredge data using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT)(Table VI-17; Figure VI-2) shows that only Station 18 (recycle canal) was grouped separately from the other stations. For artificial substrate densities, the group containing Stations 18, 10 (upriver main channel), and 21 (near-field discharge) was found to be significantly different from the group including Stations 12 (near-field intake), 25 (discharge near Barney's Point), and 6 (south-central Sturgeon Lake). Some of the same stations are included in separate groupings because their affinity._ to other stations is ambiguous. Further analysis with the t-Test (Section VI 2.a.2) was conducted to determine whether or not specific station pairs differed significantly from each other when the DMRT presented ambiguous results.Analysis of variance showed species diversity to be significantly different between stations for both artificial substrates and dredge samples over the period 1975 to midTl977 (Table VI.-16).The DMRT (Table VI-17) then grouped artificial substrate diversity Stations 6 and 10 as significantly different from grouped Stations 6, 12, 21, and 25. Station 18 differed significantly from the other station groups. For dredge species diversity Stations 6, 10, 12, and 25 were grouped as significantly different from Stations 18 and during the same period.Power calculations are summarized in Table VI-15 and indicate that only large differences between station mean values would likely be detected as significant.

2) Student's One-Tailed t-Test. When the ANOVA indicated that densities varied significantly among stations and the DMRT VI-44 Table VI-16. Results of two-way ANOVA for biotic categories sampled near PINGP in 1973-1977 (summarized in Appendix B).YEARS DEGREES I BlTC AEGR IA~Iyz O JF IE VALUEJ P > F~ SIGNIFICANTI 4 JAlALYZED I__________

____ FREEDOM,______ DFFRNE Macro invertebrates Density 2 (Dredge)Density 2 (Dredge)Species Diversity (Dredge)Species Diversity (Dredge)Density 2 (Artificial Substrate) Density 2 (Artificial Substrate) Species Diversity (Artificial Substrate) Species 'Diversity (Artificial Substrate) Zooplankton Density 2 2 Density Species Diversity Species Diversity Phytoplankton Density-Density 2 Density 2 DensDty2 Species Diversity Species Diversity Biovolume Biovolume Productivity 3 Productivity3 Productivity' Productivity4 Periphyton Density 2* Density 2* Species Diversity* Species Diversity Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a* Phaeophytin a Phaeophytin a 75-77 75-77 75-76 75-76 75-77 75-77 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76.75-76 75-76 73,75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 76 76 76 76 75-76 75-76 75-76i 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 75-76 Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months 5 14.57 4.50 13 Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months Between years 73 and 75-76 Between years 75 and 76 Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months Between Stations Between Months Between Stations 5 10.82 21 11.71 5 3.06 10 9.89 6 7.21 23 55.45 6 0.45 23 6.07 1 4.29 1 0.00 4 1.00 23 28.71 4 1.06 10 2.21 4 1.11 10 -8.48 1 178.16 8 6.75 4 14.26 34 24.41 2 15.63 22 6.79 2 1.50 14 5.09 2 3.98 21 6. 85 2 0.36 21 4.84 6 1 17.66 16 11.76 0.0001 0.001 0.0001, 0.0001 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.8445 0.0001 0.0414 0.9653 0.4143 0.001 0.3864 0.0316 0.1789 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001*0.OOl 0.2381 U.0001 0.0256 0.0001 0.6975 0.0001 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes no no yes no yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes no yes Between Between Between Days Stations Days Between Stations Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Months Stations Months Stations Months Stations Months IType I as defined in Appendix B.2Natural log transformation. 3Only near-field intake and discharge stations (HDR Nos. 14 and 19)involved; known as a Type III experiment. Both near- and far-field stations involved (HDR Nos. 5, 9, 14, 19, and 27): known as a Type I experiment. 'The null hypothesis that no difference exists between stations or dates is rejected (., 0.J5).VI-45 I S Table VI-17. Results of Duncan's Multiple Range Tests for biotic categories sampled near PINGP, 1973-1977. ./!n DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR STATIONS 1 BIOTIC CATEGORY (HDR DESIGNATED STATIONS)A GROUPING 3 B GROUPING C GROUPING D GROUPING Macroinvertebrate Density 2 (Dredge) 6, 10, 12, 18 21, 25, 27 Macroinvertebrate Density 2 (Artificial 18, 10, 21 12, 25, 6 Substrate) Macroinvertebrate Species Diversity 10, 6,-12, 21, 18 (Dredge) 25 Macroinvertebrate Species Diversity 6, 10 6, 21, 12, 18 (Artificial Substrate) 25 Zooplankton Density 2 27, 10 10, 12, 6 12, 6, 25, 21 21, 18 Phytoplankton Productivity (Type III1 ) 14 19 Phytoplankton Productivity (Type is) 14 27, 9, 5 19 Periphyton Chlorophyll a 13 20, 25 Periphyton Density 2 13, 20 25 1 Data base derived from Table VI-16.2 1ndicates natural log transformations. 3 A grouping is a number of stations (or one station) whose mean value differs. significantly (a = 0.05) from other station groupings (see Appendix B for details)."Type III productivity refers to measurements taken only at near-field intake and discharge stations.5'lype I productivity refers to measurements taken at several stations, both near- and far-field. produced ambiguous results regarding specific station groupings,-then selected ambiguous station pairs were subjected to the Student's t-Test. The One-Tailed Student's t-Test was utilized to specifically address the questions:

1) are macroinvertebrate densities in the discharge significantly lower than those in the intake, and 2) are densities upriver from PINGP significantly lower than those downriver and influenced by the thermal plume?Table VI-18 shows that for dredge macroinvertebrate density, Station 12 (intake) did not differ significantly from, Station 21 (discharge), nor did Stations.

10 (upriver) and 27 (downriver) differ significantly. For artificial substrates, only stations in the immediate plant area could be compared since .insufficient data. were available; for the. other. stations. No significant difference was found between Stations 12 and 21 which clarifies the results of the analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. .Since no significant differences were observed in the immediate vicinity of the plant, it is unlikely that signifi-cant differences would occur between the up and downriver artificial substrate samples as a result of the PINGP thermal discharge.

3) Multiple Regressions.

Stepwise multiple linear regressions were performed, comparing dredge and artificial substrate macro-invertebrate population densities with a limited number of relatively simultaneous (sampled within one week of biological samples) water quality parameters (Table VI-19) collected at hydrographically Similar stations (Table 111-31) .For a complete list of all water quality variables considered, see Appendix B.For dredge macroinvertebrates, neither temperature nor dissolved oxygen was found to be significantly related to total population densities; 'only bottom suspended residue (sediments) was selected by stepwise regressi6n 'at a low R 2 value of 0.15. This indicates that macroinvertebr~tes collected in bottom substrates may have varied in density as a result of parameters 'other than temperature or dissolved oxygen, and coincided only weakly with concentrations of suspended residue. Surface ammonia was the only water quality parameter selected as' related to artificial substrate macroinverte-brate densities (R 2 = 0.42). 'All R 2 values were found to be significant at a < 0.05 (see Appendix B). If more intensive water quality' sampling had been conducted during the artificial substrate colonization period, better regressions might have resulted.b. DISCUSSION. Statistical reanalysis of more than two years of operational data tends to confirm the conclusions made by Haynes (1976)and Texas Instruments, Inc. (1977b). In 1975 and 1976, these authors found that the density of macroinvertebrates collected on artificial substrates and in dredge samples was either 'equal in the intake and discharge or higher in discharge stations on an annual basis. In addition, intake and discharge stations had significantly greater densities than main channel (upriver and downriver) stations for artificial substrate VI-47 macroinvertebrates. Similarly, Murarka (1976) could not show any signifi-cant plant-induced changes to the macroinvertebrate community. Although temperatures in the discharge area varied with time of year and river flow rate, seasonal macroinvertebrate data were not collected frequently enough to test for significant differences between plume and control stations during critically warm times of the year. Thus, the biological monitoring surveys can best be used to show changes in organism density occurring over the annual range of conditions experienced inside and outside the thermal plume. In order to test whether the plume significantly influences macroinvertebrate populations during critical 'times of the year, short-term intensive studies would have to be performed, involving numerous replicates in the plume-and con trol areas. Although macroinverte-brates colonizing artificial substrates and inhabiting benthic sediments are subject to'drift, they tend to show' long-term cumulative effects of critical conditions in which they reside. Therefore, it may be justified to say that sampling populations by artificial substrate and dredge on an annual basis Inside and outside the plume will probably not show the effects of short-term critical or limiting conditions 'be they thermal or otherwise. Mortality resulting from short-term critical conditions may be compensated by rapid recolonization and, therefore, may not be obvious in long-term studies.It was interesting to note from the limited regression analyses that populations sampled by artificial substrate and..dredge did not. respond negatively to elevated temperatures-.in the PINGP discharge. Apparently, some other unmeasured parameiters, such as toxicants or anomalies in processing samples, caused more variations in total population density than any of the measured water quality parameters. Because populations were similar at all stations, there were probably no controlling factors between stations that did not affect all stations similarly. Characteris-tics of the populations from artificial substrate and dredge samples other than total population densities may have been influenced by plant operation. For instance, changes in species composition were evident between stations for both dredge. and artificial substrate populations (Tables VI-16 and VI-17). Also,:-changes in growth rate, adult size, or biomass could have occurred. Kititsyna and Sergeeva (1976) found that macroinvertebrates exposed continuously to heated water in a cooling reservoir increased significantly in size compared to others.found outside theplume.ý At the site studied by the above the. average tempera-ture differential between plume and control stations was 30 to 50 C (50 to 90 F) with a maximum absolute temperature of 260 C (790 F) which is similar to conditions at PINGP. A similar trend thus could be occurring at PINGP. * -.-Regarding species shifts, Benda and Proffitt (1974) found that densities of mayflies, caddisflies, and certain other invertebrates were depressed within 168 m (550 ft) of a poweriplant discharge on the White River (Indiana) when discharge temperatures exceeded 31.1* C (88' F),.Possible evidence for species shifts in the PINGP plume has been docu-mented (Haynes, 1976). In 1975, Shannon-Weaver diversities were reported VI-50 to be significantly greater in control (intake) stations for both dredge and artificial substrate samples than at Station 21 (immediately outside the discharge gates). Reanalysis of dredge and artificial substrate species diversity data-showed that for 'dredge data, the near-field plume station (21) and the recycle canal (18) were found to differ significantly from all other0 statons. For artificial substrate data, near-field plume stations (21 and 25) did not differ significantly from near-field control stations (12 and 6) for species diversity, but Station 18 differed signi-ficantly from all other stations. Differences in substrates or currents between stations may have partially caused these inconsistencies, and these are discussed later in this section.Examination of population densities for RIS shows that only Hydropsyche and Stenonema were *found in sufficient numbers to make comparisons between control and plume stations and then only on artificial substrates. Appendix Table A-26 summarizes the information regarding these two RIS. Although data are insufficient to conduct detailed statistical analysis, densities in plume stations as opposed to non-plume stations appear enhanced. Large seasonal variation is also quite evident.To summarize, reanalysis of the limited site-specific information indicates that the only measurable effects of PINGP, thermal discharges to macroinvertebrates during more than two years of o0peration may! have involved changes in species diversity between plume and control stations, indicating a shift in species composition. Total population densities have remained similar inside and outside the plume over the same period.It is apparent that neither temperature nor bottom substrate variations between stations were significantly related to macroinvertebrate density, although one of these parameters may have influenced changes in species diversity. According to Simonet (1975), bottom sediments and currentl conditions for various stations were as follows: Stations 25, 27, and 25 were sand with current; Stations 6, 10, and 12 were mud with or without current; and Stations 15, 18, and 21 were light, shifting sand with current. These differences in current and substrate between both near-field and far-field stations may have accounted for some of the variations in diversity between plume and control stations for dredge and artificial substrate macroinvertebrates. Thus, background information does not indicate that the plant has affected the density of macroinvertebrates, although a combination of elevated temperatures, current, and bottom conditions could have caused a difference in diversity for intake and upriver control stations as compared to discharge canal and downriver stations in the plume.3. Predicted Impacts. Thermal effects on macroinvertebrates depend upon absolute temperature in addition to exposure time and thermal eleva-tion. Macroinvertebrates may be either sessile or drifting, resulting in differing exposures to the PINGP discharge. While drifting, organisms will generally be exposed for shorter periods and to lower elevated water temperatures than those organisms attached to substrates near the head VI-51 of the discharge canal at the discharge ,gates (Figure VI-14) .Drift time within the discharge area may) be increased substantially by wind-induced recirculation; however, drifting macroinvertebrates will generally be subjected to a lower level of thermal stress than aufwuchs and benthos occurring in the near-field discharge. Table VI-20 lists drift times and maximum exposure temperatures for the longer two pathways in Figure ,VI-14.Although literature data (Appendix Tables A-28 and A-29 and Figure A-6)for thermal tolerances of macroinvertebrate RIS are limited, some drift survival predictions can be made regarding proposed plume conditions. All four RIS have been observed to survive maximum temperatures far. in excess of any they could encounter in the plume, either drifting or sessile in the discharge, canal. The 96-hr LT 5 0 for Stenonema has been established at 25.50 C (800 F). at an acclimation temperature. of 100 C (50° F).Stenonema could drift through temperatu.res up to about 290 C (840 F) for 198 minutes during the propossed extreme conditions in May with an ambient temperature of 22.80 C (73' F). Stenonema would be expected to survive such a worst case temperature, elevation, however, because its acclimation temperature would be increased by almost 130 C (230 F) and exposure time;would be much shorter than the 96-hour LT 5 0.Proposed extreme plume predictions for an ambient temperature of 100 C (501 F) would approximate 170 to 180 C (630 to..64' F) for a maximum drift encounter. temperature with no predicted lethal effects. These extreme conditions are predicted to occur at a frequency of less than one hour in a given month over a 278-year period. All other, RIS appear to be less, sensitive, than Stenonema to.drift stress. 'From similar information for non-RIS macroinvertebrates, it appears that most other macroinvertebrates will not be harmed by drifting through the plume. only in locations closest to the discharge gates should some of the benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., Taeniopteryx maura, Baetis tenax, and Ephemerella subvaria) be periodically eliminated. Since other species should take the places of those benthic invertebrates lost from the head of the discharge canal, total densities should not be reduced although species diversity and composition may change.For fixed benthic or .aufwuchs macroinvertebrates, preferred or most common temperature at which a taxon is recorded appears to be the relevant criterion for predicting impact (Tables VI-21 through VI-24). This tempera-ture range, has been established at 270 to 290 C (81' to 840 F) for Hydropsyche and at 280 C (820 F) for Macronemum (Appendix Table A-29).Similar information for the other RIS is lacking. Information presented in thermal matrix Table VI-23 indicates that Hydropsyche will be excluded from 6.6 ha (16 A) or less during typical spring to summer conditions which is the equivalent of about 2.0 percent of Sturge.on:Lake, Habitat exclusion in the discharge canal is compared to that available in Sturgeon Lake because of the similarity of hydrological conditions (except for the thermal plume) and because of the proximity of the two locations. For proposed extreme conditions, the exclusion area is predicted to vary from about 0.1 ha (0.3 A) in January to the entire discharge canal in August [18 ha (44.5 A)].VI-52 H tu-Table VI-20. Estimated drift times for plankton through the thermal plume at PINGP for typical and proposed extreme conditions. ESTIMATED DRIFT TIME (MIN)' HIGHEST EXPECTED TEMPERATURE ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS MODELED MAXIMUM MEAN DURING MAXIMUM DRIFT DURING MEAN DRIFT Typical Spring (May 1976) 138 120 22.80 C (73.00 F) 21.70 C (71.00 F)Summer (August 1975) 120 100 29.40 C (84.90 F) 28.50 C 83.30 F)Winter (December 1975) 405 388 16.50 C (61.70 F) 11.60 C 52.90 F)Proposed Extreme Spring (May) 198 180 28.80 C (83.80 F) 27.30 C 81.10 F)Summer (August) 108 93 32.80 C (91.00 F) 32.50 C 90.5- F)Winter (January) 483 445 16.70 C (62.10 F) 12.50 C 54.50 F)1 Time required for a neutrally buoyant particle to drift from the upriver to the downriver extent of the 50 F isotherm in the near-field, assuming an average velocity of 0.2 fps. Drift paths are shown in Figure VI-14.0 O 1@H 31 Table VI-21. Thermal matrix for response of the macroinvertebrate RIS, Stenonema, to conditions near PINGP. Organism: Stenonema; trophic level: primary consumer; biotic category: macroinvertebrate. TEMPERATURE1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY (C) FUNCTION (HA) EXCLUDED REMARKS TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 Maximum temperature where live 32.0 0 0 specimens have been observed.Mean lethal temperature (48 or 96 hr TLm or LT 5 0) of mature 25.5 0 0 larval or adult stage.Most common temperature taxon recorded at, based on frequency ND," --__of occurrence of different temperature levels.Temperature increases which have been shown to affect emer- ND 4 ---gence period.lFrom Appendix Table A-29.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-39.3 From Appendix Tables A-40 through A-42.Nb" = no data. Table VI-22.Thermal matrix for the response of the macroinvertebrate RIS, Pseudocloeon, to conditions near PINGP. Organism: Pseudocloeon; trophic level: primary consumer; biotic category: macroinvertebrate. H U, Ln TEMPERATURE 1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY FUNCTION (HA) EXCLUDED REMARKS TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 Maximum temperature where live 40.7 0 0 specimens have been observed.Mean lethal temperature (48 or 96 hr TLm or LT 5 0) of mature ND4 larval or adult stage.Most common temperature taxon recorded at, based on frequency NA -- --of occurrence of different temperature levels.Temperature increases which have been shown to affect emer- ND4 --gence period.1 From Appendix Table A-29.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-39.3 From Appendix Tables A-40 through A-42.ND4I = no data.9 Table VI-23.Thermal matrix for response of the macroinvertebrate RIS, Hydropsyche, to conditions near PINGP. Organism: Hydropsyche; trophic consumer; biotic category: macroinvertebrate. level: primary H 0, TEMPERATURE 1 AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION BIOLOGICAL ACTfVITY FUNCTION (HA) EXCLUDED REMARKS (C) TYPICAL2 EXTREME 3 TYPICAL? EXTREME 3 Maximum temperature where live specimens have been 35-38 0 0 --observed.Mean lethal temperature (48 or 96 hr TIn or LT, 0) 32-3n 0 0 -of mature larval or (Spring, Fall)adult stage. 38 (Summer) 0 0 -0 adolt somntaem. rtr Most cominon temperature Ambient river temperature exceeded taxon recorded at, based 29* C for August proposed extreme on frequency of occur- 27-29 6.6 0.08 to Auut May-Aug 29CfoAuutppseexrm 648 August January condition; therefore,*this RIS's rence of different -optimum temperature is exceeded temperature levels. naturally. Temperature increases 1=2 wk advance 18.5 ]8.5 All year All year Coutant (1968)which have been shown 14 (+/--2)=5 mo to affect emergence per- advance 1.5 2.5 December January Nebeker (1971)lod. in winter t Froa Appendix Table A-29.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-39.rein Appendix Tables A-40 through A-42. Table VI-24.Thermal matrix for response of the macroinvertebrage RIS, Macronemum, to conditions near PINGP. Organism: Macronemum; trophic level: primary consumer; biotic category: macroinvertebrate. H I-j TEMPERATUREI AREA EXCLUDING TIME FUNCTION BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY T E U FUNCTION (HA) EXCLUDED REMARKS TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 TYPICAL 2 EXTREME 3 Maximum temperature where live specimens have been 35 -0 0 --observed.Mean lethal temperature (48 or 96 hr TL, or LT 5 0) ND" ..-of mature larval.;or adult stage.Most common temperature taxon recorded at, based River exceeds 28* C in August proposed en frequency of occur- 28 1-5 -June-: May- extreme conditions; therefore, this rence of different August August RIS's optimum temperature is renc of iffeentexceeded naturally. temperature levels.Temperature increases which have been shown -0 = 2 wk 18.5 18.5 All year All year Hopwood (1975)to affect emergence per- advance iod.From Appendix Table A-29.2 From Appendix Tables A-37 through A-39.3From Appundix TabJes A-40 through A-42.4 ND = no data.0 Likewise, 1 to 5 'ha (2.5 to 12.4 A) in the discharge canal, comparable @1 to 0.3 to 1.5 percent of Sturgeon Lake, will not be suitable for Macro-nemum for typical conditions in June through August (Table VI-24) .Under proposed extreme conditions, the unsuitable area would increase from 1.7 ha (4 A) in May to the entire river in August; however, these conditions are expected to occur at a frequency of less than 1 hour in a given month over a 278-year period. No information on cold shock tolerance was available for macroinvertebrate RIS.Information regarding thermal effects on emergence schedules are also summarized in Tables VI-23 and VI-24 for both Hydropsyche and Macronemum. It has been found that a temperature increase of 10 C (20 F) or less may advance emergence by as much as 2 weeks. This would involve the entire discharge canal [18 ha (44.5 A)]' which is equivalent to-about 5.7 percent of Sturgeon Lake. For Hydropsyche, it has been estimated (Nebeker, 1971)that a 14 +/- 20 C (25 +/- 4' F) temperature elevation occurring in the winter could accelerate emergence by as much as 5 months. In January, the area in the discharge canal affected by at least a 140 C (250 F) AT would be 1.5 ha (3..7 A or 0.46 percent of Sturgeon Lake). Nebeker (1971) found that if an insect emerges prematurely, successful reproduction may not be possible because environmental conditions may be unfavorable, or mates may not emerge during the short life span of the too-early insect. In addition, if a difference in time normally occurs between emergence of separate sexes (e.g., in stoneflies) and exposure to elevated temperatures enhances this differential, then reproduction will not occur if no indivi-duals of the opposite sex emerge during the life span of the early emerged insects. In the case of either Hydropsyche or Macronemum, however, accelerated emergence schedules should not degrade the overall "protection and propagation" of these two taxa. In the first case, even if all the larvae that emerged two weeks early were lost (which is unlikely), this would amount to less than 6 percent of all those produced in Sturgeon Lake alone, and many other backwaters exist in the vicinity of PINGP. On the other hand, should elevated temperature in the.discharge initiate emergence 5 months early, this would amount to a loss of less than 0.5 percent of all larvae that would be expected to emerge from Sturgeon Lake during the warmer seasons. These predictions are based on the assumption that macroinvertebrate densities are somewhat similar between discharge and Sturgeon Lake locations (Table VI-17).In his study of aquatic insect emergence near PINGP, Shyne (1977)found that mayflies (especially Caenis) emerged earlier near heated water stations than at control stations, but because heating was sporadic (May-December 1974), other factors may have caused this early emergence. The caddisflies, Hydropsyche/Cheumatopsyche, appeared to emerge at equal rates and times from both heated and control 'stations. Midges emerged earlier in Sturgeon Lake than the simultaneous peak observed at all other stations. Thus, with the possible exception of the mayfly, Caenis, emergence of aquatic insects seemed to be unaffected by the thermal plume in 1974.VI -58 Comparing the predicted impact of the PINGP discharge with previously observed impacts, it is obvious that field data are inadequate to verify predicted species shifts or changes in abundance of individual species that may have resided in the thermal plume. Practically no information is available regarding the selective processes occurring inside the plume as compared with control stations. If anything (see Appendix Table A-26), artificial substrate abundances. of two RIS, Hydropsyche and Stenonema, were higher during the summer months at discharge than at intake In addition, Haynes (1976) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (1977b) reported that species diversity changed significantly between intake and discharge stations for both artificial substrate and dredge samples, even though combined densities of all organisms remained approximately the same between these stations during both years. Reanalysis of these and newer data (1975-1977) confirmed the differences for macroinvertebrates in the dredge samples, but not for those on artificial substrate samples. Thus, even though thermal tolerance data suggest that some macroinvertebrate RIS may be eliminated from certain benthic portions of the plume during part of the year, site-specific data, at least for Hydropsyche and Stenonema, show that the reverse may be true. It should be pointed out, however, that the site-specific data on RIS are insufficient and do not necessarily contradict the impacts predicted .from the thermal tolerance information; i.e., that losses of some RIS macroinvertebrates may occur in the discharge.canal. It also should be pointed out that site-specific data did indicate a general shift in total species composition between intake and discharge stations.C. ZOOPLANKTON

1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods. Methods for zooplank-ton sampling are summarized in Appendix Table A-22,-:and many of the criticisms of data collection mentioned in the macroihvertebrates section apply also to zooplankton.

Samples were taken with a Van Dorn (or Kemmerer)bottle or by pumping, and water was then filtered through a plankton net.The mesh of the plankton net was not specified in the earlier studies but presumably was the same for all studies since sampling began in 1970.Plant entrainment mortality testing was begun in 1974, utilizing a pump filtration system, which sampled at a rate of approximately 130 liters/min. pumping is probably more efficient for sampling agile zooplankton (such as copepods) than is sampling by means of a Van Dorn bottle because of the larger volume sampled and less avoidance of the sampler. Thus, Without intercalibration, the two methods are probably not comparable, nor were they designed to be. Patchy zooplankton distribution can also present problems in asesse ing impact of the plant, no matter what sampling method is used, since an apparent increase or decrease in zooplankton numbers at the discharge in relation to the intake may actually result from variations due to patchiness. Moreover, if no attempt is made to sample the intake and discharge at approximately the same time, allowing for travel time through the plant (especially when discharging at maximum blowdown volume), natural density variations occurring between intake and discharge may be inseparable from those resulting from plant related losses. Thus, VI-59 it is important either that enough replicates be taken at each station 0 to define temporal and spatial variation, or that samples of adequate volume be collected to compensate for patchiness. Table VI-15 indicates that with no simultaneous replicates taken, only moderate to largeývariations between mean station values would be detected as significant. In this, as with other types of sampling, it is obvious that with an increase in number of replicates taken at each station, a smaller percentage difference between stations is required to reveal a signifi-cant difference. Since the viability of the sampled zooplankton at stations other than 14 and 20 (Figure VI-2) was not recorded, it is doubtful that reductions in zooplankton densities at other stations resulting from plant operation could be readily determined. Zooplankton that may have been recently killed as a result: of plant operation would remain almost neutrally buoyant for at least several hours and, therefore, inseparable from live organisms after sample preservation. Little is known abou .zooplankton settling rates after death, but there is some indication that reductions in densities from settling of dead zooplankton in the discharge canal as a result of plant operation may be measurable (Carpenter et al., 1974). However, it is difficult to separate zooplankton losses resulting from plant entrain-ment and those resulting from plume entrainment. Thus, determination of zooplankton mortality resulting from plume entrainment is, at best, difficult.

4. Effects of Past Operations.

0 1 a. RESULTS OF DATA REANALYSIS. I) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test.Zooplankton data collected near PINGP in 1975 and 1976 (opera-tional years) were reanalyzed, and the ANOVA results are summarized in Table VI-16. Densities varied significantly between. stations A(l < 0.001), and variation between months was also highly signifi-cant. Further reanalyses using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT)(see Table VI-17) indicated that certain station groups differed significantly relative to other station groups. For example, Stations 10 and 27 comprised a group which differed significantly from the group containing Stations 6, 10, and 12. Moreover, grouped Stations 6, 12, 21, and 25 differed significantly from other stations, and stations 18 and 21 combined differed from other groups of stations., Zooplankton species diversities, however, did not differ significantly between stations based on the ANOVA test but did vary seasonally (Table VI-16).2) Student's One-Tailed t-Test. Since the DMRT showed that certain groups of'stations differed significantly from other groups of stations, a directional (one-tailed) Student's t-Test was utilized to determine whether zooplankton were more dense at Station 12 (the intake) 'than at Station 21 (the immediate dis-charge area), and did zooplankton density at Station 10 (upriver VI -60 of PINGP) exceed significantly that of Station 27 (near Lock and Dam No. 3). The results (Table Vf-18) did not demonstrate that significant differences existed between both near-field and far-field stations. As mentioned previously, however, the fact that no differences were shown between stations does not neces-sarily mean that no differences actually existed. It simply indicates that the power Of the data may not have been great enough to show differences if they did occur. It is also likely that if zooplankton were killed by plant operation, they would not have settled out of the water column during the short transit time between stations. Subgroups of the zooplarkton (that is, rotifers and crustaceans) showed results similar to those for the total zooplankton analysis.3) Multiple Regressions. Although zooplankton and its subgroups, rotifers. and crustaceans., were not found to vary significantly in density between some, stations, densities of these taxa were found to be related to several water quality parameters. For total.zooplankton density, five water quality parameters were selected in a stepwise linear regression procedure. The most important of these was temperature (Table VI-19) followed by nitrate, orthophosphate, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia,. All selected parameters accounted for 64 percent of the variation recorded in.zooplankton numbers.. Because temperature was selected as the most important parameter relating, tO zooplankton densities, this does not necessarily mean that the plant caused this variation. Significant variation between stations and between months did occur (Table VI-16), and thus, variation in zooplankton densities resulted from variations in temperature on both a seasonal basis and a station basis.Regressions of rotifer density with water quality parameters produced results almost identical to those for total zooplankton. The same five water quality parameters were selected with a total R 2 of 0.66, and temperature was the most important parameter. Crustacean densities were related only to temperature, nitrates, and orthophosphates with a total R 2 of only 0.53. itis important to note, however, that 41 percent of the variation in crustacean densities resulted from temperature which is somewhat higher than 37 percent for rotifers and 35 percent for total Zooplankton. All of the R 2 values were high enough to indicate that density of total zooplankton or either of its subgroups were significantly (a < 0.05) related to some of the water quality parameters (see Appendix B).Seasonal correlations (r) of total zooplankton and crustaceans with temperature were always relatively low. During summer, the correlation of total zooplankton populations with temperature appeared to be slightly negative (r = -0.24), and crustacean densities showed a similar relationship with temperature (r. -0.29)in winter. Both total zooplankton (r = 0.21) and crustacean abundances (r = 0.18) exhibited positive, but weak, correlations VI -61 to temperature in spring. These results tend to indicate that although annual temperature fluctuations may influence zooplankton populations through seasonal variation, when considered only on a seasonal basis, temperature is not so important. Thus, the annual influence of temperature variation must be more important than that of spatial influences (such as the thermal plume), or else the seasonal correlations would have been higher than those of the annual correlations. In summary, zooplankton densities are influenced by temperature variation to a moderate extent, with seasonal variations of water temperature a stronger determinant than spatial variation.

b. DISCUSSION.

Daggett (i976) found. no significant difference in total zooplankton densities between PINGP stations for 1975, although copepods did show a difference at the p < 0.08 level. Using;Tukey's Multiple Comparison-Test, Daggett showed that Stations 6 and 12 (Sturgeon Lake and the intake) had significantly greater copepod densities than Stations 10, 21, and 26 (Sturgeon Lake, the discharge canal, and;down-river from Barney's Point). Diversityrwas high at but no statistical tests were conducted to ascertain; if significant differences occurred between stations. Reanalysis of the data by ANOVA,' however, confirmed the expectation that species diversity did not differý significantly between stations. In 1976, data analyses using the Newman Kuels Test (Texas Instruments, Inc.,-1977a) showed that copepod densities were significantly higher at 'the intake (Station 12) than in the discharge (Stations 21 and 25), but Station 5 (Sturgeon Lake) was not significantly different from Station 25. Similar results were found for both cladocerans and copepods; however, rotifers showed no significant differences between stations.The primary differences between stations that affected abundances of planktonic organisms were temperature and current. Thermal surveys taken during representative periods of 1975 and 1976 (summarized in Appendix N) and water velocity measurements (conducted by Stefan and Anderson, 1977 and Szluha, 1975) have characterized several station differences (Sections III A.3, and B.1). Analyses of field data, however, have shown no. large variations in spatial abundance of zooplankton as related to temperature, and insufficient data were available to analyze velocity related effects. Differences in zooplankton densities between intake and discharge may exist, but the number of replicates was insuf-ficient to show anything but large percentage differences. Even if there had been significantly more zooplankton observed at the intake rather than the discharge, the majority of the decrease in density would have probably been caused by plant entrainment rather than plume entrainment, as a result of the greater stress involved in plant entrainment (Davies and Jensen, 1975).Statistical tests do not indicate that any reductions in species diversity have occurred between intake and discharge stations at PINGP.King (1974) foundthat no zooplankton species were eliminated from the V0 V1-6 2 heated zones of a Missouri cooling reservoir where AT's averaged 40 to 60 (7 to 110 F); however, cladocerans and copepods were more abundant in the heated cove, whereas rotifers were more common in the control area.Nevertheless, no significant differences in species diversity were.found between the control and heated zones of this reservoir. Thus, site-specific data for zooplankton indicate that the thermal plume did not significantly alter either density or species diversity at PINGP in 1976 and 1977. However, data were such that only very severe changes would have been detectable, and even then most reductions would probably have resulted from plant rather than plume entrainment.

3. Predicted Impacts. No RIS were selected for zooplankton; however, thermal tolerance information'-for a number of species found near PINGP is summarized in Appendix Table A-31 and Figure A-7. Although exposure periods differ greatly between thermal tolerance data and expected drift experien~ce, it is expected that most cladocerans, because of their relatively high thermal tolerance, could withstand the maximum thermal increases encountered while drifting in the discharge canal (Table VI-20), even during the hottest part of the summer. On the other hand, the copepod, Diaptomus, might be damaged by drifting through the hottest part of the plume during certain times (Table Appendix A-31 and Figure A-7), especially during proposed extreme conditions from June to September when maximum encountered plume temperatures exceed 310 C (880 F). However, acclimation to these thermal maxima will be gradual and duration of exposure to highest temperatures will not exceed 108 minutes. Thus, Diaptomus would probably not be killed by drifting through the plume even during the proposed extreme conditions.

If, however, there were other mitigating factors, such as abnormally low dissolved oxygen (DO), high levels of a toxicant from upstream, or abnormally long retention times in the discharge' canal, then the already-weakened Diaptomus may be unfavorably affected by the, thermal plume. Similar limitations may occur for Cyclops vernalis, although this taxon is slightly more thermally tolerant than Diaptomus. Little information is available on thermal tolerances of rotifers, but they are considered to be generally more thermally tolerant than either cladocerans or copepods (Jensen et al., 1969). Protozoans are known to withstand maximum temperatures of 350 to 400 C (950 to.1040 F)after acclimation to only 210 to 250 C (700 to 770 F) (see Appendix Table A-31), and are considered more tolerant than most other types of zooplankton. Brock (1975) suggested that the upper limits for some protozoans approach 500 C (1220 F), although diversity may be severely restricted at tempera-tures below this upper limit.Although no individual species at PINGP have been selected for statistical analysis, the lack of major. variations in density and diver-sity of zooplankton indicate that the plant has little impact on drifting populations, even in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Even if a decrease in density and diversity hadbeen observed, the relatively rapid VI-63 reproductive rates and short life spans of most zooplankton, especially during the summer, would be expected to compensate for any losses in-curred due to drifting through the plume at PINGP (EPA, 1976b).Power plants on large midwestern rivers have rarely caused signifi-cant losses in zooplankton, either by plant or plume entrainment (OPPD, 1976). When losses do occur as a result of power plant operation,* the loss is largely due to entrainment through the plant rather than by. other plant-related causes (Davies and Jensen, 1975).D. PHYTOPLANKTON

1. Discussion and Critique of Sarpling.Methods.

Phytoplankton have been sampled since 1969 (Appendix Table A-22), and most sampling methods and procedures were state-of-the-art. The. following considerations, however, limit their. utility. First, it is questionable that diatoms could have been identified to species without leaching or incinerating cell contents before examining frustule sculpturing. .Second, although sampling methods have remained somewhat similar since the inception of phytoplankton sampling in 1969,r the stations and dates sampled for densities varied considerably prior to 1973. Use of the oxygen production method for determining phytoplankton productivity (Baker., 1975a) instead of the more widely used 1 4C method limits comparison with.some literature. moreover, location of sampling stations and sampling frequency were inconsistent from year -to year. Simultaneous replicates were not collected for density estimates, while only a limited number of productivity samples had replicates. Thus, the power of the data for showing significant difference between stations wasrather low except for the few cases where multiple productivity samples were taken (Table VI-15)-. Little or no tabular data were available, and the results from several stations were generally pooled.2. Effects of Past Operation.

a. RESULTS OF DATA REANALYSIS.

i) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test.Phy'toplankton abundance data were reanalyzed by nested analysis of variance 'to determine, first, if there :was a difference between the preoperational year of 1973 and the operational 'years of 1975 and 1976, and then whether there was a difference between all stations or months during operational periods (1975 and 1976).Table VI-16 summarizes some of this information and shows that r phytoplankton densities appeared to differ significantly between 1973 and 1975-1976. 'This may or may not have been associated 'with initiation of plant operation. Differences bet-een station densities for both operational years combined were not 'significant, although differences between months were highly significant'. The latter reflects natural seasonal variations. VI-64 WNeither phytoplankton biovolume (mg/i) nor Shannon-Weaver diversity differed significantly. between stations for 1975 and 1976 (Table VI-16).. Net phytoplankton productivity (Type I of Baker, 1977) for the near-field intake station (14) varied signi ficantly from the near-field discharge station (19), whereas both of these near-field intake and discharge stations differed significantly from the far-field Sturgeon Lake (5) and river stations (9 and 27) (Table VI-17). Intensive near-field Type III (of Baker, 1977a) productivity studies confirmed these results, showing significant variation between intake (14) and discharge (19) stations (Table VI-17).Power calculations summarized in Table VI-15 indicate that phytoplankton values estimated by means of simultaneous repli-cates, such as with some of the productivity studies (Type III), were more suited to detecting moderate differences between station means than were samples collected without simultaneous replicates. No t-Test was needed for confirming Type III prom-ductivity station differences, as the Duncan's Multiple Range Test already showed that the two stations were significantly different. Similarly, no t-Tests were conducted for density differences since ANOVA indicated that all station densities were essentially alike.2) Multiple Regressions. In order to determine if any of the selected water quality parameters were significantly related to phytoplankton abundances, stepwise multiple regression was performed. Table VI-19 indicates that only surface ammonia was significantly related (a < 0.05) to phytoplankton abundances with an R 2 of 0.47. Such an affinity is not high and tends to indicate that some other factors may have acted separately or in combination to cause the majority of the phytoplankton variation in density, either temporal or spatial. Productivity data were not regressed against water quality Values for lack of adequate coincidental data.b. DISCUSSION. The above analyses" tend to confirm the general conclusions stated in the annual rePorts (Baker and Baker, 1974; Baker, 1975a, 1976a, and 1977a) that no variations in density, biovolume, or species diversity were obvious between control and plume stations. Near-field control and plume stations, however, differed significantly in productivity. Reduced productivity (both gross and net) in the discharge most likely resulted from plant entrainment damage rather than from inhibition by the plume as samples were taken very near the discharge gates. In addition, Baker (1975a) was uhable to detect any difference in phytopiankton productivity between main channel stations upriver and doWnriver from the plant., Because productivity in Sturgeon Lake was generally higher than that in the main channel, any reductions of phyto-plankton productivity due to passage through the plant might be misleading when compared with main channel stations upriver and downriver from the plant. Baker (1977a) estimated that phytoplankton productivity in the 0 V1 -65 Mississippi River was reduced by as much as 30 percent in midsummer, 1976, as a result of PINGP operation (as extrapolated from near-field Type III studies). This conclusion, however, is misleading since nearly simultaneous far-field productivity measurements (Type I) taken both up-and downriver from the plant were found to vary by as much as 325 percent.Thus, projected loss of primary productivity in the river as a result of PINGP operation should be considered in conjunction with the variability inherent in the system. And to show upriver to downriver reduction in phytoplankton productivity, an adequate number of replicates need to be.collected to define the variation in sample estimates. Without proper sampling design, testing, and verification, predicting impacts upon the river phytoplankton productivity is very difficult. The indication (Table VI-16) that phytoplankton densities varied significantly between the preoperational years (1973) and operational years (1975 and 1976) may have resulted from plant operation. However, comparison between more years of preoperational and operational data would be necessary to reach a definitive, conclusion.., Climatic variations or long-term changes in water quality would require years of assessment in order to separate plant from non-plant induced effects.3. Predicted Impacts. In general, phytoplankton are some of the most thermally tolerant of all planktonic organisms susceptible to plume entrainment at PINGP. Appendix A-33,, A-35 and Figure A-8 summarize information on thermal tolerances of phytoplankton either found or expected to be found in the vicinity of the plant. Diatoms are dominant throughout most of the year whereas green algae occur most commonly in early summer and blue-green algae in mid-summer to early fall. This succession of' groups occurs in response to annual cycles in ambient temperature, among other things,, as a result of variable thermal tolerances. Thus, blue-green algae are the most thermally tolerant of the three dominant groups of phytoplankton, and most can probably survive the hottest temperatures expected to occur in the plume during midsummer. Some diatoms also can survive high temperatures as shown in Appendix Figure A-8. The short-term survival temperature for mesophilic diatoms is about 300 C (860 F) although total biomass for drifting forms may not decrease until. 360 C (970 F) is reached. Green.algae can tolerate a wide range of temperatures, also depending on the species. Thus, it is unlikely that any species will be detrimentally affected by drifting thirough the plume. Most phytoplankton are capable of withstanding temperature elevations as great as any occurring in the plume (Table VI-20)during the time of the year when each phytoplankton taxon occurs.Moreover, no true thermal bioassays for phytoplankton which define limits of short-term mortality have been found in the literature. Many phytp-plankton are capable of becoming physiologically inactive when encountering unfavorable environmental conditions, such as abnormally high tempera-ture, but this does not indicate that they are permanently damaged.According to Baker (1977a), productivity near Prairie Island tends to increase until ambient temperatures reach about 160 C (610 F) for VI-66 spring diatom flora, whereas blue-green algae reach maximum productivity between 280 C (820 F) and 350 C (950 F) in summer. Thus, productivity reductions observed in the discharge (as compared to intake) during 1976 probably resulted from thermal and physical stresses occurring during plant entrainment rather than during plume entrainment. If anything, phytoplankton productivity is enhanced during all times of the year as a result of entrainment into the PINGP plume. Thermal elevations, maximum temperatures, and drift exposure times in the discharge canal were usually not limiting to most seasonally occurring phytoplankton. As mentioned previously, analyses of phytoplankton densities and productivity indicate that plume entrainment at PINGP does not affect phytoplankton, even during midsummer. This tends to confirm the impacts predicted from thermal tolerance data. Brock and Hoffman (1974) detected some shifts in species composition between intake and discharge stations near a power plant on Lake Monona, Wisconsin, when discharge temperatures exceeded 400 C (104q F), although variations in water velocity may have accounted for some of the differences. These same authors also found that primary productivity was quite high in the discharge canal at 42.50 C (108.50 F), -while none was observed in thermally unaffected statiOns when samples were heated to this same temperature. These findings suggest that algae living in the vicinity of the discharge comprise species more capable of functioning at higher temperatures than those occurring at thermally unaffected stations. Elevated plume temperatures at PINGP are not expected to significantly alter either phytoplankton composition, abundance, or productivity because drift time through the plume is relatively short. The small potential losses that may be sustained as a result of passage through the plume should be easily compensated by river phyto-plankton since their life spans and turnover rates are generally very short. Thus, no long lasting or major-impact upon receiving water phyto-plankton populations is expected to occur.E. PERIPHYTON

1. Discussion and Critique of Sampling Methods. Periphyton studies.suffered from many of the same deficiencies as did phytoplankton (Appendix Table A-22) studies. Although replicates were collected, they were not reported (Appendix Table A-22), and samples were collected rather incon-sistently by station and date with the predominance of samples collected between midsummer and early fall. The frequency and number of sampling locations were greatly diminished during other times of the year because of unsafe sampling conditions, damage to samples by ice, vandalism, and high river flow (Baker, 1974; 1975b, 1976b, 1977b). One of the most critical omissions during operational years was that of Station 27, the only one located in the downriver plume area.Periphyton studies included density estimates, taxonomic identifi-cation, chlorophyll a, and phaeophytin a-measurements.

Baker (1976b), however, suggested that his procedures for periphyton analysis did not"do justice to" rare species which may have been most heat-sensitive, VI -6 7 nor did they measure the actual or climax periphyton community occurring 0 on natural substrates near PINGP. Thus, whatever periphyton colonized artificial substrates during the 2-week incubation period was undoubtedly dissimilar to those colonizing the rip-rap and other natural substrates occurring in the river and Sturgeon Lake near PINGP. However, no other better quantitative method for measuring variations in periphyton populations has been suggested in the literature and thus, the glass substrate method can be considered as state-of-the-art.

2. Impacts of Past Operation.

a. RESULTS OF DATA REANALYSIS.

Periphyton for 1975 and 1976 were reanalyzed from only three stations using analysis of variance (ANOVA)and Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) since data from other stations were insufficient. ANOVA revealed significant differences-between stations for:density and chlorophyll a but-not for species diversity and phaeophytin a (Table-VI-16). Annual variations-in all parameters, how-ever, were significant, but these were probably related to natural seasonal fluctuations. Further analysis using DMRT (Table VI-17) showed that grouped Stations 13 (intake) and 20 (discharge) differedl significantly from Station 25 (discharge) for density while Station 13 differed signifi-cantly from Stations 20 and 25 combined for chlorophyll a.Power calculations (Table VI-15) for periphyton parameters indicated that the probability of detecting small variations between station means were minimal, and with no simultaneous replicates, even large variations 9)will be detected with a probability of 0.53 to 0.67 at an a = 0.05 level.No t-Tests were conducted because the few stations involved in ANOVA and DMRT provided enough information to determine specific station.differences.

b. DISCUSSION.

Baker (1977b), contrary to the above findings, stated that phaeophytin a (a degradation product of chlorophyll a)concentrations appeared to be higher at heated stations than in unheated stations. This tends to indicate, according-to Baker, that deterioration of periphyton was greater at stations affected by the plume than at those not affected. In addition, Baker concluded that periphyton abundance between stations inside and outside- the thermal plume did not differ greatly, although he did not report details of statistical analyses used to test these differences. Results of the data reanalysis are ambiguous for abundance, probably as a result of too-<few samples (low.power). Baker also qualitatively observed that periphyton residing on substrates continually influenced by ,the thermal plume exhibited a -different flora than those found outside the plume as a result of variations in thermal optima. However, only diatom populations were analyzed, and therefore, quantitative dominance of blue-greens over diatoms during the summer in discharge stations as opposed to nondischarge stations could not be determined.-The taxonomic composition of attached diatoms did not :-VI-68 vary greatly between the intake and discharge stations at any time of thenyear. (Baker 1977b), but a marked seasonal succession of dominant diatom species inhabiting the artificial substrates in general was observed.Moreover, reanalysis of the data (ANOVA) showed no significant difference in diatom species diversity between intake and discharge stations, but -did show a significant difference between months (Table VI-16).3. Predicted Impacts. Diatoms were the only taxa of periphyton studied on artificial substrates, and thus, thermal tolerance of only this group will be related to the predicted plume. Appendix Tables A-33 and A-35 summarize available thermal tolerance information for diatoms, and it is obvious from this information that although thermal tolerances and optima of diatoms vary widely between species, they generally are high (> 300 C). Thus, species composition may be altered in those areas of the plume where tolerances are exceeded for some species. Analysis of background periphyton data for conditions similar to those expected for future operational conditions tend to support -the prediction of negligible impact for periphyton populations 'inhabiting substrates in the PINGP plume. It is important to note, however, that even though high tempera-tures will tend to eliminate certain diatom species (e.g., Nitzschia tryblionella) at least some species -will be capable of colonizinq the substrates, even during the warmest times of the year. Thus, no overall reduction in periphyton production is expected in. the discharge as com-pared to nonplume affected stations.Hickman and Klarer (1974) studied the effects of a thermal effluent on epiphytic algae in Lake Walbamum, Canada, and found that the thermal discharge rarely extended the seasonal maxima in abundance of various groups of diatoms beyond those occurring outside the thermal influence. However, the growth of two diatoms, Epithemia turgida and Mougeotia sp., were found to b& detrimentally affected by the thermal discharge. In the above study these algae were observed colonizing the emergent macro-phyte, Scirpus validus, rather than on glass artificial substrates. Similarly, few detrimental effects on peripliyton can be expected near the PINGP site., General abundances of total periphyton are not expected to be reduced because continual succession to more thermally tolerant species should occur as temperature increases to summer highs. Furthermore, cold shock as a result of plant outages during winter months should not cause damage to periphyton because of the wide range of temperatures that most primary producers can accommodate. F. AQUATIC [IACROPHYTESDiscussion and Critique of Sampling Methods. Macrophyte analysis comprised mainly qualitative observations of changes in the extent and composition Of submerged, emergent, and shoreline macrophytes in the vicinity of P INGP (Appendix Table A-22) .Quantitative sampling, such as measurements of standing crop, would be necessary for statistical VI-69 comparisons within and between years as well as between. stations.Quantitative measurements also would be useful for determining relative species abundance at various stations. The macrophyte studies that were-conducted, however, provide a good data base, both before and after- PINGP'start-up, for estimating operational impacts.2. Effects of Past Operation. No reanalyses were.conducted in addition to those analyses by the original authors because none of the results were quantified; however, the observations by the investigators were useful in assessing impact of plant operation (Figure 111-37 and Appendix Table A-36) .In 1975, Mueller (1,976) noted a.reduction in submerged aquatic macrophytes in the discharge area as compared-to previous years and suggested that -this may have resulted from high water during the growing season, bottom changes due to scouring or siltation, general climatic changes,-or the heated effluent. In 1976, however, he found that the distribution and general abundance of macro-phytes had increased over 1975 levels, especially at Barney's Point, which is near Station 25-. The amount of macrophyte habitat within the discharge area was extremely limited (Figure 1-11-47), and the macro-phytes were subject to numerous limiting environmental stresses other than the thermal stress plume (Muelleri 1977). Thus, any decreases in the limited macrophyte populations in the discharge canal, no matter why they occurred, can be considered to have negligible effects on the aquatic ecosystem since large macrophyte beds occur in the shallow water areas of the nearby backwater lakesi especially the northern section of Sturgeon Lake'.3. Predicted Impacts. No species-specific information on thermal tolerances of macrophytes occurring in the vicinity of PINGP has been found. The upper limits for various biota, including vascular plants, is about 450 C (113' F) (Brock, 1975), and this temperature will not be reached under any circumstances'within the PINGP discharge. Thus, the thermal plume should not reduce the general abundances of macrophytes as a result of temperature only, although species composition may change.Site-specific and literature data indicate that no detrimental effects of the PINGP thermal plume on macrophyte beds in the area are expected, and, as stated previously, if detrimental effects do occur, they would be confined to an extremely small zone since limited habitat is available for macrophytes within the thermal plume.G. BIRDS The PINGP thermal discharge may affect eagles and waterfowl primarily by providing an open water area during winter for feeding. (fiSh attracted to plume) and resting. The potential impacts of the PINGP thermal discharge on eagles are predicted to be minimal since few eagles appear to frequent the plant area compared to other locations between Prescott and vI-70 Lake Pepin (see Section III C.b). Those that are present may remain in the area longer because of the open water in the discharge channel during winter; however, the available data are insufficient to determine if eagles remain longer than if the discharge were not present. Fish attracted to the discharge in late fall and winter, particularly gizzard shad, could benefit the eagles by providing an abundance of forage. In addition, the PINGP thermal discharge would not be expected to adversely impact the migrations or survival of ducks and other waterfowl and may.even be beneficial by providing open water and food.Peregrine falcons, an endangered species, are being reintroduced along Lake Pepin (see Section III C.b) .The potential impacts to this species are expected to be minimal and indirect since they do not.require open water and feed upon other birds (including small ducks). Thus, if the PINGP thermal discharge were to have any impacts on the falcons, assuming they became reestablished in the area, the effects would probably be beneficial. VI-71 VII. CONCLUSIONS Several conclusions can be drawn regarding the predicted impacts of continued thermal discharges from PINGP on the indigenous populations of fish, invertebrates, and primary producers. Attraction to andavoidance of the thermal plume occurs during various seasons of the year, at least for some species of fish. Subsequent effects on spawning, growth, migra-tions, predator-prey interactions, parasites and diseases, and winter survival are expected to be minimal, however, in terms of maintaining the existing indigenous fish populations. Thermal effects on primary producers and invertebrates, including early emergence of some aquatic insects, are predicted to be minimal within the thermal plume and negligible for the populations in lower Pool No. 3. Impacts to waterfowl and raptors fre-quenting the vicinity of PINGP are predicted to be minimal, and these would probably be beneficial rather than adverse. These conclusions will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Fish are predicted to be attracted to the thermal plume when ambient river temperatures are low and at least some species should avoid the discharge when ambient temperatures are high. These predictions are sub-stantiated by field data which indicate that' white bass, carp, gizzard shad, and shorthead redhorse avoid the warmest discharge area in summer and the RIS for which adequate data existed were attracted to the plume during one or more of the other seasons. The areas of exclusion calcula-ted from thermal tolerance data and the thermal plume model results for typical summer environmental conditions ranged from 4.4 ha (10.9 A) for white sucker to less than 1 ha (2.5 A) for the other RIS, except walleye and northern pike which had intermediate areas. .Exclusion is predicted to occur only in July and August, and the calculated areas are conservative estimates (i.e., the maximum to prevent thermal mortality to any juveniles or adults). These are small, particularly when compared to the available habitats nearby such as Sturgeon Lake [324 ha (800 A)]; therefore, exclu-sion of these.areas during summer is not expected. to adversely affect indigenous fish populations. The PINGP thermal discharge could affect fish spawning primarily through inducing premature spawning, excluding large areas from spawning., or killing embryos and larvae present in or drifting through the plume.However, the following considerations suggest that these impacts will be minimal. Premature spawning could occur for carp, emerald shiner, walleye,'and gizzard shad-but is not expected to reduce reproductive success.Furthermore, no premature spawning has been observed during past field surveys. The areas predicted to be excluded from adult spawning during VII-1 typical environmental conditions are less than 2.6 ha (6.4 A). The cal-culated areas precluding embryo development are 17 ha (42 A) for northern pike and 9 ha (22 A) for walleye.in May (end ofspawning period) while the areas are less than 7.6 ha (19 A) for the other RIS. Suitableý spawning habitat for each RIS does not exist throughout these calculated exclusion areas, and adequate spawning areas exist nearby in both the backwater lakes and the main river channel. Larval fish drifting through the plume are not expected to be thermally stressed. Thus, potential thermal impacts on spawn-ing and reproductive success are predicted to be negligible. The potential for cold shock mortality exists at PINGP since fish are attracted to the plume in-winter and plume temperatures exceed the'maximum weekly average temperature (MWAT) recommended for protection of warm water species from cold shock. The probability of an unscheduled trip occurring when the other unit is refueling is 0.55 so that cold shock would occur at least once every 2 years. Based on field surveys at PINGP, gizzard shad was the most abundant species in the discharge although some white bass,- carp, and black crappie were present. Of the RIS, gizzard shad is. the most sensi-tive to cold shock, but any winter losses of this species are not expected to adversely affect river populations since it is a very prolific species and large winter die-offs normally occur when ambient-temperatures approach 00 C (320 F).Other effects on river populations are also expected to be minimal.Migrations, predator-prey interactions, growth rates, and the incidence of parasites and diseases should be negligibly affected by- the thermal discharge. Sport fishing may be benefitted through increased fishing success in the discharge during spring.Reanalysis of site-specific invertebrate and primary producer data showed that impacts appear to be minimal or non-existent in most of these biotic categories. Only phytoplankton primary productivity, peri-phyton chlorophyll a, and macroinvertebrate species diversity for dredge samples were found to differ significantly -between intake and discharge stations. These differences, however, most likely were not the result of PINGP thermal discharges. Annual variations in water temperatures appear to regulate zoop-lankton abundances to some extent, but the -influence of-spatial variations (as between intake and discharge) was negligible. Tem-perature was not significantly related to phytoplankton, artificial sub-strate macroinvertebrate, or dredge macroinvertebrate densities. Based on the predictive analysis of comparing invertebrate and pri&mary producer thermal tolerances with plume configurations, no mortalities are expected for phytoplankton, zooplankton, or macroinvertebrates' drifting through the plume. Most habitat in the discharge canal that is otherwise suitable for aquatic macroinvertebrates, will not be rendered unsuitable as a result of high temperatures, except for small portions during proposed extreme environmental conditions. For instance, the area in the discharge canal equivalent to approximately one to six percent of Sturgeon Lake may be avoided by the macroinvertebrates, Hydropsyche and Macronemum (RIS).VII-2 This does not mean, however, that these two taxa will be killed or even excluded from the discharge areas during extreme conditions, only that they will be less common at higher temperatures than in other areas. Site-specific information for these two species during the unusually warm, low flow year of 1976 indicated that they did not avoid the discharge canal.A two-week acceleration of the emergence schedules for some aquatic macroinvertebrates is predicted for the entire area of the discharge canal (equivalent to about 5.7 percent of Sturgeon Lake). in an area of 1.5 ha (3.7 A) which is 0.5 percent of Sturgeon Lake, a five-month accelera-tion of emergence schedules is predicted for Hydropsyche during typical conditions. Early emergence, however, has not been observed to occur in the past in the PINGP discharge canal; thus, little impact to most cate-gories of aquatic insects is expected from operation of PINGP.Other predictive results indicate that warmer water areas of the discharge canal may favor more thermally tolerant taxa, but these areas would be insignificant compared to the area in Sturgeon Lake. Theheated plume should not favor the encroachment or proliferation of nuisance organisms, such as blue-green algae; blooms of these phytoplankton have occurred seasonally long before PINGP became operational. Moreover, no federally protected flora or invertebrate fauna will be impacted by the thermal discharge. Finally, no impacts to aquatic macrophytes are predicted since their occurrence and distribution near PINGP appear to be more influenced by fluctuations in water level, sedimentation, and current conditions than by temperature. Any losses of aquatic macrophytes that may result from thermal discharge would be small. Suitable habitat for these plants in the discharge canal is extremely limited in comparison to the total dis-tribution of macrophytes in Sturgeon Lake.Eagles, waterfowl, and peregrine falcons are not expected to be adversely affected by the PINGP thermal discharge. Availability of open water and a food source may even be beneficial. Therefore, it is concluded that the thermal discharge resulting from past operation of PINGP has not caused appreciable harm to any aquatic organisms, and the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous biota has been maintained. In the future, the discharge plume is pre-dicted to cause neither appreciable harm nor adverse levels of impact to aquatic biota.VII-3 REFERENCES Allen, K.O., and K. Strawn. 1968. Heat tolerance of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctuatus. Proc. 21st Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., 1967:399-411. Altman, P., and D. Dittmer, eds. 1966. Tolerance to temperature extremes: animals. 'Part V. Aquatic invertebrates. Pages 81-87?in Environmental biology. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Biol. Bethesda, MD.American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Associa-tion (AWWA), and Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF). 1975.Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 13th ed.APHA, AWWA and WPCF. Washington, D.C.Anderson, R.A. 1975. Thermal plume surveys. Pages 19-62 in Environmental monitoring andiecological studies program 1974 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Andrews, J.W., and R.R. Stickney. 1972. Interaction of feeding rates and environmental temperature of growth, food.conversion, and body compo-sition of channel catfish. -Trans. Amer.. Fish. Soc. 101:94-99. Andrews, J.W., L.H. Knight, and T. Murai. 1972. Temperature requirements for high density rearing of channel catfish from fingerling to market size. Prog. Fish-Cult. 34:240-241. Baker, A.L. 1977a. Primary productivity of the phytoplankton community in the Mississippi River at Prairie Island. Pages 2.1.2-1 through 2.1.2-72 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Baker, A.L. 1977b. 1976 studies of the attached algae in the vicinity of PINGP. Pages 2.2-1 through 2.2-62 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)VIII-1 Baker, A. L. 1976a. Studies of the productivity of the phytoplankton of W the Mississippi River at Prairie Island-1975. Pages 2.1.1-1 through 2.1.1-35 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1 (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Baker, A.L. 1976b. 1975 studies of the attached algae in the vicinity of PINGP. Pages 2.2-1 through 2.2-59 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 197.5 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near. Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Baker, A.L. 1975a. Primary productivity of the phytoplankton in the Missi-ssippi River at Prairie Island; the effects of heatedwater discharge on the levels of production; and a turbidometric:analysis of mass flow. Pages 299-362 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1974 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Baker, A.L. 1975b. Attached algae in the Mississippi River at Prairie Island 1974. Pages 363-411 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1974 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis., MN)-Baker, A.L. 1974. Studies of the periphyton of the Mississippi River,: near PINGP-1973. Pages C-7.1 through C-7.40 in Environmental moni-toring and ecological studies program 1973 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Baker, K.K. and A.L. Baker. 1974. Studies of the phytoplankton of the Mississippi River, near the PINGP-1973. Pages C-6.1 through C-6.35 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1973 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis,.MN) Barans, C.A. and R.A. Tubb. 1973. Temperatures selected seasonally by four fishes from western Lake Erie. J. Fish. Res.Bd. Canada 30:1697-17.03. Bardach, J.E., J.H. Ryther, and W.D. McLarney. 1975. Aquaculture: ithe farming and husbandry of freshwater and marine organisms. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 868 pp.0 VIII -2 Barker, N.A. 1935. Photosynthesis in diatoms. Arch. Microbiol. 6:141-156.Barnes, R.D. 1963. Invertebrate zoology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 632 pp.Baxter, R.M. 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Ann.Rev. Ecol. Syst. 8:255-283. Becker, C.D., and T.O. Thatcher. 1973. Toxicity of power plant chemicals to aquatic life. Batelle Pacific NW Labs., Richland, WA.Benda, R.S., and M.A. Proffitt. 1974. Effects of thermal effluents on fish and invertebrates. Pages 435-447 in J.W. Gibbons and R.R. Sharitz, eds. Thermal ecology. U.S.A.E.C. CONF. '730505.Beyerle, G.B., and J.E. Williams. 1973. Contribution of northern pike fingerlings raised in a managed marsh to the pike population of an adjacent lake. Prog. Fish-Cult. 35(2):99-103. Black, E.C. '1953. Upper lethal temperatures of some British Columbia freshwater fishes. J. FisH. Res. Bd. Canada 10:196-210. Brett, J.R. 1944. Some lethal temperature relations of Algonquin Park fishes. Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 63:1-49. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. Brock, T.D.. 1975. Predicting the ecological consequences of thermal pollution from observations on geothermal habitats. Pages 599-622 in Proceedings of a symposium on environmental effects of cooling systems at nuclear power plants. CONF-740820; STI/PUB/378; IAEA-SM-187/9.Brock, T.D., and J. Hoffmann. 1974. Temperature optima of algae living in an outfall of a power plant on Lake Monona. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters 62:195-203. Brook, A.J. 1971. Phytoplankton. Pages 1-9 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1970 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Brown, H.W. 1974. Handbook of the effects of temperature on some North American fishes. Am. Elect. Power Serv. Co., Canton, OH. 524 pp.Brown L.A. 1929. The natural history of cladocerans in relation to tem-perature. I. Distribution and temperature limits of vital activities. Am. Nat. 63:248-264. VIII-3 Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA Environ. Res. Lab, Duluth, MN, EPA-600/3-77-061. 130 pp.Burns, J.W. 1966. Carp. Pages 510-515 in A. Calhoun, ed. Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game.Bush, R.M., E.B. Welch, and B.W. Mar. 1974. Potential effects of thermal discharges on aquatic systems.ý Environ. Sci. Tech. 8(6):561-568. Campbell, J.S., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1970. Biology of the emerald shiner Notropis atherinoideF Rafinesque in Lake Simcol, Canada. J. Fish.Biol. 2:259-273. Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1.Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 752 pp.Carlson, D.M. 1972. Responses of planktonic cladocerans (Crustacea) to heated waters. M.S. Thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.Carpenter, E.J., B.B. Peck, and S.J. Anderson. 1974. Summary of entrain-ment research at the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station, 1970 to 1972. Pages 31-36 in L.D. Jensen, ed. 'Proc. second workshop on entrain-ment and intake screening. EPRI Publ. No 74-949-00-5. Electric Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, CA.Cherry, D.S., K.L. Dickson, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1975. Temperature selected and avoided by fish at various acclimation temperatures. J. Fish. Res.Bd. Canada 32:485-491. Chu, C.K. 1968. Computational fluid dynamics. Vol. IV, American Insti-tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, selected reprint series.Clemens, H.P., and K.E. Sneed. 1957. The spawning behavior of the channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 219. 11 pp.!Coker, R.E. 1934. The reaction of some freshwater copepods to high teL,.pera-ture with a note concerning the rate of development and relation to.temperature. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 50:143-159. Corps of Engineers. 1977. Log of annual lockages. St. Paul. 2 pp.Corps of Engineers. 1974. Reservoir regulation manual, Appendix 3, Lock and Dam No. 3. Mississippi River Nine Foot Channel Navigation Project, St. Paul District. 33 pp.Coutant, C.C. 1975. Resistance of gizzard shad to instantaneous cold shock. Part III, Ch. 7. ORNL Environ. Sci. Div. Publ. No. 653, ORNL-5016:41-42. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN)VIii-4 Coutant, C.C. 1974. 4. Power plant effects. Pages 24-33 in Environmen-tal sciences division annual progress report for period ending September 30, 1973. Part I, ORNL Publication No. 570. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN)Coutant, C.C' 1972. Biological aspects of thermal pollution. II. Scien-tific basis for water temperature standards at power plants. CRC Critical Reviews in Environ. Control 3(1):1-24. Coutant, C.C. 1970. Biological aspects of thermal pollution. I. Entrain-ment and discharge canal effects. CRC Critical Reviews in Environ.Control 1(3):341-381. Coutant, C.C. 1968. The effect of temperature on the development of bottom organisms. Pages 9.13-9.14 in ýBiological effects of thermal discharges: annual progress report for-1967. USAEC Res. and Dev.Rep'. No. BNWL-714 Pacific NW Lab.Coutant, C.C. 1962. The effect of a heated water effluent upon the macro-invertebrate riffle fauna of the Delaware River. Proc. Penn. Acad.Sci. 36:58-71.Curry, L.L. 1965. A survey of environmental requirements for the midge (Diptera: Tendipedidae). Pages 127-140 in C.M.-Tarzwell, ed. Biolo-gical problems in water pollution. 3rd Seminar. PHS Bur. 999-WP-25. Daggett, R.F. 1976. Zooplankton study. Pages 2.3.1-1 through 2.3.1-80 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapo-lis, MN)Davies, R.M., and L.D. Jensen. 1975. Zooplankton entrainment at three mid-Atlantic power plants. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 47(8): 2130-2142. Dendy, J.S. 1948. Predicting depth distribution of fish in three TVA storage-type reservoirs. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 75(1945):65-71. Dieterman, L. 1974. Water chemistry. Pages C-1.1 through C-1.78 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1973 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1 (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Dieterman, S.M. 1975. A short-term impact study of the zooplankton population dynamics in Pool 3 of the Mississippi River near the Northern States Power Red Wing Nuclear Power Plant (sic). M.S. Thesis.St. Mary's College. Winona, MN. 40 pp.VIII-5 Duncan, T.O., and M.R. Myers. Artificial rearing of white bass, Roccus chrysops, Rafinesque. Unpublished data. South Central Reservoir Investigations, Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Cited in Brungs, W.A.,. and B.R.* Jones.. 1977. Thermal criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. Eberley, L.W. 1977. Upstream-downstream water chemistry. Pages 1.2-1 through 1.2-21 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Eberley, L.W., and S.F. Schmidt. 1976. Thermal plume surveys. Pages 1.4-1 through 1.4-19 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red. Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Eddy, S. 1969. How to know the freshwater fishes, 2nd edition. Wm. C.Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, IA. 286 pp.Eddy, S., and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern fishes. Univ,. of Minn.Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp.Edison Electric Institute andUtility Water Act Group (EEI and UWAG), 1977. Comments on "Draft interagency 316(a) technical guidance manual and guide for the thermal effects sections on nuclear facili-ties environmental impact statement, May 1, 1977." EEI and UWAG, 69 pp.Faanes, C. 1975. .Ecology of wintering bald eagles near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. Pages 2.7.3.1-1 through 2.7.3.1-24 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the'Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Faber, D.J. 1967. Limnetic larval fish in northern Wisconsin lakes. J.Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 24:927-937. Ferguson, R.G. 1958. The preferred temperature of fish and Itheir midsummer distribution in temperate lakes and streams. J. Fish Res. Bd. Canada 15(4) :607-624.Fogg, G.E., and C.W. Reimer. 1962. Environmental requirements of plankton algae and their effects on water quality. Pages 19-28 in Biological problems in water pollution control. U.S. Dept. H.E.W.Forney, J.L. 1963. Distribution and movement of marked walleye in Oneida Lake, New York. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 92:47-52.VIII-6 Frank, M.L. 1974. Relative sensitivity of different development stages of carp eggs to thermal shock. Pages 171-176 in J.W. Gibbons and R.R. Sharitz, eds. Thermal ecol., AEC Sym. Ser. 32, CONF 730505.Franklin, D.R., and L.L. Smith, Jr. 1963. Early life history of the northern pike, Esox lucius L., with special reference to the factors influencing the numerical strength of year classes. Trans. Amer.Fish. Soc. 92(2):91-110. Fuchs, E.H. 1967. Life history of the emerald shiner, Notropis atheri-noides, in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota. Trans. Amer. Fish.Soc. 96(3):247-256. Gammon, J.R. 1973. The effect of thermal inputs on the populations of fish and macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Resources Res. Center, Lafayette, IN. Tech. Rept. 32. 106 pp.Gammon, J.R. 1971. The response of fish populations in the Wabash River to heated effluents. Proc. 3rd-Nat. Symp. Radioecol. CONF-710501 1:513-523. Geis, J.L., and S.P. Gustafson. 1977. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey, March 6 -November 21, 1976. Pages 2.5.3-1 through 2.5.3-60 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2 (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Ginn, T.C., W.T. Waller, and G.J. Lauer. 1974. The effects of power plant condenser cooling water entrainment on the amphipod Gammarus.Water Res. 8:973-975. Goodson, L.F., Jr. 1966a. Walleye. Pages 423-426 in A. Calhoun, ed.Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game.Goodson, L.F., Jr. 1966b. Crappie. Pages 312-3.32 in A. Calhoun,: ed.Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game.Gustafson, S.P., and P.J. Diedrich. 1976. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey March 1 -November 23, 1975. Pages 2.5.3-1 through 2.5.3-35 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Gustafson, S.P., and J.L. Geis. 1977. 1976 progress report on the Prairie Island fish population study. Pages 2.5.2-1 through 2.5.2-148 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)VIII-7 Gustafson, S.P., J.L. Geis, and P.J. Diedrich. 1976. 1975 progress report on the Prairie Island fish population study. Pages 2.5.2-1 through 2.5.2-13 in EnvironmenEal monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Harnett, D.L. 1970. Introduction to statistical methods. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Massachusetts. 530 pp.Hart, J.S. 1952. Geographical variations of some physiological and morphological characters in certain freshwater fish. Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Biological Series No. 60. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. 'Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. Hart, J.S. 1947. Lethal temperature relations of certain fish of the Toronto region. Trans.; Roy. Soc. Canada. Ser. III 41(5):57-71. Hawkinson, B.W. 1974. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey May 10 -November 5, 1973. Pages C-5.59 through 5.85 in Environ-mental monitoring and ecological studies program 1973 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minne-sota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Haynes, C.M. 1976. Macroinvertebrate study. Pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-92 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Hickman, M..' and D.M. Klarer. 1974. The growth of some epiphytic algae in a lake receiving thermal effluent. Arch. Hydrobiol. 74:403-436. Hirayamo, K., and R. Hirano. 1970. Influences of high temperature and residual chlorine on marine phytoplankton. Marine Biol. 7:205-213. Hoffman, G.L. 1967. Parasites of North American freshwater fishes.Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 486 pp.Hokanson, K.E.F., and C.F. Kleiner. Effects of constant and diel fluc-tuations in temperature on growth and survival of black crappie.Unpublished data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Tempera-ture criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. Hopwood, A.J. 1975. Monticello ecological studies program, macroinverte-brates. Pages 123-205 in 1974 annual report, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)VIII-8 Horak, D.L., and H.A. Tanner. 1964. The use of vertical gill nets in studying fish depth distribution, Horsetooth Reservoir, Colorado.Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 93:137-145. Horoszewicz, L. 1973. Lethal and "disturbing" temperatures in some fish species from lakes with normal and artificially elevated temperatures. J. Fish. Biol. 5:165-181. Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region.Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor. 213 pp.Huet, N. 1953. Cited in Meuwis, A.L. ,and M.J. Heuts. 1957 Temperature dependence of breathing rate in carp. Biol. Bull. 112(1):97-107. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto.Jensen, L.D., R.M. Davies, A.S. Brooks, and C.D. Meyers. 1969. The effects oflelevated temperatures upon aquatic invertebrates. John Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD. Prep. for Edison Electric Inst. RP-49, EEI Publ. 69-900.Jester, D.B. 1974. Life history, ecology, and management of the carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, in Elephant Butte Lake. Agri. Expt. Sta.Res. Rept. 273, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 80 pp.Jester, D.B. 1972. Life history and ecology of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur) with reference to Elephant Butte Lake. Agri.Expt. Sta. Res. Rept. 218, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 56 pp.June, F.C. 1971. The reproductive biology of northern pike, Esox lucius, in Lake Oahe, an upper Missouri River storage reservoir. Reservoir Fish. Limnol., Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 8:53-71.Keating, K.I. 1978. Blue-green algal inhibition of diatom growth: transi-tion from mesotrophic to eutrophic community structure. Science 199: 971-973.Kelso, J.R.M. 1972. Conversion, maintenance, and assimilation for walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, as affected by size, diet, and- tempera-ture. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1181-1192. Kilambi, R.V., J. Noble, and C.E. Hoffman. 1970. Influence of temperature and food conversion efficiency of the channel catfish. Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 1969:519-531. King, R.G. 1974' The effects of heat water~discharge on zooplankton in a 4500 acre Missouri reservoir. M. S. Thesis. Univ. Missouri at Columbia. 78 pp.VIII-9 Kititsyna, L.A., and O.A. Sergeeva. 1976. Influence of heating on size 0 and weight in invertebrate populations in the cooling reservoir of Kurakhovska State Regional Electric Power Station. Soviet J. Ecol.7(5):475-477. Kreuger, J.F. 1975. Thermal tolerance determinations for Lake Michigan zooplankton, July 1972-March 1973. Pages 39-120 in Evaluation of thermal effects in southwestern Lake Michigan, Special studies 1972-1973. Rept. to Commonwealth Edison Co. by Industrial Bio-Test Labs., Inc. Northbrook, IL.Lopinot, A. 1960. Channel catfish facts in artificial lakes and ponds.Outdoors in Illinois 7(1).Martin, W.J., and J.B. Gentry. 1974. Effects of. thermal stress on dragonfly nymphs. Pages 133-145 in J.W. Gibbons and R.R. Sharitz, eds. Thermal ecology. U.S.A.E.C. CONF-730505. Mason, W.T.,.A.Q. Lewis, and J.B. Patterson. 1971. Macroinvertebrate collections and water quality-monitoring in the Ohio River Basin 1963-1967. Off. Techn. Prog., Ohio Basin Reg. and Anal. Qual.Control Lab., Water Qual. Off., EPA. 52 pp.McConville, D.R. 1975. Comparison of artificial substrates in bottom fauna studies on a large river. J. Minn. Acad. Sci. 41: 21-24.McCormick, J.H. 1976a. Temperature effects on the growth of juvenile white bass. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Thermal criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. McCormick, J.H. 1976b. Temperature effects on white bass (Morone chrysops)embryo development, and survival of one-day-old larvae. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R.Jones. 1977.. Thermal criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3477-061. McCormick, J.H., B.R. Jones, and K.E.F. Hokanson. 1977. White sucker (Catostomus commersoni) embryo development, and early growth and survival at different temperatures. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34:1019-1025. McCormick, J.H., and D.F. Kleiner. 1976. Growth and survival of young-of-the-year emerald-shiners (Notropis atherinoides) at different tempera-tures. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33:839-842. McGinnis, R., D. Zimmel, and E. Martin. 1978. Multiple linear regression analysis of Prairie Island temperatures versus Red Wing temperatufes. Unpublished report by Northern States Power Co.VIII-10 Merriner, J.V. 1971a. Egg size as a factor in intergeneric hybrid. success of centrarchids. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 100(1) :29-32.Merriner, J.V. 1971b. Development of intergeneric centrarchid hybrid embryos. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 100(4):611-618. Meyer, W.H. 1962. Life history of three species of redhorse. (Moxostoma) in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91:412-419. Miller, E.E. 1966. Channel catfish. Pages 440-463 in A. Calhoun, ed.Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game.Miller, E.F. 1972. Zooplankton study. Pages 50-97 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1971 annual report, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. Fisheries Bulletin 173 60:371-392. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1977. Minnesota Fishing Regulations. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1975. Minnesota's guide for biological demonstrations for administration of 316(a) -nd .(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Minnesota Regulation WPC 36(u)(3). 83 pp.Mueller, K.N. 1977. Aquatic vegetation study. Pages 2.6-1 through 2.6-17 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for -the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Mueller, K.N. 1976. Prairie Island aquatic vegetation study 1975. Pages 2.6-1 through 2.6-13 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1975 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2. (Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)Muewis, A.L. and M.J. Huets. 1957. Temperature dependence of breathing rate in carp. Biol. Bull. 112(l):97-107. Muraka, I.P., Project Leader. 1976. An evaluation of environmental data relating to selected nuclear power plant sites. Div. Env. Impact Studies, Argonne Nat. Lab, Argonne, IL. 54 pp. + Appendices. Naplin, R.L., and J.L. Geis. 1975. 1974 progress report on the Prairie Island fish population study. Pages 563-715 in Environmental monitor-ing and ecological studies program 1974 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 2.(Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN)VIII-II Nebeker, A.V. 1971. Effect of high winter water temperatures on adult emergence of aquatic insects. Water Res. 5:777-783. Nebeker, A.V., and A.E. Lemke. 1968. Preliminary studies on the tolerance of aquatic insects to heated waters. J. Kan. Entomolog. Soc. 41:413-418. Neill, W.H., and J.J. Magnuson. 1974. Distributional ecology and behavioral thermoregulation of fishes in relation to heated effluent from a power plant at Lake Monona, Wisconsin. Trans. Amer.Fish. Soc. i03:663-710. Neill, W.H., J.J. Magnuson, and G.G. Chipman. 1972. Behavioral thermo-regulation by fishes: a new experimental approach. Science 176:1442-1443. Niemuth, W., W. Churchill, and T. Wirth. 1972. Walleye: its life history, ecology and management. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res., Publ. No. 227-72. 20 pp.NUS. 1976. Section 316(b) demonstration for the Prairie .Island Nuclear Generating Plant on the Mississippi River near Red Wing, Minnesota. Prep. for No. States Power Co. (NUS Corp., Pittsburg, PA)'Omaha Public Power District (OPPD). 1976.. Zooplankton. Pages 5.1-5.41 in Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 2 environmental report. Con-struction permit stage. Vol. 3. Suppl. i. NRC Docket No. 50-548.Omernick, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint source-stream nutrient level relation-ships: a national survey. EPA-600/3-77-105. Corvallis Env.Res. Lab., Off. Res. Dev., U.S.E.P.A., Corvallis, OR. 151 pp.Patrick, R. 1969. Some effects of temperature on freshwater algae.Pages 161-185 in P.A. Krenkel and B.L. Parker, eds. Biological aspects of thermal pollution. Vanderbilt Univ. Press,' Nashville, TN.Peterson, S.E., R.M. Schutsky, and S.E. Allison. 1974. Temperature pre-ference, avoidance and shock experiments with freshwater fishes and crayfishes. [Ichthyological Assoc., Inc.] Bull. 10. Drumore, PA.Pitt, T.K., E.T. Garside, and R.L. Hepburn. 1956. Temperature selection of the carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.). Can. J. Zool. 34:555-557. Priegel, G.R. 1969. Food and growth of young walleye in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 98:121-124. VIII-12 Proffitt, M.A., and R.S. Benda. 1971. Growth and movement of fishes, and distribution of invertebrates, related to a heated discharge into the White River at Petersburg, Indiana. Water Resources Research Center, Rept. of Invert. No. 5, Indiana Univ., Bloomington. 94 pp.Reutter, J.M., and C.E. Herdendorf. 1974. Laboratory estimates of the seasonal final temperature preferenda of some Lake Erie fish. Proc.17th Conf. Great Lakes. Res.:59-67. Robach, S.S. 1965. Enviorn'mental requirements of Trichopter&. Pages 118-126 in C.M. Tarzwell, ed. Biological problems in water pollution. U.S.H.E.W. Ruelle, R. l Factors influencing growth of white bass in Lewis and Clark Lake. Reservoir Fish. Limnol.,, Special Publ. No. 8 of Am. Fish, Soc. :411-423.Schaeperclaus, W. 1949. Cited in Meuwis, A.L.,,and M.J. Heuts. 1957.Temperature dependence of breathing rate in carp. Biol. Bull.112(1) :97-107.Schmidt, S.F. 1977. Water chemical analyses. Pages 1.1-1 through 1.1-73 in Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program 1976 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Vol. 1. (Northern States> Power C&., Minnea-polis, MN)Schneberger, E. 1972. The white sucker: its life history, ecology and management. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Resources Pub!. No. 245-72. 18 pp.Schwabe, G.H. 1936. Beitrage zur Kenntris islhndischer thermalbiotope. [In German]. Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. Bd. 6(2):161-352. Scott, D.P. 1964., Thermal. resistance of pike (Esox lucius L.), muskellunge,. (E. masquinongy Mitchell), and their F lhybrid. J. Fish.Res. Bd. Canada 21:1043-1049.. Scott; W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish.Res. Bd. Canada. Bull. 184. 966 pp.Seaburg, K.G., and J.B. Moyle. 1964. Feeding habits, digestive rates, and growth of some Minnesota warmwater fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish.Soc. 93:269-285. Sherberger, F.F., E.F. Benfield, K.L. Dickson, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1977.Effects of thermal shocks on drifting aquatic insects: a laboratory simulation. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34:529-536. Shyne, J.T. 1977. Adult aquatic insect emergence from Pool No. 3 of the upper Mississippi River. M.S. Thesis. St. Mary's College. Winona, MN. 155 pp.VIII-13 Wallace, N.M. 1935. The effect of temperature on the growth of some freshwater diatoms. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. No. 280:1-11.Ward, F.J., and .G.G.C. Robinson. 1974. A review of research on the limnology of West Blue Lake, Manitoba. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 31(5) :977-1005. Weber, C.I. 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. Nat.:Env. Res. Center, EPA. Cincinnati, OH.Weibe, P.H. 1971. A computer model study of zooplankton patchiness and its effects on sampling error. Limnology and Oceanography 16:29-38.West, B.W. 1966. Growth, food conversion, food consumption, and survi-val at various temperatures of the channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque). M.S. Thesis, Univ. AR, Tucson, AR Cited in Brungs, W.A.,..and B.R. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061.. Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and R.A. Schlueter. 1973. Effects of heated dis-charge on fish and invertebrates of White River at Petersburg, Indiana. Water Resources Research Center, Rept. of Invert. No.. 6, Indiana Univ., Bloomingtoni 123 pp.Yeh, G.T. 1976. Analytical three-dimensional transient modeling of effluent discharge. Water Resources Research .1. 12(3) :533-539.Yeh, G.T., F.H. Lia, and A.P. Verna. 1973. Unsteady temperature pre-diction for cooling ponds.' Water Resources Research J. 9(6):555-1,563.Yellayi, R.R. 1972. Ecological life history and population dynamics of white bass, Morone chrysops (Rafinesque) in Beaver Reservoir. Part 2. A contribution to the dynamics of white bass, vorone chrysops (Rafinesque), population in Beaver Reservoir, Arkansas. Report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Univ. of Arkansas., Fayetteville. Cited in Brungs, W.A., and B.R. Jones. 1977. Thermal criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. EPA-600/3-77-061. VllI-16 SECTION 316(a) DEMONSTRATION FOR THE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR RED WING, MINNESOTA NPDES PERMIT NO. MN0004006 L. M. GROTBECK AND L. W. EBERLEY PROJECT SUPERVISORS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA AUGUST 1978 PREPARED BY HENNINGSON, DURHAM AND RICHARDSON, INC.ECOSCIENCES DIVISION 804 ANACAPA STREET SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 R" APPENDICES CONTENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX APPENDIX A.B.APPENDIX C.APPENDIX D.APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX E.F.G.H.I.J;K.L.DATA CATALOG DETAILS OF NON-FISHERIES STATISTICAL ANALYSES CROSS-REFERENCE TO STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS CROSS-REFERENCE.TO REGULATORY AGENCY REQUESTS GLOSSARY CONVERSION TABLES AGENCY COMMUNICATION UNPUBLISHED OR OBSCURE REFERENCE MATERIAL THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS REGULATORY AGENCIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SPECIES LISTS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: DISCHARGE ELECTRO FISHING STUDY JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES: RIVER FLOW-BLOWDOWN RATE THERMAL SURVEYS AT PINGP A-i B-i C-I D-I E-1 G-I H-I I-i J-i K-i L-I M-I N-i APPENDIX M.APPENDIX N. APPENDIX A DATA CATALOG TABLES Table Page Water Quality A-i. Weekly averages of river flows at Prescott and weekly averages of daily minimum, mean, and maximum river temperatures at RWGP. A-1 A-2. Monthly averages of river flows at Prescott and monthly averages of daily minimum, mean, and maximum river temperatures at RWGP. A-3 A-3. Monthly and annual cumulative distributions of daily maximum river temperatures at RWGP. A-4 A-4. Flow and selected constituent concentrations for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant effluents in 1975 and 1976. A-6 A-5. Selected representative toxicity values for certain water quality constituents found in the Mississippi River at Lock and Dam No. 3, 1972-1976. A-7 General Aquatic Biology A-6. Summary of adult and juvenile fish sampling near PINGP during 1970 through 1976. A-10 A-7. Summary of larval fish sampling near PINGP. A-lI A-8. Mean density of larval fish collected at PINGP.in 1975. A-12 A-9. Percent of total density for each RIS in the PINGP en-trainment samples collected in 1975. A-13 A-10. Reproductive characteristics of the fish RIS. A-14 A-li. Thermal data for walleye. A-15 A-12. Thermal data for white bass. A-16 A-13. Thermal data for channel catfish. A-17 A-14. Thermal data for northern pike. A-18 A-1i. Thermal data for gizzard shad. A-19 A-16. Thermal data for carm. A-20 i Table Page A-17. Thermal data for black crappie. A-21 A-18. Thermal data for emerald shiner. A-22 A-19. Thermal data for white sucker. A-23 A-20. Thermal data for shorthead redhorse. A-24 A-21. Food habits during various life stages for the fish RIS. A-25 A-22. Summary of sampling methods for non-fisheries biota col-lected near PINGP during 1969 through 1976. A-26 A-23. Ranking of benthic macroinvertebrate abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1973 through 1976 for dredg-ing samples. A-33 A-24. Ranking of drift macroinvertebrate abundances (artificial substrate) at three locations near PINGP for 1975 and 1976. A-34 A-25. Composition of orders of emergent aquatic insects col-lected from the Mississippi River near PINGP. A-35 A-26. Abundance and distribution of Hydropsyche spp. and Stenonema spp. in 1975-1976. A-36 A-27. Life history and feeding habits of major invertebrate groups. A-37 A-28. Summary of macroinvertebrate thermal tolerances. A-38 A-29. Macroinvertebrate thermal data. A-41 A-30. Ranking of zooplankton abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1975 and 1976. A-44 A-31. Summary of zooplankton thermal tolerances. A-45 A-32. Ranking of phytoplankton abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1970 and 1974-1976. A-46 A-33. Phytoplankton and periphyton thermal tolerances. A-47 A-34. Ranking of periphyton abundances at three locations near PINGP from 1972 through 1976. A-48 A-35. Periphyton thermal criteria. A-49 A-36. Dominant species comprising major beds of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation in the vicinity of PINGP. A-30 Biological Impacts of Thermal Discharge A-37. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical spring (May 1976) condi-tions. A-53 ii Table Page A-38. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical summer (August 1975)conditions. A-53 A-39. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical winter (December 1975)conditions. A-54 A-40. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for winter (January) proposed extreme conditions. A-55 A-41. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for spring (May) prooosed extreme conditions. A-56 A-42. Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for summer (August) proposed extreme conditions. A-56 A-43. Mean temperatures (C) at each discharge electrofishing study station. A-57 A-44. Catch per unit effort (fish/5 min. run) at each station for the discharge electrofishing study. A-58 A-45. Constants for the time-temperature equation. A-62 A-46. Data used in chi-square analysis. A-63 iii FIGURES Figure Page A-1. Median resistance times for juvenile northern pike. A-64 A-2. Median resistance times for channel catfish. A-65 A-3. Median resistance times for gizzard shad. A-66 A-4. Median resistance times for emerald shiners. A-67 A-5. Median resistance times for white suckers. A-68 A-6. Thermal tolerances of macroinvertebrates collected near PINGP. A-69 A-7. Thermal tolerances of zooplankton collected near PINGP. A-70 A-8. Thermal tolerances of phytoplankton collected near PINGP in 1969 through 1976. A-71 iv Table A-1.Weekly averages of river flows at Prescott and weekly averages of daily minimum, mean, and maximum river river temperatures at RWGP.AVERAGE RIVER FLOW AVERAGE RIVER TEMPERATURE (FW 1959-1974 AT PRESCOTT (CFS) , ' .1928-1976 WATER YEARS DAILY MINLMUM DAILY MEAN DAILY MAXIMUM 7,708.98 7,339.34 7,225.15 7,174.02 7,099.16 7,237.80 7,520.71 7,414.34 10,572.80 9,303.06 12,145.74 19,058.00 25,535.21 31,902.23 41,044.88 44,447-32 38,903.51 33,368.15 30,584.25 29,034.46 26,800.12 25,585.12 24,410.03 23,599.21 24,275.94 22,745.10 zi1,531.30 31.83 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 33.57 35.71 36.00 38.71 36.81 38.71 41.84 46.24 49.77 53.22 55.3.38.25 61.13 62.64 67.98 69.37 69.73 72.11 73.26 31.83 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 33.80 35.79 36.25 34.15 37.14 39.20 42.51 46.92 50.31 53.91 55.87 58.92 61.74 83.22 8.350 59.93 70.36 72.831 73.92 31.83 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 33.30 33.00 34.00 35.86 36.43 34.57 37 .57 39.61 43.10 47.57 51.18 54.64 56.43 59.80 62.37 53.88 69.04 70.46 70.97 73.42 74.43 A-I Table A-i (Continued). AVE8ACZ RIVER TEMPERATURE (F) 1959-1974 AVE.A(Z RIVER FLOW WEEK AT PRESCOTT (CFS), 1928-1976 WATER YEARS DAILY kIINIW.U4 DAILY MEAN DAILY MAXamJM 28 19,545.98 --74.36 75.10 75.70 29 15,398.42 74.93 75.70 76.27 30 14,712.39 74.73 75.44 76.01 31 12,529.a8 73.95 74.71 75.33 32 12,477.81 72.31 72.90 73.48 33 12,106.50 71.15 71.35 72.51 34 10,775.48 69.13 69.32 70.36 35 10,345.17 69.71 70.39 70.89 36 10,844.72 69.14 69.82 70.31 37 10,758.98 65.10 65.76 66.28 38 11,214.63 62.29 62.36 63.38 39 11,170,74 58.70 59.27 59.69 40 10,800.03 57.07 57.60 58.02 41 11,052.53. 55.15 55.60 56.0i 42 11,766.70 53.02 53.53 33.96 43 12,188.12 49.59 50.06 50.43 44 12,310.90 46.50 46.89 47.16 45 12,114.20 42.23 42.65 43.02 46 11,771.57 39.96 40.31 40.59 47 11,612.73 37.64 37.94 38.21 48 10,C44.37 36.04 36.30 36.56 49 6,925.00 33.37 34.08 34.57 50 6,946.43 32.43 32.52 32.57 3i 7,363.57 32.17 32.29 32.33 52 3,593.91 32.00 32.00 32.00-.ecords for weeks 1-L3 and weeks 48-52 were not zontinuous. A-2 Table A-2.Monthly averages of river flows at Prescott and monthly averages of daily minimum, mean, and maximum river temperatures at RWGP.AVERAGE RIVER TEMPERATURE] AVERAGE RIVER FLOWS (F) 1959-1974 MONTH AT PRESCOTT (CFS), DAILY DAILY DAILY 1928-76 WATER YEARS MINIMUM MEAN MAXIMUM January 7,336.43 31.97 31.97 31.97 February 7,406.90 32.63 32.66 32.67 March 15,206.27 34.84 35.05 35.29 April 38,608.93 44.17 44.81 45.38 May 29,933.31 57.74 58.34 58.99 June 24,213.27 69.07 69.69 70.29 July 17,471.02 74.28 75.00 75.56 August 11,695.80 71.12 71.78 72.38 September 10,941.29 64.08 64.72 65.19 October 11,532.39 53.14 53.62 54.00 November 11,601.14 40.04 40.38 40.69 December 8,549.96 32.83 33.03 33.17 1 Records for January, February, March, and December were not continuous. A-3 Table A-3. Monthly and annual cumulative distributions of daily maximum river temperatures at RWGP (1950-1976 plant logs).TE1~AUE- PE'R<M, OF TINE~ TEERATURE EUALZ.0 OR E'X(--E:DEI TEMPE PATUR, ....JAN MAR : R MAY JUME JULY AUG SEPT OCT .;NOV DEC AMUAL 85 1OI I.O 84 i 0.0 0.1 .01 83 0.7 0 I 1 16 32 2-1 13.3 1.28 81 5.4 1 .9 61 so 0.0 15-i 5.3 1.72 39 3.4 23.9 9.9 0.0 2836 78 1,4 34.0 20.3 1.0 4.76 77 4.4 44-2 30.5 2.2 6.76 76 7,6 56.0 39.3 3.0 3.30 I i I I 75 12.5 6 7.0 48.5 4. 11 .0 74 00 18.5 7 5.6 52.2 5.6 13.4-3 0.1 27.1 34.0 72.1 7.1 15.3 72 0.2 36.6 89.6 30.6 10 18.0.i- 46,3 93.8 86.7 '5-6 0,0 20.0 70 2I3 56.6 1 97.1. 915 22.5 0 22.2 I 3.5 1 63.3 1 98.2 94.4 27.1 .! 23.6 68 5.6 72.6 99.6 97.-3 34 .9 0.i 25.3 S 7.9 31.4 99.9 99.4 1 27.4 0.0 1..! 77 997 99 9 6 49.9 0,4 28.7 63 S0. 15.1 92.2 99-9 iO0. 58.3 -6 30.2 64 0. 04 939 1000 74 2.3 31.6 62 0 3 6. 9 .3 73. S i .33.1 63 0. 3 -16.9 36 n i 73. A Ii 62 I 0.3 34.9 98-1 9 .9 8.o 34.7 I1 0.5 42.i 99.1 36,5 j '0.7 35.610 0.6 301 99.5 92. L- 7.3 39 0.0 6.6 0 0.0 94.3 22.1 39.0 38 2.5 63.1 96.3 29.7 0 739 .'8,0 3 6 4 9 A-4 Table A-3 (Continued). PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALED OR EX(--EED TEIM!PERATURE I MAY J JtEY AUG SPT oct NoI DEC JAN4 FEB N A PR __ MAY JM JUY AG SP C NV DC A'NA 56 5.6 77.4 I 98.7 41.5 0.0 43.1.3 .49.4 0.60 4.4 54 I 11. 84.5 99.0 55.5 0.9I 45.5 53 14.5 8.5 99.1 62.11 1.3 I 46.5 52 17.2 90.4 99.3 68.4 2.4 47.7 51 1 20.7 92.3 I I 99.9 73.0 4.2 43.7 50 I 5.8 93.6 100.0 81.3 6.7 30.2 49 29.3 95.4 85.6 7.7 51.0 48 34.2 96.0 88.7 8.7 51.9 47 37.3 97.0 j 91.1 11.1 52.6 46 0.0 42.9 97. i 93.21 5..5 53.5 45 0.1 48.1 98.6 98.3 1-9.3 0.0 54.9 44 0.4 54.8 ,99.3 99.4 24.5 0.1 36.1 43 0.939 9. ~,9. 6 29.6 0.2 57.0 42 1.2 63.3 99.6 99.9 36.8 0 5 41 2.1 69.3 99.8 I 1i00.0 42.5 0.6 59.0 40 I3.7, 73.9 99. '5111 0.6 6.39 i 0.0 60. 78.41100' I S6. o.7 61..3 38aI 0 1 4 I o63. 6 1.3 62.7 0.4 1.0 34.0 37 0.7 16.4 36.2 70.0 2.2 64.1 36 .5 39.9ii -15.2i 4.2, 65.7 35 0.0 2.4 37 .3 79.9 9.3 68. 1 36.2 IB J 34 0.4 7.5 50.4 97.2 71: 18.33 5. i 16.9 59i ~9 9.7 90.0 35.0 75.32 99.6 9 1000 00.i 0 1 00.0 100 NO. 332 7 321 "4 802 774 S00 a 311 791 824 A-5 Table A-4. Flow and selected constituent concentrations for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant effluents in 1975 and 1976 (MWTP, unpublished). MAIN EFFLUENT RAIN EFFLUENT ASH POND ASH POND 1976 1975 1976 1975 PARAMETERAV MAX MIN AVE MAX MIN AVE MAX MIN V MAX MIN AVE Wastewater Flow, mgd 214 171 196 ,2 232 174 2021,2 3.0 2.56 2.852'3 Dissolved (Aygen, mg/l 3.5 0.8 2.6 4.3 1.3 2.8 8.1 3.3 4.3 Biochemical oxyyullirtand, mg/i 135 26 67 156 21 41 9.9 24 59 22.0 7.0 1 f7" Aioflia, mg/o 14.9 9.2 12.3 14.9 7.1 10.6 17.9 '7.4 12.0 12.0 11.0 l- .0--Nitrite and Nitrate, mg/I 1.24 .12 .38 1.11 < .08 .25 .366 .036 .186 1.41 1.18 1.3056 Total Phosphorus 5.5 3.2 4.2 5.1 2.4 3.5 2.7 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.95 pit 8.1 7.0 8.4 7.0 9.6 8.8 9.8' 8.84" Copper, pg/l 250 60 130 120 30 70 Mercury, ag/I 1.3 0.3 0.7 6 < .2 1.5 Lead, g/il 140 <50 100 100 <50 '90 Zinc, pg/l 270 130 180 260 110 170 Cyanide, [ig/l 132 47 74 80 21 48 1 L'esign flow, 218 mgd.2I1hfluent. 3Three monthly values only.Four monthly values only.5T[o monthly values only.6INO 3 on ly. Table A-5.Selected representative toxicity values for certain water quality constituents found in the Mississippi River 1972-1976 (from Becker and Thatcher, 1973).at Lock and Dam No. 3, TOX ICANT Phenols STATE PANDARD'0.01 No Standard 0. 01 MEASURED MAX CONC.NEAR PI NG PI-0.01 0.U02 0.023 Ar cni Al Coppo r-.U IOASSAY TEST LEVELS'0.56-0.75 0.06 0.05 0.5 0.43 0.1 0.06-0.5 0. 06-0. 125 0. 06 0.05 0.035 0.027 0.02?0. 025 0.024 0. 013-0. 030 0.01 o. 0098".005 0. 001 TEST CHEMICAL SodiumA pentachloropAuenatg PtjntachlorophInol Sodium salt Sodium arsenite Copter COpp, A chloride Copper Sul fate Coppu r tC'lpper ; uIfate C'oJper (Cuo Culppu r Cop1peOr sulAfate ORGANISM Poncais anjnularis 'fish" NotropiS athAAinoides Lopxomis macrochirus Pimephales proAlslaso aOphAia AVLJna (ciadoceran) Spiroq.)ra Orconactes rusticus (crayfish) Daphnuia mayna (cladoceran) MiCrorega (protozoan) Dapinuia Aiacr)a (cladoceran) PimAphajes pro-solas CyplitnuS carpio PimephSils pronelas Phisia het.rosti opAha (young snails)Daphnia aýAyanF (cladoceran) Nitzschia pulea (diaLom)"hydra" RESPONSE Caused losses Can be lethal under laboratory conIditioins Minimum lethal concentration, 100% survival in 120 m 48 hr-Tim 96 hr-TILn, chronic, hard water Killed Maximum non-inhibitory at 20 C Acute toxicity threshold, young 48 hr-TIJll, acute; without food Toxic threshold; 28 hr, 27 C 50% reproductive loss in 3 weeks, (tests at 18 C, pit 7.4-8.2)Threshold concentration, ittmebi li-zation in 64 hAr; Lake Erie water, 25 C Threshold cuuceuLrtration sub-lethal; in 64 h., 25 C Most died within 8 hr, soft water;w ith 1000 11J/L zinc Growth decreased, minlimum Sub-lethal concentrationsi affecting growth and reproduction; hard water 96 Ar-Tas; hard water, 21.1 C 48 hAr-TIin, acute: without food Prevents growth entirely Damaged Table A-5 (Continued). 'CCX ICOANT Mercury zh-Anartoca .ý (N)'11ASURECC IJIC(ASSAY ANDAkC1 0. 02'CAX CONC.NEAH ('1(303 0 .0 023 (C.) I W TEST 0 .23 5 CO. 358 0.070 0J. *C2 2.5 1.1 Iu-2 .0 0.4-0.5 0.3 0.3-1. 0 0i. 29 0.2--0.4 0. 00 5.0 1.0 0.38 0. 53-,. .5 0. 432 0.26 0.24 0.2 TIST CIEMICAL No dat -, -, Zinc (ion)Zinc sulfate enkmonica (free)Ammonia (un-ionized)i a Aactronia (free)Anmmon ia Ainon i a Cý (i -ion i zC!d)(f rte )Sodium cyanide Cyani de (CN-)Potassium cyanide ORGAN I SM RESPONSE Tubi2fex sp. Coligoclhaete worm)Lepomtis a cSCrochlOrc Gamb.sia affinis"fist, Ap C z.. enor~t p). Ca) yac)St)Clatria sp.PJjanazia app. CTurloellarianC ACtinuspChaerium sp,. (protozoan) cyneCu I'Cngsa C.-eroc].li a (snail1)L.OkxCCCs ,nCarochizuca VapCCCia mugna cl adoceran)Inhibited spawning and killed new fry 3 week-TI~ll, chronic, 18 C 16% reproduction loss in 3 weeks;18 C, pHi 7.4-8.2 Killed in hard water Lethal level Toxic level; toxicity dependent on pit and extent of ionization 1000 ain-Pum; 22 C, p1i 7.8 (pit and temp. profoundly affect toxicity)lethal Il Complete disappearance Lethal level Lethal in hatchery ponds under warm temperatures and low flows 7 day-Tin Lethal level Lethal level Moderately effective as repellant (lake studies)100% kill in 5-10 hr; 24-26 C, pit 7.0-8.2 100% mortality in 24 hr Toxic; toxicity increased over 1.2 to 25.4 C 96 hr-TAI, acute; with 3.9 mn/l zi.c C(Zn+)Total kill in 96 hr 24 hr and 48 hr-TLm, acute Toxicity threshold, 4 days at 24 C U. 16 Scenodesmus quadricauda (algae)l 'rable A-5 (Continued). STATE STANDARDU7 0.02---tandac-MEASURLI)MAX CONC.lEAR PINGPI i7 0,7 R]OASSAY TEST LEVEISl 0.06 TEST CHEMICAL Cyanide ORGANISM L, auritls M~croptaxas dolomtoai Notcmi gonus promenias Pom)oxis .nnfularis RESPONSE No species survived more than 10 hr;25 C, both static and constant flow bioassays NO Wt. --.'All conlstituents are iucasured in ingy/. Table A-6. Summary of adult and juvenile fish sampling near PINGP during 1970 through 1976 (from PINGP annual reports).YEAR SAMPLING SAMPLING STATIONS INVESTIGASRS .EX.RKS OEThODS OFRQUEMICY SAMP LED 1970 Trap net. (fykel wit Ih Sa.- overight sets; Unspecified Miller of Mo data for.0 ft wings fall (Sept to 2 O~t)-t St. Mary's su5aer trap sets College net Summer (1-24 Aug) and Statton i 230 o, I-phase AC fall (8-22 Sept)Seine 1/4 in. Nesn) iot atecified Shores of Station I;beaches along main channel in pool No. 3 1971 rrap nets (Fyke) with Spring, summer, and fall Above Itk and Dam Miller of Trap nets nainly 10 ft wines No. 3 in Stations St. Mary's in Station i;1-4 Colle ;e some scales take. for aging Experiment gill nets Sameer and tell- 24 Sr Above Lock and Dam sets No.Electrofisning: same Spring, suaner, and fall Unspetified.aS 1970 Seine Spring, ,are r, and fall Unspeoified L972 Trap nets Summer and fail-52 sets Unsopeciied Miller of in fall St. Mary's Colle.g HOop nets Utnsecified tnspe-ilied Sill sets Sosemer and fall--28 sets Uospeified in fall Se~ine Unspecified inS pe ci id 1973 Trap nets 1 24-nr set/station in Settions -(10 nsa., aawkirnos of Sale samtries Suoar (Aug) and fall (/ct) r 17 stan, Mn4 15: Min- .NR taken tsr (7-8 stan aging; Suannrn late July-Aua Leoctrofitshig: 230 a. I l5-sin run/station n Seations 0 ;4 sta), and fal=Sept-3-ahtse AC fall (6 sna), I ;4 sta), Oct and iI b Sta)Gill nets: 250' x 6' 4-Itaet/statton is fyi1 Snot-ats S ta.), Y with 10' aetons of 1.3, Secpt 00d Sct) if stai and 111 2. 2.5, 3, and 4 in. mesh 3 ata(Seine: L/4 tn. -enh Suamoer and tall Selected stations and 100 ft long .wah I8a to saitabli It tag shnneline Trawl Istter) Surer :Aug) antake and Stashacqe Sreas Creel cnns-s Surceyed eatS 5ectlon Settlns I -IV Hawkissna o several imes fro- "l ay Mrinn. INR otseaso o~is of for tovement-; 1974 Trap nets 1 24-hr e/t nice n. ill Snepfarr-f 'JasL-tt -ogs St-d'Irnt. SNt scals taKen tor agin ;tlectrosi'.ovkbg: sate i la-nit -na/sta rio eacS All StliAn Sring=ri-ji-e is .971 staso so-e -iqht Summe-rJuls-AoS suiokana also and F.allSepn -Dct'3i11 tots; sa-e as 1373 1 24-h1 sot/station u- Sections 10 waa , engt-weiznt v ,rrng Snd :1l1 3" na .:nd iII nd , on ition 3 Ota) factor Seant. 503 a 4I' 'with Sy pri a, 3r-et, -nd fSlt 2-3 stanions/st-isn ' a ag awith saitable L/ in. tMtan ohartlit T-ral a.tnsri Scring. na-1er, and fall 2 stations in section , a -d an ttakn _d Sct)Srteyed eco section Soctuovs i -it ( taoiit -nd seteral ti-s 3C April to SUstafsos of c 1e[ _ _ Sina. DNR A-10 Table A-6. (Continued). SAMPLING SAMPLING STATIONS.BAR METHODS FREQENC SAMPLED' INVESTIGATORS REMARKS 1975 Trap nets 4 24-hr sets/station each Sections 0 (4 sta), Gustafson, Scale samples season I (U sta) , and I1. Geis, and for aging;(5 sta) Diedrich of tagging study;Minn. DNR Sprieg=May-mid July, Electroshockingt same 1 iS-min run/station each All sections in day; summer-mid as 1973 season: night sampling in night at selected July -Aug. and snmmer and fall stations Fall Sept-Oct Gill nets: sane as 1973 2 24-hr sets/station in 4 stations each in spring and fall Sections 0, I, and III Seine: same as 1974 Spring, sumner, and fall 3 stations each in Sections 0-511 Trawl (otter) 2 7-mnn trawls/station 2 stations in Section each season 7 and at intake and discharge Creel census Surveyed each section Sections I-VI Gustafson several times I March -and Diedrich 23 Nov of Minn. DNR 1976 Trap nets Same as 1975 Same as 1975 Gustafson and Same as 197S Geis of Electroshocking: same as Same as 1975 with no night Sane as 1975 Minn. ONR 19732 samples Gill nets: same as 1973 Same as 1975 Same as 1975 Seine; same as L974 Same as 1975 Sane as 1975 Trawl (otter) Same as 1975 Same as 1975 Creel census Surveyed each seczbon Sections I-VI Gelis and several times 6 Mtarch- Gustafson of 21 Nov Minn. DNR!Sa.ling conducted below Lock and Dam No. 3 is not included, except for the creel census. Locations are shown in Figures 111-i, 19, and 20.2Discharge electrofishing study (DES) was begun in April as an additional study and is described in Section V1 A.Table A-7. Summary of larval fish sampling near PINGP (Naplin and Geis, 1975; NUS, 1976).SAIPLING SAMPLING r TATIONS{EAR .TiTODS FREQUENCY SACTSEED 1974 Net of 1 T2 mouth area Once a week at each Locations L-4 in Naplin a Nod 30 saxonomy.; and 757 -m msh; towed location, 3 May -26 AU f Figure 511-21 eLss of no -low meter.;a measured distance finn. DNR towed at (50-250 m) various angles to current 1975 Sae uet as 1974 with Once a week at each Locations 1-8 in Gustafs, Changed nets flow meter *,ntil 30 location, 16 May-15 Aug figure 111-21 7-en, and in nid program;June; I n diameter net and 1-5 Sept Diedrich of no taxonomy with 560 Ln mesh 3 July Minn. DNR on: volume sampled 30-286 n3 42.5 cn square nets 2 .ours in every, 4 hours Bar racks of intake; Mueller of Taxonomy to (0.181 .2) with 560 un over a 24-hr period, middle of recircula-NsP species if mesh and flow meters; once a week from 25 Apt -tson canal and plant possible stacked to sample entire 5 Sept Side of skimmer wall water column also for part of study A-11 Table A-8. Mean density of larval fish collected at PINGP in 1975 (data from Gustafson et al., 1976).MEAN NUMBER LARVAE/m 3 + SE STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS 1 AND 2 5, 6, AND 7 1, 2, AND 4 (LOWER (UPPER (LOWER STURGEON LAKE) STURGEON LAKE) STURGEON LAKE)19-23 May 0.15 +/- 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.03 26-30 May 0.64 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.42 0.22 2-6 June 7.80 3.11 0.32 0.21 5.32 2.90 9-13 June 0.50 0.17 0.12 0.02 0.34 0.17 16-20 June 0.54 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.15 23-27 June 0.25 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.17 0.08 30-04 July 1 0.63 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.44 0.17 7-11 July 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.04 14-18 July 0.24 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.09 21-25 July 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.05 28-1 July 0.26 0.03 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.06 4-8 August 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.08 11-15 August 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.05 18-22 August NS 2 NS NS 25-29 August NS NS NS 1-5 September 0.01 0.01 NS j0.01 0.01 1 Changed nets.-No sample.A-12 Table A-9. Percent of total density for each RIS in the PINGP entrainment samples collected in 1975 (NUS, 1976).SPECIES NORTHERN CHANNEL WHITE BLACK WHITE REDHORSE EMERALD GIZZARD DATE WALLEYE (:R PIKE CATFISH BASS CRAPPIE SUCKER SPP. SHINER 1 SHAD CARP 15 May 17.3 0.5 0.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 21 May 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.02 0.1 0.3 1.2 2.9 29 May 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.6 15.7 0.6 5 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 21.6 0.0 12 June 0.0 0.0 0.8 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 24.7 1.6 19 June 0.0 0.0 0.3 7.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 17.0 0.0 26 June 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 56.6 24.6 2 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.7 34.6 14.6 10 July 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 9.6 17.1 17 July 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 28.2 1.3 24 July 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9 1.0 1.4 31. July 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.1 10.2 0.0 7 August 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 32.8 2.2 14 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 23.7 0.0 21 August 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 11.5 0.0 28 August NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 4 September 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1 Identification questionable. Table A-10. Reproductive characteristics of the fish RIS 4.122..S(lII N IN,-j j-,..7 9,71211 I4I7N2211,3 ,,,1I.,'(LII N 11921 71 O(lI.IINl17l111N .1.112(1 N- -, I Iýp, , I , (UN,: 33.1W In-Na,, Al., L 012 ls.;,I LI..,",: NMl 1.h179 (2,. N-I" J4.0-2(1'21. " 17- 27'6-2(7'112.1(,2?..1'i 14. 8 /.9 I4I , 011 -I 3, ow7)4110,1(7 -(79, (7.(2,D.oov, 2 4 6/, 1 1 o. 11. , 7(224*: h,7r42;-1.0-4.u ,, 1(7, 111 11h(1 i w I(NCU0J I'JN 47,4 c'1ý6 .14I- I 177 (4-1, C '1((-2 ,7 2,4 a.1( (0.1 I: 17-I 11 1,1-1 Ii'l1'. 71,1. 194 0LNC2 .1 , 1(1.I'Vdy -(d 7-d2rhll, 1974, ,,,. ]JS- 31C6'Kill- , 196 1'Eddy 1-d UW-1gl4' 1. IWNMI Itj-iN.. -d INNII ,,tI 19(77 44J1(t-.1, 1512,1,l 4 EIddy -d U1d0-4 W, I I, ('74,.22 0"N24re2 71"14, CINNl,. 4974 E ,M},y t-ld WrO., hi I I, IW"4 P.I,, 3-,1- Il'. C1Nu--, ('4(7"46,I12llzr, ((72(. 411',l.4L IN 70y .41,4 I 1 1974, 1.I-I'4N4 ,llt (9h4.lu h I' I,7 N~It. 711 29 N44,l 91 (7( 1~b: uI 4117-4 Illiddy -ld U 1 41hilt, 1?7,1,'324.IIIIN-19'I 4241414l,2h1. 1(7,,y2 ,,11 CI7NN1, 'il 1 -.9 ( I.u4' l=Wh I L ,'kc,/I.,.L. (7lfl i Jt, 174 1 33.1 .711,1 ill (7(7,.:: Table A-I1. Thermal data for walleye.PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Lethal Threshold I Upper ý1) iI) Smith and (9 6-Hr Lm 24 Koenst, 1975 I C, 2t.6 f2) Ferguson , 195 3 12 29 14 ) 9 .(3) Dendv. 1948 16 ().6 (4) Kelso, 1972 20 30.5 (5) Iiemuth et al., 22 30.5 1972 24 31.5 26 31.6 Lower (96-rTm 25 Preferred 21-231 (2)22-25 (1) 251 (3)Growth Optimum 22 (1) 20 [4)Range 16-28 (1)Reproduction OPTIMIUM RANGE Migration 3-7 (5)Spawning 9-17 (5)Incubation and 9-15 (1) 6-19 .1)Hatch 1 Field data.2 For fertilization. A- 15 Table A-12.Thermal data for white bass.'Field data.A-16 Table A-13. Thermal data for channel catfish.I PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Lethal Threshold Upper 15 30.4 (2) (1) Allen and Strawn (24-Hr threshold) 1968 20 32.8 (2) 196 25 (2), 26 (1) 36.6 (1) 33.5 (2) (2) Hart, 1952 29 31 (3) (3) West, 1966 037. fl) (4) Gammon, 1971 38.3 (1)34 (5) Reutter and Herdendorf, 1974 Lower 15 0 (2) (6) Gamnon, 1973 20 3 (2) (7) Kilamrbi et al., 25 6 (2) 1970 (8) Peterson et al..1974 (9) Cherry et al Summer 26-32(11) 1975 Preferred Sueme r 25 (5) (10) Andrews et al..Summer 30-321 (6) 1972 Fall 25 (5)32 (7) (1ll Andrews and 2Stichrey, 197 5 17,152(8) (12) Clemens and 6 18.9(9) Sneed, 1957 9 20.4(9)10 20.6,18.3'(8) 12 19-9(9)15 21.7(9ý23.8,22.0 (B)18 22.9(9)20 27.0,25.42 8)21 26.1(9)24 29.4(9)25 30.2,28.91) ()27 29.5(9)30 30.5(9)32.42(8)Growrh Optimum 29-30 (3) 2S-30 (10)Rance 27-31 (3) 26-34 (11)Reproduction CPTIMUM RAN7 migration Spawning 27 (12) 21-29 (12)Incubation and 24-28 (-2)Hatch IField data.2 Falling and rising field temperatures, respectively A-17 Table A-14.Thermal data for northern pike.PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Le Uppe r 12, 12.6 is 6,7 25 27.5 30 171.7 24, 26' (1)25, 28' (1)20.5, 231 (I)(1) Hokansco et al.1973 (2) Scott, 1964 (3) Ferguson, 1958 (4) Franklin and Smith, 1963 (5) Swift, 1965 32.3 (2)32.8 (2)33.32 (2)Lower< 3' (1)Preferred 24, 263 (3)GrOwth Optimum 21 (1) 26 (1)Range 18-26 (1)Reproduction Migration Spawning Incubation and Hatch OPTIMUM I.-2.2-2.8 (4)12 (1), 16 (5S 1.1-4.4 (4)11-17 (4)6-18 (i)-At hatch and free swimmino 1 Ultimate incipient level 5Orass pickerel and musky, respectively A-18 Table A-15.Thermal data for gizzard shad.PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Lethal Threshold (I) Hart, 1952 Upper 25 34.0-34.5(1(1 (2) Coutant, 197S 30 36.0 (a)(3) Reutter and 35 36.5 (1) Herdendorf, 1974 Lower 25 10.8 (1)(4) Dendy, 1948 30 14.5 (1)(5) Gammon, 1973 35 20.0 (1)(6) Miller, 1960 20, 17.5 6.5 (2)(7) Carlander, 1969 Preferred Summer 19.0 (3)Fall 20.5 (3)Sumter 23-25] (4)Sumner 28.5-31 (5)Growth" Optimutn Range Reproduction OPTIMUM RANGE Migration Spawning (0-21 (6) 10-29 (7)Incubation and Harch Field data 0 A-19 Table A-16. Thermal data for carp.PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Lethal Threshold Upper 20 31-34 (1) (1) Black, 1953 (24-hr TLs 0) ( 1) 26 26 (1) (2) Horoszewicz, 1973i 25-27 40-41 (2) (3) Meuwis and Heute, 24 39 (3) 36 (3) 1957 (4) Pitt et al., 19561 (5) Reutter and I Herdendorf, 1974 (6) Gammon, 1973 (7) Neill and Magnuson, 1974 (8) Gammon, 1971 (9) Huet, 1953 (10) Schaeperclaus, Preferred .0 17 (4) 1949 15 25 (4) (11) Tatarko, 1965 20 27 (4) (12) Swee and 20 McCrimmon, 1966 25,30,35 31,31,32(4) (13) Jester, 1974, Summer 29,7(5) 33-351 p. 38 20-22 30-33.5 (7) (6) (14) Burns, 1966, Spring ( I 27.4 (5) Pp n10-513 Summer 27-341 (8) (15) Frank, 1974 Growth Ootiaum. 20-25 (9), 27(10)Range 16-30 (11)Reproduction OPTIMUM RANGE Migration Spawning 19-23 (12) 16(13) -28 (12)Incubation and 17-22 (14) 7-33 (15)Hatch Limit for 10 min. exocsure of earl-v r'o iS 35'.-Field data A-20 Table A-17. Thermal data for black crappie.PARAMETER ACCLIMATION T (C)LARVAE J4VEENILE ACULTT REF-PRENCZS t 4 4-Lethal Threshold Upper (Ultimate incipient level)29 33 (1)Lower (1) Hokanson and Kleiner, undated 2} Fiaber, 1967 3: :;-1.. and:.!anuson; -974-4) Reutner and Herdendorf, 1974 (5) N(eill et al.1972 (6) Zoodson, 1966b, pp. 312-332 (7) Scott and Crossman, 1973 pp. 745-75,)Preferred2umer 1-20 (2) 2 (7-2933) 21.7 (4) ,29(5)20-22 26.5-30 (3)Fall 22.2 (4)Winter 20.3 :4)Spr~ng 21.0 (4)Growth Optimum 22-25 (1)Range (i11,ts of 11-30 (1)zero growth)Reproduction Migration Spawning Incubation and Hatch UPTIMUM 14 (6) -20 (7)150 percent catch/eflorr A-21 Table A-18. Thermal data for emerald shiner.PAPbMETER ACCLIMATION T (C) LARVAE JUVENILE ADULT REFERENCES Lethal Threshold (1) Hart, 1947 Upper (1) 5 213.2 10 26.7 (2) Barans and 15 28.9 Tubb, 1973 30.7 (3) Campbell and 25 30.7 MacCrimeeon, 19701.oer 1 '5 1.6 (4) MCCorcick and 20 5.2 KIeiner, 1976 25 8.0 (5) Reutter and Herdendorf, .974 Preferred Summer 22 (2),25(3) 23 (2)Fall 14 (2) 18 (21 Winter 11 (2) 9.3(5)6(21 Spring 15 ý2) 17 (2)Growth~Optcnu in29 (4)Ran ge 24-31 4)Reproduction OPTIMUM RANG Migrati-on M~gratum,0-27 Spawning -2 4 incubation and Hatch A-22 Table A-19. Thermal data for white sucker.PARPAIETER I NC ~ -I LE1 ADL ACCLIMATION T (C)Lethal threshold Uppe r 5 10 20 (2), 21 (1)25 25-26 2a' (1)31 (1)30 (1)26.3 (2)27.7 ' 2)29.3 (2)29. 3 (2)29.3 :2)2.5 (2)31 (3)2-3 (4)Lower 20 21 25 (1) .McCormuzk er. 33[, 197'2) Hart, :947 B3) 9rett, 1944 (4) Cariander, (969 (5) Schneberger, 1972 (6) Brown, 1974 (7) Horak and Tanner, L964 (8) Reutter and hendendori, 1974 (9) rerguson, 19,3 (10) Scott and Crossman 1973, pp. 538-543 51, 4.82 (1)6 (2)Preferred Spring-fall 19-21 (7)Fall 22.4 (8)Sunieer 12-21 (9)Growh Optimun 26.9 (1)Range 24-27 (1)Reproduction nigraton Spawning incubation and Hatch OPTIMUM RAN-7.2 (5)15 (1)10-? (10)6-23 '6)3-21 (1)!7-day 71L50 for swimup 27-day TL50 for nwely hatched A-23 0 Table A-20.Thermal data for shorthead redhorse.Shorchead and golden redhorses A-24 Table A-21. Food habits during various life stages for the fish RIS.r'i i-n SPECIES LARVAE JUVENILE & ADULT REFERENCES Walleye Diaptomus sp., Leptodora yellow perch, frogs, and 1 Priegel, 1969 sp., and salamanders, 2 gizzard shad, 3 chironomid larvael chironomids, white bass fry 2 Seaburg and Moyle, and northern pike fry; 1964 White Bass Cyclops and Diaptonsus" gizzard shad, 3 emerald 3 Miller, 1960 shiner, corixids, chirono-mids, Diaptomus, Leptodora 4Ruelle, 1971 and Di aphanososma 5 Lopinot, 1960 Channel Catfish crayfish, snails, worms, clams, fish, arid seeds, 5 6 Franklin and Smith, gizzard shad 3 1963 Northern Pike Daphnia, Ceriodaphnia, yellow perch, other fish, 7 Bardach et al., 1972 Cyclops, 1lyalella, arid frogs 2 tendipidid larvae, and gizzard shad 3 8 Scott and Crossman, Ephemeroptera and Zygop- 1973, pp. 407-411 tera nymphs 6 9 Siefert, 1972 Gizzard Shad Protozoa and Entomostraca 3 phytoplankton arid Euglena3 1 0 Fuchs, 1967 Carp zooplankton 7 aquatic insects, plant material, crustaceans, lCampbell and MacCrimmon, molluscs, arid annelids 8 1970 Black crappie Hyalella, Chaoborus, 1 2 Schneberger, 1972 Chironomus, small yellow perch and bass, minnows, and 1 3 Meyer, 1962 sunfish, 2 gizzard shad 3 Emerald Shiner Trichocera, Cyclops bicuspi- Daphnia, Leptodora, Diaptomus, datus, and copepod nauplii, 9 Bosmina, Cyclops, diatoms, blue green algae 1 0 desmids and algae 1 1 White Sucker rotifers, cupepod nauplii, aquatic insects, molluscs, Cyclops bicuspidatus, and algae, and aquatic plants 1 2 cladocerans 9 Short head h<dhorse immature chironomids, Ephemeroptera, and Trm-choptera 13 Table A-22. Summary of sampling methods for non-fisheries biota collected near PINGP during 1969 through 1976 (from PINGP annual reports).150I AIýR E CULLI9l TI U11 SAMI I.JW0 bTATIUN 05 5 CAl 1032 ph PIJOIJPAI 29(9 PROCESSING L ook NPl y to l nk t ii selil iict wr fttO I,,, -,I Is L,:, lt, ulpr-n h -wit Lily (May Ui, Olt)i %-9 9 III 111k 010 "1i, 7.to, H1, 22, 23, 2H Ilit.I S.', i k. yiv -i -,.iui 111 1.2 kol luoi.,v-I-r-l~ll Lock & I)-n N-.. I U. M- il,.Ltsttti ty, taXCOhiOny Not all stations dampled during each collection 1970 iholc rlolj Lutlnt, Sa.. ao 1969 Brook U. e.ill, lbunsi ty, Not all statioils sampled u-rf.ce ilppox. hi-- taxolnoy and duritln eactk watr weekly p(ila-y pro- Privury produtvivLty (Msy to (N)t) ductivIty (DO) si-asurcd by light and duck bottle DO evUlution(l19l1 Wlniel Inioisis tetL, _ui_ as 1969 eBt'ok LI. Mi la. Density, Not 1ll stationl sample lton t.5:- illo 0.I-, Lasnotnly durilg eac:lt voll-ction outer utllY (May to Olt)(912 Whole Inionsistent sutw a.s 1969 Brook U. Minn. Samii, as in Ikit all stations stamiled nittfac:o -oi .bi- 1971 during each collectiotn wator weekly (.lily to loL)Whole blowely .1nO,- a. 1)t19, plu. ItluR Baker U. Mill-. Santn as ItI (991 ailt'ioc (Cle, to Ntin) S1iii onl 16 -0lik 19 a(ld andO Ud .N1. 1971 autoe, Sadks 1914 WItul. S-. lto, Is (197 plu( Baker U. Mimt. 92xandity, wIsonaa taiu-enteI.1ts 5u-f- j 19/3, but 13 11th Litit..il oil and U.N.il. LaonptOiy, Lie- calculated Cfro dc-isttios ware. -- fr,- i, 2. 3, 4, 5, 9, Biker -usa (buo- which later -ere shown to epli-itly SIe 14, 19, 27 volaut), ltrI- bU low by a factor of 103 Ir'y prodiUt-productivity 2 to tivity (WO), 4 hour iteid-day incubation cilucoritytl a petiod at 50 -m water (Loea~nani) , dep)thl in Sturgeonti Lake nusnj-ntoids ti!ar IIDUI Staioit1 8 (turbidi ty)Wh1le 1 atti al in Ba kh"!ote.); all titltis hukie U. MOint, Saln, as in, curfaci 1971, lot .hwiur ft'oill kock ail- Iid ai-d U.NJ.I. 1974 1919 w tile rn')/ ifro- tit* No. 3, DilR s.tatlion 2, Baker clu,. ly ill seh Stoti-oI 5.1, k)nllI-r i Vle" ftrolt Iohk 4 Duill (May to Di-o) No. 3 9 it.SaIll, at, i 199), bie qli~l [ 1y ill nld-us sinc (Mal to Wkv)auil- as ii, 197%Bake Bakor U. Mtnil.and U.N.I.Salu as in 1 914 Maty denisity 5anlles were lost in late suilnatr and fall. Productivity sdampLes were incubated at 25 um depth________ -e 4 Table A-22. (Continued). A LI IUJ'JC CATLGORtY[19/21 1974, COLIZC'l'Ill Il id-o S."i, aI, for 1927, SJAMI5'I.NG FREQUJENCY Biotrskiy Idol to Non'W- ,kf lto3 t o -7.I) -1oktOd~S'T-ATIONS LOC'1ATIONS' 4 1701 slati/ils 7, 17.24, atd 25 Sa 1972, plU 1 -jiltl -na 8los 1(, 13. 1nd 2'L); -titaund icv-frc, por-ods antd ioat io01 Sat~ as in 1973, pt-s 1 otatioli ]oa.t , d Jos-than i.llý dowtli vii frot Lonk and DaM No. 3 c-Ott in 1974, le-s tt -tot dtultttlvir from Li.k aid Don, Nu. -s-O as on 1975 SLio 4 tfarnsects I, ,ostio-s A to G W titit 1.04 1, , Ld diwsirin nor fron Lock ,id Ua- tO. N oSI- Ltt 197U Upriver from Lock and Di No. 3 tIt o ead ot Stutigeon LWke PRINC17IPAL, ALA'O INVES'r1IAOIUi(*) 1:1(0, olOnllta 1 So t.ttlSt/DaIsies Sectnott NSI, Oaker U.N.l.DA'£A ANALYS IS AND 1Pl4.CESSING piq-nst anal-ysis of:hloroldhyll a and phato-phyttin a by lafr 0 ntze nn lthoda. 1972, xcefpt. with addition of Ilottsity Std tattinttfly 1973 Ltoptt no phane-pbty titt a Satin',-tti 1974, ,'byti, i -(-tni moo It Iniao, Sa17 a5 in 1975 5l.MARIKs Slide were staled for ell coutttt and ta-oltomy, b 1t lnft utartalysod outil nett year bocau,;o of Catge itf cottsulltaitts. Slides h eld ill plesiglals floats suiJiotdnd at appro1ip.tnly I -2 n cdethlt, Witth -rtCial orientation to mWirtktin silts at io~t.D-ittity Itd tasottotly fto 1972 sa.ltpl.s wore also detentntved. SlId, ontly With t -0,jtt.tt groott weno.elected tor -nl1 comllti,,q.-or7 1 dyotOlr (,--i it-lI:. itrq; l I t.Ji.ciq ob-nrvod but liAt r-o, dod.will... -.tJeled o sýaC rphytos, 1).N,.0191 7 t o' tttr4 0 U)N.1 I.U, N. II.I ~7i 1S t 74as t ~c:'Ifo~ 1/tot, VlS Y Mtllmr Miller Vest St. Mary's T.atOtty -J0 College Dad lizt 1.1)13 Ind obsoer-boI.t-"by boat

St. Mary's C11t ItIq St. Mary's CI I 1nIc hod 'i..nIdoltl id bod size Table A-22. (Continued).

co ,00 ,YlL C L IOEA R idL L l. 'l N cA S LMC A I S T A T IO N S ' L 3 0A ' I M S N S I l' A L A TA BsIOTIC RY EIAP TAIN A.S5MRW I AND PROCESSING AqUlLlC 1974 Otnoinaot IUI CU to lillir:di at plant sitL. Mite týr NtA, Inosn-itly anI PI-Lt w.r- elassifind a K, otphy L-,, a lI Co. Ie0 Aumj -4 at I tCfmley, in.in iver bed size aub..rged and eergýrntL. l.ion by tot 2 ips hale. nI siovellines and boat and 1- 2 -ok i ,aI-d' from Lo- k jald wailing, p anD No. 3 to lanit iitakn rakiay,_,,, nita, Sturtoor Lake walking9]13 Na1,. as JUly I; Appiroxinlatly Cth 5,15 Man!1-e NSP MTaxonomny and Only submelrged plasls 1174 Auj 6 an in 1974, ell olt bed si.e studied*ait 4, Omnsien~OI of upper X 23 Sturgonli Lake 19/6 S-lO an Jaune 4, 7, San. is in 1975 M-ellt- NSV Tlaxonony and 1974 3, II; bed size July 30>;A Uly Ill SAg 13]D-l No.3 I1 ) " 1 19 , 2AI '- iw t ly , ,1 1 4 -iL tt ri ý, i , 4 , M i l l e -S t .NK l r y ' s I kin s i t y a n d J a n e tn o n y t o g e nu s SInti ,lseil " dalnil* 3 3(:t,d Iils r 2%, olarl,, Coii t xlle nta o omy a u t t L- liki J-i .ye dlt-td -a , IV h tl 4O I linit -Ila No. _3i Ci A, iiI " eular to thit lakt: ais;nnLllaisit'iil I ('tAnJlolil i l neetI areol lakerio 111)k ta 'hoe .t .,{tifi olat La i,,-,!; ili lioai lane ittaketittt-1511!ants. I:pi- Stliti Iii 1, enttciditig ,:at , i aw,,rri r'iv,.rtsltniisi:l iii 1970)1 1772 19 n sxtin 55 Satins an in £930 Miller St. Mtary's tblnsity ard lonoyto o i~ei55 inl Q,)l, 1970 Col Iege taxo-lolny -mllly .as.s"WI kCoilj-" 1L. sitk e-sý.t tae Table A-22. (Continued). --I 0 1[aLOTIC CAW'lWt1Y YEAR )COLLECTION METHOD SAMPLING FF1,2UENICY STATIONS & LOCATIONS2 PXINU IPAI.INVEITIOA'ltilllSl AFFI DATA ANALYSIS AND IIJIOESSING REIMARKS I- I 1 .i opl tink torn (Continue~d) 1974 Can I raird tl40t ll-!pl11anlc 1,1 to, I'll and,, lecttinci I'ltll; atan-ah ltat'icn lii tra9ilirrian sorqiKrcmm, L 1 , I't-tI wit sti joi[itota v)u 0-ilr gh 1141(1 Ell L1 It a i nnil.,mp 1974lam.s30i-2Liilll 1972 as tor Apr to ftc;[litolirsi 5 te nit"molnthly"; and til Ka Oionml tOll ntt'd July 30, Any 14, Scpt 4, Nov 21, and Appro xitrat ly whl l rli lyd f rtl,p ii to ily 9 A,;cllaia thad l-ll LI I 4 I112 St.tialsr .1 ,12, 25, 27 plus I attly dowlirivor fruom lck aduoi Da01, No. 3. 4 trarakn tLs-an, as it, 1971 i1, Stury-n Llake vlci-lty 3, 3-statitio tialr-1-ts il. iturauco Lake Ca 'ri-spolldij riough ly to RIOR Stltirln 1, 1, eind 0; 2 HIdR 1taLians (1 anid Il); 3 atatians at thi north ar-d of Star 4rl0' Lake; I IHDR t4UII. (i10) -HDR1)statlai, (14 .rid 10)ft- critl 11i0nc; t saliqlhl-; cl:pthr jiltc'giattd Lit intakc b t tir.1h airI[ III B JID4 l tatwlll : G, Wi, 14, lh, 18, 21, 24, f5 arid otlc Ut,LtilOl wn thin 1.6 ki driowni v troi Lock arId 0am No. 3;,lirl a i'ilnoci stat 1011i-ait: a, in 1974 Middlebirook NiddLna~r~oo St. Mary's Coilegc St. Mary's NSP Ecollogy Consul tLa ts, Inc .;NSIP Density arid tamOrlorny Density and taxonomy;iitility feirsity and tax roromy ;Rolt I Ii ty Taxonomy to sljrCwcs dIn many cases.River and lake flor patterns studied by dyn dispersion; variation in density by depth cas studied in recycle canral.Night sanplalcs were also collected iii recycle na ll.Excellent taxonomy 0 Tabl.e A-22. (Continued). u7 to 2 1 -2 DATA 13 1U T l C C A T E U A ,) y i Y E A R < C O L L E C T I ON S A W ' L I N G !1 S T IA T I O N S 6 [IX X :A TP I ( N SP I ' C P LA F L A I ' O N L S t A K SL'YHiC CATSIy IStEl ý1jlcl AFFILIAT1i0iN ANALYSIS REMARKS Si2'1TIOLC V".U9NCJY i lN VINVES'IGATCIC(9) AND pROCESSING (&.CC C. i IIedI) DOz-C NOt t ie 197(5 C c traiCl- sL~iC t dCow ICCCrC r from ii975;aCSCC~t , t-t lonoy sC Lnpi m.C9t to May I Oa' C aCC NC. I InC.9olICCCCC at 1917 0IC- 1tCd (U -;Ct.CtCiCC e ach stat OCio iCI ailas CCC M O- CC[ CC0C-CCCCC OCC0C. 1C CI, , 119CC, S tat SCCCC at 1970 Miller St. Mary's Ounsity Cwhere PrelimC iary studies i-,cCCtebCwt9s CdCC (dCC I wiC ICl Aj, ...oCpIanktoC Col[eg, 3 quantitatise) 1 9199CiC 1.0); -c .C SIoJL, -Cd taxonoCtytat t y -C C Ib td t r LCCS tlkCow foC 11, fu-C.Ib]ae)Cnd 1,71 CCCC Conete ;CtC U Cia) 5nea Sta'tl~ ICCCSCC 19 IC Mi ller 2t. Cry' C L Manlity (whCCCC Maw artificial saD-CCCCIt bCCIC;C CCCI lI59C foas~ible) "aCCl SteateC Ca~eritr~nt blocks CCoCCiC to.u.aCny ( L)h bIock for 30 dayc iO a 11) a S CtCCvai iCC , CCCCCQLC-lc -tree CJICeLaioCC ..CC~ t CCIC.-CC S Ct C'CCa l 9-972 SatC a '0).! , y 12 teaiCLCCCt, CCCCC;OC Mii-c St. Maryy's S unsity 1971 'C -Cit l,> ", VCt --r C.C--1a ] wi th 2 CoiteCJ IIantitatvc l'CUCr ,OCl 1C ' ILC- s LCtio Ca,, troll, sa. Iplls) Laid ,I e:cd , o- U fi t 'tI ) -,ib- .i of StUrC9 ,CC ta otomCO y CC9,CCC CtC b l CkC to wCCithi 1.2 kICo froCC I.-Ck and)w m{ Nt). 3; 'Is" iIDJR Am) C OC7, 2I , 9, wit ,l .25 l, ACIC CCCCCC I C~tCCCC .2 CC dCCCCCvC r if LCCk ujC Table A-22. (Continued). DATA BIOTIC CATEGORY YEAR COLLECTION SAMPLING STATIONS & LOCATIONS 2 PRINCIPAL A ANALYSIS W"KARKS METHOD FREQUEoCY INVESTICATOR (s) AFFILIATION AND PRO0CESSING Macro-invertebrates (Continued) 173*I I Ar tifi cia l s ubsi I"' tins I) con,:rete 5 balsa w.od (as ie 191.1)2) concrete block (31.6x 11.6b8 a", approx. 18 k )(Blitt, 1955);drudge: 1) (15 ci:i ?(22.9 cm s.?)Qualitative obse rvat ion on natural substrateLs Artificial subs trate: uncertain Drcdge : initiated in Oc t, repli-cates (?), Once/mre when and where possible.Randomly collected until Oct.then once a-sith Sali as in 1972, {4lus HDR stations 12, 15, 18, and 21 for artificial substrates Dredge at HDR stations 1, 2, 10, 20, near 28, 27, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, and 3 stations and within 1.6 km downriver of Lock and Dam No. 3 Qnal itative sampling along shoreline where possible, or after Oct at shoreline locations near HDR stations 8, 15, 18, 21, 2 7; L upriver approx.6.4 kll from Lock & Dais No. 3 and 2 within 3.2 km downriver from Lock anid Dam No. 3 Mil ler and McConville St. Mary'Col leuj Desnsity (quanti-tative) ard taxltonoty Mostly experieirmntal; mansy artificial sub-strate saulnles lost duo to weather or vandal isms 1 1 *t 1- f I +1974 UV light traps Qua itaLt ivc obse ratlioll of natural ri t5) t r a Quanti tative 1) 22.9 cm s6q. Poeun and 15 sm sq. peteL -on 1 i"d gqes TIraps emptied every 2-3 days frout about May 13 to IDrc 1 Apr 19, Jneie 22, Aurj 31, Oct 12 Onice /1ee belil a.id who Ce i CC -tting Near 31D0 stations C (along shore) , 12, 21, and 25 Same as in 1973 3 1DR stationts; 15 and 18 (a & b) (Ponar); Ii HDR stationsr 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 21, 25, 26, 27, arid tneat 26, and two statlions within 1.6 kin downrivur frot Lock anid Dam No. 3 (Puterson) Shyne S istinee St. Mary's College St. Mary's College St. Mary's col lege Taxonomy and relative density of emergent insects;Taxonomy Lensity and taxonomy Problems with collection, praservation,and storage 0 Table A-22. (Continued). DA 'rA iiiiLI.CATECTYItliN SAMiPI.1NGj 'tATIiNS A91) [LiCAi'l'iiiS? ikllNCII'Ai ANAl.YSIS bIOTIC CATE(;C~kY YE1.11 MWIIIOD kIETIQULNY INVE S ,TATIION A NDOiIAAAN P I-JCF2:SSING Mdccouiivertu-i.E ir Lii ii 1,14 1i2EiiiE.iSiS Eid NJ;il.k l1i1i.ii ii 19713 LA- Lii I L iii fil Iu hLo n,ti ii,"I'd h-ad i , i kiEL] f (.tk), 1 L t Lii:] iLi C E I. VIib iii. 3 ; o' dr,-3t2mm ]2. diji liiidii piiskum q irt di[. i~tih iuin9 .fi Lmii,iy, 1:71 )iii dm5 ii iii-1e --v t t in'i.)iL~c. t i e-I-y, ,li -y, 3Veil, ,ii ik:atvL Is,)dch t-pl i"O.y Li-45 idys e mis ISIg~+t i tiuii Ni'l ii~~u uVy 45 dliy..lii's, y 45i dmays l~ui IiL ftiiuiiqh tSoii S l a t t i lu b dL. , i l i iL , li ismbuLi-i, Y[1 mi.Si iitik] it 11DR s~it hiii, 15, 18i i1, 5, 2 iid 1 ), i , l 5' ,I'.f',,, Lk,:t, it 14)R 4 tut--l , 10, 12, 15,3 ]8 Il)H tatons b,10,12.U Ui, 1, 5, 26, 27 ii SEL2 ,iis 25.b l11yiii t E-: I -3y I iCoiisul EtiiES,I lire.x ld it ftin:S trimEe.uu~ii , t.Em1 eicu iktiusi ty amd ta..lo-y Tcmx.i o my ikusu i Ly mnd t a o"."my lal Ly ..d taxonomy AiiLouyI~simL 15 A,_____________________ S __________________ ~ ~ I. -L i -ulijE I iejui i l, m ioii io Eidiliits2" 127/3 Sal, itiiiL 2 iri iiiii + 19i 4"ti,,, Liiji iIu lt-2L lir l- iti i, Table A-23.Ranking of benthic macroinvertebrate abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1973 through 1976 for dredging samples. Diversities and evenness indices are also included.________________________________________ -t 1973 1 9*14 1976 19i/ MACFINV1111BRA-1. 1)1 i qnnchaeta (Onyrnnltunmd wclrlrL-)'n .1n fi 79d- 1 N,ý,at,,d, (-"."Id Uthid,lti fwd joinI-il"'. I'{'.-W f03i1.1-1 -t 717id. sli').Lt.h:tno toI It.ot-:2.,1,0, 45717 017r.1.1.FALL'74°T -T -<-Z -WI 'rrh774 FAIL SUMMER FALL A'JMRL I[T-l~Mý 1. tIT 197ýFALL FT.I I)U U I U I1 U U I V U IjU Y 4 U)tO J L 2.20 76 3 2 2 .1 63 1.43 AAb l J_1 2 2 .41.7_i-t.2 l 42I2 22 1.95 2.3 L 21 2 2 2 28: II I .,,I.'4 1 .62 3.7 1..6-F, 1101 1.42.37.21.61 I L 6 .1 -~. I. ... I -1 .1 -I. -3 ..~. 1 2 -.1 I I I J I + I I I I I I I

• 1 l I L 1 KAy: Abundanc1, 1 1.0-. : 10-99; 3 100-991; 4 1,000-9.999 ror -oi.,7/ 2 j, i, 1974 -nd J973 o-9/dll; n .oampl.; blnk lndicatnA E- orga77i5mn fond'JS01 1l y ",, I llid-.1u l'A+,u-11 Y l lll~ l '7 l I'IIa l lCJ 10-.,1: , y I) .1 1.1 1,5ryI 1-17 11. 1 II -, 12 , y Wk :31 L 1,,. n2lj/L1 -15 J- 1 In fn llty f-r 27 l1 3-- 1039 1..

0 Table A-24. Ranking of drift macroinvertebrate abundances (artificial substrate) at three PINGP for 1975 and 1976. rmhe diversity and evenness indices are also shown.locations near 1976 1975 DR IFT (ARTIF'ICIAL SUIIS'1 ATn RAC ROIi NVE RTEB R1ATES Nal i d., mjjCwflaunc'oos sn'.N2 ma odia (round wo rms)Oln Jo t 1ifi d sip.ArtI, 1o.... ia (Joil t- to,.ted anliiml a)Lph1 1,otIlil pt1(0ra Ca4;211 IS PP tici, sop t ra No Sf00i 2pa a sill.0:1,1110 t~15 gSCll Spil.Shannon lnýaver Divursityl I~rns lnd00X 9 10I I.1 .2 .2 *4 2 4 L 2 I. 2 3 S2-12 3 3 2.29 2 1.14 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 L A1. 652 0*76.-22 .111 1. 96 1:6 1 .45 1 .21.62 1 -42 1 --I 0 Koy: 1l1u)dalul00

1. 0.0-9.9i 2 = 10-99; 3 = 1 00-9 9 9; 4 = 1,000-9,999; 5 = 10,000-99,999; 6 I00,0100-999,999 org/m 2-Ito szim5lf ; blank indicatLs tic organisms found bear

?Uaually near mid-.july 3Usuall.y (lar Imid-April usually nleac Iid-January 5U1 = privvt- (usually olar HDI station 10)61 = intakt (usuelly near 11Dk station 12)71- ,= dowIiilvel (usually near HDR stationf 27)8S iq. W -Leth y -r' s.I" Il d1 L 1- 0 9 2 where N is total nuiinbe of all individuals of all taxa in sample, si is ntier of I individuals inl thi ijtO taxa, alnd s is tde number of taxa in sample.9E~v loes (L-) ý I /d- lax ,where d, is the maximum possible diversity for a given s = 1092 s. Table A-25.Composition of orders of emergent aquatic insects collected from the Mississippi River near PINGP, 13 May through (from Shyne, 1977).6 December 1974 ORER/FAILY HDR STATION 6 HDR STATION 12 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 151,277 81.89 9,155 52.26 Psychomiidae 13,406 7.26 4,228 24.14 Leptoceridae 7,240 3.90 1,171 6.68 Hydroptilidae 12,801 6.93 2,960 16.89 Other 4

• 3 *Total 184,728 100.00 17,517 100.00 Ephemeroptera Caenidae 740 51.75 2,980 86.85 Ephemeridae 670 46.85 439 12.80 Other 20 1.40 12 0.35 Total 1,430 100.00 3,431 100.00 Diptera Chironomidae 440,602 99.13 71,581 98.69 Other 3,888 0.87 947 1.31 Total 444,490 100.00 72,528 100.00*less than 0.10 percent A-35 Table A-26.Abundance and distribution of Hlydropsyche spp. (Trichoptera) and Stenornema spp. (Ephemeroptera) in 1975 and 1976 (from Haynes, 1976; Texas Ins., Inc., 1977).ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE (No. /m 2)DATE Hydropsyche sp3p. Stenonema spp.U 1 S15 2 13 Di If BS U SL I Di. B October 1976 2.7 August 1976 8 July 1.976 3,542 129 48 105 ,Tune 1976 65 59 March 1976 54 2.7 April 1976 8.1 2.7 December 1975 27 27 November 1.975 351 3.6 27 75.6 72 72 September 1.975 67.5 10.8 10.8 10.8 August 1975 4,657 4,320 124 1,608 3,996 162 173 67.5 43.2 119 July 1975 5,724 75.6 359 65 173 35 May 1975 10.8 5.4 1 1DR Station 10 (Upriver)2 1DR Station 6 (Sturgeon Lake)3HDR Station 14 (Intake)"11DR Station 21 (Discharge) 5HDR Station 25 (Barney's Point)

Table A-27. Life history and feeding habits of major invertebrate groups characteristic of the Mississippi River, lakes, and creeks near PINGP.S GROUP Ephemeropteral PlecopteraI Trirhoptera. Coleoptera 1 Dipterar Oligochaeta 2 Hirundinea 2:METAIIORPHOSISII LIF Simple Simple Complete Complete Complete Not applicable Not applicable Direct Not applicable gradual Direct SI L DURATION 0F SSTAGES i LIFE STAGE Nymph I year ubimago 1-2 days POWl t -2 days Nymph 1-3 years Adult Unavailable Nymph I year Pupa Unavailable Adult I moeth Nymph .Uavailable Pupa Unavailable Adult uravailable Nymph Unavailable Pupa Unavailable Adult uravailable Cocoon 9 days to I1 weeks YounS Unavailable Adult Unavailable Cocoon days to I0 weeks Young Unavailable Adult Unavailable Sauplius 1 aeek to opepodid r Adult r Young Unavailable Adult Unavailable HABITAT FEEDING HABITS I1 Aquatic Herbivorous Terrestrial Does not feed Terrestrial Does not feed Aqua tic Carnivorous or I herbivorous Terrestrial Either does not feed or is herbivorous Aquatic Carnivorous or herbivorous Aquatical Does not feed Terrestrial Liquid foods Aquatic or Camvoos q:eri.,.ria. Carnivorous, tarrsstria11 herbivorous or omnivorous Terrestrial Goes nor Feed Terrestrial Carnivorous or herbivorous Aquatic or Unavailable terrestrial! Terrestrial Unavailable Terrestrial Unavailable Aquatic or Detritus feeder terrestrial] or parasitic Terrestrial BREEDING HABITS Swarms after final molt and lays eggs on surface of water Lays eggs on surface of water Lays eggs on surface of water oa on ob-jeots near water~1 opepoda~Co Terrestrial. Aquatic Aquatic Aquatic Aquatic Aquatic Aqiatic Aquatic Aquatic A- a tic Aquatic Aquatic lenthic, Pseudo-planktonic Benthic Pseudo-planktonic Aquatic Aquacic Aquatic PlaIktonic Cladocera 2 Isopoda 2 Amphipoda' Acarina2 Gas tropoda'Direct Unavailable Not Neonate Juvenile Adult Manca Young Adult Young Adult Larva Nymph Adult Troconhore deliter Moult unavailable 1-3 .o.ths unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unava lable Unavailable"navallable Unavailable Unavailable I Unavailable Unavailable 1 Unavailable Carnivorous Parasitic Scavenger I Herbivorous,-arnivorous, and parasitic derbsvorous,ýarnivorous, and parasitic cerbivo~ous o ocirclorous o i Parasiti: or I scavenger Carniv .orows, parasitic orý-~ivorous. ISacrni boroos.carasitic, Or lestaveners carnivorous or lays eggs in toe water on algae.roots or stones Asexual division, I sexual (hermaphroditic),Cocoon in mud or on vegetation Corcon buried in mud or attached to submerged* objects, vegetation or brood eggs. Herma-phroditic Sexes separate eggs brooded:Sexual, out dioecicus; some parthenogenic. Eggs attached to sub-strate or female.Some -ovoisipatout. Parthinoqenic or se..al.norvivipartus-Sexes 3eparate eggs brooded.;Sexes separate eggs brooded.Sexual Hermaphroditic. lays egg causes .. Sub-merged objects., oviparous applicable Denthic,:leustonic, terrestria I;5cavencer*USNRC, 1975.22ares., 1963.A-37 Table A-28. Summary of macroinvertebrate thermal tolerances. ACCLIMATION EXPOSURE TAXA TEMPERATURE (C) LT 5 0 (C) TIME REFERENCE AND SEASON Ephemoptera Zsonychia spp.2 10, spring 26 5-40 min Sherberger fall 30 et al., 1977 13, spring 32.5 Significant 16, spring 35 mortality 18, spring 34.5 (a=0.05)25, summer 31 after 1-7 18, fall 30, 34 days 10, fall 30, 33 Baetis tenax 2 10 21 24 hour Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Stenonema tripunctatum 1 10 25.5 96 hour Nebeker and Lembke, 1965 Ephemerella subvaria 2 10 21.5 96 hour Nebeker and Lembke, 1965 Trichoptera Hydropsyche spp. 2 16, fall 31, 35, 36 10-30 min Sherberger 21, fall 30, 38 et al., 1977 24, summer 38 Significant 20, spring 38 mortality (a=0.05)after 1-10 days Odonata Libellula sp.2 15 45 Lethal Tem- Martin and 25 43 perature at Gentry, 1974 25.5 47 10'C/min increase rate Boyeria vinosa 10 32.5 96 hour Nebeker and Lembke, 1968 Ophiogomphus 10 33 96 hour Nebeker and rupinsulensis Lembke, 1968 A-38 Table A-28. (Continued). TAXA ACCLIMATION LT (C) EXPOSURE REFERENCE TEMPERATURE (C) TIME I AND SEASON Plecoptera Isogenus 10 22.5 96 hour Nebeker and frontalis Lembke, 1968 Taeniopteryx 10 21 96 hour Nebeker and ma ura 1 Lembke, 1968 Hemiptera Notonecta glauca 25.5 44-46 Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Diptera Aedes spp. and 35-47 Altman and Anopheles spp. Dittn'er, 1966 Culex spp.Atherix 10 32 96 hour Nebeker and variegata 2 Lembke, 1968 Tanytarsus 17 29 96 hour Nebeker and brunnipes 2 Immediate Lembke, 1968 temperature rise-22 hour exposure Chironomus 17 34.5 96 hour Nebeker and riparius 2 Lembke, 1968 C. albimanus 2 17 35 96 hour Nebeker and Lembke, 1968 C. longistyl us 2 17 35.5 96 hour Nebeker and Lembke, 1968 Amphipoda Gammarus 2 27 30 min Ginr. t al., fasciatus 10 30 30 min L974 20 35 30 min 25 38 30 min A-39 Table A-28. (Continued). TAXA ACCLIMATION LT 5 0 (C) EXPOSURE REFERENCES TEMPERATURE (C) TIME AND SEASON Platyhelminthes Dugesia tigrinal 13 32-33 14 day Jensen et al.1969 D. dorotocephala 2 13 30-31 4 day Jensen et al.1969 iSpecies found near PINGP 2Genus found near PINGP.A-40 Table A-29. Macroinvertebrate thermal data.MAXIMUM OPTIMUM TAXA TEMPE RATURE TEMPERATURE REFERENCE TOLERATED (C) (C)Trichoptera Hydropsyche spp.2 38 27-29 Sherberger et al., 1977 41 Trembley, 1961 Macronemum spp.2 35 28 Robach, 1965 Ephemeroptera Stenonema spp.2 32 -Trembley, 1961 Pseudocloeon spp.2 40.7 Trembley, 1961 Diptera Simulium spp.2 41.5 Trembley, 1961 Chironomidae Chironomus attenuatus 2 32.8 -Curry, 1965 Cricotopus spp. (6)2 32.8-34 -Curry, 1965 Cryptochironomus digiratus2 30.0 -Curry, 1965 Glyptotendipes lobiferus 2 32.8 -Curry, 1965 Harnischia tenuicaudata 2 30.0 -Curry, 1965 Micropsectra dives 26.7 -Curry, 1965 Table A-29. (Continued). MAXIMUM OPTIMUM TAXA TEMP ERATURE TEMPERATURE REFERENCE TOLERATED (C) ( C)Chironomidae (cont.)Phaenopsectra jucundus 26.7 -Curry, 1965 Polypedilum fallax 2 32.8 -Curry, 1965 Procladius culiciformes 2 32.8 -Curry, 1965 Coleoptera Berosus spp.2 41 -Trembley, 1961 Odonata Argia spp.2 41 -Trembley, 1961 Trichoptera Agraylea spp.2 41 Trembley, 1961 Ephemeroptera Tricorythodes spp.2 Ephemerella sp.2 Isonychia sp.2 Heptagenia sp.2 32 30 30 28 Trembley, 1961 Trembley, 1961 Trembley, 1961 Trembley, 1961 Trichoptera Oxyethira so.A-42 Table A-29. (Continued). MAXIMUM OPTIMUM TAXA TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE REFERENCE TOLERATED (C) ( C)Trichoptera (cont.)Psychomyia sp.2 30 Trembley, 1961 Athripsodes sp.2 27 Trembley, 1961 Coleoptera Elmidae unidentified 30 Trembley, app3 1961 Diptera Empididae unidenti-30 Trembley, fied spp.3 1961 iSpecies found near PINGP 2Genus found near PINGP 3 Family found near PINGP A-43 Table A-30. Ranking of zooplankton abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1975 and 1976. Diversity and evenness indices are also presented. 1976 1975 ZOOPLANKTON FALL 1 SUMMER 2 SPRING 3 WINTER4 FALL SUMMER SPRING WINTER Ub 16 D7 U I D U I U I I D U I D U I D U I D U I D Rotatoria (Rotifers) Brachionus calycif1ozus 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 4- 3-B. urceolalis 2 2 2 2 Keratolla cochlealis 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 2 32 2 2 K. quadrata 3 3 3 22 Polyarthra sp. 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 Copepoda (Copepuds) Cyclops vernalis 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 Cladocera (Cladocerans) Bosmina longirustris 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 1 2 Chydorus ,ha 'us 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 --Shannon weaver Diversity 8 2.04 1.44 2.08 2.18 2.13 2.65 2.00 2.01 1.88 -2.33 Evenness Index9 .51 .37 .51 .56 .58 .68 .46 .44 .42 -.60 -Key: Abundance: I = 0.0170.09; 2 = 0.1-0.9; 3 = 1.0-9.9; 4 = 10-99; 5 = 100-999 org/i; -= no sample; blank indicates no organisms found IUsually near mid-October 2 Usually near mid-July 3 Usu;ally near mid-April'Usually near mid-January 51j upriver (usudlly near iOjU station 10)61 intake (usually near IDR station 12)7U -downriver (usually near HDRl station 21)8S.W. Diversity n i 013 Y. --I092 N--, where N is total number of all individuals of all taxa in sample, ni is number of individuals in the ith taxa, and s is the number of taxa in sample.Evenness (e) = d/ where d m~ is the maximum possible diversity for a given s = 10g2 s.d ma x, Table A-31. Summary of zooplankton thermal tolerances. ACCLIMATION EXPOSURE REFERENCE TAXA TEMPERATURE (C) LTs 0 (C) TIME Copepoda Diaptomus spp.1 1 28.4 30 min Kreuger, 1975 5 30.4 30 min 10 31.0 30 min 15 31.2 30 min 20 31 30 min Cyclops vernalisI 21 32.3 30 min Coker, 1934 27.5 35 30 min 35.5 40 30 min Cladocera Daphnia pulexi 44 30 sec Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Scapholeberis kingil Carlson, 1972;Simocephalus vetulusI 21 38-43 30 min Brown, 1929i Latanopsis occidentalis Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Macrothrix rosea 2 50 Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Moina macrocopa 2 -48 30 min Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Sida crystallina 1 -40 30 min Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Ciliophora Colpoda cucullus 21 40 2 min Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Paramecium caudatum 20 39 Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Rhizopoda Amoeba proteus -35.5-38.3 60 min Altman and Dittmer, 1966 iSpecies found near PINGP 2 Genus found near PINGP.A-45 0 Table A-32. Fa 19 P I1Y 10 LAN0l4 Aoi,ltridl in, cyilphl.ria i.4-iOi144I A19,5)Apl I. 04 ',I.. ...t4.ao-iq-s (i.- 4Ia11 i aoi.4, nking of phytoplankton abundances at three locations near PINGP during 1970 and 1974-76. Diversities, chlorophyll a concentrations, and productivity are also presented. 19476 1975 FALL'I 3 42. 4404 43'.58'544M~l4 5 2.3 SPR IK 2 3 3 5 3 42 W14 N'4'43Ri 25.65 42 4 ,i 4FA4L I 2 213 5 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 3-2 2 2 34 0544434 S PIK ING I1U421L5 32233 3 4 4 555 32 544420,4i.4,i Wr400r 040r1,i 4444'"2".34 2.25 1.33 1.53.4 2 2,.95 N. t &izodiioivity 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 S KY; L i.1-lPhill 2; 1 J-049. 9;3.3 2 -1(4-99; 3 -100-9997i 1111b N401 Vt4di4 ýV-4I4tjy .4 11.015-03.09; 3 -421-04.9 54.4 0 2/tl; --44 4i 1 4 AbinaiiiOiCi I 1 34.JS 2 1- l49'3 3 -100-999; 4 1 ,0i00-9,939;. li 10,000i-)99999 04qni -OO-t.4i -poo ..4.Foto Ito 00' 00 f-Iioi i'u-') ly l riii-iciii L.ii4 d--0 i od-Jo" S .W .it e i t 244 d3 vO4i~ j , h-,i~ Ni~ ii,,,, I-42 f .11iii Iii)1- ý fA 1 lli ~ dvi -ýi h i -4~~~~~~ Ii4~o IioUa44 ii.i 44r4 "xtL4J4 in4 Table A-33. Phytoplankton and periphyton thermal tolerances. TAXA TEMPERATURE WHERE OCCURRING (C) REFERENCE MINIMUM MAXIMUM Nitzschia tryblionella 1 11.5 25 Patrick, 1969 Diploneis oculata 21 30 Patrick, 1969 Amphora coffeaeformis 2 25 33 Patrick, 1969 Nitzschia filiformis 1 25 35 Patrick, 1969 Rhopalodea gibberula 25 36 Patrick, 1969 Navicula cinctal 25 40 Patrick, 1969 Oscillatoria tenuis' 29 44 Patrick, 1969 Pinnularia microstauroni 25 45 Patrick, 1969 Gomphonema parvulumI 25 45 Patrick, 1969 Lyngbya sp.2 25 48.2 Patrick, 1969 Euglena viridis 2 -35 Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Euglena gracilis 2 38-42(44) Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Chlamydomonas sp. 2 423 Hirayamo and Hirano, 1970 I Species found near PINGP.2 Genus found near PINGP.3 Completely inhibited photosynthesis in 10 min.A-47 Table A-34. Ranking of periphyton abundances at three locations near PINGP from 1972 through 1976.Diversity and pigment concentrations are also presented." " 1974 6 194.74-AA M4 `,1;44 5w I~ N, .1 AL. SMMH -4 .C-: ,1 ........... ...............-.-... ......4 hWIN 44 4 441 sn~ .5 4S 54-,~~~,ill= I4 I~ U ! I U 5} I IN 4 ~ 4 .s, u i ~ s r s u I2, I.,o.y. k-, 4 4 454 4 4 b ---.-*--..--------4---.--------- -1 ]S 4 -.: .--' 4 4 4 5 S 44 3!1 -4 44 4 -444;4*.fl1444. 4 .4 ' 4 3 ' 4 4 --3 3 4 .4 b 6 5 5 6 5 4 4 4 4'--- 44 -4 .4 5 b, 11. --4 4 4 6 6 (i4 5 44 5 44j,.., ,s. 4 4 4. -.4. 4

• 4 4 4 3, 4 5 5 -4 43 5 4. 3---5 , --3 4 4 b 5 6 ->4,4,,N4,<

i4,---V! 4 3.81 .2 3 T 41 4.i 4; 3.W 4 3.3 2.54 53. 71 3.5!,0 1.1S 2.35 314 3t .20 1,653.19 4.ti4 3.4537.ý4.- -- -.2. 444544 4 3 4 3 -j 1 3- 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 -3 34 -Ssy 4444ha 44lh¥.;; I -.44- .544; 33444-.,4; 4 I 4.91-0; 4 1045; 44 5,44p44;4h1or4,hyl4 , 41 J- , .; 3 ; -4. , I4 9 54j/444 -0 ,.4_9 4"'44.;;,,14y 4n4 44i 4-3544u.ry 4.1 -n;,s.kv (.4.4445 l ,y n4 44444 4.5.S644 13)4;-4,;do,rgrv.~r u.r4jt' tl5444,44!~l 274'.A" ..4 4 4 .4 4.4-]'U 1- 1 MIR N t5 Lla f a l Jt~i i u l +[ a l '1 I;lttl~~ tll~i ul iltlU i~ a a Table A-35. Periphyton thermal criteria.MAXIMUM OPTIMUM TAXA TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE REFERENCE FOR SURVIVAL (C) (C)Nitzchia tryblionella1 N. filiformis1 N. linearis 1 N. amphibia 1 N. acuta 1 N. sp.2 Navicula cinctal Pinnularia microstauron 1 Gomphonema parvulumr Asterionella formosa]Cocconeis scutellum 1 Cyclotella comtal C. meneghiana 1 Cymnbella sp.2 Melosira islandica 1 M. varians 1 M. italica 1 M. granulata' Stephanodiscus astraea1 Synedra acus'Diatoma vulgare var. producta Fragilaria intermedia 25 35 30 36 403 40 45 45 20 20 10 4 18 30 5 34-36 Schwabe, 1936 Schwabe, 1936 Wallace, 1955 Fogg and Reimer, 1962 Baker, 1977 Barker, 1935 Altman and Dittmer, 1966;Baker, 1977 Altman and Dittmer, 1966 Altman and Dittmer, 1966;Baker, 1977 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Baker, 1977 Fogg and Reimer, 1962 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Fogg and Reimer, 1962 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Stoermer and Ladewski, 1974 Baker, 1977 Baker, 1977 Baker, 1977 29 36 17 2.5 10 5 5 ISpecies found near PINGP.2 Genus found near PINGP.3 Photosynthetic rate irreversibly lowered.A-49 Table A-36.Dominant species comprising major beds of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation in the vicinity of PINGP.LOCATION NUMBER LOCATION Wisconsin Shore Immediately Upstream of Lock & Dam No. 3 Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton nodosus Potamogeton pectinatus Sagittaria spp.2 Refuge Outlet Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus 3 Barney's Point Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton pectinatus 4 Discharge Canal-Southwest Shore Potamogeton crispus Eleocharis ovata Eleocharis palustris Scirpus fluviatilis Scirpus validus Phragmites cormnunis 5 Between PINGP Intake and Discharge Areas Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton nodosus 5a Shoreline Between PINGP Intake and Discharge Areas Potamogeton pectinatus 6 Sturgeon Lake at Mouth of Buffalo Slough Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton natans Potamogeton nodosus Potamogeton pectinatus A-50 Table A-36. (Continued). LOCATION NUMBER LOCATION 7 Bay at Mouth of Buffalo Slough Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton nodosus Potamogeton pectinatus Sagittaria cuneata Sagittaria latifolia Scirpus fluviatilis Phragmites communis Sparganium eurycarpum Typha angustifolia Cyperaceae (unidentified) Zizania aquatica 8 Sturgeon Lake "Cut" Delta-East Half Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus 9 Sturgeon Lake "Cut" Delta-West Half Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton pectinatus 10 Side Channel of Sturgeon Lake "Cut" Vallisneria americana Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton nodosus 11 North Shore of Sturgeon Lake Sagittaria spp.Scirpus fiuviatilis Phragmites communis 12 East Shore of Brewer Lake Sagittaria spp.A-51 Table A-36. (Continued). LOCATION LOCATION NUMBER 13 West Shore of Brewer Lake Sagittaria spp.Scirpus fluviatilis Phragmites communis Al Intake Area, Outside of Skimmer Wall Potamogeton pectinatus A2 Bay Upstream of PINGP Intake Potamogeton pectinatus A3 Bay at End of the Long Island Separating Sturgeon Lake and the Main Channel Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus A4 Point on West Side of "Lab Bay" Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton crispus A5 Buffalo Slough Cyperaceae (unidentified) Polygonum sp.Eleocharis sp.Anacharis canadensis Ceratophyllum demersum A-52 Table A-37.Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical spring (May 1976) conditions (determined by computer planimetry). River temperature = 16.50 C (61.70 F) and river flow = 11,028 cfs.ABSOLUTE AT TEMPERATURE AREA (F)(C) (F) (ft 2) (m 2) (ha)18 26.5 80 19,412 1,083 0.1 15 24.8 77 51,058 4,743 0.5 12 23.1 74 117,740 10,938 1.1 10 22.0 72 206,750 19,207 1.9 9 21.5 71 275,766 25,619 2.6 8 20.9 70 364,257 33,840 3.4 6 19.8 68 638,574 54,324 5.4 5 19.2 67 779,430 72,409 7.2 4 18.7 66 1,159,270 107,696 10.8 2 17.6 64 2,187,072 203,179 20.3 Table A-38 Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical summer (August 1975) conditions (determined by computer planimetry). River temperature = 24.4 0 C (760 F)and river flow = 11,790 cfs.ABSOLUTE AT TEMPERATURE AREA (F)(C) (F) (ft 2) (m 2) (ha)12.5 31.3 88.5 16,194 1,504 0.2 10 30.0 86.0 97,854 9,091 0.9 9 29.4 85.0 156,313 14,522 1.5 7.5 28.5 83.5 292,051 27,132 2.7 5 27.2 81.0 714,288 66,357 6.6 4 26.6 80.0 1,030,128 95,699 9.6 3 26.1 79.0 1,529,365 142,078 14.2 A-53 Table A-39.Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for typical winter (December 1975) conditions (determined by com-puter planimetry). River temperature = 0.50 C (32.90 F) and river flow = 12,561 cfs.ABSOLUTE AREA AT TEMPERATURE (F)(C) (F) (ft2) (m 2) (ha)45 25.5 77.9 6,060 563 0.06 40 22.7 72.9 23,076 2,144 0.2 35 19.9 67.9 59,555 5,533 0.6 30 17.2 62.9 95,116 8,836 0.9 25 14.4 57.9 159,795 14,845 1.5 20 11.6 52.9 301,347 27,995 2.8 17 9.9 49.9 475,726 44,195 4.4 15 8.8 47.9 553,997 51,466 5.2 10 6.1 42.9 901,820 83,779 8.4 9 5.5 41.9 1,140,719 105,973 10.6 5 3.3 37.9 1,804,367 167,626 16.8 A-54 Table A-40.Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for winter (January)proposed extreme conditions (determined by com-puter planimetry). River temperature = 00 C (320 F) and river flow = 3,699 cfs.ABSOLUTE AREA AT TEMPERATURE (F)(C) (F) (ft 2) (m 2) (ha)50 27.8 82 8,902 827 0.08 45 25.0 77 31,835 2,958 0.3 40 22.2 72 59,567 5,534 0.6 35 19.4 67 95,658 8,887 0.9 30 16.7 62 165,667 15,391 1.5 25 13.9 57 305,022 28,337 2.8 20 11.1 52 561,199 52,135 5.2 15 8.3 47 921,918 85,646 8.6 10 5.6 42 1,648,929 153,186 15.3 9 5.0 41 1,720,787 159,861 16.0 A-55 Table A-41.Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for spring (May) pro-posed extreme conditions (determined by computer planimetry). River temperature =and river flow = 8,475 cfs.22.80 C (730 F)ABSOLUTE AT TEMPERATURE AREA (F)(C) (F) (ft 2) (m 2) (ha)12.5 29.7 85.5 50,151 4,659 0.5 10 28.3 83.0 174,145 16,178 1.6 9 27.8 81.0 281,460 26,148 2.6 7.5 26.9 80.5 516,518 47,985 4.8 5 25.6 78.0 1,180,507 109,669 11.0 3 24.4 76.0 2,230,161 207,182 20.7 Table A-42.Areas within various isotherms from the thermal plume model (Appendix I) for summer (August)proposed extreme conditions (determined by computer planimetry). River temperature =29.40 C (850 F) and river flow = 3,390 cfs.ABSOLUTE AT TEMPERATURE (F) (C) (F) (ft2) (m 2) (ha)6.5 33.0 91.5 54,454 5,059 0.5 6 32.8 91.0 188,154 17,480 1.8 5 32.2 90.0 670,391 62,279 6.2 4 31.7 89.0 1,280,753 118,982 11.9 3 31.1 88.0 1,919,618 178,333 17.8 A-56 Table A-43.Mean temperatures (C) at each discharge electrofishing study station. Surface and bottom temperatures at the beginning, middle, and end of each run were averaged (DNR, unpublished data).STATION DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 April 1976 17.6 13.9 14.6 13.9 16.7 13.1 13.1 28 April 1976 18.0 13.6 14.7 1.2.6 17.2 12.8 13.8 29 April 1976 18.7 14.2 14.2 13.3 16.9 13.2 13.1 6 May 1976 16.6 14.8 14.3 12.6 15.5 12.7 12.4 19 May 1976 22.0 23.2 21.3 19.5 20.3 21.9 19.0 1 June 1976 24.1 26.4 22.4 21.3 23.4 24.1 22.2 25 June 1976 24.5 25.8 24.1 22.5 24.9 24.7 22.2 22 July 1976 28.3 29.1 27.8 27.4 28.0 27.7 28.9 13 August 1976 28.3 28.0 27.3 26.6 27.2 27.1 27.4 19 August 1976 28.7 29.5 26.9 26.1 26.6 27.7 26.3 13 October 1976 19.5 19.0 18.8 15.3 19.3 19.9 14.9 19 November 1976 12.5 10.7 9.1 5.9 9.6 7.1 4.4 15 December 1976 10.4 9.9 9.9 NS 1 8.2 NS NS 2 February 1977 9.6 11.7 10.5 NS 9.7 7.5 NS 3 February 1977 12.6 6.7 7.6 NS 8.8 NS NS 25 April 1977 18.1 16.3 15.3 15.0 15.7 14.7 14.1 27 April 1977 19.3 17.7 18.7 15.9 18.1 15.9 15.6 3 May 1977 19.3 18.9 17.4 16.4 18.0 18.1 17.1 6 May 1977 21.4 22.4 19.6 18.7 19.2 20.2 19.8 12 July 1977 27.5 28.7 28.3 24.8 27.7 28.6 25.0 25 July 1977 29.8 29.4 29.5 26.0 28.1 28.7 26.1 29 August 1977 26.4 26.6 26.7 24.8 25.8 26.5 25.2 4 November 1977 16.3 16.6 12.3 9.2 15.3 10.8 9.5 14 November 1977 11.1 7.7 5.3 5.5 8.3 5.6 9.5 iNS = no sample because of ice cover.A-57 Table A-44. Catch per unit effort (fish/5 min. run) at each station for the discharge electrofishing study (DNR, unpublished data).DATE SPECIES STATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 Walleye 4 1 April White bass 1 1976 Channel catfish 2 Northern pike 1 Gizzard shad 15 2 Carp 2 1 1 10 1 .3 Emerald shiner 13 4 28 Walleye 6 2 April White bass 1 1976 Northern pike 1 Gizzard shad 1 1 4 Carp 2 1 6 2 Emerald shiner 32 10 1 12 31 Shorthead r-edhorse 1 29 Walleye 2 2 2 1 April White bass 1 1976 Channel catfish 1 Gizzard shad 1 9 1 Carp 3 1 13 1 3 Emerald shiner 57 2 1 3 Shorthead redhorse 1 6 Walleye 9 May White bass 1 1976 Gizzard shad 1 2 Carp 3 1 12 4 5 8 Emerald shiner 53 118 3 7 Shorthead redhorse i 19 Walleye 8 7 1 1 May White bass 1 1 1 1976 Gizzard shad 1 1 6 Carp 5 3 3 3 2 2 Emerald shiner 4 10 Shorthead redhorse 2 1 A-58 Table A-44. (Continued). STATION DATE SPECIES 1 3 4 5 6 7 I Walleye 4 3 1 2 June White bass 1 1976 Channel catfish 1 Gizzard shad 1 2 Carp 2 6 3 3 5 3 Emerald shiner 1 Shorthead redhorse 1 1 25 Walleye 1 June White bass 1 2 1976 Channel catfish 1 1 Gizzard shad 3 2 Carp 9 6 2 3 3 3 Black crappie 1 Emerald shiner 1 5 Shorthead redhorse 6 5 22 White bass 1 3 July Channel catfish 3 1976 Gizzard shad 2 1 2 1 13 Carp 5 3 8 2 11 Black crappie 1 Emerald shiner 1 Shorthead redhorse 2 13 Channel catfish 1 August Gizzard shad 1 1 1 1 1 1976 Carp 1 8 3 1 1 Shorthead redhorse 1 1 19 White bass 3 3 August Channel catfish 1 1976 Gizzard shad 2 6 3 4 Carp 3 5 1 3 Emerald shiner I Shorthead redhorse 1 A-59 Table A-44 (Continued). STATION DATE SPECIES 324 13 Walleye 5 2 October White bass 1 2 1 1976 Gizzard shad 22 25 11 3 14 23 29 Carp 1 8 5 1 1 Emerald shiner 1 3 Shorthead redhorse 1 19 Walleye 1 1 November White bass 7 8 7 1976 Gizzard shad 45 5 14 Carp 9 2 8 Emerald shiner 1 15 Walleye 1 December White bass 1 1 1976 Gizzard shad 1 17 NS1 377 NS NS Carp 17 1 1 2 2 White bass 7 1 1 1 February Gizzard shad NS 69 56 1977 Carp 46 27 8 2 Black crappie 2 3 Walleye February White bass 11 1 2 1977 Gizzard shad NS 132 NS NS Carp 31 1 Black crappie 1 25 walleye 2 April Gizzard shad 10 1 23 1977 Carp 1 14 1 1 Emerald shiner 11 1 1 13 27 Walleye 1 1 April White bass 1 1977 Gizzard shad 2 14 2 Carp 1 4 4 2 Emerald shiner 5 2 3 1 INS = no sample because of ice cover.A-60 Table A-44. (Continued). DATE SPECIES STATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Walleye 1 May Gizzard shad 4 1 1 4 6 1 1977 Carp 4 7 1 2 Emerald shiner 26 2 10 Shorthead redhorse 1 1 6 Walleye 1 May White bass 3 1977 Gizzard shad 10 9 5 Carp 2 1 11 6 6 2 Emerald shiner 12 1 6 12 White bass 2 1 9 July- Gizzard shad 1 13 6 9 24 1977 Carp 1 1 1 1 1 Emerald shiner 1 4 Shorthead redhorse 1 25 White bass 2 1 1 1 5 July Gizzard shad 9 1 3 7 6 1977 Carp 2 3 2 2 3 Black crappie 2 Emerald shiner 1 Shorthead redhorse 1 1 29 White Bass 1 1 August Gizzard shad 9 5 2 13 1977 Carp 2 2 6 1 1 Shorthead Redhorse 1 1 4 Walleye 9 November White bass 3 1977 Gizzard shad 40 27 NS 11 1 Carp 1 Emerald shiner 1 14 Walleye 1 November Gizzard shad 15 1977 Carp 5 Black crappie 1 1 A-61 Table A-45. Constants for the time-temperature equation log time = a+ b(T) for the RIS (Brungs and Jones, 1977).ACCLIMATION DATA LIMITS SPECIES TM.C) ab UPRDATA SOURCE TEMP. (C) UPPER LOWER 26 34.7119 -0.8816 39.0 36.6 30 32.1736 -0.7811 40.6 37.4 34 26.4204 -0.6149 42.0 38.0 Allen and Strawn, 25 34.5554 -0.8854 37.5 35.5 1968 Channel Catfish 30 17.7125 -0.4058 40.0 37.5 35 28.3031 -0.6554 41.0 38.0 15 34.7829 -1.0637 31.5 30.5 20 39.4967 -1.1234 34.0 33.0 Hart, 1952 25 46.2155 -1.2899 35.0 34.0 25 17.3066 -0.4523 34.5 32.5 Northern Pike 27.5 17.4439 -0.4490 35.0 33.0 Scott, 1964 30.0 17.0961 -0.4319 35.5 33.5 25 47.1163 -1.3010 35.5 34.5 30 38.0658 -0.9694 38.0 36.5 35 31.5434 -0.7710 39.0 37.0 Gizzard Shad Hart, 1952 25 32.1348 -0.8698 35.5 35.0 30 41.1030 -1.0547 38.0 36.5 35 33.2846 -0.8176 39.0 36.5 5 20.9532 -0.7959 24.5 23.5 10 36.5023 -1.2736 27.5 27.0 Emerald Shiner 15 47.4849 -1.5441 30.5 29.5 Hart, 1947 20 33.4714 -0.9858 32.5 31.5 25 26.7096 -0.7337 34.0 31.5 5 33.6957 -1.1797 27.5 27.0 10 18.9890 -0.6410 29.0 28.0 White Sucker 15 31.9007 -1.0034 30.0 29.5 Hart, 1947 20 27.0023 -0.8068 31.5 30.0 25 22.2209 -0.6277 32.5 29.5 A-62 Table A-46.Data used in chi-square analysis. Total number of each RIS collected in the immediate discharge (Runs 1+5), far discharge (Runs 2+3), and intake or control (Runs 4+7), during the period April 1976 through November 1977 (DNR, unpublished data).SPECIES STATION SPRING 1 SUMMER 1 FALL1 WINTER 1 Walleye 1 & 5 37 4 16 0 2 & 3 12 5 3 1 4 & 7 2 0 0 ND 2 White Bass 1 & 5 1 5 8 22 2 & 3 6 9 15 4 4 & 7 2 23 3 ND Gizzard Shad 1 & 5 84 18 161 579 2 & 3 31 45 41 17 4 & 7 4 75 33 ND Carp 1 & 5 24 21 16 99 2 & 3 83 58 23 37 4 & 7 50 41 2 ND Emerald Shiner 1 & 5 267 3 0 0 2 & 3 203 6 1 0 4 & 7 75 5 5 ND Shorthead 1 & 5 1 1 1 0 Redhorse 2 & 3 6 2 0 0 4 & 7 4 19 0 ND iSeasons are defined by spring = 5 to 210 C Summer = > 210 C Fall = 21 to 51 C Winter = < 50 C 2 No data.ambient river temperature as: A-63 36 ACCLIMATION T 30.0 27.5 4 25.0 G.35 F G 34 D I-LU LU 33 C, LU 32 I-I I I I .I .I I i i I I i i 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800 1000 2000 RESISTANCE TIME (MIN)547P-13 Figure A-i. Median resistance times (time to 50 percent mortality) for juvenile northern pike acclimated to 25' 27.5', and 30'C (adapted from Scott, 1964). C-, wL!-U, 5 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 RESISTANCE TIME (MIN)547P-14 Figure A-2.Median resistance times (time to 50 percent mortality) for juvenile channel catfish from state fish hatcheries in Lonoke (open symbols) and Centerton (closed symbols), Arkansas at acclimation temperatures of 250 to 350 C (adapted from Allen and Strawn, 1968).0 39 1-0 *0 *t 3 37 X cc w CL 30 0 35 ACCLIMATION T 25 33 I I I , I I I I , II I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I l I 10 50 100 500 RESISTANCE TIME (MIN)1000 5000 547P-15 Figure A-3.Median resistance times (time to 50 percent mortality) of gizzard shad from Put-in-Bay, Ohio (closed symbols) and Knoxville, Tennessee (open symbols), for fish acclimated to 25', 300, and 35 0 C (adapted from Hart, 1952). 20 3O= 28 26 24 22 201 32 28 24 0 20 e 16 4 0 Figure A-4.RESISTANCE TIME (MINI 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURE (CI A. Median resistance times (time to 50 percent mortality) for emerald shiners acclimated to temperatures from 5 0 to 2502 (adapted from Hart, 1947).B. Median thermal tolerance polygon for emerald shiners.The dashed lines represent 10 percent (outer) and 90 per-cent (inner) survival (adapted from Hart, 1947). 36.132< 30~2832 3oA ACCLIMATION T 25 20 .10..I , .I , I ..., , , , , , , , , 24 32.1 .1 5 10 50 1011 21S 500 1000 5400 5 1 U 5s 100 RESISTANCE TIME WMIN)500 IWO0 5000 321 0: 16 20 24 ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURE (C)Figure A-5.A. Median resistance times (time to 50 percent mortality) for white suckers acclimated to temperatures from 5*to 25'C (adapted from Hart, 1947).B. Median thermal tolerance polygon for the white sucker (adapted from Hart, 1947). 60 LEGEND 130 -AHTHROPODA INSECTA EPI4EMEROPTEHA 120 -50 0 ..-.l N .l I tI:I .,'I:k ,:I.~~~I'RI'1 ,V( IA1 1, 31"J 11}0 E) }lH 'Il 40 TRICHOPTERA 00 ......... .) t s+ PLEC0!'TERA 90 1 0 LDWNAOA CrAVERACE Ut.OWOOUVVN ) W ./il( I --0' LU 80 --, / \'{IJIUAI (JA. (.'.>t 1 '30 " 1.1"l\0- -15/ I It lll#llt IX I*l';.l, 50 --.//F\\ \ N 0 AMPH'I P ',O.A/ PLAIDHE MI NTH'.80 -JAN FEB MAH APR MAY JUN JUL AUO SEP OCT NOV !)EC MOE/Il M/. 9 Figure A-6. Thermal tolerances of macroinvertebrates collected near PINGP (from Table A-28).0 0 60 130 55 50 120 -45 10 iLEGEND V 40 COPEPODA 300 0 -. a f 1 a"'N Spi -t I I' I IA AN .if. I.S,- --ACLADOCERA ,u 90 ... ra* I ' I V.t 3AVERAGE BLOW OWN SIII(,/I./Ji/j/is AI/Al\/:I 1EMPERATLIRE " 30 f- tumNi/l P/d 1.1/1/s 80-<rj..o 70 -H *sa Ni/ l sra I N .ifi~20 CiLIOPHORA A ( 0/ Pi00, I CI .1. U/S 60 1 -5 V "-IRA Vl~f'IA~ aa*i RHIZOPODA 50 * .1104/ I-foll, I sR/ 111"N ,9F 40 30 AMBIeNT 30 ..J 2 iL O H R JAN FEB MAR APH MAY JUN JU L AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 547P .ill-Figure A-7. iliermal tolerances for zooplankton collected near PINGP (information derived from Table A-31). 140 30 120 -. 50 V+*rA 45 0 -- (0 40 LEGEND 100 0 I I I R II.W.\'1'I. 1..1 (D0 35 VI s111¢.1 ( 1 .41 I114. I ll" 90 Nu --- I. l. l4lwk AVERAGE BLOWDOWN TEMPERATURE .) 3 c ) i 4 w,1...\ I I441 1is--(1) 110~(D 0 /0-41-01 11"Hut 1,"I I X 180 .-4 .\: ,I ( IN( V I 20 a- (I t, I4.1l '4M114 V. S 4 .1 ./0 20 1 ( 4. I 1:. 4,A'V 'I.N \' I4.4 4.I II 4II(41 ,41I4II Ro4.\410 -X ;/.., .I.I Sp 50 /0 ao -...,s -, 3 -A MBIE NT0 JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 547P-80-4 Figure A-8. Thermal tolerances of phytoplankton collected near PINGP, 1969 through 1976 (information derived from Table A-33). APPENDIX B DETAILS OF NON-FISHERIES STATISTICAL ANALYSES LIST OF TABLES Table APPENDIX B Page Details of Non-Fisheries Statistical Analyses B-i. Table summarizing statistical analysis of the data B-2 B-2. Statistical power calculations for the analysis of variance. B-10 B-3a. Phytoplankton densities for 1973 B-15 B-3b. Phytoplankton densities for 1974 B-16 B-3c. Phytoplankton densities for 1975 B-17 B-3d. Phytoplankton densities for 1976 B-18 B-4. Phytoplankton density (Log transformed), 1975-76 B-19 B-5. Phytoplankton density (Log transformed), 1975-76 B-20 B-6. Phytoplankton Type I productivity B-21 B-7. Phytoplankton Biovolume (mg/liter) B-22 B-8. Phytoplankton production: Chlorophyll a (ppb) B-23 B-9. Phytoplankton-species diversity B-24 B-10. Phytoplankton: Type III productivity analysis (P=PSg-R)in ppm 0 2/hr for intake and discharge (1976) B-25 B-lla. Periphyton density, 1976 B-26 B-llb. Periphyton density (1975) B-27 B-12a. Periphyton chlorophyll a concentration (1976) B-28 B-12b. Periphyton chlorophyll a concentration (1975) B-29 B-13a. Periphytonc-phaeophytin a concentration (1976) B-30 B-13b. Periphyton-phaeophytin a concentration (1975) B-31 B-14. Periphyton-species diversity B-32 B-15a. Zooplankton-total densities for 1975 B-33 B-15b. Zooplankton-total densities for 1976 B-33 B-16. Zooplankton total density (Log transformed) 1975-76 B-34 B-17. Zooplankton total density (Log transformed) 1975-76 B-35 Table B-18. Zooplankton: Rotifer density (Log transformed), 1975-76 B-19. Zooplankton: Rotifer density (Log transformed), 1975-76 B-20 Zooplankton: Crustacea density (Log transformed) 1975-76 B-21 Zooplankton: Crustacea density (Log transformed) 1975-76 B-22. Zooplankton-species diversity B-23a. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Petersen dredge methods (1975)B-23b. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Petersen dredge methods (1976)B-23c. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Petersen dredge methods (1977)B-24. Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by dredge methods, 1975-76 B-25. Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by dredge methods, 1975-76 B-26a. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by.artificial substrate method (1975)B-26b. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by artificial substrate sampler (1976)B-26c. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Hester Dendy multiplate sampler (1977)B-27. Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by artificial substrate methods, May-Oct, 1975-76 B-28. Macroinvertebrate diversity (dredge)B-29. Macroinvertebrate diversity (artificial substrates). B-30. Data used in stepwise regression I biological variables HDR Station 46 for 1975 B-31. II Water quality variables B-32. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), Sturgeon Lake, HDR Station No. 6 (1976)B-33. II Environmental variables (water quality)Page B-36 B-37 B-38 B-39 B-40 B-41 B-42 B-43 B-44 B-45 B-46 B-47 B-48 B-49 B-50 3-5I B-52 B-53 B-55 B-56 ii Table Page B-34. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 9 and 10 (1976) B-58 B-35. II Environmental variables (water quality)HDR Stations 9 and 10, 1976 B-59 B-36. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 12, 13, and 14 (1975). B-61 B-37. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 12, 13, and 14 for 1975 B-62 B-38. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 12, 13, and 14 (1976) B-64 B-39. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 12, 13, and o4 (intake) for 1976 B-65 B-40. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 19, 20, and 21 (1975). B-67 B-41. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 19, 20, and 21, for 1975 B-68 B-42. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 19, 20, and 21 (1976) B-70 B-43. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 19, 20, and 21, for 1976 B-71 B-44. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station*No. 27, 1976) B-73 B-45. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Station 27, for 1976 B-74 COMPUTER PRINTOUTS B-76 iii Introduction This appendix presents raw data and the statistical methods of the reanalyses that were used in determining PINGP discharge impacts upon non-fisheries biota. The raw data were taken from 1973-1976 Annual Reports and unpublished reports for 1977 of the Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP). Station and month code numbers were substituted for HDR station numbers and months (as shown in the appropriate raw data tables).The statistical analyses were done using: (a) the Biomedical Computer Programs (BMDP), edited by W. J. Dixon, (b) the Statistical Analysis System (SAS-76), developed by Barr et al., and (c) the General Statistics Pac, by Hewlett Packard. A complete listing of the various statistical analyses used is given in Table 1, and a brief description is given below.Treatment of Missing Values Most of the variables had several missing values and this was a major problem in the statistical analysis. A missing value in the data was represented by a decimal point in the SAS-76 programs, whereas a missing value code of -1.0 was used for the BMDP programs. The SAS-76 programs handle missing values by omitting them in calculating the result (Barr et al., 1976). In the BMDP package, some programs such as Stepwise Regression, t-Test, T 2 Routine, and Frequency Count Routine, complete the analysis using the remaining variables for that case; other programs omit the entire case (Dixon, 1975). To the extent possible, programs utilizing maximum available data were used.B-1 Table B-I. fable summarizing statistical analysis of the data.I3 DATA USED 13RIEF DESCRIPTION PARAMEthS fOROF STATISTICAL REFERENCES PAUE YEARS PROCEDURES USED NIIMI3ER RPE PL ICATES 1. All complete data sets 6, 10, 12, 1975- -Histogram plots and BMDP2D (Frequency Dixon, W. J., ed., for phytoplankton 18, 21, 25, 1976 general data des- Count Routine) of 1975. BNDP: Bio-density, 2,:ooplankton 27 cription for real the BioMedical medical Computer Pro-density, Macroinverte-nuitbers which showed Computer Programs grams, Los Angeles, 77 brate (drtedye) and that the data was CA, Univ. Calif.Macroinvertebrare not norrmally distri- Press (artificial slbStra t) buted d- i Lies, 2. saue as adove using The log transforma-BMDP2D (Frequency Dixon, 1975 log trnnuformod data tion of the data Count Routine) of which showed a more the BioMedical 81 norlal distribution Computer Programs 3.PytcL'1aekto)t[ ity 6, 9, 14, (9"3-'6 2 obs/month Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure Of Barr, A. J. et al., (Nu/mI). 19, 27 Variance or, log the SAS-76 Package 1976. A User's Guide transformed data and to SAS-76 and SAS 85 Duncan's Multiple Supplemrcntail Library Ralge Test User's t;uide, Raleigh, NC, SAS Institute.

4. Phytuplunktoa Density 6, 9, 14, Preop= 2 obs/imonth Crossed and Nested GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et a8., (N.,/11).

19, 27 1973 Factor Analysis using the SAS-76 Package 1976 0p, log- trans formed 1975-76 preoperational data 95 (1973) and opera-tional data (1975-76)5. l'hytoplankton t(nsity intake (14) May to Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, (No./el) .and Oct log tralisfurmud General Statistics 1975 discharge 1975-76 data Package 19 (19)6. Phytopiunkton Density Io, 27 May to Paired t-Test on Hewlett-l'ackdrd llewlett-Packard, (No./ml). Oct log transformed General Statistics 1975 20 1975-76 data Package 7. phytoplankton 1,, 9, 14, Mar-July 2 obs/month TwO-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al..I/iovoluec (mg/I) 19, 27 1976 and Variance using real the SAS-76 Package 1976 May-Oct numbers and Duncan's 105 1975 multiple Range Test 8. Phytoplanktun Intake (14) May-Oct 22 obs/ Paired t-Test Hewlett-Packard Hlewlett-Packard, Productioln: Chlor- Discharge 1975 sample Gcneral Statistics 1975 23 ophyl .(1,pb) (19) Package 9. Phytoplankton Type I b, 10, 14, Apr-Nov 3 obs/month Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. ut al., Productivity (ppm 19, 27 -1976 for Stuis 6, Variance using real SAS-76 197b O.2/hr.) May-Oct 10 and 1 oh/ numbers and Duncan's ill 1975 month for 14, Multiple Range Test 19, and 27 0 Table B-I. (Continued). w 0)2 DATA USED BRIEF DESCRIPTION PARAMETER HlU STATION NUMBER OF OF STATISTICAL COMPUTER PROGRAM REFERENCES PAGE NUMBERS YEARS NMERLICAS O PROCEDURES USED USED 10. Phytoplankton 'ype fII1 Int.ake (14) 9 days 4/day IWO-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., Productivity (ppm Discharge in Fall Variance using real SAS-76 1976 O,/hr.) (19) 1976 numbers and Duncan's 118 Multiple Rflange Test Il. Phytoplankton Spocies 6, 9, 14, Mar-July 2 obs/,noth 'Ido-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., Diversity (Shannon-19, 27 1976 and Variance using real SAS-76 1976 Weaver Index) May-Oct numbers and Louican's 125 1975 Multiple Range Iest 12. Periphyton total 13, 2o, 25 1975--75 2 obs/nonth Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A, J. et al., abundanrs, (un./Am) Variance asd SAS-76 1976s Multiple 131 Range (Vst on 109 transformed data I 1. Periphyton ProdUctivity: 13, 20, 25 1975-76 2 obs/month Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. ot al., Chlorophyll a Variance and of SAS-76 1976 Duncan's Multiple 138 Range 14. Periphyton Prodnctivity: 13, 20, 25 1975-76 2 obs/month Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., a Variance and SAS-76 1976 Duncan's Multiple 145 Vainge Test 15. Periphyton: Spocies 13, 20, 25 1975-76 2 obs/nonth Tw1o-way Analysis of CLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., 0iversity (Ilanson-Variance and SAS-76 1976 Weaver Index) Duncan's Multiple 152 Range Twst 16. Zooplaihton total 6, 10, 12, ]975-76 1 obs/month 'i(o-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., density (Io/nI.) 18, 21, 25 Variance on log SAS-76 1976 27 transformed data and 158 Duncan's Multiple Range ist 17. Zuollarnkton Total Intake May-Oct Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, Density (no./ml) (12) and 1975-76 log transformed data General Statistics 1975 34 Discharge Package (21)l8. Zooplankton Total i0 and 27 May-Oct Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, 35 DocSity (no./ml) 1975-76 log transformed data General Statistics 1975 Package 19. Zooplankton; Router lintake May-Oct Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, Density (no./ml) (12) and 1975-76 log transformed data General Statistics 1975 36 Discharge Package (21) Table B-I. (Continued). DATA USED BRIEF DESCRIPTION COMPUTER PROGRAM PARAME'tER NDR STATION RI NUMBER OF OF STATISTICAL USED REFERENCES PAGE NUMBERS REPLICATES PROCEDURES USED 20. Zooplailktoi: Rotifer to and 27 May-Oct -Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, Density (no/mI) 1975-76 log transformed General Statistics 1975 37 data Package 21. zoplarkLon: Cresta-ea Intake (12 MRy-Oct -Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, enSity (0e./ni]) and 1975-7b lug transformed Generdl Statistics 1975 38 Discharge data Package (21)22. Zooplankton: Crustacea 10 and 27 May-Oct -Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard,[ensity (no./isl) 1975-76 log transformed General Statistics 1.975 39 data Package 23. Ze,,planikt-i Species 6, 10, 12 1975-76 1/month Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., Diversity (Shano-n-18, 21, 25 Variance using real SAS-76 1976 164 Weaver tluex) 27 numbers and Duncan's Multiple Range Test 24. Macroinvertebrate total 6, 101, 12, Mar-Dec I/montih Two-way Analysis of GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., density; collected bl 18, 21, 25 1975 anC Variance on log SAS-76 1976 dredge methods (,io./s) 27 1976 transformed data 170 and Duncan's Multiple Range Test 25. Ntacrcirivertebrate Intake 712 MRy-Oct -Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, Dienasl y (dredge) a4d 1975-76 log transformed General statistics 1975 discharge data Package 44 (21)26. Mjacrouiivextbrateu Intake (12 May-4)ct -Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard flewlett-Packard, Gensity (diedgu) and 1975-76 log transformed General statistics 1975 di scharge data Package (21)27. lbcroiivertibraete 6, I0, 12, Jan, Feb, 1 ob/month Two-way Analysis of GI.M Procedure of (dredrge): ipecies 18, 21, 25 Apr, May, Variance and SAS-76 Barr, A. J. et al., 175 diversity (Shianrioi Jun, Aug, Duncan's Multiple 1976 Weaver Inideu) Sept,Nuv, Range Test Dec 1976 and Mar, July, Sept,Oct, Dcc 1975 W 28. Macroinvertebrates total densiry;collected by Artificial Substrate Methods (no.1/i 2)6, 10, 12, 1e, 21, 25 Feb-Dec 1975 Feb-Nov 1976 I ob/motnth Wo-way Analysis of Variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test GLM Procedure of Barr, A. j. et al., SAS-76 1976 179_______________ 1~ -I I. ________ Table B-i. (Continued). P ARAM ETJE B _________ DA'~TA USED BRIEF DESCRIPTION COMPTER PROGRAM 1IDR STATION NUMBER OF OF STATISTICAL REFERENCES PAGE NUMBERS EARS REPLICATES PROCEDURES USED USED 29. Macruinvertebrate Intake (12) May-Oct Paired t-Test on Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard, DoeJity (artificial and 1975-76 log transformed General Statis- 1975 49 sub trantes) Discharge data tics Package (21)30. Macroinvýrtebrate 6, 10, 12, June-Dec I ob/month Two-way Analysis GLM Procedure of Barr, A. J. et al., (artificial sob- 18, 21, 25 1976 of Variance and SAS-76 1976 strates): Specics July-Dec Duncan's Multiple 184 diversilty (Shalnnon 1975 Range Test Weaver Index)31. biological variables: 6, 9, 14, 1975-76 Stepwise multiple BMDP2R; Step- Barr, A. J. et al., Phytoplankton 19, 27 regression wise Regression 1976analysis for each Zooplankton 1),usity, b, 10, 12, log transformed Rotifera D nsi ty 18, 21, biological 25, 27 variables with selected water quality variables. crustacea 6, 10, 12, Phytoplankton with Macroinvertebrate 18, 21, surface water (dredge) and Macro- 25 quality values, 189 invertebrate (Art. zooplankLon, Sub.) densities Rotifera, and with Orthcphospliate, Crustacea with filterabl. residnes, averages of top ammonia, nitrite, and bottom values.nitrate, diss. 02 Macroinvertebrate (dredge) with bottom values.Macroinvertebrate (art. Sub.) top values. Logarithmic Transformation It has been customary in dealing with data on biological densities to apply the logarithmic transformation to the observations (Barnes, 1972).This has the effect of reducing nonnormality and stabilizing the variance thus satisfying two of the basic assumptions of the analysis of variance (Scheffe, 1959). A comparison of the histogram plots of the original data as well as the transformed data was done on some of the variables to further check visually that the transformed data is more nearly normal.Since several of the observations had values of zero, and log of zero is undefined, the logarithm of 1 plus the observation was used instead (Barnes, 1972). This has the effect of replacing a zero value with a zero and a missing value (-1.0) by a missing value (Dixon, 1975).Two-way Analysis of Variance This was used to test for differences between the effects of the various (s) stations and the various (m) months (or dates). Each observa-tion (Y) is classified by two characteristics, the (i th) station (i = 1,...,s) and the (j th) month (j = !_...,m) (or date) that it was measured. The usual linear model can be written as: Y,. u+ a. + 3. + e,.When there are replicates, as we considered them in the case of phytoplank-ton where density measurements were taken twice a month, the model involv-ing interaction was used, namely, Y.. = + a. + 3. + (cB) .+ e..wne re Y. = observation at the i station in the j month u = general mean* th A = effect due to i station, i 1...s 1 5. = effect due to jth month, j =1...B-6 (ae) .= interaction 1J e. = error To compare the station effects, we formulate the null hypothesis H 0: CL 1 = a2 ....which says that the stations are not different. To test the hypothesis H 0 against the alternative hypothesis which says at least two of these a values are different, the two-way analysis of variance was used. Similar null and alternate hypotheses are formulated for the month (or date)effects ý or the interaction effects. The computer printout gives us the value of the test statistic F and the probability (P-value) that the computed F-value is exceeded under the null hypothesis. If this P-value is < a (where a is a preassigned level of significance), then the null hypothesis should be rejected. If it is > a then we do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equality of the effects.For example, the two-way analysis of variance for phytoplankton biovolume gives a station P-value of 0.3625 (see printout No. 7, pg. B-l18.This implies that there is a 36 percent chance that the null hypothesis is correct. Since the level of significance is commonly set at a = 0.05, and the observed P-value is much larger than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis, which is that the mean biovolumes at the seven stations tested are not significantly different. Duncan's Multiple Range Test was done in each case to group stations that were alike (i.e., with means that were not significantly distinguished) into subgroups. Statistical Power Analysis for the Analysis of Variance Analysis of variance, as explained above, is a procedure for detect-ing significant differences in the time means of the populations being considered. Just as there is a possibility of rejecting a correct null hypothesis (the so-called Type I Error), there is a chance of accepting a null hypothesis that is incorrect (the so-called Type II Error), i.e., concluding that the means are not different even when they are. We control the former error by choosing a small level of significance a, which in our analysis was taken to be the usual 0.05. The other error though equally important is often not considered in most statistical analyses since one often uses test procedures that minimize the latter risk. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to ask how much Type II Error is involved in the particular procedure or equivalently how likely our test procedure is in detecting significant differences in the means when they are indeed present. This probability of detecting significant dif-ferences when present is often referred to as the "power" of the test and depends on the: (a) sample sizes involved (power increases with sample size), (b) level of significance a for the test (power increases with M), and (c) size of the differences (called "effect size") in the true mean values. The last of these components is related to the heuristic idea that the population means that are close to each other are more difficult to distinguish from the null hypothesis of equality than the means that are very far from equal. A more detailed discussion of some of these concepts is given in Cohen (1977).Effect size is indicated by an index "f" which is a measure of how different the true means are (under the null hypothesis f E 0). In view of the absence of any specific information as to the alternative, we use the conventional levels proposed by Cohen (1977, j8.2.3).f = .10 for small variability f = .25 for medium variability f = .40 for large variability To calculate the power of the procedure we need, f = effect sizes a =,level of significance of the test k = number of populations being compared u=k- 1 n' = number of observations taken from each population adjusted using the formula: B-8 = (error degrees of freedom in F-statistic n = (k 1. 1/The results of the power analysis are presented in Table 2. For example, for the first variable, phytoplankton density, analysis of variance was done using five stations. When comparing station means: k = 5; u = (k- 1) = 4; and using the error degrees of freedom given in 123 computer printout No. 3, page B-85, n' = -12 + 1 = 25; and a = 0.05.Using the power tables in Cohen (1977) for the three effect sizes, f = 0.10, 0.25, and 0.40, the probability of detecting a small, medium, or large variability in the station means is 0.12, 0.60, and 0.96 res-pectively. Thus, there is a poor chance of detecting small differences in the station means, a fair chance of detecting medium differences, and an excellent chance of finding large differences. t-Tests To confirm and clarify the results of the two-way analysis of vari-ance procedures, single variable paired t-Tests were used. The idea of a multivariate test, such as the Hotelling's T 2 was abandoned because of scanty data. A paired t-Test was considered appropriate as the measure-ments from the stations were taken on the same day and the data sets may be considered to be related. Two pairs of stations were chosen for com-parison. The nearfield stations compared were the intake (HDR Station No. 14) and the discharge (HDR Station No. 19). The farfield stations were one upriver station (HDR Station No. 10) and one downriver station (HDR Station No. 27). The biological variables used were densities of phytoplankton, zooplankton, rotifera, crustacea, macroinvertebrates (col-lected by dredge methods), macroinvertebrates (collected by artificial substrate methods), and phytoplankton production, measured as chlorophyll a.The last was included because data for this parameter were available for intake and discharge stations only and a two-way analysis of variance was irrelevant. A usable data set with no missing values (May to October, 1975 to 1976) was selected for all the t-Tests.B-9 Table B-2. Statistical power calculations for the analysis of variance.:IE-REE_ !T..iBE1z rnTAL CR~- JF ' L 7 5 IUNI.7LL :ADIM 5 Error- L 2. nytoplanknon lAg P t3nnrt:r~nsse and 4ot4 Ina- ,~~ 'e~ar-o U Mon d U S. Pinvropior 4ron rye)9'i 'r Ione. al 24lS .3 (U Ii '2., nolakiorSraror Error3 0 7'tool~nk'nXr nra a Soncien 2trnrsvtvl MontO Error 1.0 3. I.50 II-(Log)Mon tha Error 32 w? ahvcon Station 2 1ý 31 D.T C7Irop'ynll .i 2j 32 Peri: y~on (Spocino S t.tion 1 *i-5 Ov'r.x L,)a Mon jtLS 1 plnttat ionI Lnn'. og MonO Il ýfr.,r 2jI 1I. !o:;IaLank a a3 ttn~o Drninc I4 3St'ti 3.o 3A Error l1t I 7 "1" ------Stat I I n I y Ero IS .:-Oorot-.n---on --.A a )C 1)3 It A. S Station [Mon h *i 1 3 I 0 B-10 Stepwise Regression This was done to study the relationship between each biological variable (dependent variable, y) with all the water quality variables (independent variables, x.). The water quality measurements were taken for both surface (top) as well as bottom so appropriate values were used for each log transformed biotic variable. For phytoplankton density (dependent variable), the surface water quality values were used as independent variables, while for zooplankton, rotifera, and crustacea densities, the average of top and bottom values were used. Macroinverte-brate density (collected by dredge methods) was paired with the bottom values while macroinvertebrate density (by artificial substrates) was paired with top values. The regression model can be written as Y 0 + IX(1)j + i.. + X (i)j +with i = 1,...,p for each j = 1,...,n, where 8 is constant, £ is the th error, Y is the j observed value of the dependent variable, and x is the jth observed value of the ith independent variable. The objective, then, of the selection procedures in the regression analysis is to deter-mine the "best" subset of the p independent variables which yields a model of the form: Yj = 0 + y 1X(1)j + Y2X(2)j + --- + YiX(i)j + E with i = 1,...,q for each j = 1,... ,n, where y and c are constants, and the independent variables X. = 1 to q are a subset of the original 1 set of X. where i = 1 to p.The "best" q independent variables selected from the p original variables may be determined in several ways, the most popular being the stepwise regression procedure. This procedure starts with no independent variables in the equation. The first variable added to the regression is the one most highly correlated (linearly) with the dependent variable.In addition, the correlation coefficient and its associated F statistic must be statistically significant at a predetermined probability level, such as a < 0.05. The second step in the analysis is to select a second B-11 independent variable, is any of the remaining variables have an F larger than the F value specified. This procedure chooses the independent variable which is most correlated to the dependent variable, given that the variable included in step one is in the model. Moreover, the step-wise procedure "looks back" to see if any of the independent variables interact; for instance, the addition of one X. might reduce the importance 1 of another X. to the point where it should be deleted. Hence, the step-1 wise procedure may add or delete variables at any step rather than just add variables. The stepwise procedure continues in this manner until either no further X. values require entry or deletion from the equation, 1 all variables are included in the equation, or the "tolerance values" for the remaining significant independent variables are less than a pre-determined level. The R 2 values (coefficients of determination) obtained in the analyses indicate the fraction of the variability in the dependent parameter (Y) that is "explained" by the selected independent variables (X). For instance, an R2 of 1.00 indicates that all Y variation is explained, whereas an R 2 of 0.00 indicates that none is explained. B-12 RAW DATA TABLES*(Tables 3-45)*Except Tables 4, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 27 which also include computer printout.B-13 Table B-3a. Phytoplankton densities for 1973.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 9 19 27 STATION CODE1 1 2 4 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY PER ml March 12 846 821 -826 March 26 2,868 1,729 -2,790 April 16 -41,205 5- 5,725 April 30 32,250 -- 40,650 May 14 21,375 24,450 --May 28 8,625 9,465 17,588 8,145 June 11 11,175 5,925 13,620 6,990 June 25 7,755 6,945 11,040 5,790 July 9 8,880 4,800 9,180 5,250 July 23 15,780 10,755 27,600 8,020 8 August 6 15,000 4,407 23,730 8,450 August 27 7,770 9,690 12,690 5,100 September 10 10,560 5,640 22,590 6,300 September 24 16,890 6,030 25,840 6,780 October 8 10,890 1,080 12,840 8,400 October 22 4,050 4,770 5,760 3,480 November 5 2,625 4,710 3,870 3,480 November 19 -3,600 2,460 3,780'As used on the computer printout.B-14 Table B-3b. Phytoplankton densities for 1974.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 9 14 19 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 4 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY PER ml 13 January 21 261 252 --471 15 March 11 1,470 1,965 -1,770 2,010 16 April 8 23,700 54,840 -23,460 19,830 April 22 1,566 4,647 -15,810 9,360 17 May 6 21,330 16,920 -28,620 20,610 May 20 15,870 10,065 -19,665 12,690 18 June 17 5,610 3,606 -8,265 5,940 July 1 7,710 8,085 10,830 12,840 8,550 19 July 17 17,400 3,120 10,365 10,290 3,450 July 29 16,050 4,410 19,350 26,070 12,525 20 August 12 7,350 4,455 10,665 10,980 7,245 August 26 17,265 11,325 11,550 7,125 4,725 21 September 9 23,025 5,355 21,480 24,540 12,825 September 23 8,745 2,205 4,515 42,780 1,920 22 October 7 31,260 7,665 40,710 18,990 21,750 October 21 10,200 13,050 19,230 19,800 14,460 23 November 4 5,590 4,275 6,870 -5,625 November 18 3,990 3,870 13,170 12,330 2,160 December 2 3,300 2,775 4,140 4,185 4,050 24 December 16 1,561 805 3,034 1,840 643 December 30 1,637 -.336 2,835'As used in the computer printout.B-15 Table B-3C. Phytoplankton densities for 1975.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 9 14 19 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 4 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY PER ml 29 May 7 10,590 14,640 12,660 15,000 18,990 May 21 14,190 22,590 14,490 17,610 11,670 30 June 4 14,460 12,300 19,860 24,540 11,880 June 18 9,960 12,780 17,910 17,850 9,480 31 July 1 1,883 2,032 6,945 868 1,391 July 16 4,839 4,513 4,299 846 5,912 32 August 12 11,265 2,905 5,625 8,985 5,655 August 26 5,265 12,300 18,480 20,550 10,890 33 September 10 7,995 13,500 8,310 7,425 14,850 September 24 11,910 12,960 10,650 10,065 10,530 34 October 8 25,440 13,830 22,260 18,120 11,670 October 22 18,840 9,030 21,030 48,780 10,830 35 November 19 6,420 5,250 -13,980 -36 December 17 --2,475 2,670 -December 31 -- I -990 885 -0 lAs used in the computer printout.0 B -16 Table B-3d. Phytoplankton densities for 1976.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 9 14 19 27 STATION CODE]. 1 2 3 4 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY PER ml 38 February 12 -20 17 -39 March 10 -135 869 135 473 March 24 953 696 535 1,285 1,312 40 April 6 5,145 2,289 2,835 3,105 4,350 April 21 15,570 12,420 13,170 25,800 18,300 41 May 5 23,820 23,490 22,500 25,470 20,100 May 19 17,280 11,310 17,940 12,690 13,890 42 June 1 15,540 5,310 19,410 17,670 4,695 June 16 25,560 36,810 35,340 37,500 30,240 July 1 58,970 24,600 7,290 77,850 28,680 43 July 14 --56,925 44,400 39,540 July 28 19,650 25,125 --29,175 44 August 11 25,800 -38,925 -August 25 -30,060 ---45 September 22 39,525 18,300 32,175 -46 October 6 -50,400 50,700 --October 20 --35,550 -47 November 4 -- 64,950 1 As used on the computer printout.B-17 Table B-4. Phytoplankton density (Log transformed), 1975-76. 0 PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 31.6330 2.9270 2 4.2660 4.3130 3 3.9190 3.8700 4 4.3470 4.2580 5 1.3010 1.2300 6 3.4520 3.4920 7 4.2540 4.1030 8 4.5480 4.5740 t-Test 1) H0: MU(X)-MU(Y) 0 H1: MU(X)-MU(Y) > 0 t Value = 0.482 DF = 7 t(0.950, 7) = 1.895 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = 0.4820, DF = 7 Prob t > 0.4820 = 0.3223 B-18 Table B-5. Phytoplankton density (Log transformed), 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE UPRIVER DOWNRIVER NUMBER HDR STATION # 10 HDR STATION #27 1 4.1650 4.1850 2 4.1060 4.0280 3 3.6540 3.5620 4 3.4630 3.9170 5 4.1300 4.1030 6 4.1410 4.0510 7 2.1300 2.6750 8 3.3580 3.6380 9 4.0530 4.1430 10 4.5660 4.4800 t-Test 1) HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0 Hi: MU(X)-MU(Y) < 0 t value = -0.424 DF = 9 t (0.950, 9) = 1.833 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance

t. -0.4237, DF = 9 Prob t > -0.4237 = 0.3409 B-19 Table B-6. Phytoplankton Type I productivity.

NDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 14 21 27 STATION CODEI 1 2 3 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE PRODUCTIVITY (ppm 0 2/hr)1 April 1 -0.14 0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.03 2 April 8 0.02 0.21 0.16 -0.02 0.06 0.05 0.30 -0.02 0.16 3 April 26 0.17 0.28 0.35 0.32 0.40 0.39 0.60 0.22 0.38 4 May 6 0.64 0.75 0.78 0.57 0.49 0.66 0.87 0.14 0.70 5 May 14 0.66 0.92 0.88 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.18 0.86 6 May 22 0.47 0.60 0.59 0.45 0.39 0.45 0.48 0.30 0.41 7 May 27 0.78 0.29 0.36 0.63 0.76 0.54 0.69 0.28 0.49 8 June 4 0.84 0.62 0.67 0.82 0.69 0.69 0.93 0.03 0.92 9 June 14 -0.06 0.53 0.85 0.32 0.23 0.56 1.08 0.54 0.37 10 June 25 1.23 1.15 1.42 0.23 0.40 0.57 1.87 0.88 -Ii July 2 0.71 0.83 1.27 1.28 0.88 0.92 1.04 1.08 0.93 12 July 8 1.06 0.88 0.68 0.86 1.24 1.10 1.61 0.17 0.80 13 July 22 1.14 1.05 1.08 1.16 1.50 1.23 1.34 0.54 1.20 14 July 29 0.60 1.06 1.32 1.03 0.51 0.36 0.97 0.28 0.83 15 August 27 1.02 1.23 1.30 0.68 1.47 1.00 0.96 0.66 0.49 16 September 9 1.03 1.09 0.87 0.92 0.87 0.50 1.70 1.19 1.00 17 September 24 0.86 0.96 1.04 0.67 1.04 0.96 0.54 0.46 0.72 18 October 7 0.36 0.54 0.80 0.39 0.80 0.30 0.16 0.13 0.45 19 October 22 0.80 1.17 0.96 0.71 0.96 0.68 1.37 1.08 0.95 20 November 10 0.22 0.43 0.54 -0.50 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.40 21 May 26 0.33 0.28 0.42 0.35 0.27 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.19 22 June 2 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.15 23 June 23 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 0.16 0.26 0.26 1.00 0.23 0.26 24 June 30 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.27 0.12 25 July 21 -0.20 -0.01 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.17 0.46 0.05 0.15 26 August 8 -0.99 -0.99 -0.37 0.03 0.10 0.24 0.10 0.00 0.18 27 August 11 0.04 -0.10 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.13 0.42 0.15 0.11 28 August 18 0.21 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.16 29 August 25 0.05 0.41 0.21 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.28 0.19 0.20 30 September 4 0.24 0.20 -0.06 0.10 0.17 0.07 0.23 0.08 0.15 31 September 8 0.04 0.29 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.24 0.47 0.08 0.31 32 September 22 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.23 0.12 0.98 0.34 0.29 33 September 29 -0.02 0.23 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.34 0.08 0.15 34 October 7 -0.08 0.27 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.22 35 October 20 0.01 0.09 0.50 0.14 0.16 0.11 0.34 0.23 0.33 IA5 used on the computer printout.B-20 Table B-7. Phytoplankton Biovolume (mg/liter). HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 14 21 27 STATION CODE1 1 2 3 5 7 MONTH CODE 1 DATE (mg/liter) 1976-- 0.16 0.42 0.06 0.22 2.16 3.76 0.53 0.81 3.64 1.99 2.15 1.67 1.50 1.81 April 10.24 7.15 7.38 12.01 8.12 19.27 17.50 11.99 17.03 12.42 14.08 8.42 20.48 13.03 12.84 6 June 19.24 9.75 49.94 47.11 16.22 42.05 52.44 52.05 55.16 56.55 49.87 18.34 6.88 61.01 23.40 July 29.71 31.08 48.60 33.76 33.62 1975 5.30 6.41 -5.49 9.78 8.29 11.01 6.65 8.87 5.74 9.00 9.25 15.72 10.44 1.1.88 7.87 10.43 13.19 12.07 7.08 2.51 2.53 4.92 0.98 1.72 19 July 4.01 4.56 3.49 0.88 4.18 20 August 11.52 3.76 6.06 9.08 5.06 3.08 12.92 17.25 23.18 10.29 9.06 16.07 8.26 6.51 12.87 21 September 7.82 7.41 9.15 7.93 7.12 12.94 12.33 13.18 12.48 7.74 8.43 3.96 8.74 18.61 9.98 1 As used in computer printout.B-21 Table B-8. Phytoplankton production: Chlorophyll a (ppb).PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 40 40 2 49 38 3 54 48 4 43 28 5 50 30 6 30 30 7 38 38 8 23 10 9 50 25 10 54 26 11 75 40 12 110 30 13 55 32 14 85 61 15 60 45 16 75 45 17 60 32 18 85 60 19 60 52 20 80 47 21 45 25 22 125 48 t -Test: 2) HO: ABS(MU(X)-MU(Y)) = 0 Hi: ABS(MU(X)-MU(Y))

1. 0 t Value = 1.133 DF = 21 t(0.975, 21) = 2.080 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance.

t = 1.1327, DF 21 PROB t > 1.1327 = 0.1350 B-22 Table B-9. Phytoplankton-species diversity. HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 14 21 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 5 7 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX 1976 3 March -2.95 2.79 2.18 2.67 3.75 4.12 3.61 3.65 3.27 4 April 1.31 2.28 1.36 1.43 1.71 1.96 2.20 1.63 1.09 1.58 5 May 2.35 2.34 2.10 2.59 2.57 2.83 3.49 3.01 2.95 3.14 6 June 4.42 4.18 3.75 3.82 3.47 3.87 3.40 2.98 2.89 3.66 7 July 2.99 3.05 2.84 2.45 2.93 3.78 3.69 3.17 3.00 2.31 1975 17 May 1.51 1.32 -1.02 1.55 2.48 2.34 2.43 2.15 2.25 18 June 3.01 2.85 3.14 2.96 3.67 3.21 3.07 2.51 2.27 2.17 19 July 4.19 3.45 3.29 3.55 3.53 3.37 3.32 3.26 4.21 3.43 20 August 3.84 3.90 2.98 3.41 3.87 3.02 3.50 3.00 2.87 3.17 21 September 3.59 3.75 3.27 2.90 3.52 3.02 3.07 3.35 3.47 3.00 22 October 2.52 2.88 2.37 2.43 2.74 2.47 2.30 2.44 1.54 3.02 1 As used on the computer printout.B-23 0 Phytoplankton: Type III productivity analysis (P=PSg-R)in ppm 0 2/hr for intake and discharge (1976).Table B-10.DATE INTAKE DISCHARGE DATE INTAKE DISCHARGE CODE CODE 1 1.00 0.9 6 1.33 0.5 1.35 0.7 1.0 0.35 1.57 0.55 1.05 0.3 0.85 0.65 0.8 0.6 2 0.85 0.1 7 0.9 0.15 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.15 0.9 0.15 3 0.7 0.6 8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 4 0.85 0.4 9 0.6 0.4 1.10 0.3 0.7 0.45 0.6 0.2 0.75 0.4 1.1 0.25 1.1 0.3 5 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.15 1.0 0.1 0 B-24 Table B-lla. Periphyton density, 1976.HDR STATION NUMBER 13 20 25 STATION CODE 1 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 I DATE DENSITY/cm 2 1 January 14 -67,636 2,424 January 28 -688,152 485 2 February 12 -97,970 3,584 February 25 -90,968 56,209 3 March 10 -1,821,879 6,162 March 24 -2,929,954 -4 April 6 -405,809 -April 21 -1,031,068 -5 May 5 -170,279 -May 19 1,119,725 380,232 1,124,381 6 June 1 573,854 284,587 690,488 June 16 198,278 107,297 247,261 7 July 14 415,232 247,272 368,576 July 28 578,524 95,641 179,620 8 August 11 272,928 447,886 284,593 August 25 27,991 359,245 312,589 9 September 8 265,932 209,946 513,207 September 22 494,544 797,805 205,281 10 October 6 220,443 415,230 387,237 October 20 88,641 737,152 108,471 11 November 4 5,261 12,725 93,307 November 17 -312,588 56,566 12 December 15 -72,892 19,957 December 30 -60,646 26,934 iAs used in computer printout.B-25 Table B-lib. Periphyton density (1975).HDR STATION NUMBER 13 20 25 STATION CODE 1 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY/cm 2 13 January13 NS 51,313 594 January 27 NS 310,245 2,464 14 February 10 NS 100,885 1,182 February 24 NS 265,924 41,318 15 March 26 NS 2,262,806 59,705 16 April NS NS NS 17 May 21 919,103 998,418 -18 June 4 1,408,982 524,865 667,160 June 18 1,313,337 807,128 1,255,017 19 July 16 557,518 228,595 737,151 July 30 856,111 401,224 753,476 20 August 12 923,773 181,945 797,803 August 26 352,232 69,975 657,825 21 September 10 727,814 825,793 895,779 September 24 1,077,734 494,540 410,558 October 8 1,082,393 559,858 419,884 October 22 629,839 919,099 1,185,044 23 November 19 1,194,370 632,166 592,512 December 17 -942,428 124,094 December 31 -18,659 -t As used in computer printout.0 0 B-26 Table B-12a. Periphyton chlorophyll a concentration (1976).HDR STATION NUMBER 13 20 25 STATION CODE 1 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 DATE CONCENTRATION (pg/cm 2)1 January 14 -0.64 0.05 January 28 -1.59 0.04 2 February 12 -3.24 0.12 February 25 -5.70 0.19 3 March 10 -11.97 0.12 March 24 -13.97 -May 5 -2.85 -May 19 6.63 3.37 3.62 6 June 1 4.47 4.34 8.37 June 16 3.93 4.26 4.08 7 July 1 4.15 1.49 3.02 July 14 5.88 3.27 1.78 8 August 11 2.50 2.00 4.42 August 25 3.00 3.10 3.60 September 8 2.38 1.90 3.29 September 22 2.69 2.93 5.13 10 October 6 4.92 2.42 2.83 October 20 1.58 2.43 1.36 11 November 4 0.16 1.87 1.26 November 17 -2.29 0.51 12 December 15 -1.00 0.27 December 30 -0.64 0.62 IAs used in the computer printout.B-27 Table B-12b. Periphyton chlorophyll a concentration (1975).HDR STATION NUMBER 13 20 25 STATION CODE 1 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 DATE CONCENTRATION (vg/cm 2)13 January 13 -0.36 0.04 January 27 -2.20 0.05 14 February 10 -1.01 0.06 February 24 -1.53 5.27 15 March 26 -9.37 0.58 17 May 21 4.02 7.30 -June 4 6.66 3.38 2.21 June 18 7.15 3.29 6.16 19 July 1 7.43 4.52 9.75 July 16 4.09 5.65 4.51 20 August 12 4.72 2.94 5.70 August 26 7.07 7.03 9.84 21 September 10 6.06 5.52 11.57 September 24 9.30 3.76 3.64 October 8 8.51 6.59 6.80 October 22 6.65 11.84 12.52 23 November 192 3.48 2.08 4.76 24 December 172 -3.15 0.58 December 31 0.17 -IAs used in the computer printout.2 4-week incubation periods.B-28 Table B-13a. Periphyton-phaeophytin a concentration (1976).HDR STATION NUMBER 25 13 21 STATION CODE 1 6 3 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE CONCENTRATION (Cg/cm 2)1 January 14 0.00 -0.05 January 28 0.01 -0.05 2 February 12 0.02 -0.45 February 25 0.04 -0.08 3 March 10 0.02 -0.27 March 24 --0.66 5 May 5 --0.56 May 19 0.22 0.01 0.33 6 June 1 2.24 0.95 1.49 June 16 6.04 2.33 4.23 7 July 1 2.79 1.44 1.31 July 14 1.30 4.66 2.27 8 August 11 1.73 0.71 3.43 August 25 2.41 1.08 2.08 9 September 8 1.97 1.76 3.90 September 22 2.37 1.34 1.64 10 October 6 2.58 4.40 3.04 October 20 1.07 0.42 1.90 11 November 4 0.88 0.06 0.84 November 17 0.13 -1.23 12 December 15 0.12 -1.25 December 30 0.05 -0.62 1 As used on the computer printout.B-29 Table B-13b. Periphytonr-phaeophytin a concentration (1975).HDR STATION NUMBER 25 13 21 STATION CODE 1 6 3 5 MONTH CODE 1 DATE CONCENTRATION ('bg/cm 2)13 January 13 0.03 -0.10 January 27 0.01 -0.11 14 February 10 0.00 -0.00 February 24 0.21 -0.00 15 March 10 ---March 26 0.00 -0.24 16 April 9 ---April 23 --17 May 7 ---May 21 -0.60 1.90 18 June 4 0.17 0.42 0.48 June 18 0.16 0.37 0.35 19 July 1 0.22 0.32 0.70 July 16 1.01 0.92 0.92 20 August 12 3.74 1.01 1.18 August 26 0.98 0.86 0.96 21 September 10 0.36 0.86 0.61 September 24 1.05 0.71 0.46 22 October 8 0.62 1.32 0.97 October 22 0.86 0.12 1.73 23 November 192 0.12 0.08 0.42 24 December 172 0.02 -0.28 IAs used on the computer printout.2 4-week incubation periods.B-30 Table B-14. Periphyton-species diversity. HDR STATION NUMBER 13 21 25 STATION CODE 1 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX 1976 5 May 3.70 -2.54 3.50 3.70 3.02 3.19 3.65 3.16 3.27 3.45 2.96 2.59 2.61 July 1.96 2.12 2.94 2.13 2.55 2.26 August 2.08 2.39 2.43 2.38 2.25 2.03 2.41 2.78 2.25 2.67 2.83 2.74 2.95 2.70 2.21 2.74 2.80 2.97 ii November1.4 .3-- 1.94 1.32 1975 17 May 3.62 2.61 -4.04 3.00 2.90 3.53 3.10 3.12 3.78 3.49 3.15 19 July 3.75 3.78 2.18 2.13 3.34 3.27 20 August 3.82 3.26 3.38 3.88 3.50 2.16 21 September 3.18 3.50 2.61 3.52 3.03 3.74 2.38 2.21 3.18 23 November 3.74 4.11 3.82-- 4.13 2.72 24 December -3.11 --- 3.11 --lAs used on the computer printout.B-31 Table B-15a. Zooplankton -total densities for 1975.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 18 21 25 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY (Number/£) 1 January 15 16.2 -14.1 11.2 23.4 104.2 -2 February 18 5.7 -7.9 7.5 4.0 11.7 -3 March 11 28.0 8.4 11.4 .14.4 11.3 23.4 302.0 4 April 15 12.8 22.9 8.9 11.2 15.8 12.2 18.9 5 May 20 35.8 14.3 28.7 15.3 27.0 17.5 10.2 6 June 24 31.3 30.1 75.3 40.0 55.0 53.9 48.7 7 July 30 358.9 231.0 263.6 398.6 234.4 242.2 350.4 9 September 2 91.6 198.6 143.0 91.3 56.8 82.5 111.1 September 16 91.1 328.3 127.9 75.1 125.7 137.0 262.8 10 October 14 213.9 106.5 124.8 72.5 133.1 123.0 144.8 11 November 25 75.8 51.7 81.1 64.8 91.7 97.3 74.6 12 December 19 ---28.2 36.4 46.5 -1 As used on the computer printout.Table B-15b. Zooplankton -total densities for 1976.HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 18 21 25 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 j 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH DENSITY (Number/0) 13 January 19.1 N.S. 30.7 9.1 T 15.2 16.2 N.S.14 February 16.2 N.S. 13.5 9.2 10.2 11.8 N.S.15 March 28.0 34.3 240.2 56.7 27.2 19.8 30.0 16 April 91.2 45.8 82.9 29.2 57.7 63.3 32.3 17 May 938.2 802.4 790.0 360.1 626.1 638.3 878.7 18 June b810.0 948.9 547.8 282.1 385.7 329.8 632.3 i9 July 576.4 739.9 818.2 576.2 536.8 744.1 703.0 20 August 851.0 870.0 560.3 521.7 529.0 542.3 638.9 21 September 463.7 609.5 444.9 340.0 765.4 446.8 650.8 22 October 500.5 312.0 363.5 336.8 445.8 284.1 398.2 23 November N.S. 57.7 115.9 108.8 137.2 96.4 33.0 24 December 135.3 N.S. 169.9 69.2 191.1 206.7 N.S.IAs used on the computer printout.B-32 Table B-16. Zooplankton total density (Log transformed) 1975-76.SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 2.4210 2.3700 2 2.1550 1.7540 3 2.1070 2.1070 4 2.0960 2.1240 5 1.9090 1.9620 6 1.4870 1.1810 7 1.1300 1.0080 8 1.9180 1.7610 9 2.8970 2.7960 10 2.7380 2.5860 11 2.7480 2.7230 12 2.6480 2.8840 13 2.5600 2.6590 14 2.0640 2.1370 t-Test I) HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0 Hi : MU(X)-MU(Y) > 0 t value = 0.356 DF = 13 t (0.950, 13) = 1.771 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t 0.3564, DF 13 Prob t > 0.3564 = 0.3636 B-33 Table B-17. Zooplankton total density (Log transformed) 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE UPRIVER DOWNRIVER NUMBER HDR STATION #10 HDR STATION #27 1 1.1550 1.0080 2 1.4780 1.6870 3 2,3630 2.5440 4 2.5160 2.4190 5 2.0270 2.1600 6 1.7130 1.8720 7 1.5350 1.4770 8 1.6600 1.5090 9 2.9040 2.9430 10 2.9770 2.8000 11 2.8990 2.8460 12 2.9390 2.8050 13 2.7850 2.8134 14 2.4940 2.6000 15 1.7610 1.5180 t-Test 1)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) Hi: MU(X)-MU(Y) t value = 0.093 DF = 14 t (0.950, 14)= 0> 0 1. 761 at 0.05 level Do not reject HO of significance t = 0.0934, DF 14 Prob t > 0.0934 = 0.4635 B-34 Table B-18.Zooplankton: Rotifer density (Log transformed), 1975-76.SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 2.2480 2.2300 2 1.9780 1.4930 3 2.0280 1.6530 4 2.0040 2.0610 5 1.7430 1.7590 6 1.2090 0.6360 7 0.3980 0.5220 8 1.5750 1.4400 9 2.8490 2.7470 10 2.3400 2.2010 11 2.5760 2.6320 12 2.4700 2'.8370 13 2.4610 2.5350 14 2.0030 2.0820 t-Test 1)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) HI: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0> 0 t value = 0.296 DF = 13 t (0.950, 13) = 1.771 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = 0.2959, DF = 13 Prob t > 0.2959 = 0.3860 B-35 Table B-19.Zooplankton: Rotifer density (Log transformed), 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE UPRIVER DOWNRIVER NUMBER HDR STATION #10 HDR STATION #27 1 0.8260 0.7710 2 1.1730 1.4310 3 2.3030 2.4840 4 2.3380 2.3840 5 1.9570 2.1020 6 1.6020 1.7420 7 0.8550 0.7800 8 1.3420 1.1590 9 2.8650 2.9080 10 2.7290 2.5230 11 2.7720 2.6810 12 2.7900 2.6560 13 2.6480 2.6790 14 2.3340 2.3240 15 1.6650 1.2920 t-Test 1)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) 0 HI: MU(X)-MU(Y) > 0 t value = 0.113 DF = 14 t (0.950, 14) = 1.761 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = 0.1131, DF = 14 Prob t > 0.1131 = 0.4558 B-36 Table B-20.Zooplankton: Crustacea 1975-76.density (Log transformed) PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 1.9100 1.9630 2 1.6530 1.3540 3 1.2940 1.6350 4 1.3580 1.1960 5 1.3760 1.2640 6 1.1370 0.3850 7 0.4190 0.2040 8 1.0190 0.9270 9 1.3730 1.4830 10 1.8320 1.6560 11 2.2640 2.0000 12 2.1740 1.8880 13 1.8690 2.0510 14 1.1770 1.2010 t-Test 1)HO: HI: MU(X) -MU (Y)MU(X) -MU(Y)0 0 t value = 0.447 DF = 13 T (0.950, 13) = 1.771 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = 0.4469, DF = 13 Prob t > 0.4469 0.3311 B-37 Table B-21. Zooplankton: Crustacea density (Log transformed) 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE UPRIVER DOWNRIVE R NUMBER HDR STATION #10 HDR STATION #27 1. 0.8260 0.5680 2 0.8860 1.0080 3 1.4750 1.6430 4 1.6180 1.2690 5 1.1640 1.2120 6 0.8190 1.2090 7 0.6530 0.5900 8 0.6300 0.5050 9 1.1630 1.1430 10 1.8340 1.8220 11 2.3050 2.3470 12 2.4040 2.2670 13 2.2160 2.2370 14 1.9810 2.1000 15 1.0520 1.1250 t-Te st i)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) 0 HI: MU(X)-MU(Y) < 0 t value = -0.007 DF = 14 t (0.950, 14) = 1.761 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = -0.0071, DF : 14 Prob t > -0.0071 = 0.4972 B-38 Table B-22. Zooplankton-species diversity. L I I HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 18 21 25 27 STATIONCODEI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX 1976 1 January 2.74 -2.33 2.87 2.89 -2 February 2.73 -2.93 3.14 2.94 --3 March 2.97 3.00 1.98 2.25 3.09 2.83 2.84 4 April 3.13 3.26 3.19 3.04 3.41 3.20 3.23 5 May 1.93 2.00 2.01 2.05 2.34 1.95 1.88 6 June 2.07 2.28 2.11 2.42 2.17 2.41 2.47 7 July 2.43 2.18 2.13 2.48 2.43 2.26 2.65 8 August 2.25 2.34 2.45 2.32 2.23 2.43 2.68 9 September 2.17 1.71 2.33 1.94 1.65 1.84 1.77 10 October 2.08 2.04 1.44 1.86 1.74 2.08 2.08 11 November -2.24 2.11 1.86 2.18 2.60 2.70 12 December 1.07 -0.89 0.66 0.71 --1975 13 January 3.39 -2.66 2.57 2.36 --14 February 1.96 -1.93 2.04 2.14 --15 March 3.04 3.12 3.63 0.10 2.60 -0.10 16 April 3.47 2.15 2.53 2.31 1.80 1.67 2.37 17 May 2.09 2.98 1.90 2.64 2.29 3.10 3.00 18 June 2.53 2.81 2.45 2.79 2.70 2.47 2.37 19 July 2.74 2.39 3.02 2.69 2.71 2.46 2.20 20 August 3.31 2.66 3.16 3.43 3.34 3.09 2.74 21 September 2.46 1.15 1.76 2.90 3.13 1.10 0.98 22 October 1.15 1.28 1.17 2.68 1.17 1.97 1.44 23 November 1.90 2.15 2.22 1.82 2.61 2.38 2.41 24 December -- -- 2.76 2.75 --'As used on the computer printout.B-39 Table B-2 3a.Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Petersen dredge methods (1975).IiDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 21 25 27 STATION CODE1 1 2 3 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 9 MONTH DENSITY (Number/m 2)3 March 11,589.5 -11,230.7 4,099.9 6,499.8 -7 July 392.4 439.2 205.2 864.0 396.0 734.4 9 September 457.2 540.0 136.8 903.6 374.4 140.4 10 October 226.8 212.4 273.6 309.6 108.0 10.8 12 December -504.0 212.4 25.2 518.4 64.8 0 0 1 As used on the computer printout.0 -4 N O CO CO r- 0) CO m 0) O NN M 0 I ( 1- ()(3) CD 4 (N CN , m0 C q ci) (l o-, N r-4 -4T N r-4 mn CO m ,- r- i 10C 0 0 0I N O w 4 O CO 1 (N N) C-4 0 0 C-() r-i -('1 CN rn "T ( n CO 0 fn ci)H 'N 0 ( ý 0 C CO 0 (N C U)4 r- ( CN (n 0o r- N O O w ci) CO r, a'. 00 0 1 O (N 0. .-4 m 0 (- N 1--1 1 -1 '.v4 co c_ _-4__ _M__ _ _ _ _ _ _.0 4~ 0 ' 0 (. (.0 C (\I (N4 Hn 00 -. 0 O 0 CODC C/)~Lr NN CN k O CO 04 00 C.) '0 CO ~ ' CO 1001 4.)~~~ý 0a)C C O 10 C ci) W CO -CO P4 >O ci))1-4 -4 0- -0 (C))C) U4 B-41 Table B-23c. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by Petersen dredge methods (1977).HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 21 25 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 1 DATE DENSITY (Number/mr 2)25 January 24 1,397.85 -8,630.81 1,157.71 1,340.50 -28 April 18 3,949.82 4,465.95 6,186.37 3,473.11 3,860.21 4,200.71 29 May 31. 3,240.14 -7,218.62 4,939.06 4,810.03 15,505.37 lAs used on the computer printout.to Table B-24. Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by dredge methods, 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 2.3120 2.9360 2 2.1360 2.9560 3 2.4370 2.4910 4 2.5770 2.9660 5 3.2360 2.6320 6 3.1000 2.5520 7 2.8730 3.3230 8 3.2850 4.0030 9 3.7730 3.3380 10 3.5420 3.5670 11 3.7680 3.7230 t-Test 1)HO: MU(X) -MU(Y)HIl: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0< 0 t value = -0.258 DF = 10 t (0.950, 10) = 1.812 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = -0.2581, DF = 10 Prob t < -0.2581 = 0.4008 B-43 Table B-25. Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by dredge methods, 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE UPRIVER DOWNRIVER NUMBER HDR STATION #10 HDR STATION #27 1 2.7320 2.1470 2 2.327G 1.0330 3 3.0140 3.1850 4 3.5040 3.3780 5 3.2910 3.7100 6 3.3380 3.9030 73.7900 3.8440 t-Test I)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0 Hl: MU(X)-MU(Y) > 0 t value = 0.177 DF = 6 t (0.950, 6) = 1.943 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = 0.1773, DF = 6 Prob t > 0.1773 = 0.4326 B-44 0 Table B-26a. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by artificial substrate method (1975).HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 21 25 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH DENSITY (Number/m 2)2 February 0 -0 5.4 0 3 March 0 -5.4 745.2 48.6 4 April ---10,492.2 0 5 May ---847.8 -L-I July 7,214.4 -3,607.2 3,342.b -8 August 7,797.6 7,214.4 4,439.7 40,282.4 6,480.0 9 September 5,540.5 5,947.9 3,223.6 16,415.8 9,169.4 11 November -22,164.3 37,432.8 60,177.6 194,839.9 12 December --24,422.2 526.5 lAs used on the computer printout. Table B-26b. Total macroinvertebrate density collected by artifi-cial substrate sampler (1976).HDR STATION NUMBER STATION CODE 1 MONTH CODE 1 DENSITY (Number/m2) 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 S --- 4,250 65 14,966 14-- -2,967 -18,565 -37,940 28,988 22,583 23,227 9,559 28,197 52,925 31,994 14,524 -32,191 69,284 29,314 13,270 36,084 20,880 38,065 26,986 27 417 514 13,536 7,500 lAs used on the computer printout.B-46 Tvable B-26c.Total macroinvertebrate density (1977).collected by Hester Dendy multiplate sampler HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 21 25 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 5 6 MONTH CODE] DATE DENSITY (Number/mr 2)25 January 5 --10.75 723.12 852.15 26 February 15 5.38 -83.33 908.60 247.31 27 March 29 1,196.24 -1,666.66 -717.74 29 May 10 4,698.92 13,948.89 4,575.26 18,787.61 20,508.04 1 As used on the computer printout.I Table B-27.Macroinvertebrate density (Log transformed) collected by artificial substrate methods, May-Oct, 1975-76.PAIRED t-TEST SAMPLE NUMBER INTAKE DISCHARGE 1 3.5570 3.5240 2 3.6470 4.6050 3 3.5080 4.2150 4 4.5730 4.7790 5 4.5790 4.4620 6 4.5070 4.8400 7 4.3190 4.5800 8 2,7100 4.1310 t-Test 1)HO: MU(X)-MU(Y) = 0 Hi: MU(X)-MU(Y) < 0 t value = -0.890 DF = 7 t (0.950, 7) = 1.895 Do not reject HO at 0.05 level of significance t = -0.8898, DF = 7 Prob t > -0.8898 = 0.2016 B-48 Table B-28. Macroinvertebrate diversity (dredge).HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 18 21 25 27 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH CODE 1 MONTH SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX 1976 1 January 1.68 -1.43 0.00 0.54 1.47 -2 February 2.01 1.54 1.37 0.00 0.94 1.96 1.34 4 April 2.53 1.68 2.19 0.58 1.80 2.51 -5 May 1.53 1.72 1.89 1.53 1.89 2.20 1.62 6 June 1.86 2.10 1.86 1.32 0.21 1.12 2.17 8 August 1.61 2.25 1.02 1.49 1.13 1.70 1.05 9 September 1.74 1.11 0.74 0.54 0.28 1.12 0.55 11 November 0.95 1.01 0.60 0.17 0.35 0.29 0.35 12 December 0.86 -0.88 0.35 0.52 0.20 -1975 15 March 1.68 -1.40 0.00 1.07 1.52 -19 July 2.07 1.95 1.42 0.95 0.12 0.45 -21 September 1.46 2.58 2.23 0.59 0.28 2.21 -22 October 2.26 2.41 2.97 -0.09 2.77 -24 December -2.24 2.22 -1.15 2.04 -1 As used on the computer printout.B-49 Table B-29. Macroinvertebrate diversity (artificial substrates). HDR STATION NUMBER 6 10 12 18 21 25 STATION CODE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONTH CODE 1 DATE SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX 1976 6 June 1.10 -0.98 0.75 1.30 1.39 7 July 1.38 2.29 1.26 0.53 1.09 1.14 8 August 0.89 -1.23 1.01 1.10 1.19 10 October 0.73 0.97 1.04 0.32 1.26 0.52 11 November 0.75 1.32 0.81 0.41 0.49 0.06 1975 19 July 2.07 -1.96 1.72 2.65 -20 August -2.19 1.47 0.29 1.40 1.78 21 September 1.46 2.65 1.68 0.06 1.54 2.55 22 October 2.26 -----23 November -0.76 0.22 0.03 0.57 0.11 24 December ---0.54 0.97 1.86 iAs used on the computer printout.B-50 'Fable B-30. Data used in stepwise regression I biological variables HDR Station #6 for 1975.DENSITY (Number/ml) 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONTH PHYTOPLANKTON ZOOPLANKTON ROTIFERA CRUSTACEA MACROINVERTEBRATE 2 MACROINVERTEBRATE 3 (PHYTOPLA) 1 (ZOOP)1 (ROTIF)l (CRUSTAC)l (MACROD)1 (MACROAS)1 January -16.2 7.5 7.5 -February -5.7 2.0 3.7 -0.0 March -28.0 0.7 26.6 11,589.5 0.0 April -12.8 2.3 9.4 --May 10,590 35.8 30.6 4.9 June 9,960 31.8 21.7 3.4 --July 4,839 358.9 278.6 75.8 392.4 7,214.4 August 11,265 ---7,797.6 September 7,995 91.1 53.1 20.5 457.2 5,540.5 October 25,440 213.9 191.7 19.0 226.8 -November 6,420 75.8 52.4 20.9 -December ---w0 u-1 Abbreviation 2 Collected by 3 Collected by as used in the computer printout.dredge methods.artificial substrate. Table B-31. II Water quality variables. PHOSPHORUS THOPHOS FILTERABLE RESIDUE AMMONIA NITROGEN NITRITE NITROGEN ORTHOPHOSPHATE MONTH B T B T B T B T (ORTHOB) 1 (ORTHOT)1 (FRESB)1 (FREST) (AMMONIAB) (AMMONIAT)1 (NITRITEB)' (NITRITET)1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.14 0.17 241 233 0.59 0.63 0.008 0.006 February 0.14 0.17 256 243 1.06 1.06 0.008 0.008 March 0.14 0.16 249 254 0.85 0.82 0.009 0.009 April 0.08 0.08 219 251 0.45 0.42 0.027 0.028 May 0.02 0.01 270 289 <0.01 <0.01 0.021 0.022 June 0.10 0.10 144 127 0.19 0.15 0.036 0.037 July 0.19 0.07 232 224 0.17 0.22 0.029 0.031 August 0.07 0.10 194 195 0.19 0.34 0.028 0.030 September 0.07 0.07 203 203 0.19 0.19 0.028 0.030 October 0.04 0.06 224 224 0.09 0.25 0.020 0.020 November 0.07 0.10 203 203 0.32 0.37 0.010 0.010 wo IAbbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top 0 Table B-31. (Continued). WATER NITRATE NITROGEN CONDUCTIVITY DISSOLVED OXYGEN TEMPERATURE MONTH B T B T B T B T (NITRATEB)l (NITRATET) 1 (CONDUCTB) 1 (CONDUCTT)l A(DISOXB)l (DISOXT)1 (TEMPB)l (TEMPT)'17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 January 0.69 0.50 200 235 --0.3 0.4 February 0.60 0.54 250 240 0.30 9.85 0.0 0.0 March 0.81 0.75 205 210 3.50 12.40 0.0 1.0 April 3.45 3.61 255 260 1.75 11.95 4.7 4.5 May 1.39 1.18 380 380 7.74 7.79 19.7 19.0 June 4.30 4.20 37.0 380 3.79 8.37 24.4 24.0 July 0.60 0.67 270 270 6.16 6.07 25.4 25.5 August 0.60 0.45 320 320 8.89 7.24 22.4 21.4 September 0.26 0.25 290 305 9.68 8.69 17.4 16.6 October 0.45 0.39 305 310 12.31 10.15 16.4 14.6 November 1.60 0.28 230 230 12.65 12.33 0.8 1.0 tL uJ 1 Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top Table B-32. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables) , Sturgeon Lake, HDR Station No. 6 (1976).DENSITY (Number/ml) 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONTH PHYTOPLANKTON ZOOPLANKTON ROTIFERA CRUSTACEA MACROINVERTEBRATE 2 MACROINVERTEBRATE 3 (PHYTOPLA) 1 (ZOOP)] (ROTIF)l (CRUSTAC)1 (MACROD)l (MACROAS)1 January 19.10 9.53 3.40 644.4 February -16.20 3.90 2.16 604.8 March 953 28.00 7.97 3.67 -April 5,145 91.20 42.80 9.13 1,018.8 May. 23,820 938.20 895.07 8.87 1,245.1 -June 25,560 810.00 378.07 98.60 1,194.8 18,565 July 19,650 576.40 323.92 252.24 -23,227 August 25,800 851.00 640.84 210.17 566.9 14,524 September 39,525 463.70 312.76 150.99 886.3 October -500.50 324.34 176.11 -13,270 December 135.31 130.11 5.21 2,601.4 1 Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.2Collected by dredge methods.3 Collected by artificial substrate. wn 0 Table B-33. II Environmental variables (water quality).PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHO TE FILTERABLE RESIDUE AMMONIA NITROGEN NITRITE NITROGEN ORTHOPHOSPHATE MONTH B T B T B T B T (ORTHOB)l (ORTHOT)1 (FRESB)1 (FREST)1 (AMMONIAB)' (AMMONIAT)l (NITRITEB)I (NITRITET) 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January 0.19 0.19 309 253 0.79 0.84 0.008 0.007 February 0.18 0.16 268 252 0.83 0.75 0.010 0.012 March 0.15 0.11 267 268 0.77 0.82 0.017 0.017 April 0.04 0.03 206 205 0.05 0.01 0.013 0.014 May 0.00 0.00 185 171 0.02 0.02 0.005 0.004 June 0.06 0.06 219 210 0.12 0.02 0.005 0.001 July 0.09 0.09 196 198 0.01 0.00 0.003 0.003 August 0.06 0.04 221 221 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.004 September 0.03 0.05 219 231 0.00 0.02 0.004 0.014 October 0.00 0.00 216 213 0.00 0.03 0.200 0.160 December 0.22 0.22 298 289 1.60 1.80 0.019 0.018!o 01]Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top Table B-33. (Continued). WATER NITRATE NITROGEN CONDUCTIVITY DISSOLVED OXYGEN WATER TEMPERATURE MONTH B T B T B T B T (NITRATEB)l (NITRATET)l (CONDUCTB) 1 (CONDUCTT)l (DISOXB)1 (DISOXT)1 (TEMPB)l (TEMPT)1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 January 1.00 0.69 220 225 8.6 9.0 0.3 0.0 Febuary 0.54 0.48 250 230 9.5 8.6 0.5 0.1 March 0.82 0.82 260 260 12.6 12.0 1.5 0.8 April 0.72 0.68 240 245 11.6 11.9 9.9 9.6 May 0.37 0.26 315 315 9.4 12.2 15.5 17.0 June 0.01 0.06 360 360 8.9 8.7 23.7 24.0 July 0.28 0.26 360 370 8.8 9.7 24.5 27.5 August 0.59 0.42 350 355 7.1 8.8 22.4 23.2 September 0.07 0.00 325 325 9.1 9.1 20.5 21.0 October 0.15 0.08 325 320 14.2 14.2 14.1 13.4 December 0.42 0.72 260 265 9.4 9.3 0.8 0.1 w0 1 Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top Table B-34. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables), HDR Station Nos. 9 and 10 (1976).DENSITY (Number/ml) 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONTH PHYTOPLANKTON ZOOPLANKTON ROTIFERA CRUSTACEA MACROINVERTEBRATE 2 MACROINVERTEBRATE3 (PHYTOPLA)I (ZOOP)I (ROTIF)1 (CRUSTAC)l (MACROD)1 (MACROAS)1 w ul March April May June July August September October November lAbbreviation 2 Collected by 3 Collected by 135 2,280 11,310 36,810 50,400 34.3 45.8 802.4 948.9 793.9 870.0 609.5 312.0 57.7 7.17 21.97 733.97 535.83 592.07 616.86 444.92 216.14 46.33 4.50 4.27 14.57 68.33 201.84 253.81 164.52 95.73 11.28 1,328.3 1,033.4 3,189.8 1,955.5 2,178.0 6,171.5 9,559 36,084 417____________ _______________ I _____________ I _____________ as used in the computer printout.dredge methods.artificial substrate. Table B-35. II Environmental variables (water quality) HDR Stations 9 and 10, 1976.PHOSPHIORUS OT PHOS FILTERABLE RESIDUE AMMONIA NITROGEN NITRITE NITROGEN ORTHOPHOSPHATE MONTH B T B T B T B T (ORTHOB)l (ORTHOT)1 (FRESB)l (FREST)1 (AMMONIAB)l (AMMONIAT)I (NITRITEB)l (NITRITET)1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 March 0.12 0.12 276 274 0.71 0.75 0.019 0.019 April 0.04 0.04 149 171 0.06 0.04 0.010 0.010 May 0.00 0.00 161 163 0.05 0.04 0.009 0.009 June 0.05 0.07 225 222 0.05 0.03 0.034 0.037 July 0.05 0.02 196 189 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.003 August 0.01 0.02 217 202 0.00 0.00 0.025 0.006 September 0.01 0.05 270 255 0.10 0.15 0.143 0.145 October 0.00 0.00 222 228 0.00 0.00 0.230 0.220 November 0.23 0.20 250 246 0.97 0.97 0.018 0.018 0'Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top Table B-35. (Continued) NITRATE NITROGEN CONDUCTIVITY DISSOLVED OXYGEN WATER TEMPERATURE MONTH March April May June July August September October November B (NITRATEB) 1 17 T (NITRATET) 1 18 B (CONDUCTB) 1 19 T (CONDUCTT)] 20 B (DISOXB) 1 21 T (DISOXT) 1 22 B (TEMPB) 1 23 T (TEMPT) 1 24* -I -t +0.91 0.66 0.31 0.17 0.09 0.51 0.31 0.56 0.32 0.87 0.63 0.23 0.14 0.07 0.31 0.32 0.00 0.32 280 200 290 355 330 340 380 345 315 270 200 280 360 320 330 375 330 310 12.0 11.2 10.0 9.5 10.1 9.0 8.7 12.1 15.4 11.7 11.2 10.2 9.4 10.8 9.6 8.5 12.3 16.0 2.2 9.0 15.5 23.0 25.0 23.3 20.8 14.0 2.6 1.8 8.8 15.5 23.0 25.2 23.7 20.0 14.0 2.6 u-I'Abbreviation as used in computer printout.B = bottom; T = top Table B-36. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables) , HDR Station Nos. 12, 13, and 14 (1975).DENSITY (Number/ml) 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONTH PHYTOPLANKTON ZOOPLANKTON ROTIFERA CRUSTACEA MACROINVERTEBRATE 2 MACROINVERTEBRATE3 (PHYTOPLA)1 (ZOOP)] (ROTIF)l (CRUSTAC)1 (MACROD)1 (MACROAS)1 March -11.4 3.6 7.4 11,230.7 5.4 May 14,490 28.7 19.1 8.7 -June 17,910 75.3 48.2 20.6 -July 4,299 263.6 177.1 81.4 205.2 3,607.2 August 18,480 143.0 95.2 45.0 -4,439.7 September 8,310 127.9 106.8 19.7 136.8 3,223.6 October 22,260 124.8 100.9 22.8 273.6 November -81.1 55.4 23.8 -37,432.8 0 lAbbreviation 2Collected by 3Collected by as used in the computer printout.dredge methods.artificial substrate. Table B-37. iI Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 12, 13, and 14 for 1975.PHOSPHORUS FILTERABLE RESIDUE AMMONIA NITROGEN NITRITE NITROGEN ORTHOPHOSPH-iATE MONTH B T B T B T B T (ORTHOB) 1 (ORTHOT)1 (FRESB) 1 (FREST) 1 (AMMONIAB) 1 (AMMONIAB) 1 (NITRITEB) ' (NITRITET) 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 March 0.18 0.18 247 247 0.95 0.92 0.010 0.008 May 0.03 0.02 272 284 0.02 0.01 0.025 0.025 June 0.06 0.07 142 149 0.09 0.07 0.030 0.033 July 0.11 0.10 235 240 0.31 0.26 0.037 0.035 August 0.08 0.08 205 205 0.15 0.09 0.033 0.030 September 0.07 0.06 236 219 0.09 0.03 0.021 0.024 October 0.04 0.02 208 213 0.10 <0.01 0.021 0.020 November 0.08 0.08 186 192 0.40 0.35 0.010 0.010 w IAbbreviation as used in the computer printout, B = bottom; T = top Table B-37 (Continued). WATER NITRATE NITROGEN CONDUCTIVITY DISSOLVED OXYGEN TEMPERATURE MONTH B T B T B T B T (NITRATEB) 1 (NITRATET)! (CONDUCTB)l (CONDUCTT)1 (DISOXB)l (DISOXT)l (TEMPB)l (TEMPT)'17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 March 0.75 0.78 215 205 10.93 -0.3 0.0 May 1.26 1.10 380 380 7.80 8.08 19.8 19.9 June 4.20 4.50 430 420 10.50 9.92 24.4 24.4 July 0.81 0.64 340 340 5.87 5.80 24.7 25.3 August 0.56 0.54 320 325 8.02 8.04 22.1 28.8 September 0.17 0.22 295 320 9.50 9.04 17.4 26.0 October 0.45 0.39 320 300 10.25 11.31 15.6 16.2 November 6.20 0.03 230 230 13.01 12.93 0.9 0.8 0, IAbbrevi.ation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top 0 Table B-38. Data used in stepwise regression (biological variables) , HDR Station Nos. 12, 13, and 14 (1976)DENSITY (Number/ml) 1 2 3 4 5 6 PHYTOPLANKTON ZOOPLANKTON ROTIFERA CRUSTACEA MACROINVERTEBRATE 2 MACROINVERTEBRATE 3 (PHYTOPLA) 1 (ZOOP)' (ROTIF)l (CRUSTAC)l (MACROD)1 (MACROAS)l January -30.7 16.17 13.73 378.0 February 20 13.5 2.50 2.63 1,724.4 March 869 240.2 40.90 16.16 -April 2,835 82.9 37.63 10.46 1,260.0 May 17,940 790.0 706.60 23.64 746.3 June 35,340 547.8 219.03 68.00 1,930.4 37,940 July 56,925 818.2 660.33 157.84 -28,197 August 38,925 560.3 376.54 183.75 5,938.3 32,191 September -444.9 295.31 149.54 3,484.0 October 50,700. 363.5 289.12 74.07 -20,880 November -115.9 100.82 15.04 5,873.3 514 December 169.9 165.78 4.09 6,971.6 w 01]Abbreviation 2 Collected by 3Collected by as used in the computer printout.dredge methods artificial substrate. Table B-39. II Environmental variables (water quality), HDR Stations 12, 13, and 14 (intake) for 1976.PHOSPHORUS ORTHOPHOSPHATE FILTERABLE RESIDUE AMMONIA NITROGEN NITRITE NITROGEN MONTH B T B 'T B T B T (ORTHOB)1 (ORTHOT)1 (FRESB)l (FREST)l (AMMONIAB)l (AMMONIAT) 1 (NITRITEB) 1 (NITRITET)W 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 January -0.16 -262 -0.73 -0.021 February 0.18 0.18 275 272 0.86 0.87 0.011 0.010 March 0.11 0.14 254 233 0.70 0.72 0.018 0.017 April 0.02 0.03 218 211 0.01 0.01 0.016 0.016 May 0.00 0.00 172 169 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.003 June 0.09 0.05 240 225 0.08 0.19 0.028 0.002 July 0.08 0.10 203 217 0.04 0.07 0.003 0.007 August 0.05 0.04 220 230 0.00 0.02 0.004 0.012 September 0.05 0.08 226 241 0.04 0.19 0.010 0.054 October 0.00 0.00 212 212 0.02- 0.03 0.155 0.130 November 0.07 0.08 229 226 0.08 0.10 0.022 0.022 December 0.22 0.21 296 284 1.40 1.60 0.054 0.022 W'Abbreviation as used in the computer printout.B = bottom; T = top LEGEND FOR TABLES 5-1 THROUGH 5-5 Q?Qi Qr Q 3 6 Q26 T p T a AT W~s and Wd= plant blowdown flow, cfs= plant intake, cfs= river flow, cfs= flow through channel 36, cfs, Figure 4-1= flow through channel 42, cfs, Figure 4-1= flow through channel 26, cfs, Figure 4-1= plant discharge temDerature, degrees F= ambient temperature, degrees F= temnerarure rise at Barney's Point= wind speed and its corresponding direction 1-41 Tab.le D-.i -4. )/D MoiiulJ.y -"p:1cal. b1schal:ge Condtlions Qv Item (cfs)Month (1)Jan. 150 Feb. 263 Ma Ir. 255 Apr. 388 May 591..June 302 July 735 Aug. 509 S ept1 L. 34 3 Oct. 230 Nov. 154 Dec. 149 Qr Ws (mph)Wd Q36 (cfs)Q42 (cfs)Q26 (Cfs)Tp OF (3)Ta Tp-Ta OF, A T (5)(cfs)-1.75-289-281.-414-618-326-761-541.-378-265-1.90-1-75 (2)(4)7995 8691 9944 45860 65220 36200 38010 11.790 10950 1.0070 1.2570 12561.S S S S S S S S S 1037 1.127 1256 5904 8406 4655 4889 1.499 1.389 1.273 1600 1622-793-859-967-4372-6211.-34.55-3627-1142-1.063-979-121.5-1.222-209-232-254-1497-2160-1.1.65-1227-322-2q1-259-350-365 75.0 73.9 72.1.79.3 86.9 92.5 91. 8 89.4 83.6 81.5 76.7 80.5 32.5 33.1.35.0 40..1.61..1.69.5 77.8 76.0 64.6 55.8 44.2 32.9 42.5 40.8 37.1 39.2 25.8 23.0 14.0 1.3.4 19.0 25.7 32.5 47.6 8.4 9.0 8.0 4.5 2.8 2.9 2.5 3.6 4.4 5.14 5.8 8.5 H N.)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)Weighted Monthly Average -Prairie Island Environmental Event Log Monthly Average Daily Flow -U.S.G.S. Flow Data at Prescott, Wisconsin Cooling Tower Performance Curve Monthly Average Maximum Inlet Temperature -Red Wing Cenerating Plant Temperature Rise at Barney's Point 0 ait -)I z l b Lit. @1(1)ils : ge di t Q Item (cfs)Month (1)Qr Qi (cfs)(cfs) (2)Ws (mph)Wd Q36 (cfs)Q 42 (cfs)Q26 (cfs)rp (3F (3)Ta 0 F (4),Jan.Feb.Har.Apr.May ,June.Tuly Aug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.136 169 149 150.142 485 1011 816 209.182 14 7 150-169-199-1.76-182-176-518-1044-847-240-212-180-183 9066 9987 21190 43070 11.030 6883 5323 3636 3002 3556(5)3949(5)3329(5)0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 S S S S S S S S S 1175 1293 2715 5543 1399 842 624 370 273 358 418 434-895-982-2030-4108-1070-667-507-336-272-328-368-339-2 45-276-650-1401.-294-14 1-82 1 33 5-1.5-61 74.6 82.3 71.5 76.1 82.2 85.7 86.5 87.3 83.2 80.8 71.1 73.4 32.2 34.4 37.0 51.1 61.7 73.7 79.3 77.6 67.2 52.6 37.7 33.0 Tp-Ta A T (6)42.4 8.1 47.9 9.3 34.5 5.0 25.0 2.3 20.5 3.8 1.2.0 3.5 7.2 3.1 9.7 3.7 1.6.0 3.6 28.2 6.2 33.4 7.0 40.4 8.4 H (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Weighted Monthly Average -Prairie Island Environmental Event Log Monthly Average Daily Flow -U.S.G.S. Flow Data at Prescott, Wisconsin Cooling Tower Performance Curve Monthly Average Maximum Inlet Temperature -Red Wing Generating Plant Flow at Lock & Dam No. 3 Temperactire Rise at Barney's Point Table 5-3 -1975 Monthly treme Discharge Comi~ltions Q p Item (cfs)Month (1)Jan. 150 Feb. 420 Ma r. 410 Apr. 490 May 11-90 June 695 July 1.200 Aug. 1000 Sept. 655 Oct. 533 Nov. 296 Dec. 150 Qr (Qi (cfs)(cfs) (2)14s (m11ph)(3)Wd (4)Q36 (Cfs)Q42 Q26 Tp 01?(5)Ta OF (6)Tp-'ra AT (8, (efs) (cfs)-180-446-434-511-1213-716-1225-1036-690-567-332-1.82 5900 8680 10100 33600 38400 38300 58500 10000 1.2100 10300 10400 1.4100 0 0 3 5 4 7 10 7(4)4 (4)4 6 0 E S SE SE NW SE(4)NE (4)SE SW 767 1125 1.267 4319 4940 4927 7449 1.245 1544 1285 1344 1817-591-858-995-3208-3664-3654-5556-977-1185-1006-1012-1363-1.41-232-237-1076-1242-1.238-1856-233-324-245-297-41 8 87.0 76.1 76.3 80.5 87.1 96.5 94 .3 88.5 87.6 84.8 87.3 87.5 32.0(7)34.0(7)39.0 40.0 69.0 69.0 80.0 78.0 72.0 60.0 52.0 55.0 42.1 37.3 40.5 18.1 27.5 1 4. 3 10.5 1.5.6 24.8 35.3 11.: 11. (9.1 6.1 4.f 4 .f 4.'2., 14.d 4.'7.1 7.: 9.1 35.0(7) 52.5 H (1) Maximimi Average Daily Blowdown -Prairie Island Environmental Event Log (2) U.S.G.S. Flow Data at Prescott, WisconsIn (3) Prairie Island Meteorology Station (4) Minneapolis Airport Weather Station (5) Cooling lower Performance Curves (6) Maximum Daily Inlet Temperature -Red WIng Generating Plant (7) Assumed Case (8) Temperature Rise at Barney's Point 0 . )Ie 11C"i l~y 0 .31-Sc! U ..L I I Q[p Item (cfs)Month (I)Jan. 173 Feb. 317 Mar. 206 Apr. 153 May 205 June 1.137 July 1190 Aug. 1245 Sept. /472 Oct. 367 Nov. 147 Dec. 150 I-H 01 Qi (cfs)-209-353-242-189-241-1170-1219-1269-508-397-1.81.-180 Qr (cfs)(2)8790 8560 14400 39800 11.500 6440 4430 3890 3230 3132(8)4140(8)31.07(8)Ws (mph)(3)0 0 7 10 4 10(6)8(6)6 6 4 0 0 Wd (3)SSE 14 NE SSW(6)N (6)NE E W Q36 Q42 (cfs) (cfs)1139 -869 1110 -847 1841 -1397 5138 -3801 1466 -1129 843 -543 599 -535 435 -413 236 -336 463 -299 539 -419 406 -317 Tip Ta Q 26 0 F OF (c (4) (5)-236 76.8 32.0-228 75.7 33.0-409 77.3 33.0-1.302 85.0 52.0-302 83.5 60.0 265 87.5 75.0-28 90.8 78.0 1.3 92.7 77.0 135 83.5 76.0-129 88.0 56.0-85 76. 1 33.0(7)Tp-Ta /\,'0 F , 0 F (9)44.8 8.9 42.7 10.0 44.3 8.1 33.0 3.2 23.5 4.6 12.5 5.7 1.2.8 6.2 15.7 7.6 7.5 2.2 32.0 8.1 43.1 9.0-54 81.0 32.0(7) 49.0 10.2 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)Maximum Average Daily Blowdown -Prairie, Island Environmental Event Log U.S.G.S. Flow Data at Prescott, Wisconsin Prairie Island Meteorology Station Cooling Tower Performance Curves Maximum 1)aily Inlet Temperature -Red Wing Generating Plant Minneapolis Airport Weather Station Assumed Worst Case Flow at Lock & Dam No. 3 Temperature Rise at Barney's Point Table 5- -'Proposed Monthly xtreme DI.scharge Conditions Qp Item (cfs)Month (1)Jan. 150 Feb. 150 Mar. 150 Apr. 150 May 600 June 800 1386 July 1384 Aug. 1381 Sept. 500 Oct. 300 Nov. 150 Dec. 150 Qr Qt (cfs)Tp Ta Tp-Ta 0 F 01, 1T 0F (cfs)(2)-175-175-175-185-629-829-1410-1.,410-141.0-532-333-180-175 3699 3780 4279 7623 8475 6431.4299 3390 3680 4010 4/243 3787 Ws (mph)0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 Ud (cf s) (cfs)482 Q36 S S S S S S S S S Q42 Q26 493-31 710 856 483-25-334-231-121-43 494-375-384-204-654-744-527-209-1-63-141-195-384 (cfs) (3) (4) (6)-72 85.0 32.0(5) 53.0 11.1-74 85.0 32.0(5) 53.0 11.0 270 85.0 32.0(5) 53.0 11.0-21 85.0 65.0 20.0 4.2-78 87.3 73.0 14.3 4.6 90.4 11.4 4.4 80 88.5 79.0 9.5 5.0 268 91.5 83.0 8.5 3.9 357 91.7 85.0 6.7 2.7 328 90.0 78.0 12.0 3.1 296 86.4 70.0 16.4 3.7 27"4 85.0 32.0(5) 53.0 10.9-75 85.0 32.0(5) 53.0 1].0 cm (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Expected Maximum Blowdown for Future Operation with Existing Systems Seven-day, 10-year Low Flow -U.S.G.S. Flow Data at Prescott, Wisconsin Cooling Tower Performance Curves 85.0 0 F"WInter for Ice Control Maximum Inlet Temperature -Red Wing Generating Plant (unless noted)Minimum Inlet Temperature Temperature Rise at Barney's Point (1928-1.976) Table 5-6 -Heat Recirculation Rate at intake Structure 1975 Typical 1976 TvDical 1975 Extreme 1976 Extreme Proposed Extreme Month Month Extreme January February March April May June July August September October November December 8.6 9.4 3.7 1.8 1.1 2.4 4.0 10.4 9.1 8.3 6.3 6.3 7.8 7.6 3.9 1.4 6.9 14.6 27.9 27.3 15.3 14.0 12.8 12.8 10.2 11.4 10.4 3.5 6.4 3.7 3.2 18.7 11.8 11.8 8.8 5.7 8.3 10.2 6.1 1.6 7.2 27.3 31.1 35.5 19.8 16.8 11.9 13.1 12.4 12.3 15.9 10.2 15.8 23.5 36.0 44.0 51.0 27.6 20.4 16.0 12.3"E: Heat recirculation rate at the intake structure is of heat effluent at the discharge structure. expressed as the percentage 1-47 Table 5-7 -Surface Water Temperatu.o Rise 1.975 Typical Operating Conditions Along Ceniterl.iie of Ifeat Phtime 1976 Typical Operating Conditiona Barney' s Barney' s PoJ nt Month 1000 ft 2000 ft 3000 ft: 4000 ft 5000 ft Point 1000 ft 2000 ft 3000 ft 4000 ft 500(Jail.Feb.Mar.Apr.May June July Aug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.8.4 9.0 8.0 4.5 2 .8 2.9 2.5 3.6 4.4 5.4 5.8 8.5 5.2 5.5 4.9 2. 8 1.7 1.8 1.5 2.2 2.7 3. 3 3.6 5.2 4.2 4.5 4.0 2.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.9 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.7 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.0 2. 4 2.7 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.5 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.5 3.'7 3.4 3.7 3.3 1.9 1. I 1.2 1.0 1.5 1. 8 2.2 2.4 3.5 8.1.9.3 5.0 2.3 3. 8 3.5 3.1.3.7 3.6 6.2 7.0 8.4 5.0 5.7 3.1 1.14 2.3 2.1.1.9 2.2 2.2 3.8 4.3 5 .I 41. 1 4.7 2.5 1.2 2.0 I8 1.6 1.8 1.8 3.0 3.4 4 .1 3.8 4.2 2.3 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.5 4.0 2.2 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.3., 2.4 0.2.i.1.1.1.2.1 2.: 3.: 0I 0-Table 5-8 -Surface -itter Tempe.riture Rise Along Centerl.jnf of lieat Pluwe 19Y5 Extreme Operat:jng Condltions lk1l.nIe y 'Po 1 11 Ci 10001 fL 2000 ft 3000 ft 4000 ft Barney' s 5000 ft Point Month 1976 Extreme Operating Conditi-ons 1000 ft 2000 ft 3000 ft 11000 ft 5000 Jan.Feb.Mar.Apr.May June July Ang.Sept.Oct.Nov.11.8 9. 4 6.4 4.6 2.7 4.4 4.7 7.0 7.8 6.9 6.8 5.8 4.0 2.8 3.0 1.7 2.7 2.9 4.3 4.8 5.7 5.5 4.7 3.2 2.3 2.4 1.4 2.2 2.4 3.5 3.9 5.1 5.0 4.3 2.9 2.2 2.2 1.3 2.1 2.1 3.2 3.6 4.8 4.7 4.1 2.8 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.9 2.0 3.0 3.4.4.6 8.9 4.5 10.0 3.9 8.1 2.7 3.2 1.9 4.6 2.0 5.7 1.1 6.2 1.8 7.6 1.9 2.2 2.9 8.1 3.2 9.0 5.5 6.1 5.0 2.0 2. 8 3.5 3.8 4.6 1.3 4.9 5.5 4.4 5.0 4.1 1.6 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.8 1. 1.3.9 14 4 4.6 3.7 1.5 2.1.2.6 2.8 3. 4 1.0 3.6 4 .0 3.8 4.3 3.5 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.6 3.2 0.9 3.3 3 -8 3.4.3.1.1.'2.2.3.1 0.3.3.Dec. .9.0 5.6 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.7 10.2 6.2 4.9 4.5 4j .2 4. Table 5-9 -Surface Water Tempera... ire Rise Along Centerline of Heat Plume Blarney'st-P'oint Proposed Extreme 1000 ft 2000 ft Operating Conditions 3000 ft 11000 ft 5000 ft Jan.Feb.Ma r.Apr.Nay.Jtune 11.1 11.0 11.0 4.2 4.6 4.4 5.0 3.9 3.1 3. 7 10.9 11.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.4 1.9 2.3 6.6 6.37 5.5 5.4 5.4 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.0 1..5 1.8 5.4 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.7 4.9 4.9 4".6 4.6 4.6 1.. 8 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.6 4.14 4.11 4.11 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.5 0 July Aug. (1)Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.1.3 1.6 4.6 4.6 1.2 1.5 4.4 4.4 (1)see Section 5.2.0 N U 14 S COMxs I N HAST I M.RED I4 N N ES 0 TA N FALLS 5 0 5 SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 3-1 LOCATION MAP THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 1-51 WING DAM (rfP)1~-I-~ ~ -MISSISSIPPI RIVER BARNEY'S POINT---~-- .-APPROACH CHANNEL_ ..--I,-I NTAKE L_. N.../'-'~2/./SHORELINE BARR I ER WALL -m <-J PO, C SCREENHOUSE HOUSE 500 250 0 500 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3-2 GENERAL PLOT PLAN THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY OOLI NG TOWERS (TYP)1-52 PECYCLE CAN AL DISCIIARGE BASIN -.A CONITRlOL STRUCTURE "'" RECY Co NT I I.SCOiT.sTRU CLE CANAL ROL CTURE 6 C I RCIJLAT WATEId P I1 DI SCIIARGE BAS11 -->-DI SCIIARGE STRUCTURE FLOW ->-DI SiR I BUT IONl BAS I It DI SCHARGE CANIAL 80 11O 2.0 0 SCALE III FEET H I ;~U~MP4PII'--FI----r II I'J LJ COOLING TOWER DISIRIBUTIOll PIPE (TYP)4 COOLING TOWER RETURN CAtAL KFIGURE 3-3 EXISTING DISCHARGE STRUCTURES THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PIlAIRIEI= ISLAND NUCLEAR GI-NI:-ERATING PLANT NORTIIERN STATES POWER COMPANY NUCLUAl 1 SIMULATED CLOSED BOUNDARY-- SIMULATED OPEN LANT 0 £00 2004.1.TAKE S; IN I CGHANNEL 42 MISSISSII'PI RIVER I 4Nil 26 CHIANNEL 36 fIGUIIE 4-1 SITE VICINITY LAYOUT THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 0 FIGURE 4-2 MISSISSIPPI RIVER LAYOUT THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN Sr'TAES POWER COMPANY .. .... .... -PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR PREDICTION --- FIELD MEASUREMENTS (1 MEIER BELOW SURFACE)-§ -.H-IJ-1/20 100 .00...s SCALC* ..7-'ii-..-~. ..... ........

" MIS"SISSIIP lI RIVER -4 ..., FIGURE 4-3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND MIEASURED ISOFI-IERMAL I THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY LINES, AUGUST 1, 1975 0 DEPTH, METER DEPTH, METER 0 2-(1)TEMP°C 35 35 34 33 (2)AREA 9.2 37.3 4.4 3.1 2.1 2.8 5.0 20.3 15.9 (3)TEMP RISE OF 14.0 13.1 11.3 9.5 (4)WEIGHT (2)X(3)1.3 4.9 0.5 0.3 H.3 4 5 32 31 30 29 28 28 7.7 5.9 4.1 2.3 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 HOIZ~tONTAL SCALE M ETER 0 25 50 AVERAGE FIELD TEMPERATURE RISE = 8.3 :F MODEL PREDICTED TEMPERATURE RISE= 8.1 F FIGURE 4-4 TOTAL HEAT RELEASED INTO MAIN CHANNEL OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SCALE 0 250 500 FEET MISSISSIPPI RIVER 0.90 F* ~~*'q*s N)\2.7 0 F 4.90 F 4.50 F 2.7° F/0.9 0 F BARNEY'S POINT 0/PREDICTED ISOTHERMAL LINE MEASURED ISOTHE:RMAL LINE m D m FIGURE 4-5 COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND MEASURED ISOTHERMAL LINES, SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS Pfl4IRIl:

I.qLAIlrf (ENFf-lATIN(- PLANMT NOn [IIIEHN ST/t IPU)WEI-i

OMi't\NY FIGURE 4-6 COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND MEASURED ISOTHERMAL LINES, AUGUST 1, 1975 THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY LL H U-i I--J 0 C-)0 oI (D" WET BULB TEMP. (F)FIGURE 4-7 COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE CURVE 0 TIIE[R14AL DI SCHIARGE ANlALYS IS PR ...'D V'R P P'"T 1IORTIIFRrI

'*~WPOWER COMP ANY 0 100 20010 i SCAILE F-,-MISSISSIPPI 1 IVER FIGURE 5-1 PREDICTED ISOTI-IERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN SITE VICINITY AUGUST, 1975 TYPICAL CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIR~IE ISLAND 1 A I.->--17 H I'-..-£~ -~'Q**0 100 2U01-1a SCAtE-- -MISSISSIPPI RIVER ..._FIGURE 5-2 PREDICTED ISOTIIERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN SITE VICINITY DECEMBER, THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 1975 TYPICAL CONDITION 0 PiiAIRIF ISLAND NUCLEAR 77*.0 100 ?D0I..l SC AL!, -MISSISSIPPI RIVER FIGURE 5-3 PREDICTED ISOTI IERMAL CONFIGURAATIONS IN SITE VICINITY MAY, 1976 THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY1/2TYPICAL CONDITION PlAiir IS[ ~LAWf 0 100 200I.-1 2 ISCA I.C)C i.......W y .. .....--MI8SK.);1I-I fIVER FIGURE 5-'A PREDICTED ISOTI IERMAL CONFIGURAI-ONS IN SITE VICINITY JUNE, 1975 EXTREME CONDITION THE--RErMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTIIERN STATES POWER COMPANY C*. ............. FIGURE 5-5 PREDICTLED ISOTI IERMAL CONFIGURAFIONS IN SITE VICINITY AUGUST, 1976 EXTREME CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR.GENERArING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 6j2~~ K 0 100 2001..l SCALL H4J-,----- MISSISSIPPI FIVER FIGURE 5-6 PIHIEDICTED ISOTHtERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN SITE VICINIT-THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATI NORTHERN STATES POWER COM*0 e JANUARY PROP. EXTII-EME CONDITION NG PLANt PANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENE RAT ING PLANT'-'V (1-4 6, 0 l0L 200l4..SCAt.(-*----- MISSISSIPPI HIVER FIGURE 5-7 PREDICTED ISOTI IERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN SITE VICINITY MAY PIRC THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY1/2)P. EXTREME CONDITION .. ..---- <CAL FIGURE 5-8 Pl--EDICTF-D ISOITIEFtMAi_ CONF-IGUR/ATIONS IN SITE VICINITrY AUGUST 1-RO01. EX'TiI:EMI2-CONDIT-ION THERMAL_ DISCHARGE ANAI-YSIS 13RAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 0)* FIGURE 5-9 PREDICTED ISOTIiERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIV[--_R AUGUST. 1975 TYPICAL CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Itevi sedl 4/28/78

' :I,:I0Y ,.,(FIGUnE 5-10 PREDICTED ISOTI IERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIVEIR DEC. '75 TYPICAL CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERýATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 0 0 .......',.,

FIGUMrE 5-11 PFEDIC(TED ISOTHEFRMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI IiVEn MAY '76 TYPICAL CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY $CAL(FIGRE 6-12 PREDICTED ISOTI-llz--MAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIVER--R JUNE. 1975 EXTREME CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 0 FiGURE 5-13 P-EDICTED ISOTFIERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIVER AUG.THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY'76 EXTREME CONDITION Revised 4/2 78 q .i ;0-nn -FtGUFIE 5-14 PIIEDICTED ISOTHE1RMAL CONFIGUFiATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIVEIR JAN. PROP. EXTREME CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE-ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 4/28/710 FIGUME 5-15 PAEHDICTED ISOTHERMAL CONFIGURATIONS IN MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAY PROP. EXTREME CONDITION THERMAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY APPENDIX A Pertinent entries from the Prairie island Environmental Event Log have been transcribed to a computer file maintained at Northern States Power Company's general office and are reproduced in the following table. Columns I through 5 in the table represent an entry in the Environmental Event Log sheet which occurred each time plant blowdown flow was changed. Entries by column numbers are described as follows: Column 1: the month, day and year of the records Column 2: time of the day at which the entry was made Column 3: blowdown flow Column 4: condenser inlet temperature Column 5: river temperature measured at the sensors located in the plant intake canal on the river site of the skimmer wall Column 6: river temperatures measured at Red Wing Steam Plant Column 7: river temperatures measured at Lock & Dam No. 3 Column 8: wet bulb temperature measured at Twin Cities Airport Column 9: number of cooling towers in operation Column 10: plant discharge temperature Column 11: evaporation rate Column 12: monthly average temperature at Red Wing Column 13: monthly average discnarge temperature Column 14: monthly average blowdown rate Column 15: monthly average evaporation 1-77 ,ýD .oP p I MODAYR I IfIE SLOW CONO RIVER TEMPS WET TW 0ISCIA EVAP DOWN4: TE tP PI RtW L03 BULB TEMP------. -.-.---. .---.----. .---..--. --.-.- ..- ---..- -MONTH-LY AVE RIVR DISCH B ON EVAP 2 175 2.1276::I 21275 21275 21 27S 2.1375.21575 21575 21575 21675 21675 21775 21775 21975 21975-1975 22075 22075 22275 22275 22275 22375 22375 22375 H ~22S7S 22675 S22675 22775 22775 22775 3 175 3 175 3 175 3 375 3 475 3 875 31775 31775 31775" 31775 31775 31775 31775 31875 31875 31875 31875 31875 31875 31975 31975 0 1300 1 00 1500 16S1 1434 1540 2025 200 330 830 1050 30 1230 1430 30 4.40 114 1300 1915 400 610 1830 1 4 15 541 1813 615 830 1345 500 630 230 309 1330 620 1130 14 15 1700 1815 1928 2028 200 500 625 1002 1030 1935 130 306 185WmWHm 33.0 185 72.3 32.1 200 68.1 32.1 255ss "*0N "Wx 260 ISO 2E0 350 150 244 330 4 10 300 374 340 374 420 140 330 400 150 330 328 4,20 330 420 330 295 330 360 295 230 295 ISO 225 295 325 503 405 456 397 990 410 442 9999 442 Z70 195 2'45 65 .0 32. 1 S7 .0 32 .I 65. 0 32. 1 61 0 32.1 65 0 32. 1 6 4. 32. 1 74.2 32 .2 72 0 32. 1 67 1 32. 1 62. 7 32 1 62. 0 32. 1 66 .0 32 1 58 5 32 0 61 .7 32 0 60 0 3-2 0 67 0 32 0 62 5 32 0 54. 7 32. 1 69 7 32 1 69 0 32. 2 64 0 32 3 66 0 32 0 64 1 32. 5 6S 7 32 4 60 0 32 4 69 0 32 7 33.0 32.0 32..0 32.0 32 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 34. 0 34 0 34 0 34 0 34 0 34.0 34 0 34 0 34 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33. 0 33. 0 33. 0 32 0 34 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 37 0 37 0 37 0 37 0 37 0 37 0 38 0 38 0 33.8 12 0 33.8 7 0 33.8 4 0 33.8 4. 0 33.8 2 0 34.7 5.35 6 25 0 35 6 24, 0 35 6 24 0 35 6 23 0 35 6 23 0 35 6 27 0 35 6 28 0 35 6 7 0 35 6 20 0 35 6 22 0 35 6 15 0 35 6 7. 0 35 6 32 0 35 6 27 0 35 6 25 0 35 6 24. 0 3S 6 0.0 0 35 6 24 0 38 3 29 0 36 5 19 0 36 .5 20 0 35 6 13 0 35 .6 15 0 35 6 26 0 35.6 4 0 3S.6 4. 0 35.6 7. 0 34.7 & .0 35 .6 17 0 35 6 is 0 41 0 28 0 41 0 35 0 41 0 37 0 4 1 0 35 0 4 1 0 35 0: 41 0 35 0 41 0 35 0 40 1 34 0 40 1 34 0 40 1 34 0 40 1 35 0 40 1 35 0 40 1 29 0 40 1 27 0 40 1 26 0 39999.0 3 75 .7 3 74 .2 39999. 0 3 74 8 3 73 8 3 73 8 3 70 .9 3 73. 6 3 73 .1 3* 79.2 3 78.4 3 75.5 3 73 .2 3 71 0 3 74 0 3 70 6 3 73.2 3 71 .5 3 75 3 3 72 1 3 67. 6 3 75 9 3 76 1 4 68 .6 4 69,2 4 68.9 4 71 .2 4 70 .6 4 70 .6 1 0 0 31.1 27 3 27 3 21 8 11 .6 23 3 21 6 21.65 23 .5 28. 9 26 8 23 8 20 8 23 0 24 S 18 .5 19.4 19.3 24.0 17. 3 27 , 0 25 .7 29.3 31 .3 29.1 20.7 33,8 19 .8 16 .8 27 1 16 .6 30 S 23.8 30 3 33 .31.9 28.5 31 .6 30 .5 36. 0 33.9 32 .4 32 .3 34.7 34.7 26.7 20 .5 20.8 32.1 73.9 263.1 26.4 63 .60 9 67 0 60 8 66 1 6- 1 65 0 72 0 71 0 65 .4 69.8 68 2 78 1 72.5 70.4 70.3 74. 0 68.9 60.0 60.0 60.2 32 2 32 2 32 1 32.8 33 0 33.0 33 0 36 3 35 0 35 6 45 0 44 9 42 2 39 9 37 .5 37 .0 33.9 33.8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 499 4 3 3 74 .2 74 .2 73.2 74.2 69.9 70.6 69.0 74 .0 73.9 70 6 72 0 72. 0 76 .7 74. 0 72 .9 72 .9 75. 0 99 .0 66 .4 70.7 70.7 L GDE -E F '0P MOOAYR TIMIE BLOW COND DOWN TEPIP RIVER TEMPS WET TW OISCH PI RW LD3 EULa TEMiP EVAP MONTHLY AVE RIVR 0ISCH B ON EVAP 3197S 31975 32175 32175 32275 32275 32375 3237S 32375 32575 32675 32975 32975 4 67S 41575 41575 41775'.2475':575 42075 51175 H 51175 I 51375 Q0 51575 51575 51775 51975 5:J75 52175 52375 52475 52575 52575 525 75 5:775 52775 5:975 S2975 52975 52975 6 175 6 175 6 375 6 475 6 475 6 575 6 575 61675 61675 900 1600 1950 2335 810 050 820 1120 1340 845 1100 1230 1306 1000 50 325 3.30 1900 1415 1000 1600 2000 1800 1605 1000 1705 1300 1148 4 05 135O 1105 1 03S 1325 1725 930 1200 1300 1415 1800 1000 Z000 2030 836 1015 945 16:0 1630 1910 325 M.A4H 410 70.0 285 64.0 150 63.0 168 64.6 100 67.9 225 60. 3 165 62 3 150 68 5 245 75 0 335 72. 0 410 60 0 335 60 0 410 69 1.90 64 0 410 60 5 490 74 0 9999 70 0 9999 65.7 9999 60.0 270 86.0 340 9999 490 655 735 900 750 720 900 1025 1105 I150 1190 980 947 897 058 775 695 300 150 347 325 250 190 150 327 490 80.0 79 0 07 .6 88. 0 88 0 86. 0 78 0 80 0 81.0 73 0 75 0 76 0 70 2 70 0 78 3 75 5 75 0 75 4 0l 0 76 0 79 1 85 0 79. 3 80 .5 05 5 06 5 86 0 85 7 34 .0 34 .2 35 1 34 8 35 1 35 2 34 .7 34 3 34 2 32. 7 32 8 34 3 41 4 41 .5 43 .9 42. 3 4 2.6 42 8 44. 1 44.1 44. 0 61 .8 61 9 65 .5 66 0 68 0 68 .7 71 0 69 6 70 2 71 .3 72. 6 68 .4 69.0 65 7 65 6 65 7 65 .69 2 69 3 70 8 68 3 68 1 68 0 69.5 67.2 68.9 38.0 38.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 38. 0 38 0 38 0 36 0 35 0 34 0 34 0 37 0 40 0 4.0 0 40 0 43 0 44.0 45 0 57 0 57. 0 60. 0 62. 0 64. 0 66 0 69. 0 69 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 70 0 69. 0 619 0 68 0 68 0 63.0 68 0 67. 0 67 .0 68 0 68 0 68 0 68 0 64 0 64 .0 40 1 40 1 41 0 41 0 40 1 40 1 40.1 40.1 40.1 37.4 36.5 36.5 36.5 41 0 45 5 45 5 44 6 45 5 47 3 47. 3 60 B 60 .8 63 5 62 6 62. 6 65 3 68 .9 71. 6 71 .6 72 5 73 4 74 3 74 3 74 3 73, 4 73 4 70 7 70 7 70 .7 70 .7 70.7 70 .7 70 .7 70.7 70 .7 70.7 70.7 68 .9 68 .9 31 0 37 .0 35 0 35 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 31 0 11 0 17 0 20.0?0 o 27 0 36 0 35 0 42 0 47 0 51 0 43 0 57 0 49. 0 53 0 50.0 50 0 61 0 71 0 69. 0 70.0 66 0 62 0 71 0 71 0 61 0 52. 0 55 .0 56. 0 56 .59 0 5 4. 0 50 0 57 0 62. 0 62. 0 56. 0 57. 0 61 0 64 .0 39999 0 3 70 7 3 74 6 3 73.9 3 74.2 3 76 3 3 76.6 3 72.7 3 76.8 3 77.9 3 76.9 3 69.7 3 69.7 3 70.3 3 74.8 3 72.3 3 82.1 3 80.5 39999.0 39999. 0 39999. 0 3 83.1 3 07.1 39999. 0 3 91.3 3 93.7 3 95.2 3 90.2 3 91.7 3 91.1 3 85.6 3 89.2 3 89.8 39999. 0 3 81.6 3 87.1 3 85.7 3 85.5 3 85.9 3 89.9 20.8 23.4 20.7 20.1 22. 1 23.8 24. 1 20 .9 23.9 31 .9 28.9 220 22.0 34 .3 20.4 18.9 24.2 2.0 .8 20.8 20 .0 20.8 20.8 36. 0 24.3 24.3 31 .2 27.7 22.6 18.3 19. 1 21 3 17.7 15 .4 16 .0 16. 0 19.3 23. 3 21 .2 20 .9 24 .3 33.9 25.3 27.0 21 .6."2. 4 27.7 28.1 26 .4 2S. 1 33.5 72.1 255.1 26.0 41.1 79.3 388.2 25.6 57.8 86.9 591.1 27.2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 77.5 86 .5 91 .2 09.2 89.9 91 .3 92. 0 92.7 93.3 0 PACE 3 ODE L0 0_30p -, M1OOAYR 1 tIE BLOW COND F I 0DWN TEMP P1------. -.--.--. .---..- --VER TEMPS WET TW DISCH EVAP MONTHLY AVE RW L03 BULB Co 61675 61675 6 1675 61 87S 61875 61975 6 1975 6197S 61975 62075 62175 62175 62275 6227S 62275 62275 62275 62275 62275 6237S 62375 6:375 62475 62475 6257S 62575 62575 62575 62S7S 625 75 62575 62575 62575 62675 62675 62675 7 675 7 775 7 775 7 775 7 775 7 775 7 775 7 775 7 875 7 075 7 975 71075 71075 71075 71175 2000 2120 2210 1749 2013 800 12310 2115 1630 1 050 135 300 32 0 5122 800 1200 17-0 730 846 1015 910 1207 630 730 750 1215 1300 1440 1535 17 5 2030 41IS 515 630 1053 1350 1400 14i15 1430 20236 2100 2250 130 2130 0 S 25 210 1630 530 650 737 69S 615 450 520 695 760 654 735 700 780 470 350 330 255 371 4 10 325 370 353 370 490 565 820 410 330 363 410 455 530 435 205 150 150 325 420 575 795 820 900 1140 1228 1167 1105 1022 940 910 060 06.7 88.4 87.4 80.2 77 8 84 0 85 3 86 2 86 2 89 7 85 3 87 2 87 0 85 0 83 0 83 5 87 3 04 7 87.0 84 5 86 8 05. 8 85 0 87 5 85 0 804 0 83 7 79 3 a 3 9 87 3 87 3 87 7 86 6 85 0 84 0 83 0 61 3 88 7 89 .4 89 3 86 2 86 86.5 86 7 84.4 84.0 83.7 84.0 84 .3 84,.0 69 9 64 .0 69 7 64 0 70 5 64 0 67 2 66 0 67 6 66 0 67 4 69 0 66 9 69 0 68 3 69. 0 71 9 69 0 72 7 71 0 71 7 73 .0 73 8 73 0 74 .73 0 73 9 73 0 73 7 73 0 73 0 73 0 72 2 73 0 72 7 73 0 7S 0 73 0 73 1 74. 0 7 Z6 74 0 73 5 74 0 74 0 74. 0 74 8 74 0 75 6 75 0 75 3 75 0 75 3 75 0 76 0 75 0 75S4 75 0 76 1 75 0 76. 6 75 0 77 6 75 .0 70 2 75 .0 76 3 75 0 75 9 75. 0 75 7 75 .0 a1 0 80.0 80 2 80 0 80 2 80 0 00 4 80 0 80 5 80 0 031 7 80 0 81 7 80 0 81 6 80 0 81 3 80 .0 79. 5 80. 0 7 .5 7 .0 76 .5 76. 0 76 .0 76. 0 75 .0 76 .0 73 .6 75. 0 68. 9 68 9 68 9 69 8 69 8 71 6 71 6 71 6 71 6 74 3 75 .2 752 75.2 75 2 75.2 75 2 75 2 75 2 75 .2 76 1 76 1 76 1 77 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 77. 0 77 0 77 .0 77. 0 77.9 77.9 77 .9 82.,4 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 03.3 83 .3 83 .3 82.4 82.4 600.6 70.0a 78. 8 78 .8 77.9 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 60.0 62. 0 67. 0 75. 0 73. 0 70. 0 74 .0 67. 0 65 0 65 0 65 0 67. 0 66.0 68. 0 68. 0 64 0 68 0 68 0 70. 0 71 0 67 0 67 0 73 0 73 0 74 0 74 0 74 0 71 0 69 0 6. 0 68. 0 73, 0 72..0 72 .,0 72 '0, 72. 0 72. 0 72. 0 72. 0 66.0 59. 0 57 0 55 0 510 59 0 53.0 TEMP 93.5 94 .4 93.9 019 .7 87.9 91.8 93.8 96.5 95 9 99 1 95 .7 94. 8 94. 2 93 .1 92. 0 92. 8 94 .6 93.7 94 .9 9-2.6 94 .0 94. 3 94 .4 96.0 93.6 93.1 93.7 92 .2 94 .7 96.8 96.8 97.0 95.6 94 .1 93.3 92.7 83 0 96.9 96 .9 97.3 97.2 95 6 95.95 .0 94 3 91 3 91 1 90 1 89.4 91.3 89.8 26 1 27 3 26. 6 22 .2 21 4 24 7 23.7 21. 1 21 .9 2*.4 20 .9 25 1 25.6 24.3 23,0 22.6 2.5 5 23 .0 24 .6 24. 3 24 .4 23.7 22 .3 23. 7 23 5 22 .9 21 .s 17.3 0 .4 22'1.3 12. 3 22 6 23. 0"2 .8 22.5 2.1.9 33.7 2 4 .1 24. 1 24 6 24.5 22.3 22 .6.22 .6 25. 1 26 .0 26 .9 26.8 28.2 25.9 27 .6 RIVR DISCH B"ON EVAII 71.3 92.5 301.9 24.2 PAGE 4 COE t LE 1Op I MODAYR TItlE SLOW CONO DOWN TEM-1P RIVER TEM-PS WET TW DISCH EVAP Pi P.W L03 BULB TEMP MONTHLY AVE RIVR OISCH B ON EVAP 71175 71275'? 12 7S 71275 71375 7 375 7 '475 71475 71475 71475 71575 7 1575 71575 71675 7167S 71675 71675 71675 71775 71775 71775 71775 71 775 71 77S 7 1775 71775 7 1875 7 875 7 9775 71975 71 975 71 975 7197S 71975 71975 71975 71975 7Z075 72075?:2 1 75 72175 72275 72375 72475 7C575 72675 7267S 72675 72875 72875 72875 1610 31s 440 1843 430 950 330 530 1210 1430 610 1015 1150 35 458 1 04 0 1535 ,1824 700 730 800 1050 1230 1330 1405 1924 1210 21 is0 15 230 330 410 455 935 1730 1820 1950 618 84 0 1650 728 2350 1700 1155 s10 445 1120 1415 1630 ss 730 1615 840 735 650 694 330 575 540 640 730 65S 820 77.7 820 735 780 840 900 1065 1020 900 900 9'4 0 980 940 1014 980 1055 1020 94.0 890 820 780 738 820 910 940 900 875 930 960 980 1060 980 900 860 980 9L0 860 8z0 920 950 04 0 86 0 87 0 a5 .2 87 7 86. 0 86 1 88 0 88 1 04 0 86 9 83 .5 86 0 85 9 85 3 87 8 88.2 84 4 83 1.85 6 85 7 87 8 86 8 87, 9 89 8 as 3 04 9 83 8 84 0 83. 7 84.-5 87 S 87 3 88 5 87 9 86 4 83 7 86.8 84.2 88 1 06 4.83. 3 84. 1 84.6 86.5 82.0 8S.9 86.7 85.6 80.2 73.7. 75.0 73 0 74.0 73 0 74 0 72.5 74. 0 70 7 73.0 70 .2 73.0 70 0 72.0 69 4 72 0 69 .4 72 0 70 9 72 0 73 .2 74 0 72 4 74 0 72. 7 74 0 76 0 76 0 74 .7 76 .0 73 5 76 0 77 0 76 0 78 0 76 0 76 3 78 0 76 2 78 0 76 0 78 0 75 9 78 0 76 1 78 0 76 4 78 0 76 6 78 0 78 5 78 0 76 6 70 0 79 6 78 0 79 8 79 0 79 3 79 0 79 1 79 0 79. 0 79 0 78 8 79. 0 78. 0 79 0 79 4- 79. 0 79 9 79. 0 79 7 79. 0 78 0 79 0 77.5 79 0 70 -4 79 0 77 4 79 0 79 1 79 0 79 4 79. 0 77 9 79 0 77 .S 78 0 76. 4 77 0 76.S 77 0 77. 1 77 0 77 .3 77. 0 79.7 79.0 78. 7 79 .0 80 .1 79. 0 77 .9 76 1 76 1 76 1 75 .2 7S8.2 76 1 76 1 76 1 77 .9 77.9 77 .9 79.7 79.7 79. 7 79.7 79.7 80 .6 80.6 80 .6 80.6 80.6 80 .6 80.6 80 .6 8a .5 81 .5 01 .5 81 .5 1 .5 81 .5 81 .5 81 .5 81 S 81 .5 81 .5 81.a 81.5 1 .5 81 .5 61 S 83.3 81 .5 80. 6 80 6 81 .5 81 .5 81 .5 82 .4 82. 4 82- .4 61 0 49 0 51 0 57 0 52 0 5S 0 53 0 S54 0 68 0 70 0 62 0 68) 0 73 0 69 0 68 0 76 0 76 0 74 0 68 0 68 0 72 0 75 0 75 0 7S 0 74 0 74 0 75 0 73 0 69 0 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0 68 0 65 0 65 0 63 0 61 0 63 0 65 0 6&. 0 68.0 71.0 71.0 60.0 57 0 69 0 72 0 72. 0 65 0 62. 0 71. 0 91 .6 25 0 89.3 29 1 90.5 29 5 92.3 28 4 90.3 28. 7 92.2 29.5 90 .9 28 .9 91 .Z 28 7 95 .4 25 3 96. 0 24 5 91 .8 24 .7 94.9 24. 5 94. S 20. 1 94.7 23 .5 94 .3 23 0 96 .3 20 0 97 6 21 8 97 2 22 9 93 5 22 8 93. 0 22 2 95 .3 21 9 96 .2 20 7 97 3 22 .2 96.8 21 5 97. 1 22 7 98. 0 24 1 96. 0 20 .S 95.6 21 .4 94. 1 22 .7 92.7 23.1 92 8 23 3 92.6 23 1 93.1 -23. 6 95 .2 24 .9 94. 3 25 .8 95. 0 26 .7 94. 2 27 0 92. 9 26 .6 91 9 24.- 1 94. 1 25 5 91 S 2S .5 95 5 25 .3 95 .5 22 .9 93.8 20 .8 91 .4 25 .4 91.0 26. 8 94.9 Z3 .8 93.4 19.S 95 .8 22. 1 94. 0 25 .4 92. 7 2 .7 96. 4 24.2 0 GDE 30P0';P A ,E MO0AYR T10E ELOW CONO R[DOCN TEMP P1 VER TEMPS WEET TI01 O-ECI4 EVAP MONTHLY AVE Rw L03 EULS T E t.P RIVR OISCN B ON EVAP H I')72975 72-97S 73075 7307S 73175 73175 8 175 0 175 8 175 8 175 8 175 8 275 8 275 8 275 8 275 8 275 8 275.8 37S 8 375 8 375 8 3775 8 475 8 575 8 575 o 575 8 575 8 575 8 575 8 675 8 675 8 775 8 775 0 775 8 775 8 775 8 975 8 975 8 975 8 975 81075 81075 81075 81075 81 175 61175 81175 81175 81175 81375 81575 81575 1330 1700 2120 2230 IIS 1940ý40 515 600 2010 2200 345 43S 5L5 1945 2120 330 530 94S 1300 1300 255 330'25 57)5 1230 1830 1500 16is 310 315 440 134S5 2045 315 505 600 1345 1 000 1 010 19S0 2100 S I10 315 450 1710 310 600 1430 980 1065 980 900 860 9'0 1022 1063 1105 1380 980 91-0 900 860 980.900 860 620 780 780 820 5 80 820 7'0 700 820 1820 B 12 0 1320 1050 980 820 980 940 81.0 655'490 535 575 410 510 330 160 250 188 150 2.45 150 87,.3 88.8 84 .8 84 .6 84.9 87.2 87 0 86 7 86 3 88.0 84 1 83 6 83 8 83 5 88.0 86 0 85 3 85.5 85 7 89 0 8/3 6 90 6 66 3 D5 3 84 4 84. 8 88.5 89 5 90. 1 87. 0 83. 3 83. 3 83 .8 89 .4 86 8 85 .9 85.2 85. 0 037 .7 84. 4 85 6 82.Is as 9 83 1 83.2 833.1 85. 1 90. 1 86.1 81 .0 8-1 02 82.0 81 .7 a /1 3 82 3 81 9 01 9 81 7.00.9 80 9 80 8 81 0 81 0.*81 0 80 1 79 8 79 2 79 9 81 8 80 9 80 9 80 8 80.3 83.5 a1 5 78 .3 78 5 82 1 03 9 81 .9 78. 1 78.9 0 .5 79.8 79. 3 76. 9 78.2 01 0 81 0 81 0 79 .8 79.4 79. 0 78.8 79.9 77.3 76.4 77.8 80.0 80.0 81 .0 61 ./81 .0 81 .0 82 0 82 0 82 0 82 0 82. 0 82 0 82 0 82 0 8,2.0 81 0 81 0 a 1 03 80 0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 78.0 77.0 77. 0 77 .0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 78.0 8 0 a8 0 78 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 77.0 77.0 83.3 83.3 83.3 63.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83 3 83 3 83 3 83 3 83. 3 83 3 63 3 83. 3 83 3 84 2 84. 2 84 2 84.2 85 1 84 2 84.2 84 .2 84.2 84 2 84 .2 02 4 02 4 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 .6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 80 6 79.7 79.7 79.7 74.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 71 .0 74 .0 70.0 70 0 70 0 69 0 69 0 66. 0 65 0 65 0 65 0 64 00 62 0 60.0 65 0 70 0 69 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 b 2 03 66. 0 63 0 62.0 62 0 53 03 53 0 54. 0 56S 0 65 ? 0 59.0 63 0 63 0 63 0 71,.0 64.0 64 0 61 0 61 0 60 0 59 0 59.0 60 0 71 0 57 0 62 0 66 0 96 8 22 .3 98 1 22 .5 94 9 21 .4 94 8 21 2 94 7 21 9 96 7 22 .2 76.7 36.0 89.9 31 .4 89',8 31 .0 90. 0 33. 1 88. 6 29.6 87. 3 30.7 87 .1 31 .3 07. 0 31 1 88. 7 35 1 87. 6 33 7 87 .4 33 1 86 8 34 .2 86.2 35 3 89 .0 36 0 90 .6 33.2 90 9 35 6 86 7 354 86 .4 34 .5 86 .0 33. 7 86.5 33.6 89 ,2 35 .88 .6 36. 0 88. 5 36 .0 87 .3 35 .6 83.2 36 0 83.2 36.0 83.7 36.0 89 .2 36. /0 86 3 36. 0 93 1 25. 6 92 7 2S .1 92. 6 25. 0 96.1 23.8 92.5 24.2 93.2 25 0 90 .8 24 1 92.6 26 3 90 8 24 8 90 7 25 2 90 .6 25 .91 .4 25 4 96.6 24 5 91 3 27. 1 95 1 28 .8 94.0 24 .7 78.0 91.8 735.3 26.2 PAGE P6OE E suPI MODAYR TIM1E BLOW COND RIVER TEMIPS tWET DOWNt TEMP PI RW L03 GULB----. -.--.- -.----..- ---.- --T14 DISCIH EVAP T E tIP MONTHLY AVE RIVR DISCH B ON EVAP 817? 5 81 77S 01775 81875 81875 81975 81975 01975 81975 81975 82075 82075 82175 82175 82175 82375 82375 6 2 37 5 82475 82'.75 824 75 8247S 02575 82575 82575 02575 82575 82575 82675 02675 82675 82675 82675 82775 82775 82875 82875 82875 82875 82975 82975 82975 82975 82975 82975 83075 83075 83175 83175 83175 83175 8 , 1330 1405 1430 1 145 1325 0 230 920 1050 1430 1200 1330 2105 530 1210 1745 30 1230 1310 1315 1 4 4 0 1540 2230 215 435 550 725 2020 2125 115 1235 1410 1600 2350 1120 2220 600 730 925 1230 2200 235 910 1030 1500 1523 4.00 1205 As 145 310 188 32'8'-88 531 450 325'39 488 652 735 820 330 410 490 4 10 328 4 10 490 576 660 740 660 572 4.90 4 15 325 2:.6 17 0 15O 325 21-5 160 ISO 230 150 230 310 395 L 9 320 15O 1o0 32', , ý? 0 660'90 570 490 410 330 8 8.90. 1 88.5 09 .7 89 0 83 5 al 0 88 .5 90 7 90 0 87 9 87.8 90 0 87 3 88 1 85 0 84 4 87 5 87 3 87.9 87 4 07 9 8s 1 03.84 6 84 5 81 6 85 7 86 .4 85 7 88 8 84 6 83 6 84.8 86.0 84 .8 89 z 87 8 87 1 06 6 84 3 06 9 84 8 89 5 88 5 82 0 87 4 83 7 83 8 04 .5 74 6 74. 7 74. 6 73.9 73. 7 76. 1 75 6 73 4 73 S 74 .2 75 6 74 1 73. 3 73. 3 76.0 75 1 73. 3 73. 5 73 .5 76 .2 77 9 80 0 78 3 77 2 76 .6 76. 3 75 9 75 0 74 9 74 1 72. 6 72 6 72. 4 71 7 70 6 72 7 72 1 72 0 72 0 73. 1 74 2 73 8 72 4 72.2 74 .5 74 7 73 3 71 3 73.1 72.7 72.0 76 .0 77.9 76 0 77.9 76 0 77.9 75 0 77. 0 75 0 77 0 75.OANKH 75. Okk M 75. O 0 75. 00 k 75.ONwNH 74.0 76. 1 74. 0 76. 1 74 0 76 1 75 0 77 0 75.0 77 0 75 0 77 0 73 .0 76 1 73. 0 76 1 73. 0 76 1 74 0 77 0 74 0 77 0 74 0 77 0 74 0 77 0 74 0 77 0 74 0 77.0 74 0 77. 0 74 0 77 0 74. 0 77 0 74 .0 77 0 73. 0 76 1 73. 0 76 1 73 0 76 1 73 0 76 1 73 0 76 1 72. 0 74 3 72.0 74 3 72.0 74 3 72. 0 74. 3 72.0 74 3 72.0 74 3 72. 0 75 2 72 0 75 2 72 0 75 .2 72 0 75 .2 7- 0 75 .2 72 0 75.2 72 0 74 3 7Z 0 74 3 72 0 74. 3 72 .0 74 3 72. 0 74 .3 57. 0 59. 0 59. 0 59.0 59. 0 58. 0 56 0 59.0 67. 0 67. 0 72 0 72.0 74 0 73 0 71 0 72. 0 64 0 77 0 77 0 77 0 79 0 79 0 68 0 58 0 53 0 53 0 53 0 56 0 56 0 56 0 59. 0 61 0 61 0 57 0 64. 0 64 0 66 0 66 0 69 0 72 0 65 0 64 0 65 0 65 0 68 0 68 0 62 0 63 0 59 0 57 0 57 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 86 .4 36 0 87. 5 36. 0 86 9 36 0 87. 3 36 0 87. 1 36 0 84 .7 34.4 83 1 33. 0 06 9 36. 0 90 3 36 .0 90 0 36 0 91 1 31 .4 91 1 31. 3 92.6 32.3 91 3 30 3 90 8 32 1 90 1 28.7 7. 0 32. 3 92 .9 28. 3 92. 8 28. 1 92.8 28.2 93.8 27.4 93.8 27.4 08.6 31 .0 84. 0 34 7 83 .7 36 0 83 .7 36.0 82 S 34 .7 85 0 36. 0 85 3 36 0 85 0 36 0 87 0 36 0 86 1 33.9 85 .7 33.0 84.9 35 .9 87.6 33.7 87.2 32.6 89.4 35.8 88 9 34.5 89 7 32.3 90 7 30 .2 87. 3 31 7 87 0 32.'88 3 34. 1 87 5 32 .2 90 2 35 1 89 8 34 ">85 4 31 .2 87 8 35 .5 85 1 34. 1 84 5 35 .0 84 .8 35 .6 945 410 89 .4 71 .2 72 .0 74 3 62. 0 4 88 2 36 .0 0 P GO:. FILE PACE 7 3 0P !MlODAYR TIME SLOW4 COrJD RI DOWJN TEMP PI------. -.--.--. .---..- --VER TEMPS IJET TW DISCH RW L03 C-ULB TEMP EVAP MONTHLY AVE R'IVR DISC1 B ON EVAP 83175 1030 83175 1300 490 90.2 71.3 72.0 74.3 e2.0 570 89.4 72.3 72.0 74.3 66.0 9 175 9 .75 9 275 9 375 9 375 9 375 9 475 9 475 9 475 9 475 9 575 9 575 9 575 9 575 9 675 9 675 9 675 9 675 9 675 9 775 9 775 9 875 9 875 9 875 9 875 9 075 9 975 9 975 9 975 9 975 9 975 9 975 9 975 91075 91075 9 1075 9 075 91 175 91 175 91 175 91 175 91 175 9 1275 9 275 912.75 91275 91275 91375 91375 1741 730 1130 500 1230 1350 330'30 515 750'30 845 1251 1020 130 1000 1120 1330 245 950 10 635 900 1545 1645 10 300 345 830 910 930 I155 106 900 4130 1200 200'00 1320 1'-05 2230 015 1300 1335 1425 1630 400 800 655 570 655 570'90 570 490 370 285'90'30'90 530'00 370 310'80.00 440 410 455 240 330 l10'80 9999 330 245 150 195 240 320'10 205 375'00 370 2a5'90 285 205 160 330 410 160 2^45 150 295 91 0 83 S 84 4 04 6 86 6 84 1 84 0 83 3 86.2 84.6 87 .4 87.0 86. 1 84+.6 84 0 07 9 83 7 87 3 84. 5 88 0 83.2 85.0 87.1 87.0 73.6 73 .5 83.4 83.5 87 .2 88.2 88,4 88 0 8a. 9 86 4 87 8 87 1 84 4 83 8 86.0 85 .9 84.0 03.4 85 5 86 6 87 1 8. 4 83 0 89 4 73 5 75 3 72 9 72 8 71 .2 71 .2 72 .5 72 .4 72 .4 73 .1 71 1 71 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 70 7 70 7 70 7 70 .7 70. 7 71 .6 71 6 71 6 69 6 69 6 69 6 69.6 69.6 74.2 74 2 74.*2 74 2 74 2 74.2 70.6 70.6 70 6 70.6 60.3 68.2 66.5 66.5 65.9 63 8 63 5 63 S 63.4 63.4 62. 6 61 7 72Z .0 75 .72. 0 75. 2 72. 0 75 2 72. 0 75. 2 72. 0 75. 2 72 0 75.2 71 0 73.4 71 0 73.4 71 0 73.4 71 0 73 4 70 0 74 3 70 0 74. 3 70 0 74 3 70 .0 74 3 70. 0 72 5 70.0 72.!70. 0 72 5 70. 0 72. 5 70. 0 72 .5 69.0 72.5 69. 0 72 S 69 .0 73 4 69. 0 73 4 69. 0 73. 4 69. 0 73. 4 69 .0 73. 4 6. 0HU4N 68 0Q 68 04 68.0444 MO 68.0.4 o4 m 68. 0-4HW 68. 0444 44 68. 04444444 68.Om444 68.044444 68.04 ww4 4 60.044444444 68.0mo, m4 65. O4m44"m4 65,0mmoxm 65.044444444 65.ON444 6S. 044N4 65.044444444 65 0 55 0 63 0 56 0 62 0 62 0 51 0 51.0 50.0 59 0 58.0 57 .61 0 55.0 SI 0 48 0 56 0 58 .0 55 0 50.0 46 0 S2 0 54 0 52 0 46 0 44 0 44 0 S 2 0 S2 0 52 0 59 0 57. 0 65 .0 69. 0 69,.0 57.0 57. 0 51 0 50 0 41.0 44 0 46 0 46. 0 47 0 47 0 36. 0 46. 0 4 88.5 36 .0 4 09.S 35.9 4 77.3 36.0 4 83.9 35.6 4 87 .6 34.9 4 84 .5 35 .9 4 86.4 .33.4 4 87.2 35.2 4 83 0 36 0 4 82.9 36 0 4 82 4 36 0 4 8 .1 36. 0 3 91 .26 S 3 92 S. 28. 7 3 93.2 27. 0 3 91 .4 28 .4 3 89 7 28. 6 3 88 8 29.. 1 3 92 5 29 3 3 90 .7 25 9 3 92. 6 2 3 4 85. 35 .2 4 85 .6 36 0 4 82 .4 36 0 4 82 0 36 0 4 84 4 36 0 4 84 9 36 0 4 78.9 28. 3 49999.0 28.3 4 80 .9 36. 0 4 80 .9 36. 0 4 04 4 36 .0 4 84 8 36 0 4 .84. 9 36. 0 4 86.7 36.0 4 84 :2 34 .2 4 88. 1 33.6 4 89 9 33 .0 4 89 7 32. 3 4 04 8 35 .5 4 84. 5 35. 0 4 03 .7 36. 0 4 83 .4 36 .0 4 80 .4 36. 0 4 80 .9 36. 0 4 82.2 36. 0 4 82.6 '36. 0 4 83.0 36. 0 4 83.5 36. 0 4 78.8 36. 0 4 83 .6 36. 0 76.6 89.4 509.0 32.0 Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 July 24, 1981 Don L. Kriens Enforcement Section Division of Water Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Chlorination of Circulating Water to Remove Parasitic Amoeba Analyses of the circulating water system at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant have confirmed the continued presence of the parasitic amoeba, Naeglaria Fowleri. Population densities are such that it has been determined necessary to again treat the system to control the amoeba. The purpose of this letter is to secure MPCA approval for an alteration in the mode of plant operation and the addition of chemicals to the Prairie Island circulating water system.The proposed treatment plan will utilize chlorination and subsequent dechlorination prior to discharge of water from the system. It is planned to conduct the.treatment in the same manner as that per-formed at Prairie Island on August 28, 1980. The specifics of that procedure are contained in our letter ,to the MPCA dated August 19, 1980 in which we requested authorization to conduct the treatment. We 'are requesting your written authorization to conduct the test for a one-day period, tentatively set for September 2, 1981. We will again coordinate our efforts with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to attempt to remove fish from the recirculation canal prior to treatment. Please contact me at (612) 330-6894 if additional information is required. -R D Clough, Administrator ERAD RECORD CENTER Operating Permits RDC:jz bcc: G M Kuhl L J Micienzi cc: Russ Frazier -MN Dept of Health J M Pappenfus Howard Krosch -MN Dept of Natural Resources R W Steurnagel E C Ward E L Watzl ~,k IVI~ qib October 14, 1981 Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mali Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 IN Don Kriens Division of Water Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Circulating Water Chlorination-Dechlorination-Pathogenic Naegleria fowleria)Control Program As requested in your letter of August 3, 1981 we are submitting the results of the Prairie Island circulating water chlorination-dechlorination conducted last month to reduce the population of pathogenic Naegleria. Also enclosed is an NSP Testing Lab Report on the procedure and a summary addressing the "Chlorine Effects on Resident Fisheries Population." A final report on the amoeba. will be included in-j the annual Environmental Report for Prairie Island.If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Bob Clough at 330-6894.Senior Consultant Regulatory Service ah enclosure cc: R D Clough bcc: L W Eberley J M Pappenfus R W Steuernagel E C Ward E L Watzl VIA*, Analysis of data prior to and after chlorination in 1981 reveals 'a pattern similar to that seen in previous years. Thus pathogenic Naeglaria could be detected in 1 and 10 ml samples of cooling tower and intake water prior to chlorination. After chlorination pathogenic Naegleria could not be detected in 1, 10 or 100 ml samples of water from either the intake or cooling tower canal.4t -4 Boforn Chlorinations 1981 Site-i. (C,)-?'re/Vo]. 5a-.e Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling CoolinG Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling CoolingC Cooling)oling Cooling Cooling Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower 30'0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 2)0 30 30 30 30 30 r/1o P110 P./It Ft/ I " 8/to g/10 8/to F/10 P/10/1.0 8/1.0 ,0/10 q10o J 2 0 120.:0".2o:20 420 i 2 O 1120 H ., 20-lO ori!-I0C~rnl-100-.1-100-.--lOrdl-lOr-l-1nl-1ml, Inl-r-rI-ml.-I1l-inil-1Inl-L'li c outfro-th at Fos.Pos.Fos.Pos.Fos.P03.Fos.Pos.Fos.Neg.P'os.Neg.N;eg.Neg.F"ij:cl, Ap!o rance NT NT Fos.Fos.Pos.Pos, Pos.N:A T U NT NT NA NA KA NA P I:A INA la RA NA NA Pos.Neg.17 NT Pos8.NA NA.NA.NA,'NA 8/10 F-20 NA -NN-NP-1.ot t e.;tTe Not applicable Not "aithogeoea !'athogcnic

aeogleria In-;at~hog-enic Naegleria-----------

~ -~-'.--', Frrvalence of Pathogrminc

• .aoglnria at the Prairio IsLornd Plaut Before Chlorination:

1981 S~t a Teý-I. (c: 0)>t2 Ty~/Vol. 5L~~plo 31 Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling Cooling CoolirC Cooling Cooling Cooling, ,oling Cooling Cooling Cooling.Cooliii Cooling Cooling Cooling CoolinG Cooling Cooling Tower Towel.Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 zNT P/'3 1 0/31 8/31 V/31 ,V131 S131 P/31.Po/3: P/31'/ i.,./31 P/31 8/31 8/31.20 -100ni 20 -lOOn1 .20 -100.1 i20 -lOnI-0 -lOni-2 H120 -iO011 H 2 0 -On.l F20 -Io0I H20 -iO).l H-20 -lo'l, H20 -1for H20 -iml!,0- H20 -I'm1 2O- iml 20- .20 -)ml H 2 0 1Iml H20- L-11.20- irl Anoebic outgrowth at 45 0 C Fos.Neg, Fos.Isog, Fos.Pos.Fos.Fos.?os.Fos, d~eg, Pos.e; g.Fos.Fos.Ne.g Pos.Fos.z-1;rel. Appearance NT NT P/N?NT FIN?NA N k. A. 11 Pos. P/H?NT M;N NA 1W L'IT I'NA Fos, P N1A"NA." NA KA Neg, P NA NA Nee 1';og,.N/Neg. NH/P::A A.FOS.:'A'NT T.5'OS, NT* V..A.A-::ot appzic25le -;:or :'ae,~lc.ria -Fatho~cnic N:a gleria-"Non-pathogenic Haegloria Proeence of Fathor-cnic Naegloria at the Prairie Island Plant Before Chlorinations 1981 Site-Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake.Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Te.(C 0)34 Y3 34.Y 3 34 V4 54.D/31 ,/3st 8/31 f,/31 e/31 8/31.P./31 CP/3 1 8/3t 8/31 8/31 8/31 8/31 8131 8/31 8131 8131 8/31 8/31 8/31.8/31* lOCMl H20- lO0C1-20 100-I1 H2- 1O~lO.b, 20 ICOnl UH20. 20- 0 1Omi**20 -lOni 120 -11.n HO- tOnl 4.H20 -"[0- lOnl z.20 -lOmi W.10- 1 Ora1.1 0 1ml H20- ."[.0 -Inl?0O- mu.* r. -~ Inl.4-F"0- Iml 0 Iml 20- Innl.420 -ml H20 -Iml Anovbic outgrowth at 4.'C Fos.*Fo;.Fos.ros.Pos.Fos.Los.Fos, Fos.Pose Fos.Fos.Na: g.L'oS.Fos.Fos, Pos,-A-OS.ros.Los, Fos.Fos.Fos.Fos.F~ a~oI. Aopeaancm NT INT INT NT NT NT NT NT Fos.NT NT NT NA Fos.NT NT Los, Fos.Pos, P P/NP NN, F MNl NN P/1;?P/N;P?at h, NT 4NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT I;A NIT Nos1 NT NA Neg.NT Poo.I'NA P, NP-:;o testedl-Not applical'b. -Not INam-rloia -Pathocqnic -§i';'Pria -Non-.athogenic .;aegloria I.?revalence of ?athogmnic Naagleria at the Prairie I3land Plant After Chlorination: 19,91 oiteg, Cooling Tower* Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling. Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Towe r Cooling Tower CoolinG Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Cooling Tower 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 2R 2?28 29 2A 2$2.'3 2?26 28-4._ Tv,/Vo.. r-.nle 9/8 9/6 9/8 9/8 9/8 9/q 9/83 9/8, 9/R 9/8 9/8 9/18 9/8 9/8 9/8 9/fl*9/8 9/8 9/fl* 9/fl 9/,8 r0 II20 H20 42., 0 ,.2 i:2o H20 F.2 0-2 i{20.2 H-O II0 S0.H 2o HO.0.e 2 20 F,2 0-1O0ml-100.I-1O(~ml-ockil-looml-lonl-lOml-lOrl-\.IctI-total-l~nl-lOnl-linl*- Il.d-nml-Inul-iril-Iml-Ili-lnl-iml-nl Amoebic outgrowth Fos.Fos.Fos.Fos.Fos.Pos.ros.Pos.Fos, Fo s.Pos.Fos.Post Fos.Fos.pose FOS, Pos.Pos.Fos.oeg.Fla..-el.NT Fos.4% T NT NT Nag.NT N;eg.NA ros.NT , IT NT!IT Fos.NT NT Neg'.Fos.Appr'araru-" NA Im'Np K.s I,NAl IN;N?Sn.]A.,/'S..NP Path.NT NT Neg.NT NT NT NT NT>NT NT NA Neg.NT NT ZIT NT NT N~eg.14T NT 1IT Neg.NA 41 NT LrAI P* NP Not t5eted Not a:.:'licabl.e ?athgoLndc

aegloria Non-pathogenic iUaegleria Prevalence of ?athogenlc Naegloria at the Prairie Island Plant After Chlorinatin ns 1981 Armoebic outgrowth)itoe Te.rp.(C°)

t__- Ty p!Vol. s-vinle at 5°C Fla,

ol, Apamarinco Intake 27 9/8 0 -Wen! Nag.. :A INA NA Intake 27 9/8 .20 -1O0rl Foso NT Intake 27 1/C 0- l00nI Neg. NA NA Intake 27 *9/8 t" 0 -lOOnl. Pos. NT NNT In~take 27 9/8 r20 -lOOnl. Pos. Nag. NN/N? N;T Intake 27 9/8 H 2 0 -tO2l Nag. NA NA NA Intake 27 9/8 it 2 0 -Pos. NT gT Intake 27 9/F Y20 -ICoI Neg. 10A NA NA'2-1 Intake 27 9/8 :0 -tOni. N;o. NA N A NA 27 0'/8 -1 Intake 2.Intake 27 9 /R 24 o -1C,'J Ng. NA 'NA N Intake 27 9/8 z2 0 -Cg. NA 1.A I(#'Intake 27 9/8 120- lOnr 1:0[. "ZA NA NA Intake 27 9/8 0 -i0).. .eg. 'A ?A i.A-Intake 27 -A Intake 27 9/P H0O -1. Neg. 1A NA ,.Intae 27 9 0 -in). AN 9 NA NA Intake 27 9/8 120 -i.l NOeg. NA ,A -A Intake 27 9/8 P) ? -lnl Nog. RA NA .A Intake 27 C/3. 0 -ml Neg. 1- NA 'A Intake 27 9/8 ?2 0 in) gANA Intake 27 9/8 O2 -inl Neg. NA -A Intake 27 2. H20 -Ir. ,ag,,N, Intke 7 90 .0 &4I(31,e.

NA INA : Intake 27 ./. 2.,0 -Inl Ne;. NA NA NA NT- Not tostnl IN- Not apl 3.c.'b~e N- Not N:ae;lnria P -Patho'nnic

• anl,)ria I lson-pathogenlc

aegliaria CHLORINE EFFECTS ON RESIDENT FISHERIES POPULATION An estimated total of 28,095 fishes were lost during the September 1981 zhlorination at Prairie Island. Table lists the total numbers and representative length frequency distributions for all fishes lost.Where possible, unmeasured fish were designated and recorded as young-of-the-year (yy) and juvenile or adult. When this was not possible fish not measured were recorded as "unmeasured".

Gizzard shad ans shiners comprised 77 percent of the total loss.Channel catfish comprised 16 percent; other game species encountered,*in decreasing order of abundance were white bass, bluegill, green sunfish, crappie, walleye, and sauger. Collectively, game fish were less than four percent of all fishes lost.To estimate the number of yy and juvenile lost the number of fish from three buckets were counted and th eaverage used to extrapolate the total numbers for all buckets (table). Adults were separated from the yy and juveniles and enumerated individually. In an attempt to drive fish out of the plant circulating water system, one and one-quarter pounds of copper sulfate instant powder were added to the circulating water system each minute for two hours commencing at 0630 hours. Based upon the estimated volume of the circulating water system, the copper sulfate concentration was expected to approach one-half parts-per-million which should repel fish.The total fish loss during the September 1981 chlorination was considerably less than the 162,448 fishes lost during the August 1980 chlorination. A number of explanations may be possible. The copper sulfate may have been successful, the fact that the two parts-per-million free chlorine was achieved for only about two hours may have prevented a total kill in the circulating water system. Although there is no way to adequately assess the effectiveness of the copper sulfate'it is recommended that it be employed in any subsequent chlorination efforts at Prairie Island.The copper sulfate is relatively cheap and any fish chased from the system will not be lost.Although the number of fish lost during the 1981 chlorination was sub-stantially~less than that of 1980, the relative composition of fish lost was quite similar. Gizzard shad, shiners, and carp collectively dominated the total with channel catfish comprising the next most abundant species.Other game fish comprised less than 13 and 4 percent of the total in 1980 and 1981 respectively. 41, M: I m !F -IMNOWIP, -398M lain --TOTAL LENGTH (MM)0-19 20-39-- --- ------At ,calk 13a.rd A-AI ,5O. I 5,4 --IF-40-59 60-79 80.99 100-119 120.139 140-159 160-179 180.199 200-219 220-239 240-259 260-279 260.299 300-319 320-339 360.379 _____----.4ffffffffffffff1 /~~~.1'I i'~ -i 7--i* ______ _______ ______,.-I I 3M0-399 400-419"40-459 460.479 480499 t__..___I -/~_____I -3 Ij___t '71J __ _, 1 1 ___. q __.,__ __l ]I -' __ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-I _ _ _.L ...._ _ _ _500-519 520-539 540-559 560-579 580-599 600.619 620-639 640-659-I----~~1~~660-679 I" 68 .699 A DU LT ----- [ _ _ "__________ __ _ .."__ __ _ __ __,,_ __ __7 a 1.I .__ _ _ ..... --- " _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____~sre -, ZLI _ CM'MTAL, COMMENTS: 4 1 40JI2 I I IS 6( q 23 TOTAL LEN4 Wo? RiI' rU Ff7 let uIoVi 7?acN (MM) jCcup5,Jd/ " o ,o/ j V ' I s I.s w._ o.__ -- !- .+/40`S9 , 20"3 __ __ __ .__ _____ __a.__ __J ___. ____.100-119 120-139 140-159 160-179 180-199 200-219-~ I j 1 5-___~~1~. ___ __I ..A' -________ -+220-239 240-259 260-279 280-299 300-319 320-339 340-359 360-379 I 4 4r-A- 4-*Ia 1..1-_ I i 4 -4 4-~ 4/-I-L I/-- .4 4 , -. 4 4 -.-----.---------- .4 .-. I I&~1____ ___5'7 I 4 4*..-4o0-419~~J 380-399 J 400-419 10 420-439 -9 460-479 480-499 5,,,0- 519 520 539 540-559 560-579 2~~ -~13.3--3-3--I I L T Z~7ii-4-----I--.---1*1-- -I__________________ I~71 5'I_ -1.~__ -I--i___ ___I-_~1~~~__--I I._______ ______-3--I-/3.580-599 6004619 620-639 640-"59/660-679 680-69985 UNMEASURED UNM. yY+I-!,t.UNM ADULT I 4 + -----4 1- -+ I i -I 4 I 4-.4-- 4 ________ .+ 4 4-'-~----4 4 4 4----- + I 4 p z/P ---5~Luii ,I Li I I- A 3(,3~30 1L S .4.-ToT4E..I 3c~137-oSY COMMENTS: .........

• %.TOTAL LENGTH IMM)0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100-119 120-139 140-159 160-179 180-199 200-219.E~III -.-------.- -. -~-T-~h~~M~dsT~

1 L--.--I____ I CAk.Uc~e-Li--3,.1.-4~i j:_j~j.i'_.-1__ ___ ____---1--1 _220-239 240-259 260-279 280-299 300-319 320-339 340-359 360-379 380-399" 4 0 -1 9-I--1 --7 4 I + 4-- ~ -'3 I 4 + 4 I I:.I--- ___ ____ ____-'7 ____ ____ _____01.'2~Im./i 4 -t 4 I 4- + ~-*---------4-----'--4--~- -4 4 4 4 I-4 -~I 460-479 480499 500-S19 520-539 540-559 560-.579 580-599~1~I F----a --4 4 4-.-4--- 4 4- -4. -a_______ d/4-----. -4 4 ------------- i I I 4 .I-~--4 *-----~ 4-----4 4 1 I 600-019'r --- -620-639 _ " : ". 640-659 660-679 680-699 UNjýMEASUIREO -U NM. YY+ In%) 0+/-U_!NM ADULT .1----1 4--- 4.- 4 .4 4 I.k1 I I 4 4 4-rlsmk Z--1 IS-373 7 "i ? .COMMENTS: NUMBER OF FISH COUNTED PER BUCKET DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1981 CHLORINATION Gizzard Shad 608 597 613 Carp 0 1 0 Shiner sp 48 25 68 Carpsucker sp 0 0 1 Channel Catfish 105 133 127 Tadpole madtom 1 1 1 Flathead Catfish 1 2 2 White Bass 14 8 11 Green Sunfish 1 0 0 Bluegill 6 7 8 Crappie sp. 0 0 1 Freshwater drum 6 4 4 Total 790 778 836 e, Cfi ~4e b pAk4E.bl ~latJkoi)F." Northern States Power Company Ni')414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 October 14, 1983 Howard Krosch Don L Kriens Division of Fish & Wildlife Division of Waste Quality MN Dept of Natural Resources MN Pollution Control Agency m Centennial Office Building 1935 West County Road B2 St Paul, Minnesota 55155 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Chlorination of Circulating Water System Fish Loss Report Enclosed, for your information, is a report on the fish loss due to chlorination of the circulating water system at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant in August, 1983.Feel free to contact Glen Kuhl at the Prairie Island Environ-mental Lab at (612) 388-1121, extension 349, if you have any questions concerning this report.W EJnen Senior Consultant Regulatory Services ah enclosure cc: G M Kuhl Internal CorrespondE nce Date August 30, 1983 From G. M. Kuhl Location Prairie Island Phycologist To S. F. Schmidt Location GO (2)Admin Reg Compliance Smbject FISH LOSS DUE TO CHLORINATION OF THE PINGP CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM An estimated total of 37,124 fish were killed during the chlori-nation of the circulating water system at PINGP on August 20, 1983. 'tables 1 and 2 list representative length frequencies and totals for all species lost. When possible, unmeasured fish were designated as young-of-the-year (yy), juvenile, and adult. Dur-ing instances where this was not possible fish not measured were recorded as "unmeasured". Gizzard shad comprised 61.7% of the total loss with channel cat-fish representing 26.5% of the total. Other game fish in decreasing order of abundance, included white bass, crappie spp., bluegill, sauger and walleye. These species comprised 3.9% of the total fish loss.Adult fish were separated from yy and juvenile fish, enumerated and measured individually (Table 1). Estimated numbers of yy and juvenile fish were based on the number of fish counted per bucket with this number extrapolated over all buckets (Table 2).As in the 1981 chlorination, copper sulfate was used in an attempt to drive fish from the circulating water system prior to chlorination. In cooperation with a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources licensed applicator, copper sulfate was added on two occasions. On Friday, August 19, copper sulfate was added at a rate of two pounds per minute for 15 minutes to the new dis-charge canal while the plant was operating in open helper cycle.This provided adequate mixing and flow to hopefully drive fish from the canal. On Saturday, August 20, copper sulfate was added at a rate of three pounds per minute for 60 minutes to the remainder of the circulating water system. Based on calculations of the quantity of water in the system the application rates were expected to allow copper sulfate concentrations to reach 0.5 ppm, which should repel fish.6) Fish loss during the 1983 chlorination was slightly greater than the 28,095 lost during 1981 but considerably less than the 162,4.48 lost 'during the 1980 chlorination. Species composition was similar to previous years with gizzard shad and channel cat-fish being major contributors of fish loss.J/G. M. Kuhl sw OF~ MN/1 0Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesLafayette Road MM St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40.August 10, 2007 James Holthaus, Project Manager Nuclear Management Company 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089 RE: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Re-licensing and Environmental Review.

Dear Mr. Holthaus:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the materials presented in the NEPA Issues Index for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Environmental Report. The DNR requests additional emphasis or clarification on the following issues Surface Water Quality, Hydrology and Use The DNR recommends PINGP continue the periodic assessment of best management practices for control of bio-fouling which includes plant system infestations of zebra mussels. The DNR also recommends periodic assessment of plant chemicals for determining alternative products which do not contain aquatic nutrients or endocrine disrupting substances. The DNR and Xcel have discussed a drawdown of Mississippi River Pool #3 sometime in the near future to improve habitat conditions. The DNR recommends the environmental report include an evaluation of the issues and impacts to PINGP intake and operations associated with summer drawdowns. This evaluation may already included in the NEAP Issues Index # 13.Terrestrial Resources The DNR recommends routine review of herbicide product use for reducing aquatic or terrestrial toxicity or endocrine disruption. The DNR recommends periodic assessment of best available technology for lighting effects on bird collision with structures including the communications tower at the PINGP site. This tower is approximately 340 feet in height and is placed within the floodplain of the nations most significant bird migration corridor.The DNR requests a review of plant emissions of fugitive light and noise not essential for facility security or operations to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, recreational users, and terrestrial wildlife.Thank you for the opportunity to review the PINGP NEPA Issues Index. Please contact me with any questions regarding this letter.Si c rely, attLanga 4 , riental Planner Environmental Review Unit Division of Ecological Resources (651) 259-5115 c: Steve Colvin, Joe Kurcinka, Wayne Barstad, Tim Slagenhaft, Scot Johnson, Jack Enblom D:\AA_OMBS\1 TTY: 651-296-5484

• 1-800-657-3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a An Equal Opportunity Employer Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste MINNESOTA Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans April 10, 2008 James J. Holthaus, PMP Environmental Project Manager Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Drive East 13-Plex (License Renewal)Welch, MN 55089

Dear Mr. Holthaus:

I am writing in response to the letter of January 25, 2008 from Mike Wadley, Prairie Island Site Vice President, regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license renewal for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP). Mr. Wadley asked the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for help in determining whether there is any public health-related concerns from occurrence of thermophilic organisms in Mississippi River waters affected by the operations of the PINGP.MDH does not monitor Mississippi River waters for occurrence of the organisms mentioned in the letter. Further, we have no information concerning possible exposures and health risks should these organisms be found in areas of the Mississippi affected by the PINGP discharge. If MDH receives any information relevant to your query we will forward it to you. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Sincerely, J Line Stine, Director Environmental Health Division P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 General Information: 651-201-5000 ° Toll-free: 888-345-0823

• TTY: 651-201-5797
• www.health.state.mn.us An equal opportunity employer ConMnfad to ula XC January 25, 2008 Mr. John Unc Stine. Director Environmental Health Division Minnesota Department of Health 625 Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975

SUBJECT:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Request for Information on Thermophilic Microorganisms

Dear Mr. Stine:

Nuclear Management Company (NMC), acting on behalf of Northern States Power Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Is preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), which expire in 2013 (Unit 1) and 2014 (Unit 2). As part of the license renewal process, NRC requires license applicants to provide *... an assessment of the impact of the proposed action {license renewal) on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water." Organisms of concern include the enteric pathogens Salmonella and Shigella, the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacterium, thermophilic Actinomycetes ("fungi"), the many species of Legionella bacteria, and pathogenic strains of the free-living Naeglenfa amoeba.As part of the license renewal process, NMC is consulting with your office to determine whether there Is any concern about the potential occurrence of these organisms in the Mississippi River at the location of PINGP. On June 14, 2007 your office indicated there were no concerns at that time. As stated in the September 7, 2007 letter from James Holthaus, we are currently seeking your input on any specific concerns the Department may have regarding thermophilic microorganisms. By contacting you, we hope to identify any issues that need to be addressed or any information your office may need to expedite the NRC consultation. The PINGP site, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota, consists of 578 acres on the west bank of the Mississippi River (Figure 1), within the city limits of Red Wing, Minnesota. The Vermillion River lies just west of PINGP and flows into the Mississippi River approximately two miles downstream of Lock and Dam No. 3 (Figure 2). NRC regulations specify that if discharges are made to a small river with an average annual flow rate of less than 3.15 x 1012 cubic feet per year, the applicant must assess the public health impacts of the proposed action regarding potential proliferation of thermophilic microbiological organisms In the affected waters. As a component of its operation, PINGP discharges cooling water Into the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River has an average flow of 5.8 x 1011 cubic feet per year in the vicinity of PINGP, conforming to the NRC definition for consideration as a smal river. This issue is therefore applicable to PINGP license renewal and will be addressed in the Environmental Report.To determine the ambient river water temperature, assess the plant's thermal output, and assure compliance with NPDES thermal discharge requirements, river water is monitored by PINGP at multiple locations. Temperatures are monitored in the main river channel (upstream), Sturgeon Lake (upstream), the plant intake structure, the discharge canal, and immediately downstream of Lock and Dam Number 3.The highest temperature at the station upstream of the plant intake structure during the period of 2000-2005 was 86.0"F In 2001 (August 8). The highest temperature measured over the same period downstream of the plant at the Lock and Dam Number 3 monitoring station was 86.4"F in 2001 (August 9). The highest daily maximum temperature measured at the plant's discharge canal from January 2003 through December 2004 was 99.0F, recorded on July 28, 2003. The entire length of the discharge canal and adjoining pordons of the Mississippi River are within the plant's exclusion zone, however, and there is no public access to these areas. Water at these temperatures could, in theory, allow limited survival of thermophilic microorganisms, but are well below the optimal temperature range for growth and reproduction of thermophilic microorganisms. Thermophilic bacteria generally occur at temperatures from 77F to 1760F, with maximum growth at 122OF to 1400F. The probability of the presence of thermophilic microorganisms due to plant operations is low.During the early 1980s, PINGP identified the presence of the parasitic amoeba Naegerda at high population densities within the plant's circulating water system. In cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, PINGP conducted chlorination and subsequent dechlorination of the circulating water system in August 1980, September 1981, and August 1983. The chlorination processes were successful in controlling and reducing the populations of the organisms; however, the dechlorination process does impact the fish populations in the Mississippi River. Although the Minnesota Department of Health did not consider the presence of the organism to be a public health threat, it was recognized as an occupational health hazard and plant personnel were instructed to wear protective equipment when in contact with the circulating water system components. PINGP continues to periodically chlorinate the circulating water system to control microbiological organisms and zebra mussels in accordance with the NPDES permit requirements. Given the thermal characteristics at the PINGP discharge and the fact that NMC periodically chlorinates the circulating water system, NMC does not expect PINGP operations to stimulate growth or reproduction of thermophilic microorganisms. Under certain circumstances, these organisms might be present in limited numbers in the station's discharge, but would not be expected in concentrations high enough to pose a threat to recreational users of the Mississippi River.We appreciate your earlier response to general License Renewal Issues. We would appreciate a letter detailing any concerns you may have about thermophilic microorganisms in the area of PINGP or confirming NMC's conclusion that operation of PINGP over the license renewal term would not stimulate growth of thermophilic pathogens. NMC will Include a copy of this letter and your response in the license renewal application that we submit to the NRC.Please direct any requests for additional information, questions and your response to: James J. Holthaus, PMP Environmental Project Manager Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Drive East 13- Plex (License Renewal)Welch, MN 55089 651-388-1121 ext 7268 James.holthaus@nmcco.com Sincerely. Mike Wadley Prairie Island Site Vice President Nuclear Management Company

Enclosures:

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 1 PINGP Site Boundary 0 mm OXCIEnww pmwv Emawu.m~mau PIf 10 WEin am BdM OWA LMNsqmt~oo, or Rwui Roaw-Rasa a So 1.00 .00 ZOD 3.,000 00 Nuclar Management Company Pratrl Island Nuclear Generating Plant Figm~e 2 6-M11 Rackus of PINGP 6-20-07 Issues for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Project t..I. Thermal effluent changes. I understand there will be a small increase in the output of the plant. The resulting change in the thermal discharge, especially during winter months, should be modeled to identify any changes to the existing thermal requirements and plume. This and any resulting environmental impacts should be contained in environmental review documents.-

2. Environmental Drawdown of Pool 3. The Service and other agencies on the Upper q (3@Mississippi River are pursuing environmental drawdowns in the navigation pools to reestablish aquatic vegetation.

Drawdowns (approximately 18 inches at the dam) were conducted in Pool 8 in 2001 and 2002, and in Pool 5 in 2005 and 2006. Dewatered areas (approximately 3,000 acres) successfully revegetated with submergent and emergent vegetation. We (Water Level Management Task Force comprised of the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, towing industry, public) are currently working on a drawdown proposal for Pool 6 in 2008 and are beginning discussions for other pools.Aquatic vegetation in Pool 3 has declined since inundation and we believe a similar drawdown would provide significant benefits to aquatic vegetation and habitat. We understand that the Upper Mississippi River is used for cooling of the Prairie Island Plant, and a critical issue determining the depth of the drawdown will be the depth and operational mode of the intake/discharge features. We are hopeful that future discussions between Northern States Power and the interagency Water Level Management Task Force will lead to a successful Pool 3 drawdown project. Because drawdowns will become a common management practice on the Upper Mississippi River to sustain aquatic vegetation, any changes to the infrastructure or operation of the Prairie Island Plant resulting from the proposed renewal project should take into account future drawdowns of Pool 3.Thanks for the opportunity to comment!Gary Wege Fish & Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 4101 East 80"' Street Bloomington, MN, 55425-1665 612-725-3548 ext. 207 Gary WegeR(,fws.gov Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Review Process Agency Response Sheet L)'r Vci~5,~'r~ Sev~'ce Agency Name)dxes, we have information regarding environmental concerns or historic and archeological resources. Please identify the information below, or state if there is an attachment: LiYes, we would like to meet with NMC individually at this time to discuss our concerns.Contact Information: a[-No, we do not have any comments or concerns at this time, however we may decide to comment later during the process.Thank you for your feedback!Mr. James Holthaus Environmental Project Manager PINGP License Renewal (13-Plex)1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089 651-388-1121 ext 7268 james.holthaus@nmcco.com

• ~ ~ ~-. -A. ~ -C~XcelEnergy April 30, 2007 Robyn Thorson Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BHW Federal Building I Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056

SUBJECT:

Environmental Review for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Project

Dear Robyn:

Nuclear Management Company (NMC) acting on behalf of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, requests your input on the environmental review of the license renewal for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP). Xcel Energy owns the Prairie Island nuclear generating facility, while NMC is responsible for plant operations. NMC is preparing an application for submittal to the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for the PINGP located in Goodhue County, Minnesota. The PINGP Is currently licensed to generate electricity through 2013 for Unit I and 2014 for Unit 2. Successful renewal of these licenses would extend the PINGP operating licenses for an additional 20 years; i.e., until 2033 and 2034 for Units I and 2 respectively. The NMC environmental review process assesses the NRC requirements for PINGP license renewal and evaluates environmental impacts or stakeholder issues associated with potential continued operations. Early participation by your agency ensures timely identification of issues and information for consideration in this process.In addition to detailed safety reviews, the license renewal process involves a thorough review, both by NMC and the NRC. of potential environmental impacts In accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The attached supplement provides an overview of the process and associated environmental review activities for PINGP. In brief, the NRC has prepared a generic environmental impact statement (GElS) that addresses environmental impacts of license renewal based on its review of plants nationwide. A detailed environmental review for individual plants such as PINGP includes preparation of an Environmental Report by the applicant and a site-specific supplement to the GElS prepared by the NRC. These documents must include impact assessments for site-specific environmental issues that were not resolved generically by the NRC in the GElS. They also must Identify any known 'new and significant information,* i.e., potentially significant environmental issues or impacts not recognized as such by the NRC in the GELS, and the NRC's codified findings from the GElS W (10 CFR 51.53). In accordance with NEPA, the NRC's process for developing the site-specific supplements to the GElS includes substantial opportunity for participation by agencies and the public, Including the opportunity to formally comment on the scope of the NRC's site-specific supplement and the adequacy of that document.The PINGP License Renewal Environmental Review Team would appreciate your Agency's early and active participation in the license renewal environmental review process for PINGP.In the course of evaluating the requirements and developing the Environmental Report, applicants for a renewed operating license routinely consult with resource agencies. These consultations are undertaken to familiarize the agencies with the project, identify agency concerns, and obtain pertinent resource information, including any new and potentially significant information, as needed to ensure a complete and accurate application. We welcome any questions or concerns your agency has in regards to the environmental implications of renewing the PINGP's license and any information that your agency may consider to be potentially

• new and significant.*

These efforts will help ensure that the Environmental Report we prepare is complete. In this regard, we would be pleased to meet with your agency representative(s) to discuss the PINGP license renewal environmental review in more detail. If you desire a meeting, please contact us as soon as possible to schedule. Time is of the essence as a prompt response will allow for a more thorough review.NMC respectfully requests you respond to this request by returning the attached response form within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, regardless of whether your agency has identified any concerns or issues to be raised in the environmental report. Your response simply acknowledges you received this letter and indicates you either have no concerns at this time or have attached your concerns to the response form. This does not prohibit your agency from raising concerns or questions in the future, but it is extremely valuable to the public and stakeholder input process. If you have any questions or concerns about the environmental review, or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss your concerns please contact.Mr. James Holthaus Environmental Project Manager 651-388-1121 ext 7268 james.holthaus@nmcco.com For your convenience, please find a response form as well as a self addressed, stamped envelope attached. Thank you on behalf of NMC and the PINGP License Renewal Environmental Review Team.Sincerely, Som Palis Charlie Bomberger Site Vice President General Manager, Nuclear Asset Management Nuclear Management Company Xcel Energy Attachments DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MA 13 IU SIBLEY SQUARE AT MEARS PARK 190 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 401 ST. PAUL MN 55101-1638 March 11, 2008 Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch Planning, Programs and Project Management Division Mr. Mike Wadley Prairie Island Site Vice President Nuclear Management Company Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089

Dear Mr. Wadley:

In response to your March 3, 2008 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District requesting information regarding the Federally endangered Higgins eye pearlymussel reintroduction program, we are sending documentation used in the decision making process to use Sturgeon Lake as a relocation site.Seven documents are on the enclosed CD;1) 2002clamchronicle.pdf. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Specifically, page 4 -June 5 th, reports results of a mussel survey at the Sturgeon Lake site (in part leading to the specific selection of this site -healthy existing mussel community, favorable habitat, zebra mussels nearly absent, etc...)2) DOI 2001 Higgins eye Federal Register Notice.pdf and DOI Higgins eye 2000 Federal Register Notice.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife public notice of the Higgins eye Relocation Plan.3) DPR notice of Availability.pdf. Corps of Engineers public notice of availability of the Relocation Plan for Higgins eye.4) Higgins eye Final Relocation DPR July 2002.pdf. Corps of Engineers, Final Definite Project Report and Environmental Assessment for Relocation Plan for the Endangered Higgins eye Pearlymussel. Note Section 7.2 Candidate Relocation Sites (page 22). Also note Appendix 6 -Distribution List for the DPR/EA and Public Notice.

5) Higgins eye 2004 Recovery Plan.pdf.

Extensive information on Higgins eye historic and present distribution, ecology, life history, etc...6). Sec6FinalReport.pdf. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Report (page 1 and 2) on the results of relocating Higgins eye to Pool 2 and 3 prior to the Corps' Relocation Plan implementation. We have furnished a copy of the enclosed CD to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office as well. We recommend that you coordinate with USFWS concerning potential impacts to Higgins eye relating to Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. If you have questions about the project, please call Mr. Dennis Anderson (Project Manager) at (651)-290-5272 or Mr. Dan Kelner (Biologist) at (651) 290-5277.Sincerely, Terry J. Birkenstock Chief, Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch Copy w/ Enclosures sent to: Mr. Tony Sullins U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Twin Cities Field Office 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 CLAM CHRONICLES An account of activities associated with efforts to propagate and repatriate Lampsilis higginsii in the Mississippi River, Minnesota -Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mike Davis -Biologist) 2002 FIELD SEASON I May 9, 2002: On this day the Lampsilis higginsii listed in the table below were collected from the Pool 2 repatriation site at Hidden Falls and transported to the Genoa National Fish Hatchery to be used as a source of glochidia for infecting fish hosts.ID # Length Gravid? Used in fall '01?657 71.4 x C128 58.6 x C1 3 2 70.0 x DH87 63.9 x DH8 90.1 x DH32 79.1 x C58 78.4 x x DH2 89.2 x 08 85.0 x C81 83.6 C152 76.5 x x C84 57.0 x C165 80.2 x C154 74.9 x C56 67.7 x x C41 70.0 x C97 64.5 x C183 76.0 x C13 59.3 x x-3 May 23. 2002: Lampsilis higginsii adults from whom glochidia were harvested were returned to the Hidden Falls site. Later in the day, a cage at the Hudson propagation site was emptied and 37 juvenile Lampsilishigginsii ranging in length from 16.5mm to 28 mm were removed and placed into an adjacent cage.2 May 29, 2002: 20 cages containing 520 Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) infected with Lampsilis higginsii glochidia were placed on the bottom of Lake Pepin at the Frontenac propagation site. An individual record for each cage was recorded.UTM 15 T 0553350 4930739 May 30. 2002: 27 cages containing 804 largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) infected with Lampsilis higginsii glochidia were placed in Pool 1, Mississippi River about '/2 mile upstream of Lock and Dam 1.UTM 0484277 3 June 5, 2002: A survey for suitable sites to place propagation cages in Pool 3 led to choosing a site in Sturgeon Lake immediately downstream of the public access and about 50-60 meters offshore.UTM 15 T 0529127 4941821 At this site one diver performed a 25-minute qualitative search to collect all live and dead mussels encountered. Results are in the table below. Species, reported as dead were fresh and can be assumed to be living in the area.Species # found Live/dead

1. zebes Obliquaria reflexa 54. L 0 Amblema plicata 31 L 0 Qadrula quadrula 18 L 0 Pyganodon grandis 5 L 0 Fusconaiaflava 4 L 0 Quadrula pustulosa 4 L 0 Truncilla truncata 2 L 0 Potamilus alatus I D I Potamilus ohiensis I D 0 Total live mussels 118 1 CPUE (catch/minute) 4.72 CPUE at this site indicates that mussels are fairly abundant.

Physical conditions are favorable to cage placement in that this area. We did not observe recent accumulations of river bed load at this site. This is because it is near the outlet of Sturgeon Lake and bed load entering the Lake settles near the inlets upstream and on the opposite side, nearly one mile away. Also there is apparently current of adequate velocity to carry away fine sediments in that the bottom substrate at this site is gravel, sand and a thin layer of silt, similar to the propagation site in Lake Pepin. Depth range is 6-12 feet.June 18, 2002. All cages at the Lake Pepin propagation site were opened to allow fish to escape. Four fish were preserved in ETOH for analysis of their gills at the Genoa National Fish Hatchery. Condition of the fish appeared to be good and gills of several examined with a hand lens appeared to be free of encysted glochidia. A single dead fish was observed and all cages had live fish present in them. All cages were closed after one hour.June 19, 2002. Four of five cages placed at this site in 2001 were retrieved from the Mississippi River below Prescott, WI. These cages were nearly buried in sediments and.the remaining cage, presumably buried, was not found. The table below summarizes what was collected from within each cage.4 Cage # #higginsii Lengths (mm) Other species found in cage 1 2 empty shells Utterbackia imbecillis (1)Corbicula sp (3)2 3 21,21,15 Leptodeafragilis(8) 3 1 17 Arcidens confragosus (1 -28mm)Utterbackia imbecillis (42)Potamilus alatus (2)Potamilus ohiensis (1)Corbicula sp., (1)4 5 33,32,23,28,27 Utterbackia imbecillis (13)Potamilus alatus (1)Potamilus ohiensis (2)Pyganodon grandis (1)Leptodeafragilis (15)Cbrbicula sp. (3)Total 9 live, 2 dead 74 Lampsilis higginsii from these cages were taken to the propagation site in the St Croix River just upstream of the U. S. Highway 10 Bridge and placed into a cage there for grow-out. Two cages at this site were also retrieved for inspection. One is a small cage into which transformed juveniles from tanks at the Genoa National Fish Hatchery were placed in June of 2001. Three juvenile Lampsilis higginsii were removed from this cage (lengths 10, 11, 12 mm) and placed into a cage bearing tag number 48 along with a single Pleurobema sintoxia (1 7mm) also found within the cage.One closed bottom cage was retrieved and all mussels removed. This cage contained the 3 Lampsilis higginsii'and I Ligumia recta from the year 2000 effort in Lake Pepin.These mussels were measured and the Lampsilis higginsii found to be 32, 37, and 35 mm in length while the black sandshell was 53 mm long. 167 other Lampsilis higginsi were removed from this cage and transferred to cage #48 for grow-out. A random sample of lengths produced a range from 7 -15 mm. Nine empty Lampsilis higginsii juvenile shells were found and have been accessioned into the collections of the James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History. About 20 small zebra mussels were found attached to the closed bottom cage. On the bottom of the small cage were attached about 3-dozen mudpuppy eggs.June 20, 2002, At the Hudson propagation site 6 cages were brought to shore and searched. One cage had been placed for the purpose of rearing transformed animals from the Genoa National Fish Hatchery; it was empty. Two open bottom cages were removed from and the river and the bottom beneath them searched by hand for juvenile mussels.15 juvenile Lampsilis higginsii were collected from beneath the cage whose bottom was, about 2-3 cm above the riverbed. None were found beneath the other open bottom cage whose bottom was about, 5 cm above the riverbed. This suggests that the lower cage may have offered greater protection from predators. The lengths of the 15 juveniles ranged from 19-27mm and averaged 22.5 mm. All of thesejuveniles were moved to the cage propagation site in Lake, Pepin for grow-out.5 Three other cages at this site contained 63, 96 and 37 juvenile Lampsilis higginsii, or a, total of 215 from the 2001 propagation effort. Lengths of these juveniles ranged from 17 -31 mm. These were placed into a single cage and returned to the river bottom at this site for grow-out.Eleven other Mussels of three Minnesota listed species were collected gravid from this site on this date and used to infect fish. Ligumia recta, Pleurobema sintoxia, and Ellipsaria lineolata propagation efforts are part of a "Bring Back the Natives" grant proposal to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation..June 24, 2002.Two timed searches in Minnesota Slough, Pool 9 Mississippi River produced the following: UTM (Near the upper end of Minnesota Slough)0640660 4819083 An 8-minute spot search produced 132 mussels of 9 species resulting in a catch per unit effort of 16.5 mussels/minute. This is a very high CPUE and suggests high mussel abundance and the potential for additional species, including Lampsilis higginsii, to be found here if additional effort were expended. For example, if 60 minutes of search time were expended at this site it could be expected that nearly 1000 mussels would be collected. Species # individuals L/D Min length Max length zebes Amblema plicata 81 L: 28 107 0 Obliquaria reflexa 15 L 37 61 0 Quadrula quadrula 19 L 56 94 0 Pyganodon grandis 6 L 133 156 0 Fusconaiaflava 4 L 34 ý 64.5 0 Quadrulapustulosa 4 L 47.5 66 0 Quadrula nodulata 1 L 56 _ _ 0* Truncilla truncata I L 31 -* 0 Toxolasmaparvus I L 22 0 TOTAL 132 _ _ 0 UTM (outlet of Goose Lake)0640861 4819187 A ten-minute spot dive produced 37 individuals of 7 species for a catch per unit effort of 3.7 mussels/minute. Over 4 hoursof search time would be neededto collect 1000 mussels at this site.6 Species # individuals L/D Min length Max length Zebes Amblema plicata 24 L 23 107 0 Fusconaiaflava 6 L 25 65 0 Obliquaria reflexa 3 L 34.5 43 0 Quadrula quadrula I L 56 0 Quadrula pustulosa 1 -I L 26 0 Utterbackia imbecillis 1 _ L 57 0 Pyganodon grandis 1 L 120 0 Total 37 0 Minnesota Slough -across from New Albin public boat ramp: The bottom of the channel in this area is covered in old relic shells that included Fusconaia ebena, Lampsilis teres, and Lampsilis higginsfi, but was predominately Amblemaplicata. Few live mussels were found although it is difficult to search by feel for live mussels among all the old shells. Most were covered with zebra mussel byssal threads indicating recent, intense colonization. Additional searching in Minnesota Slough seems promising in that it has apparently provided excellent mussel habitat in the past and is vast in physical scale.July 1, 2002 Cages # 49 was placed in Lake Pepin at the propagation site with 11 walleye and 3 yellow perch (Percafalvascens) infected with glochidia from Ligumia recta. Cage #50 also placed here with 12 walleye similarly infected.July 9. 2002 152 Elliptio dilatata were collected for transplanting into upper Pool 2 from the-mussel bed at the foot of Lake Pepin.UTM 0571372 4918229 These individuals were stored in mesh bags until August 1, 2002 due to unexpected high water conditions at the transplant site.- Several apparently gravid females were brought into the lab for further examination and found to have ovum present but no larvae.' Zebra mussels have heavily colonized this site in the recent past. However, it appears that many of the zebra mussels died in late 2001 during the hot weather, although there were still live individuals attached to many of the native spikes.August 1. 2002 An additional 76 Elliptio dilatata were collected from Lake Pepin. The stockpiled spikes were retrieved from the lake and all were taken to Pool 2 for transplanting. A site was picked along the left descending bank of the Mississippi just across from the old Ft Snelling State Park Interpretive Center and beneath the overhead power'lines. Depth at 7 this site ranged from 6 -12 feet, with depth increasing with distance from shore.Substrate was sand and rubble.UTM 0486059 4971231 Nine individuals died during the wait for transplanting, a total of 220 live animals were placed into the substrate using a metal bar to create a cavity for them.August 5, 2002 Picked up 19 Quadrula metanevra and 2 Cyclonaias tuberculata that were collected from the St Croix River near Franconia by'Mark Hove. These animals were taken to the Genoa National Fish Hatchery to be used for infecting host fish.August 6, 2002 Many of the mussels had aborted immature glochidia. 17 of the Quadrula metanevra no longer had any larvae in their gill chambers, the 2 remaining had immature glochidia present. The 2 Cyclonaias tuberculala had apparently aborted all their larvae.August 13, 2002 A search for gravid mussels upstream of Franconia produced 2 Ellipsaria lineolata, 5 Elliptio dilatata and 2 Actinonaias ligamentina that appeared to be gravid. Four Quadrulafragosa (Federally Endangered) were collected incidentally to this effort, photographed, and immediately returned to the riverbed where they were found.Lengths and ages are shown in the table below.Quadrula fraosa Length (mm) Age 58 5 60 6 55 4 47 4:7 Quadrulafragosa Two Cumberlandia monodonta were also collected and returned to the river.8 August 14,2002 A collection of 146 Elliptio dilatata was made from the mussel bed at the foot of Lake Pepin.UTM 0571370 4918230 Five were taken to Genoa National Fish Hatchery microscopic examination of their marsupial chamber contents.August 15, 2002 Mussels collected on 8/13-14/02 were examined at the Genoa National Fish Hatchery and determined to have ovum in their gill chambers, not larvae. Actinonaias ligamentina and Ellipsaria lineolata were left at the hatchery to see if the ova were fertile and would mature into glochidia. The 5 Elliptio dilatata were retained for transfer to the Pool 2 transplant site.Cage # 51 and 52 were placed at the Lake Pepin propagation site each containing 6 flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) infected with glochidia from Cyclonaias tuberculata collected previously from the St Croix River near Franconia. Cage 53 was placed here also containing 28 tadpole madtoms (Noturus gyrinus) also infected with Cyclonaias tuberculata. August 16, 2002 151 EIliptio dilatata were hand placed into the substrate at the Pool 2 transplant site bringing the total number of this species repatriated here to 371.August 28, 2002 Cage # 54 containing 6 sauger (Stizostedion canadense) infected with Ligumia recta,-cage 55 containing 6 walleye infected with Ligumia recta and cage 56 containing3 sauger and 3 walleye infected with Ligumia recta were placed at the Lake Pepin propagation site. These fish were collected from Lake Pepin by the MN DNR Fisheries crew at Lake City during annual trawling.September 13, 2002 Cages 51-54 at the Lake Pepin propagation site were opened and fish released. Cages 49 and 50 were not located in the time allotted for this effort and will be retrieved in 2003.Cage 55 was left alone.September 16, 2002 Cage #21 from the Pool I propagation site was raised and its contents checked. This was the only cage found that was not at least partially buried beneath bed load from the summer flooding.9 Six juvenile Lampsilis higginsii were found that ranged in length from 15 -26 mm. In addition, 12 Uterbackia imbecillis, II Corbicula sp., 7 Leptodeafragilis, and 3 Potamilus alatus juveniles were removed from the cage and placed into a second cage on site.* September 24, 2002 Lake Pepin propagation cage site: eleven cages were lifted from the lake and emptied into a trough covered with a wire mesh. Lampsilis higginsii collected from these cages were consolidated and placed into two cages for continuing grow-out.10 The table below summarizes what was found in each cage.Cage # of L. Fish Other species found Min and Max# higginsil remaining Length (mm)7- 25 3 live walleye I Corbicula sp 10-22 6 93 0 1 Corbicula sp 8 1i 0 1 Corbicula sp., ST. Parvus 18 6 1 dead LMB? 1L.fragilis 10-18 5 41 1 dead I Tparvus 9- 20 Walleye 4 70 2 live walleye 2 Corbicula sp., 3 T parvus, I Utterbackia imbecillis 10 153 4,live walleye None 9-22 12 70 (+ 15 0 5 Corbicula sp., I L. cardium, 1 9 -22 from 2001) L.fragilis, 4 U. imbecilis, 10. (25 -35)reflexa 9 38 I dead none 9-22 walleye 1 29 1 live walleye none 20 11 1 live, 2 dead 2 T parvus walleye Total 547(+15) 11 live 25 9-22 562 Cage numbers I and 20 were placed back into the lake with all juveniles divided between them.September 26, 2002 Fourcages were retrieved and all juvenile mussels removed from the St. Croix River, Prescott, WI cage propagation site. All juvenile Lampsilis higginsii were placed back'into two cages (#s 99 and 100) for grow-out. The table below summarizes the contents of each cage. _Cage # of live L. higginsii Other species Min-Max # zebra mussels found Length attached to juvenile (mm) L. higginsii PI 7 3 A. plicata, 20-32 3 1 P. ohiensis, I E. dilatata, I T. parvus P2 4 none 26-38 9 P3 84 5 A. plicata, 18 -36 22 2 T. parvus I1 t P. sintoxia, I L. fragilis P4 37 2 A. plicata, .20-35 11 2 P. ohiensis P100 185 + (8 dead) 5 A. plicata 20-42 30 (previously consolidated cage)Total 2001 317 23 75 juveniles Three Lampsilis higginsiijuveniles from the 2000 Lake Pepin propagation effort were recovered and measured. Average length had increased from 34.6 to 44.6 mm since June.A single Ligumia recta from the Lake Pepin effort in 2000 was also recovered and had grown from 53 to 66 mm. One juvenile Arcidens confragosus, was moved here from the belnw Prescott cane site in June- it- lenorth increased from ?R -45 mm 12 S2000 htigglnsd-Sept 2001 I.Juvenile from Lake Pepin cage 2000 u diglrsl -Sept 2002 9uenl from Lak~e Pepin cage 13 Adult Lampsilis higginsii relocation site, Pool 3 22 Lampsilis higginsii adults that were transferred here from Cassville, WI in September of 2000 were retrieved, measured and examined for reproductive status. The table below summarizes these findings. Note that the growth measurements indicate shrinking length, this may have been an error in reading the caliper used when the leading edge of the instrument was used to read the measurement instead of the zero mark. If this is indeed what happened, then the lengths reported in the table would be 5 mm larger and most negative growth would become positive.LUamPsws higginsi moved from Cassville, WI to Upper pool 3, MN In September 2000 !mussel # gender length 2000 length 2002_ growth In mm 526 m 10 dead 9 517 m 89 87 -2 523 m __ 98 93 _ _526 m 102 987 -4_ 527 _ m 97 94 -3 528_____ m 81 86 6 ..... -529 m 89 84 ----533 m 97 94 -3 _ !538 -m 91 741__ 51 _ _ 84 82 -2~556 m 91_ _ 82 -9.559 m 87_ 85 -2 ..574 f 69 72 33____592 m 74 75 1 ,596 m 86 84 -21.602 m __ _83_ _608 f 60__ 619 f _ 87 _630 f "- -83. ..635 77 ......640 m 971 654 f-i--i"There's nothin' to this clam measuring, see!".14 Females collected on this date were gravid. A sample of glochidia was examined under a microscope and tested for viability with saline solution. All glochidia snapped shut, indicating that they were ready to clamp onto a fishes gills. Since it had been 2 full years since their removal from Cassville Slough in Pool 11, I assume that this means they have successfully fertilized eggs and developed these glochidia at this site.:.1Mussel marsupium filled S! with mature glochidia In addition to the Lampsilis higginsii, we collected a number of other mussel species that had been transplanted here at the same time. All were found to be alive, no empty shells were found.15 Species # of individuals Megalonaias nervosa 5 Ligumia recta 6 Pleurobema sintoxia I Obovaria olivaria 12 Ellipsaria lineolata 2 Quadrula metanevra 4 September 30, 2002 Pool I cage propagation site. Eight cages were retrieved and the contents sieved in search ofjuvenile Lampsilis higginsii. A single cage produced 2 juvenile Lampsilis higginsii; juvenile mussels representing nine other species populated the cages. One of these, Utterbackia imbecillis, was very abundant with as many as 56 individuals found in one cage. In total, 267 juvenile mussels (exclusive of Lampsilis higginsil) were found in these cages. The Lampsilis higginsii juveniles were taken to the Lake Pepin propagation site.Cages at this site were nearly full of sand, silt and wood debris and were very difficult to retrieve. It was concluded that this was a poor site for propagation cages and will be abandoned in favor of more stable environments elsewhere. A winch and boom was used to lift the cages so that they could be taken into the boat for processing. After these 8 cages were processed it was determined that a suction dredge would be used to retrieve the remaining cages because they were buried almost entirely in the sand.October 1. 2002 Pool I cage site: A 4" diameter hydraulic dredge was used to remove sand and detritus from in and around the buried cages so that a diver could carry them to the boat.Substrate that was delivered to the boat was forced through a 1/4" mesh wire screen and any mussels removed. No Lampsilis higginsii were collected from the screen. An additional 6 cages were retrieved. Twelve cages remain buried in sand at the site.16 Adult mussel transplant site at Hidden Falls, Pool 2: A collection of 21 Lampsilis higginsii were brought to the boat for examination and measuring. The table below presents the results of this effort.'Casis higginsi moved from Cordova,_IL to Pool 2, Hidden Falls MN in July -200 i---r 177 mu ge.!nder 0102 F LC 112 F_013 F 79.8 length 9102 total growthj May-02 4.21 growth in '02 glochidia harvest? ]gravid faUI02?58.4 59.7 60 C15F 765 4.61 -0. 76.5 0.5-4.1 1C154 F 74.9_79_ _ .I --fall'01 and sprLing '02 yeJ s 1 spring 02[ ye 79 I i 4.--1C177 F F F 68 75.6 75.6 F 83.4 IC56 F 68.2 IC77[697 1DH`12-IDH21!DH30 F F T M M 72.7 6ý3.2 76 88.7 83.6 88.4 71 3 78 ____2.4 79 3.4 76 85 1.6 69 0.81 67.7 7523J___71 7.811 92 16 89 0.3 87 34 801 0.8 9 87 V -2.6]- 90.1 7W ~8.4 163.9-13 spring-'02 __i yes MIM0 and springd 02 I .. .. t" 4 IDH38 I F IDH8 1 1F 0PH8_7_ Uf 79.2 89.6 61.6 3. spring 02 I .1 spig.'02 yes-It Was also noted that several of the Lampsilis higginsii appear to be growing in a peculiar way with exaggerated growth arrest lines and in-turning along the ventral margin of the shell. Otherwise they appeared to be in good health and about 1/3 of the females were examined for reproductive status and found to be gravid. -17 October 14, 2002 Eight Megalonaias nervosa were collected from among those transplanted into the Pool 3 site and, 3 of these appeared to be gravid. It was hoped that these could be used to infect host fish that would then be placed into cages in Lake Pepin for the winter to see if juveniles could be successfully propagated and also to find out if fish can besuccessfully over wintered in a cage. We anticipate needing to do this. in order to propagated Quadrulafragosa some day.October 15, 2002 Three Megalonaias nervosa were taken to the Genoa National Fish Hatchery and the contents of their marsupia examined. All were found to contain undeveloped larvae, one female had completely aborted her marsupia. These females were all left at the hatchery in a tank in the hope that they might develop mature glochidia later in the fall.Transplant site maps on following pages-18 MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSSEL RELOCATION SITE: Across from Hidden Falls Park. River Mile 846 1 Latitude 44.8973 Longtude 93.1807 L/. IJgai and State Listed Specam*1U MOus RelocatQion, MflD'pp~~. ~ PMNP.1?r R0 r il I.4I..19 MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSSEL RELOCATION SITE: Below Ford Dam, River Mile 847 4 Laftde 44.9123 Lao~tuft 931 M9.At Uitad Species 20 1, 41.s A, Phra owelf-JG&U I)tj I ~I ~20 MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSSEL RELOCATION SITE: Below Pike Island, River Mile 844, 0 Latiude 44.8970 Longude 93.1507 State Listed Species M;.4U2I"A P t-14O -.4-f.Jc-S .R4sx Ut 21 MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSSEL RELOCATION SITE: Near Hastings, River Mile 813.0 ,Latitude 44.7492 Longitude 92.8334 L. hlgqinsi and State Listed Species"J300 PC Ct.t 'l q~s tAA ."ot , AIIM ef hI 01 22 W [Federal Register: May 4, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 87)][Notices][Page 22593]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04my0 I -1171Page 22593-----------------

---

.-.

---

.-. ----- ----.. -.... .... ........DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice of intent to amend endangered species recovery..The following applicant has applied for an amended permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).Permit Number TE023308-2 Applicant:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota (Russ Peterson, Field Supervisor). The applicant holds a permit to take (collect, hold in captivity, propagate, and release) endangered Higgins' eye pearlymussels (Lampsilis higginsi) from locations within their historic range in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The applicant requests authorization to expand the geographical area permitted for reintroducing artificially propagated specimens into the wild to include all historical locations of the species, including mainstem and tributaries of the Upper Mississippi River including the Chippewa, St.Croix, Black and Wisconsin Rivers in Wisconsin; the Iowa, Cedar and Wapsipinicon Rivers in Iowa; the Illinois, Sangamon, and Rock Rivers in Illinois; and, the Minnesota River in Minnesota. This permit is for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild to protect from zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) infestation, in the interest of recovery.Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, I Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30.days of the date of this publication. Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, I Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292). Dated: April 20, 2001.Charlie Wooley, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. [FR Doc. 01-11192 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]

---

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

• AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

The following applicant has applied fora permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).Permit Number TE023308-0 Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota (Russ Peterson, Field Supervisor) The applicant requests a permit to take (collect, hold in captivity, propagate, and release) endangered Higgins' eye pearlymussels (Lampsilis higginsi) from locations within their historic range in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (St. Croix River, Upper Mississippi River, Chippewa River, and Wisconsin River). The applicant proposes to propagate captive mussels at: (1) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Genoa National Fish Hatchery; (2) a temporary facility at the Upper Mississippi River, Pools 1-4 (River Mile 853-787); (3) a temporary facility at the lower Chippewa River (RM 0-15);and (4) a temporary facility at the lower Wisconsin River (RM 0-15).The applicant proposes to subsequently relocate host fish infected with glochidia (resulting from propagation) to a temporary facility in the lower Bad Axe River adjacent to the Genoa NFH. Artificially propagated and temporarily held specimens will be reintroduced into the wild at the Upper Mississippi River, Lower Chippewa River, and lower Wisconsin River. The Field Supervisor, Twin Cities Field Office, proposes to serve as project manager including, but not limited to, designation of individuals who meet issuance criteria to work under this permit. This permit is proposed for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild (protection from zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) infestation, in the interest of recovery.) Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, I Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication. Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5350); FAX: (612/713-5292). Dated: February 24, 2000.Stanley L. Smith,.Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. iNotice of AvaiGabiGity US Army Corps of Eiilineers Relodcation Plan for the Endangered Higgins"Eye St. Paul. District Pearlymussel, Upper Mississippi River and Tributaries, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and lilinois Date:, March 29,.2002 In Reply Refer to:t: Environmental and Economic:Analysis Branch,-Project Proponent. St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul;Minnesota 55101-1638 Project Background. This Notice of Availability describes a proposal to establish five new populations, through relocation, of the-Federally-listed Endangered Higg-ins' eye pearlymussel.(Lampsilis higinnsii). The Draft Definite Projectd Report anid Environmiental Assessment stems from the'Al6ri 2000 USFWS .fina'l biologic al opin ion re eprt~that: said c6'fitiinuedoeaino h-FomtNawgat2000 USFWShfinne l boo gicalon ohUppMiionsrepoi thatsaide cyined operationuof they 9-Foot Navigation Channelsprojen on the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) would ikely jeopardize the continued existence of the Higgins' eye pearlymdsnel. Due to the upstream transport by commercial and recreational craft, zebra mussels are 'now found in the UMRS. The zebra mussels came from Europe and were introduced into North America by ships discharging their ballast water into, the Great Lakes. The zebra mussels eventually got into the Illinois River through the 'Chicago Sniiitary and Shipping Canal, and then the Mississippi River, by attaching, themselves to other ships and boats coming out of the Illinois River. Zebra mussels'have a significant adverse impact on Higgins' eye pearlymussel and other native freshwater mussels.The USFWS biological opinion listed a-reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) believed'-, necessary, to jeopardy. "A Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) is for the Corpsito (1) develop a Higgins' eye pearlymussel Relocation Action Plan and (2) to conduct a reconnaissance study to'control zebra mussels in the UMR .".Project Authority. The River and Harbor Act of July'3, 1930; which authori.es the 9-foot channel navigation project on the Upper Mississippi River, provides'federal authority forthe projiect. Section 7(a)(2) Of the 1973 Endangered Specie.s Act(ESA) reui'res Federal agencie's to insure thatactions authorized; funded; or carried'out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continufedexkistence of endangered or threatefied species. In addition, ESA establishes as Federal p'licy that "all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species." In keeping with this ESA requirement and policy, it is within the Federal Interest to implement the Biological Opinion's Reasonable and Prudent Altemative of conducting a Relocation Plan: forHiggins'-eye pearlymussel. Project Purpose. The Relocation Plan objective is to establish a minimum of five new and viable populations (minimum of 500 individuals each) of Higgins' eye pearlymussel in areas of the UMRS and/or tributaries that have no orilow levels of zebra mussel infestaitions. " Project Location. Attempts to establish new populations will occur at a minimum of 10 sites, to ensure that at least five new populations are established. The specific locations have not been determined], howvere thde' ollowing potential areas have been identified: Rock and Kankakee Rivers in Illinois; Iowa, Cedar,'Des Moines, Upper Iowa, Wapsipinicon, and Turkey Rivers in Iowa; Wisconsin, Chippewa, and Black Rivers in Wisconsin; from the head of navigation to Monticello, Minnesota, and pools I through upper 4 and pool 24 on the UMRS; and the first 30 miles of the St. Croix River above Taylors Falls, Minnesota. Proposed Action., The Relocation Plan involves collecting adult Higgins' eye pearlymussels fromii areas heavily ifested with zebra `mussel§, where survival of the Higgins' eye pearlymussel is in question, and cleaning and moving them to an area with no or low levels of zebra mussel infestation. Relocation efforts will also involve raising juvenile mussels on hostfish species-and at hatcheries, with subsequent stocking at selected relocation sites. A monitoring.program to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the relocation efforts is also part of the plan.The Higgins'_ eye pearlymussel Reilcatioii Plan is bnly one.part of the overall effort. The Corps of Engin'eers is also undertaking, in a separate interrelated effort, a reconnaissance/feasibility study of long-term measures for controlling zebra mussels in the UMRS'. Additional mussel work that is under way or will be planned and conducted over the next several years includes monitoring the health and status of Higgins' eye pearlyrnussel and other mussels; protecting existingHggins eye pearlymussel within Essential Habitat Areas;monitoring the abundance and distribution of zebra mussels; evaluating the opportunity for fish passage at locks and dams;for fish species that are hosts of the Higgins' eyýe pearlymussel glochidia; a relocation plani for winged mapleleaf mussels; and public outreach on the threat to native mussels.Alternatives. No Action: Under the No Action alternative, no Federal actions would be undertaken toQ relocate endangered mussels for the purpose of establishing new populations-in areas with no or low levels of zebra mussel infestation. With the most probable future without action, zebra mussel densities on the main stem of the UMRS are expected to remain high, with some continued expansion into the tributaries. Higgins' eye pearlymussel may continue to exist in the more marginal secondary and essential habitat areas, which contain low to moderate numbers of zebra mussels, and in areas not infested with zebra mussels. However, until effectivezebra mussel management -program is implemented on the UMRS, zebra mussels will continue to be the greatest threat to native musselsof the UMRS. The. USFWS Biological Opinion conclutded that continued operation and maintenance of the 9-Foot Channel Project for another*fifty years would jeopardize the continued.existence of Higgins' eye pearlymussel due to.the indirect effect of zebra mussels.Schedule. Some limited pilot efforts begin in 2000/1. Full project implementation will begin in May 2002. The Relocation Plan will take 10 years to fully implement. Monitoring of the newly established populations will continue after the 10-year establishment period.Summary of Environmental. Impacts. Implementation of the proposed relocation plan would have overall substantial benefits to Higgins' eye pearlymussel populations in general,. although some mortality to individual Higgins' eye pearlymussel would be associated with these activities. Impacts on other natural resources would generally be minor. Relocation of Higgins'eye pearlymussel to tributaries is likely to be controversial because of restrictions on uses associated with endangered species. One of the factors that will be used in selecting the final relocation sites will be degree of local opposition, which should minimize socioeconomic impacts.The proposed actions would cumulatively aid in the long'term preservation of Higgins' eye pearlymussel populations. Relocation of Higgins' eye pearlymussel would mitigate or reduce the impacts of zebra mussels on this endangered species.Coordination. The Mussel Coordination Team (MCT), made up of 9 federal and state government agencies and I private non-profit entity, has been extensively involved in the development of the relocation plan and other on-going mussel related activities. The MCT members include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the U.S.Geological, Survey; the National Park Service; the U.S. Coast: Guard; the department of natural resources from the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois; and the Science Museum of Minnesota. Who Should Reply? Any interested parties that may be affected by the proposed action are invited to submit to this office facts, arguments, or objections to the proposal within 30 days of this notice. These statements should bear upon the adequacy of plans and suitability of locations and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes considered desirable. Statements should indicate that they are in response to this notice of availability. All replies should be addressed to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, ATTN: PM-E, 190 Fifth Street East, St.Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638. The Draft Definite Project Report/Environmental Assessment may be obtained electronically at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil. Mr. Dennis Anderson, telephone number (651) 290-5272 and email dennis .d.anderson@mpOI2 .usace .army.mil, can be contacted for additional information or to obtain a hard copy of the Draft Definite Project Report and Environmental Assessment. ROBERT T. BALL Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-1638 OFFICIAL BUSINESS CEMVP-PM-E Anderson PM-E Mose PM-E, Bankston OC DesHarnais DPM O'Hara DD__Ball DE File name: DPR notice of availability Dubuque Public Meeting e,7 CA N-v L/! A-'~ \ ')A'~ ~ "~Ct flFc, /r,/~ n (A (1 1 s' r,#L4kr&lUal~4 p~K. V.)5-2 Prairie du Chien Public Meeting-~ -- JJ42JLW~~ ~5-3 Wabasha Public Meeting-. ., .j., .\ .._ ..... 5-4 Moline Public Meeting 0 5-5 APPENDIX 6 DISTRIBUTION LIST List of elected officials, Federal, State, and local agencies, interest groups, media, individuals, and libraries that will receive a copy of the draft Definite Project Report/Environmental Assessment and/or Notice of Availability 0 INAME IPOSITION IGENCY .CITY STATE PODE DON WARD MARIA PEARSON G. GENE JONES MR LES HOLLAND CRAIG W. ORILEY MR BOB KRAUSE JOEL BRINKMAYER MR. BRAD BARRETT MR. ROBERT L HUMPHREY DON BRAZLTON DALE FAULKNER MR. BILL BALLENTYNE HONORABLE T. R. THOMPSON, JR.MR. ALLEN HILLEMAN ROYCE J. FICHTNER MR ROBERT SUEPPEL MR. RICHARD JOHNSON MR. TODD R. HAGAN HONORABLE TOM HARKIN MARK ACKELSON BRENT HALLING MR BOB RENAND MR DICK VEGORS HONORABLE GREG GANSKE MS DIANNE LIEPA HONORABLE CHARLES E, GRASSLEY MR. LEROY BROWN HONORABLE NEAL SMITH MR. JOHN BELLIZZI HONORABLE WILLIAM 0, PALMER LYLE ASELL DARRELL MCALLISTER ALLEN STOKES ANDREWVARLEY ARNOLD SOHN DAN LINDQUIST MR. PAUL JOHNSON AL FARRIS HONORABLE DALE M. COCHRAN HAROLD HOMMES MARY JANE OLREY PATTY JUDGE J. EDWARD BROWN JACK RIESSEN JIM BROWN RALPH CHRISTIAN MARION CONOVER HONORABLE SHELDON RITTMER PATRICIA OHLERKING MR. JEFFREY R. VONK KEE VIN SZCOORONSKI MR. GLENN BUSH MR. JERRY BOOTH HONORABLE JIM NUSSLE MR. JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN MR. ROBERT BORTLE MR. ARNOLD JOHNSON MR. JIM WAHL MR. RANDALL J. WILL HONORABLE TOM LATHAM MR. ROGER L KEITH JAMES DUNHAM MR. BRIAN HOLT MR. DENNIS EBERLE MR. LARRY SCHWAB MR. STEVE LINDAMAN MR. JOHN BAHNSEN DIRECTOR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION GOVE' LlAISON FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION LA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION IOWA DOT DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SBRANCH MANAGER STATE OFIOWA,*OFFICEOF BRIDGESAND STRUCTURES CTRE LIBRARY DEPART OF COMMERCE IA ASSN OF COUNTY CONSERVATION BOARDS BRANCH MANAGER STATE OF IOWA CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD COUNTY OF DECATUR MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL DIRECTOR US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE ENGINEER COUNTY OF MARSHALL IOWA FIELD OFFICE CONGRESSMAN BOSWELL PELLA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BRANCH MANAGER STATE OF IOWA PRINCIPAL MADISON COUNTY ROADS DEPT DIRECTOR STATE OF IOWA UNITED STATES SENATOR IOWA NATURAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION IOWA DEPTD OAGRI IOWA FIELD OFFICE SENATOR GRASSLEY MARKETING MANAGER IOWA DEPT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IOWA FIELD OFFICE SENATOR HARKIN UNITED STATES SENATOR BRANCH MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS BRANCH MANAGER CITY OF DES MOINES UNITED STATES SENATOR DIRECTOR IA DEPT OF SOIL CONSERVATION IOWA DNR BUREAU CHIEF SURFACE & GROUNDWATER PROT BUREAU-ONR DIVN ADMIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IOWA COMMERCE COMMISSION CHIEF PLANNING BUREAU -DNR NAT RES ENGR DEPT OF AGRICULTURE & LAND STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR DNR ADMINISTRATOR DNR SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES AMES ANKENY ANKENY INDIANOLA LEON MARSHALLTOWN MARSHALLTOWN MARSHALLTOWN OSCEOLA PELLA WILLIAMS WINTERSET DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES DES MOINES MASON CITY MASON CITY MASON CITY BRITT CLEAR LAKE GARNER HAMPTON FORT DODGE POCAHONTAS WEBSTER CITY WEBSTER CITY WEBSTER CITY ALLISON ALLISON CHARLES CITY CHARLES CITY IA 50010[A ,SM10 LA 510 IA 50010 IA 50010 IA 50010 IA 50010-0451 IA"

• 55O0!(.045 IA 50015-0915 IA 15E-2802 IA $0144-1647 IA 50158 IA 501834548 IA $0158-4906 IA 550213 IA 50219 IA &0271 LA 50213 IA 5030"204 IA 50m11 IA S0239 IA So302 IA 50309 IA $0309 LA 50309 IA 50309 IA 50309'LA 5o3594 o IA 50309180 IA 50309 IA 503179-70 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 LA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 50319 IA 60319 IA 50319 IA $0319 IA 50319 IA 90319 IA 60319 LA 50319 LA swi10 IA 5031907 IA r0319 0 IA 603219.80 LA 5035.03 IA 001-5615 IA §03M2-0741 LA 60423-0187 IA 50428-1233 IA 60438-0040 LA 50441-Ois IA bal5 IA 65574-0189 IA 50595 LA 50595-0454 IA 60559799 IA 56002-008 LA 90002-082 IA 5W616-2229 IA 0W18-3TM..ENV PROG SUPV LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UNITED STATES SENATOR DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC PRESERV. OFCR DIRECTOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER COORDINATOR BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH MANAGER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH MANAGER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS COUNTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR BRANCH MANAGER PURCHASING BRANCH MANAGER IA DEPT OF AGRI & LAND STEWARDSHIP IOWA DEPT OF AGRI IOWA DEPT OF AGRI STATE WATER COORDINATOR DNR DNR BUREAU OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DNR BUREAU OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IOWA DNR IA DNR US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF IOWA STATE OF IOWA STATE OF IOWA US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE COUNTY OF FRANKLIN US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE PARK RECREATION

& CEMETERY DEPT CENTRAL IOWA TOURISM REGION HAMILTON COUNTY CONSERVATION BOARD US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE STATE OF IOWA CITY OF CHARLES CITY US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Re-Licensing and Environmental Review Page I of I Holthaus, James J.rom: Lovejoy, Tom A -DNR [Tom.Lovejoy@Wisconsin.gov] e~nt: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:46 AM To: Holthaus, James J.Cc: Siebert, David R -DNR; Koslowsky, Shari -DNR; Benjamin, Ron -DNR; Sullivan, John F -DNR

Subject:

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Re-Licensing and Environmental Review Attachments: 316b Guidance DNR 10 18_04.doc By your June 19, 2007 letter to Dave Siebert you requested Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) input in preparation of environmental review documents associated with an application to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for license renewal of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.Through various phone calls and emails WDNR subseq'uently alerted you that our contact for threatened and endangered resources information was Ms. Shari Koslowsky, (608) 261-4382 and that I would get back to you with any other scoping comments. This provides those additional comments.1. Fish Impingement and Entrainment We are concerned about the extent of fish and other aquatic organism mortality resulting from entrainment and impingement at cooling water intake structures. Will the plant comply with Clean Water Act 316(b) standards for minimizing adverse impacts?How? To assist in this regard attached is draft guidance to WDNR managers to determine if best available technology is being used.\.<<316b Guidance DNR 10 18 04.doc>>2. Pool drawdowns for habitat enhancement We have.in the past expressed interest in working with the Corps of Engineers and others in conducting water level drawdowns of 1-2'in Mississippi River Pool 3 for biological habitat enhancement purposes. We have heard there are PINGP concerns, such as"fhre control or design limits of water intake structure(s), that may conflict with the idea of pool drawdowns. Please describe any Wh concerns and measures that could be employed to allow such pool drawdowns.

3. Thermal discharge effects A. Biological resources We are aware of past fish kills, particularly associated with effluent thermal mixing during winter cold water conditions, resulting from past plant operations.

There is also a mussel bed adjacent to the plant. We are interested in minimizing adverse plant operational impacts to such resources. We understand that the entire river is used as the thermal mixing zone for determining compliance with MPCA discharge permits and believe a smaller portion of river flow along the Minnesota shoreline should be used to more accurately protect fish and aquatic life. Has the mussel bed been monitored above and below the plant to determine thermal discharge impacts? Are there other biological monitoring efforts underway or planned in effort to demonstrate little or no adverse thermal effects tobiological communities? We know there have been some operational adjustments made in effort to eliminate/reduce the frequency or extent of fish kills. What are these measures and how successful have they been? What future measures are proposed? What opportunities will exist during the next license term to respond to new threats and issues as they appear?B. Recreation opportunities We have routinely received seasonal complaints from the ice fishing public that access to the upper 1/3 of Lake Pepin is adversely impacted by PINGP warm water discharges, resulting in delayed ice formation at winter's onset and more rapid ice deterioration before spring thaw. Efforts should be undertaken to document historic PINGP discharge effects on winter ice cover and usability of traditional ice fisherman access points. Measures to offset adverse effects should be identified and considered for future operations over the next NRC license term..4. Zebra mussel control Best management~practices for control of biofouling from zebra mussels and other exotics continues to evolve. PINGP should havela plan in place calling for periodic reassessment of zebra mussel control methods in effort to assure that proven state-of-the-art control methods are in place while also minimizing toxicity to native biological resources. Baks you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or would like to discuss these issues in more detail please ntact me at (715) 839-3747.9/4/2007 Guidance for Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [Implementing Chapter 283.31(6), Wis. Stats., and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act]DRAFT -October 18, 2004 0 This guidance is intended to describe the information needed in order for the Department to evaluate the potential impacts of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) on their aquatic environment and to allow for the Department's determination of whether the best technology available (BTA) is being used (or proposed) to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Although this guidance provides general guidelines to follow, permits and regional staff responsible for decision making and water quality and fisheries biologists who best understand the area in question should be relied upon for more specific analyses of individual sites.This document is intended solely as guidance, and does not contain any mandatory requirements except where requirements found in statute or administrative rule are referenced. This guidance does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations, and is not finally determinative of any of the issues addressed. This guidance does not create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the State of Wisconsin or the Department of Natural, Resources. Any* regulatory decisions made by the Department of Natural Resources in any matter addressed by this guidance will be made by applying the governing statutes and administrative rules to the relevant facts. Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 3 16(b)]Best Technology Available For Minimizing Environmental Impact Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 283.31(6), Wis. Stats., require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect the best technology available (BTA)for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In order to make decisions regarding whether a facility will meet these requirements, the Department will need sufficient information to determine whether technologies are the best available to minimize adverse environmental impact. In the case of existing facilities, this may be accomplished by providing reliable, quantitative estimates of damage that is occurring and projecting the long-range effect of such damage to the extent reasonably possible. In some cases, reliable estimates of future damage may be estimated through the use of historical data, pre-operational models, biological studies, and/or the operating experience of other facilities. However, historical data should be used carefully, and only in situations where source water and operating conditions are not believed to have changed significantly over time.General guidance is provided in this document, outlining the development, conduct, and review of studies designed to determine and evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact from a CWIS. This document is intended for use by Department staff who will need to decide whether the proposed (or existing) design, location, construction, and capacity of a CWIS reflects the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact, as well as the permittees who will have to provide the information needed to make these decisions. Staff should remember that environment-intake interactions are highly site-specific, and therefore BTA decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. When deciding what is needed to evaluate an existing intake, data requirements should be based on the determination of the potential for adverse impact and the availability of relevant historical data. In limited instances, existing plants may have enough relevant historical data to make further studies unnecessary. Conversely, the process for evaluating new intakes and most existing intakes will probably be more extensive because of a lack of relevant historical data (because there is no historical data or because there have been significant changes in the environment since data was collected).

Background

In s. 316b, a cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is defined as the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to direct water into the cooling system, where a major portion of the water is used for cooling. The CWIS extends from the point at which water is withdrawn, up to and including the intake pumps. A CWIS can cause adverse environmental impact by pulling large numbers of fish, shellfish, and otherlorganisms or their eggs and larvae into a facility's cooling system. There, the organisms may be killed or injured by heat, physical stress, or by chemicals used within the system. Larger organisms may be killed or injured when they are trapped against screens at the front of the intake structure. Indirect impacts are also possible,1i such as the disruption of thermal regimes, the disruption of normal water flow, wetland or other upland disturbance (usually during construction), aesthetics, and/or noise.The goal of s. 316(b) is to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E) of organisms in the area around a CWIS. Entrainment is the taking in of organisms with the cooling water. The organisms" involved are generally of smaller size and include phyto- and zooplankton, fish eggs and larvae, shellfish larvae,'ýetc. As these entrained organisms pass through the system, they can be subjected to stressors such as mechanical damage due to contact with internal surfaces of pumps, pipes, and condensers; pressure damage due to passage through pumps;shear damage due to complex water flows; thermal damage due to elevated water temperatures; and toxicity due to the addition of chemicals to prevent condenser fouling and corrosion. Those organisms that do survive passage through the system may then experience delayed mortality after being returned to the receiving water.Impingement (or entrapment) is the blocking of larger organisms by some type of physical barrier. iFor example, most CWIS include screening equipment (usually 3/8" mesh) installed in the cooling water flow to protect downstream equipment such as pumps and condensers from damage or clogging. Larger organisms, such as fish which enter the system and cannot pass through the screens, are trapped ahead of them. Eventually, if a fish cannot escape or is not removed, it will tire and become impinged on the screens. If impingementýicontinues for Page 2 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]long, the fish may suffocate when water currents prevent it's gill covers from opening. If the fish is impinged for a* short period and removed, it may survive. However, it may lose its protective slime and/or scales through contact with screen surfaces or from the high pressure water jets designed to remove debris from the screens. Delayed mortality following impingement may approach 100 percent. For some species of fish, the intake may represent a double jeopardy situation where the same population will be subject to increased mortality through entrainment of eggs and larvae and additional mortality to juveniles and adults through impingement. CWIS regulations do not specifically identify methods to reduce IM&E in each situation. Instead, these rules set basic performance standards and allow Department staff to decide what is BTA for each site-specific situation. Examples of existing technologies in use to reduce IM&E include fish diversion or avoidance systems designed to.divert fish away from intakes; passive intake systems such as non-mechanical screens; mechanical screen systems that prevent organisms from entering the intake system; and fish return systems that transport live organisms away from the intake system.316(b) Rulemaking History EPA originally issued regulations to implement Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act in 1976. Soon after, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the EPA rules, saying that the Agency had failed to comply with the publication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because of this, determinations of BTA for CWIS technologies have generally been governed by draft federal guidance ever since, and each state has had substantial discretion to determine what control requirements would satisfy the BTA criterion. For the most part, regulators have decided on a case-by-case basis whether CWIS technologies constitute BTA. Following an initial burst of activity in the mid 70's and early 80s, EPA has paid little attention to CWIS. In 1993, various environmental groups brought suit against EPA to compel the Agency to implement the requirements of s. 316(b). In order to settle the litigation, EPA entered into a consent decree in 1995 that required them to create regulations to implement

s. 316(b)according to the following schedule:.Expected Timeline For New 316(b) Rules* Phase I (completed):

New facilities -final rules published December 2001* Phase [I (completed): Existing power generators withdrawing >50 MGD -final rules July 2004* Phase III (under development): Other facilities, including power generators withdrawing <50 MGD; chemical mfg.;refineries; pulp & paper; steel, aluminum, copper and iron mfg. (proposed November'04; final by June '06)Power plants are the largest users of cooling water in most cases and, to date, federal regulations have been directed primarily at this category. In December 2001, EPA published a final rule implementing section 316(b)that applies to new power generating and manufacturing facilities; final rules for existing power generating facilities were completed on July 9, 2004. However, EPA has proposed regulations covering other dischargers that have CWIS. These facilities will also need to show that their CWIS meet BTA standards in the near future.Phase I: New Facilities. On December 18, 2001, EPA published a final rule implementing

s. 316(b) that applies to new power plants and manufacturing facilities that withdraw water for cooling purposes.

This rule for new facilities is referred to as "Phase I". According to this rule, a new facility is any "greenfield" or "stand-alone" facility that started construction after January 2002, has a design intake flow > 2 MGD, and uses at least 25% of the water that is withdrawn for cooling purposes. A greenfield facility is one that is constructed at a site where no other source is located, or that totally replaces the process or production equipment at an existing facility. A stand-alone facility is a new, separate facility that is constructed on property where an existing facility is located and whose processes are substantially independent of the existing facility at the same site (see 40 CFR Part 125.83 for the full, legal definitions of "new", "greenfield", and "stand alone" facilities). The new facility rule establishes BTA, based on a two-track approach, for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of a CWIS. Based on size, Track I requires the permittee to select and implement design and construction technologies that will minimize IM&E. Based on the assumption that closed-cycle Page 3 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]cooling systems cut cooling water usage by about 75-95% compared to once-through cooling systems, thereby reducing IM&E and other aquatic impacts by a similar percentage, Track I basically requires the use of wet, closed-cycle cooling systems with a maximum through-screen velocity of less than 0.5 feet per second (fps).Track II allows applicants to conduct site-specific studies to demonstrate that alternative measures will reduce IM&E to a level of reduction comparable to the level the facility would achieve if it used a closed-cycle cooling system and a through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps or less.The new facility rule also includes alternative requirements that allow facilities to demonstrate that compliance costs associated with Tracks I and U would be unreasonable; or that air quality impacts, energy generation impacts ("energy penalties"), or other impacts not related to IM&E, could outweigh the additional IM&E effects and therefore justify an open loop system.Phase ii: Existing Power Plants. On July 9, 2004, EPA published a final rule implementing

s. 316(b) that applies to existing power plants that withdraw >50 MGD cooling water. This rule, known as Phase II, establishes requirements applicable to the location, design, and capacity of CWIS at existing facilities.

This rule defines an"existing facility" as one that commenced construction on or before January 17, 2002, and any modification of, or any addition of a unit at such a facility that does not meet the definition of a new facility at s.125.83. 'According to the Phase II rule, an existing facility can do one of the following to meet BTA requirements: I) Demonstrate that technology in use reduces intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling system. (applies to all waterbody types)2) Select and implement design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration'I measures that meet specified performance standards: a) For facilities with CWIS on a freshwater river or stream: i) If the intake flow is <5% of the annual mean flow, must reduce impingement mortality by 80-95%;ii) If the intake flow is > 5% of the annual mean flow, must reduce impingement mortality by 80-95% and entrainment by 60-90%.b) For facilities with CWIS on a lake or reservoir other than the Great Lakes: i) Must reduce impingement mortality by 80-95%, and, if they expand their intake capacity, the increase in intake flow must not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern of the source water.c) For facilities with CWIS on a Great Lake: i) Must reduce impingement mortality by 80-95% and entrainment by 60-90%.3) Demonstrate that the facility qualifies for a site-specific determination of BTA because its costs of compliance would be significantly greater than the environmental benefits of compliance with the performance standards.

4) Demonstrate that it has installed and properly operates and maintains a pre-approved technology.

Only one technology is pre-approved at this time: submerged cylindrical wedgewire screen technology whichl treats the total CWIS flow. According to the rule, there are 5 conditions that must be met in order to use this techlology to meet BTA standards: a) The CWIS is located in a freshwater river or stream; b) The CWIS is situated such that sufficient ambient counter currents exist to promote cleaning of the screen face; c) The through screen design iintake velocity is 0.5 ft/s or less; d) The slot size is appropriate for the size of eggs, larvae, and juveniles of any fish and shellfish to be protected at the site; and e) The entire main condenser cooling water flow is directed through 'the technology (small flows totaling <2 MGD for auxiliary plant cooling uses are excluded). Sec. 125.99 of the rule also allows the Department to pre-approve other CWIS technologies, after providing public notice and an opportunity to comment on the request for approval of the technology. The rule states that the baseline against which compliance with the performance standards mentioned above should be assessed is a shoreline intake with the capacity to support once-through cooling and no IM&E controls.Page 4 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]Phase I11: Other CWIS Users. Many have assumed incorrectly that the requirements of s. 316(b) apply only to the power industry. While it is certainly the case that the primary focus in the past has been mostly on that industry sector, 316(b) applies broadly to any facility with a CWIS. Phase III of these regulations will, at a minimum, address power plants not covered by Phase II (e.g., those with design intake flows < 50 MGD) and other facilities that employ CWIS. Thus, the rulemaking that EPA has initiated could have major implications for other industrial sectors, including chemicals and allied products, primary metals, petroleum and coal products, and paper and allied products industries, and others. Under the court-ordered consent decree, EPA must propose Phase [II regulations by November 1, 2004 and take fimal action on these regulations by June 1, 2006.Wisconsin's Authority to Regulate CWIS The Department's authority to regulate CWIS is directly tied to the issuance of a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit and can be found in Wis. Stats. Chapter 283.31(6): "Any permit issued by the department under this chapter which by its terms limits the discharge of one or more pollutants into the waters of the state may require that the location, design, construction and capacity of water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." Since the mid 70's, the Department has used EPA guidance and best professional judgment to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether CWIS technologies used by individual facilities constitute BTA. In order to make initial BTA determinations in the 1970's, power plants with a WPDES permit were required to provide site-specific information to estimate the number and weight of fish impinged or entrained by their CWIS.Recent and future rule revisions at the federal level will mean that the Department must re-evaluate each CWIS at permit reissuance. In most cases, permittees with a CWIS should expect to demonstrate whether they meet BTA requirements described in s. 316(b).as a part of the permit application and reissuance process. To do this may.require not only the assistance of CWIS technology experts, but also fishery biologists, impact assessment modelers, economists, and others (more details are provided throughout the rest of this guidance). Where Does CWIS Review Fit Into the Permitting Process?Phase I and II of the 316(b) regulations require that the regulations be implemented through WPDES permit applications and reissuances. (See page 7 for a discussion of proposed schedules.) When a new. power plant has been proposed, the CWIS coordinator and permits staff will be expected to work closely with the Department's Project Manager and Regional Coordinator to ensure that permitting and review activities are smoothly integrated' into the process mandated by the Power Plant Siting Law (s. 196.491(3), Wis. Stats.). (See "Statutory Timelines and Agency Responsibilities for Approval of New Power Plants" in Appendix 1). When a CWIS review is needed for an existing power plant or other facility, permits 'staff, basin engineers, fisheries staff, and the CWIS coordinator will- work together to ensure that CWIS review activities are smoothly integrated into the permit application and reissuance process, where appropriate. The WPDES Permit coordinator & Basin Engineer share the responsibility for." overall project (permit) coordination

• review of plans & study results" drafting Environmental Assessment (EA) & Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) language (as needed)" review of permit monitoring data* determination of compliance with performance standards* main point of contact for Environmental Analysis and Liaison Section, Public Service Commission, region/central office staff, and other programs" attend meetings with permittee, as needed, to discuss performance standards and CWIS technologies The CWIS coordinator is responsible for:*
• maintaining CWIS guidance (this document)

& standard permit language Page 5 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]" providing "expertise" in difficult or complex situations

• providing statewide perspective and checks for consistency" assist permit coordinator with EA and EIS language (as needed)0* assist in the review of plans & study results* attend meetings with permittee, as needed, to provide advice and expertise regarding performance standards and CWIS technologies Fishery & water quality biologists and other staff will also need to be involved in certain aspects of each project.For example, knowledge of the local fisheries around the CWIS site will be very important when reviewing information related to physical waterbody data, expected (or existing)

IM&E data and the potential for direct and indirect impacts to aquatic habitats.In order for the CWIS review process to take place, whether for a new or existing facility, it will be necessary for the permittee to supply the information needed to determine whether the CWIS will meet BTA standards. Once this information is made available, the Department will have to determine which s. 316b performance standards apply and then review and approve plans, biological studies, source water information, and proposed! technologies to decide if the proposed (or existing) CWIS will meet BTA criteria. Once the Department has determined whether the proposed (or existing) CWIS will meet applicable performance standards, the WPDES permit should be reissued with requirements describing how the permittee will demonstrate compliance with the standards. This usually includes monitoring of IM&E levels, maximum intake velocity, and visual or remote inspections of the CWIS to insure technologies are operating as designed.Information Submittals for Existing (Phase 1I) Facilities In order to make a BTA demonstration, certain information will be needed (required at 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities). This information is summarized 1ýbelow. More detailed information is contained in the federal regulations. Cooperation and open communication between the permittee and the Department during plan development and study implementation is essential and will ensure that everyone is in agreement as to the scope and details of work to be planned and completed. No formal approval of study plans should be necessary, however, staff will need to be aware of and in general agreement with study objectives, specific goals, and schedules for completion, to make sure that studies address all of the important environmental and operational concerns of all parties.The Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS)The purpose of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) is to characterize impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E), to describe the operation of each CWIS, and to confirm that the technologie!s, operational.measures, and/or restoration measures selected and installed, or to be installed, at the facility re flect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact.The final CDS report should specify which compliance alternative(s) are planned to achieve BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Facilities that intend to meet BTA requirements by reducing flow commensurate with a closed-cycle, recirculating system are not required to submit a CDS. Facilities that intend to meet BTA requirements by reducing their design intake through-screen velocity to <0.5 fps are required to submit a CDS only for the entrainment requirements, if applicable. Facilities with a capacity utilization rate <15%, withdraw<5% of the mean annual flow of a river, or withdraw cooling water from a lake or reservoir (other than the Great Lakes), are required to submit a CDS only for the impingement mortality requirements. Facilities that intend to meet BTA requirements by installing a pre-approved technology need to submit only the Technology Installation and Operation Plan and the Verification Monitoring Plan described belo w. In the final Page 6 Guidance Effective: DRAFF -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]316(b) Phase 11 rule, only submerged cylindrical wedgewire screen technology was pre-approved, and only for* facilities that withdraw cooling water from a river or stream. In order to demonstrate BTA through the use of submerged cylindrical wedgewire screen technology, the permittee must demonstrate that this technology has been/will be properly installed and properly-operated and maintained. The facility must also meet the following conditions: (1) the MWIS is situated in the river such that sufficient ambient counter-currents exist to promote cleaning of the screen face; (2) the maximum through-screen design intake velocity < 0.5 fps; (3) the slot size is appropriate for the size of eggs, larvae, andjuveniles of all fish and shellfish to be protected at the site; and (4) the entire main condenser cooling water flow is directed through the technology. Suggested Information Submittal Timelines. Phase I and It of the 316(b) regulations require that the regulations be implemented through WPDES permit applications and reissuances. Existing facilities whose permits expire on or after July 7, 2008, and new facilities must comply with 316(b) information submittal requirements with their application for an initial/reissued WPDES permit. Existing facilities whose permit expires before July 7, 2008, may request a schedule for submission of application materials that is as expeditious as practicable but does not exceed January 7, 2008, to provide sufficient time to perform the required information collection requirements. (This is the latest date that the Department may allow; staff are to use BPJ to determine how much time is needed.) Below is an example timeline that may be allowed for these facilities: Task Approximate Time Allowed Suggested Due Date Prepare RFP and select contractor --- 10/30/04 Prepare and submit PIC 8 weeks 12/31/04 State Review of PIC and Address Comments 60 days, 2 weeks 3/15/05 Complete baseline IM&E sampling 1 year 3/31/06 Analyze IM&E data and make adaptive management 3 months 6/30/06 decisions on compliance (assumes May-Sep sampling)Engage in site-specific studies appropriate to support* compliance approach 1_year_6/30/07 Prepare and submit final CDS report 7 months 1/7/08"*this is the final date allowed by the Phase It regulations and it cannot be extended.Dates suggested at 10/12/04 DNR/Utilities meeting The following is a summary of the information that should be included in a final CDS report, depending upon the compliance alternative selected: 1) Proposal for Information Collection (PIC)As a first step in the process, the permittee should submit a proposal to the Department describing how they intend to demonstrate that their proposed (or existing) MWIS will meet BTA standards. This proposal should include a plan and schedule for the studies that will be conducted to provide the needed information to the Department. At a minimum, the PIC should include the following: a) A description of the technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures to be evaluated; b) A description of historical studies characterizing (M&E and the physical/biological conditions in the vicinity of the CWIS. If the permittee proposes to use existing data, a demonstration should be made of the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate QA/QC procedures; c) A summary of any past or ongoing consultations with Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies relevant to this study and a copy of comments received as a result of such consultation; d) A sampling plan for field studies proposed to ensure that sufficient data is available to develop a scientifically valid estimate of IM&E at the site. The plan should document all methods and QA/QC procedures for sampling and data analysis. Sampling and data analysis methods should be appropriate for a quantitative survey and take into account methods used in other studies performed in the source waterbody. A description of the study area (including the CWIS' area of influence) should be provided, along with taxonomic identifications of the biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish & shellfish) to the extent this is known in advance and relevant to plan development. Page 7 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]e) Any other information, where available, that would aid in the review of the plan.The collection and analysis of information will be an iterative process and plans for information collection 0 may change as new data needs are identified. While the PIC is only submitted once, the permittee should consult with the Department as appropriate after the PIC has been submitted, in order to ensure that the Department will have all of the information necessary to make decisions regarding whether the location, design, construction, and capacity of each CWIS reflects BTA for minimizing adverse environmental impact.2) Source Waterbody Flow Information The natural hydrology of the waterbody and its relationship to the cooling system are key factors in evaluating the potential of a CWIS to impinge and entrain organisms. Organisms most likely to be entrained are those present in the "hydraulic zone of influence" of the intake. Whether an organism will enter the zone of influence is determined by the behavior and motion of the organism and the flow of water around and into the CWIS. To determine how the behavior and motion of local organisms are influenced by the' flows in and around the CWIS, it is necessary to identify the types of circulation dominant in the waterbody and to collect data related to currents and other relevant hydrological and physical parameters of the system (e.g., water current, speed and direction; wind speed and direction; tides/local water levels; temperature; water density).The proximity of a primary spawning or nursery area to a CWIS can be an important influence on the entrainment potential for an individual species. Other factors also interact with proximity Ito determine susceptibility to entrainment. Predictive 'tools, such as computer models, may be useful in many cases for identification of the area of potential damage. The selection of the appropriate models and data collection schemes should be guided by the circulation regime and geomorphology of the waterbody. Field data collection and modeling should be done to determine the probability that a non-motile organism "released from a given point in the flow field will be entrained into the CW[S.At a minimum, the following information should be provided: a) A narrative description and scaled drawings showing. the physical configuration of all source waterbodies used by the facility, including areal dimensions, depths, temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports the determination of the waterbody type where each CW[S is located b) identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods used and the results of any physical studies to determine the CWIS' area of influence c) locational maps Facilities that withdraw cooling water from freshwater river or stream: d) documentation showing the mean annual flow of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations that shows whether they are withdrawing less than or greater than 5 % of the mean annual flow.Representative historical data (from a period of time up to 10 years,'if available) should be used to determine mean annual flow values.Facilities that withdraw cooling water from a lake (other than the Great Lakes) or reservoir and propose to increase the facility's design intake flow;e) a narrative description of the thermal stratification of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations showing that the increased total design intake flow will not disrupt the "natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern (where present) of the source water in a way that adversely impacts fisheries.

3) Facility, Cooling System, and Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) Information Information will be needed to fully investigate the potential for organisms to become entrapped within the CWIS, impinged on parts of the CWIS, and/or entrained in the water circulated through the lcooling water system. It will be necessary to describe the full range of potential physical, chemical, and biological impacts which could be encountered throughout the cooling system during a typical yearly operation cycle. The following information should be provided to adequately describe the CWIS and cooling water system: Page 8 Guidance Effective:

DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]' a) Site Location and Layout i) Map showing locations of all existing and proposed CWIS, associated cooling water systems, and other pertinent information related to surrounding shore and water features in a 50-mile radius, including: (1) Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each CWIS;(2) Proximity of intake to effluent discharge(s), other permittees' discharges and water withdrawals (3) Proximity to areas of biological concern ii) Larger scale map w/topographic and hydrographic data depicting the specific location of the CWIS, including: (I) Topographic details, including existing site w/topographic features as changed by proposed CWIS (2) Hydrological features, including depth contours (3) Waterbody surface elevations (low and normal)(4) Waterbody boundaries & affected waterbody segment (5) Location and description of other CWIS in waterbody segment (6) Additional stresses on waterbody segment (e.g., existing/planned point sources; etc.)b) CWIS and Cooling System Descriptions i) A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges ii) A narrative description of the operation of each cooling water system, the relationship to each CWIS, proportion of the design intake flow used in the system, number of days of the year the system is in operation, and seasonal changes in operation iii) A description of CWIS operation; identification of withdrawal type (once-through vs. recycled); type of intake structure (size, shape, configuration, orientation); location of CWIS with respect to cooling water system;location in water body (horizontal and vertical); depth of intake; distance from shoreline; configuration including canals and channels; capacity (volume withdrawn in gpm & MGD; design & actual intake flows);timing, duration, frequency of withdrawal; presence/absence of organism protection technologies (behavioral and physical), fish bypass and handling facilities; average and maximum through-screen and approach velocities; proportion of water withdrawn to the overall source water flow iv) CWIS Pump information, including: design details (location in structure, configuration of blades, housing);revolutions per minute; number, capacities, and planned operating schedule; pressure regimes in water subjected to pumping; velocity shear stresses in pumping; sites of potential turbulence and physical impacts v) Design and engineering calculations and supporting data to support the descriptions mentioned above, including engineering drawings of proposed CWIS and cooling system c) Use of Cooling Water System Biocides and Ice Removal Technologies i) Location of introduction in system ii) Description and aquatic toxicity information for biocide(s) to be used iii) Concentrations of biocide in various parts of cooling water system and receiving waters iv) Location, amount, timing, and duration of recirculation water for deicing or tempering v) Maintenance procedures, use of heat treatment or deicing procedures d) Thermal experience i) i Water temperature in cooling system; temperature change during entrainment, duration of entrainment; resultant time-temperature experience of organisms subjected to entrainment ii) Annual ambient temperatures, thermal addition to cooling water of various operating capacities e) Facility Data i) Age and expected lifetime ii) Capacity factor and percent of time at fractional loads iii) History of intake model 4) Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment (IM&E) Characterization Study The permittee should submit an [M&E Characterization Study whose purpose is to provide information to support the development of a- calculation baseline and to characterize current and/or to estimate future potential for IM&E. In order to properly assess the potential for environmental impact from a CWIS, a one- to three-year biological survey may be necessary to establish the aquatic life present in the area. A one-year survey is usually of limited value, except in cases where substantial, relevant historical data can be presented to demonstrate that the intake has little potential for impact. In situations where an existing intake is being evaluated and relevant historical data is available which is still representative of current conditions, less data Page 9 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]collection may be necessary. The type and extent of biological and other data needed in each case will be determined by the potential severity of adverse environmental impact.Adverse aquatic environmental impacts will occur whenever there will be entrainment or impingement as a result of the operation of a CWIS. The critical question is the magnitude of those effects and the potential overall impact on aquatic populations and/or their habitat. Indirect impacts should also be considered, including: disruption of thermal regimes or normal water flow/circulation; wetland or other upland disturbance (especially during construction of a new CWIS); aesthetics; and noise. Studies designed to collect biological information should be designed on a case-by-case basis, recognizing the uniqueness:of biota-site-structure interrelationships. Surveys should be designed to determine the spatial and temporal variability of each of the important components of the biota that may be damaged by the intake. Local DNR fish biologists and water quality specialists should be consulted when selecting appropriate sampling methods and monitoring program design.When a new CWIS is being proposed, biological studies may be needed to determine the abundance and distribution of aquatic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed CWIS. Data from these studies should be used to predict the potential for impingement, entrainment, and other impacts due to the location, design, construction, and capacity of the proposed CWIS. The losses of aquatic life at an existing CWIS can be determined in most cases through the direct measurement of numbers, sizes and weights 'of organisms impinged and entrained (taking into account daily and seasonal variation). Impingement monitonng usually involves sampling impingement screens or catchment areas, counting the impinged fish, and extrapolating the count to an annual basis. Entrainment monitoring typically involves intercepting a small portion of the intake flow at a selected location in the facility, collecting organisms by sieving the water sample through nets or other collection devices, counting the collected organisms, and extrapolating the counts to an annual basis.Since expected impacts will vary, each case is not expected to require the same level of study. A decision as to the appropriate number of years and type of data necessary should be worked out during drafting and review of the PIC. At a minimum, the study should include the following: a) Taxonomic identification of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, IState, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered species) that are in the vicinity of each existing and/or proposed CWIS i) A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the CWIS;ii) Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. Species evaluated should include the forage base as well as those most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries; iii) Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that. might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at the CWIS b) A characterization of the species noted above, including a description of the abundance and temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of each CWIS, based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal, and daily variations in IM&E (related to climate and weather differences, spawning, feeding and water column migration) i) Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa;ii) Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; iii) Habitat preferences (e.g., depth, substrate) iv) Principal spawning (breeding) ground; Migratory pathways; Nursery or feeding areas v) Ability to detect and avoid currents; swimming speeds vi) Body size; Age/developmental stage vii) Physiological tolerances (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen)viii) Feeding habits ix) Reproductive strategy; Mode of egg and larval dispersal x) Generation time xi) Other functions critical during the life history Page 10 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004'.! Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures (s. 316(b)]If the information requested above includes data collected using field studies, supporting documentation should include a description of all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling, and data analysis including a description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sampled and evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish); and sampling and data analysis methods. The sampling and/or data analysis methods used should be appropriate for a quantitative survey and based on consideration of methods used in other biological studies performed within the same source water body. The study area should include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure. Once the occurrence and relative abundance of aquatic organisms at various life stages has been estimated, it will be necessary to determine the potential for their involvement with the CWIS. For example, some organisms may spend a portion of their life in the pelagic phase and be susceptible to entrainment; other migratory species may be in the vicinity of the CWIS for only short periods during the year. Often, different species are susceptible to CWIS effects during different life history stages. Knowledge of the organism's life cycle and determination of local water circulation patterns related to the structure are essential to estimating an individual species' potential for impacts due to the CWIS.Once potential involvement is determined, actual effects on organisms can be estimated. One hundred percent loss of individuals impinged, entrapped, or entrained should be assumed unless valid field or laboratory data are available to support a lower loss estimate. The most commonly entrained life stages include eggs, larvae, and juveniles. Because of their small size, limited or no swimming ability, and highly vulnerable physiology, these life stages will most certainly experience high mortality rates as a result of entrainment. The presumption is that entrainment and passage through the cooling system will kill most if not all of these organisms. Therefore, any assertions that entrainment survival rates are greater than zero should be viewed with skepticism, unless evidence to the contrary is quite strong and convincing. The final step in the IM&E study is* to relate the estimated loss of individuals to effects on the whole population. The magnitude of the expected environmental impact should be estimated both in terms of short tern and long term impact with reference to the following factors: c) Documentation of the current IM&E of the species noted above and an estimate of IM&E to be used as the calculation baseline, including: i) Absolute'damagg (# of organisms impinged or entrained on a monthly or yearly basis);ii) Percent damage (% organisms. impinged or entrained); iii) Absolute and percent damage to any endangered species or otherwise critical aquatic organism;iv) Absolute and percent damage to commercially valuable or sport fisheries; v) Whether the impact might endanger the protection and propagation of a balanced population of fish and shellfish in and on the body of water from which the cooling water is withdrawn (long term impacts).5) Technology and Compliance Assessment Information a) Design and Construction Technology Plan, includes the following: -If the permittee has chosen to use design and construction technologies and/or operational measures, in whole or in part to meet BTA requirements, the permittee should submit a Design and Construction Technology Plan to the Department for review and approval. The plan should explain the technologies and/or operational measures which are in place and/or which have been selected to meet the requirements and should contain the following information: i) capacity 'utilization rate for the facility (or individual CWIS, where appropriate) and supporting data, including average annual net generation in megawatt hours as measured over a 5-yr period (if available) of representative operating conditions and the total net capacity of the facility in megawatts (MW) and calculations; ii) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies and/or operational measures (existing or proposed) to reduce impingement mortality and/or entrainment; iii) calculations of the reduction in impingement mortality andfor entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved by the technologies and/or operational measures selected based on the Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study;, and Page 11 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]iv) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and estimates prepared by a qualified professional to support the description mentioned in the paragraphs above.b) Technology Installation and Operation Plan, includes the following: This plan is one of the most important pieces of documentation for implementing the requirements of the rule. It serves to (1) guide facilities in the installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, !and adaptive management of selected design and construction technologies and/or operational measures; '(2) provide a schedule and methodology for assessing success in meeting applicable performance standards; and (3)provide a basis for determining compliance with the rule requirements. If the permittee has chosen to use design and construction technologies and/or operational measures in whole or in part to comply with the applicable requirements, the permittee should submit the following information for review and approval by the Department: i) A schedule for the installation and maintenance of any new design and construction technologies; ii) A list of operational parameters to be monitored, including the location and the frequency of monitoring; iii) A list of activities that will be undertaken to ensure the efficacy of the installed design and construction technologies and operational measures, and the schedule for, implementing them; and iv) A schedule and methodology for assessing the efficacy of any installed design and construction technologies and operational measures in achieving applicable performance standards, including an adaptive management plan for revising design and construction technologies and/ or operational technologies if the assessment indicates that applicable performance standards are not being met.6) Restoration Plan Facilities may use restoration measures that produce and/or result in levels of fish and shellfish in the facility's waterbody or watershed that are substantially similar to those that would result through compliance with the applicable performance standards or alternative site-specific requirements. If the permittee proposes to use restoration measures, in whole or in part, to meet the applicable requirements, the permittee should submit the following information: i a) A demonstration to the Department that the permittee has evaluated the use of design and construction technologies and/or operational measures and an explanation of how the permittee determined that restoration would be more feasible, cost-effective, or environmentally desirable; b) A narrative description of the design and operation of all restoration measures (existing and proposed) that the permittee has in place or will use to produce fish and shellfish; c) Quantification of the ecological benefits of the proposed ecological measures;d) Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to document that the proposed restoration measures in combination with design and construction technologies and/or operational measures, or alone, will meet BTA requirements; e) A plan utilizing an adaptive management method for implementing, maintaining, and demonstrating the efficacy of the restoration measures the permittee has selected and for determining the extent to which the restoration (in combination with design and construction technologies and operational measures, if appropriate), have met the applicable requirements; f) A summary of any past or ongoing consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies on permittee's use of restoration measures;g) A description of the information to be included in a biannual status report to the Department.

7) Information to Support a Site-specific Determination of BTA According to EPA's Phase I1 rule, if the permittee requests a site-specific determination of BTA because of costs significantly greater than those considered for a similar facility in establishing the applicable performance standards, the permittee should provide to the Department the information specified in paragraphs a) and c) below. If the permittee requests a site-specific determination of BTA because of costs significantly greater than the benefits of meeting the applicable performance standards at the site, the permittee should provide the information specified in paragraphs a), b), and c) below.a) Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. The permittee should perform and submit the results of a study that includes: Page 12 Guidance Effective:,DRAFT

-October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]i) Engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures,and/or restoration measures at the facility that would be needed to meet the applicable performance standards; ii) A demonstration that the costs documented above significantly exceed either those considered by EPA in establishing the applicable performance standards or the benefits of meeting the applicable performance standards; and iii) Engineering cost estimates in sufficient detail to document the costs of implementing the design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures in permittee's Site-Specific Technology Plan developed in accordance with paragraph c) below.b) Benefits Valuation Study. If the permittee is seeking a site-specific determination of BTA because of costs significantly greater than the benefits of meeting the applicable performance standards at the facility, the permittee should use a comprehensive methodology to fully value the impacts of IM&E at the site and the benefits achievable by meeting the applicable performance standards. In addition to the valuation estimates, the benefits study should include the following: i) A description of the methodologies used to value commercial, recreational, and ecological benefits;ii) Documentation of the basis for any assumptions and quantitative estimates; iii) An analysis of the effects of significant sources of uncertainty on the results of the study;, iv) A narrative description of any non-monetized benefits that would be realized at the site if the permittee were to meet the applicable performance standards and a qualitative assessment of their magnitude and significance. c) Site-Specific Technology Plan. Based on the results of the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and the Benefits Valuation Study, if applicable, the permittee should submit a Site-Specific Technology Plan to the Department for review and approval. The plan should contain the following information: i) A narrative description of the design and operation of all existing and proposed design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures selected;ii) An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/or implemented design and construction technologies or operational measures, and/or restoration measures;iii) A demonstration that the proposed and/or implemented design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures achieve an efficacy that is as close as practicable to the applicable performance standards; iv) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and estimates prepared by a qualified professional to support the elements of the Plan.8) Verification Monitoring Plan This plan is intended to measure the efficacy of the implemented design and construction technologies and/or operational measures. The plan should include at least two years of monitoring to verify the full-scale performance of the proposed or already implemented design and construction technologies and/or operational measures. Verification monitoring should begin once the technologies and/or operational measures are implemented and continue for a sufficient period of time (but at least two years) to assess success in reducing IM&E. Components of the Verification Monitoring Plan should include: a) Description of the frequency and duration of monitoring, the parameters to be monitored, and the basis for determining the parameters and the frequency and duration of monitoring. b) A proposal on how naturally moribund fish and shellfish that enter the CWIS would be identified and taken into account in assessing success in meeting the performance standards; and, c) A description of the information to be included in a bi-annual status report, used to assess the facility's success in meeting the performance standards for IM&E reduction and to guide adaptive management in accordance with the requirements in the facility's Technology Installation and Operation Plan.How Do Staff Determine What Is "Best Technology Available"? As discussed above, s. 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and ch. 283.31(6), Wis. Stats., require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of a CWIS reflects the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In order to make decisions regarding whether a facility will meet these requirements, the Page 13 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures (s. 316(b)]Department will need to evaluate information submitted by the permittee to determine whether proposed (or existing) technologies are BTA. While some things may be true to most situations, the optimal combination of measures that will most effectively minimize adverse environmental impact will likely be site,ý and facility specific. It will be necessary for the Department to determine BTA on a case-by-case basis making full use of all of the relevant information available at the time.For example, it would seem obvious that a once-through system with a large volume intake, located in an area of high biological value, would not represent BTA to minimize adverse environmental impact. However, an exception might be made if data shows that impacts to the biota are low and subsequent reduction of critical populations is minimal. The opposite case could also be true. A low volume intake in an area of low biological value would frequently result in a determination of BTA in that location, but exceptions to this could include cases where rare or endangered species may be significantly affected. In each circumstance, biological studies should provide useful data when it comes time to make a judgment about appropriate BTA. Site-specific studies, good local knowledge, and informed judgments are essential in all cases. Some example questions that should be considered include: I. Can impingement mortality and/or entrainment be minimized by modification of proposed (or existing)screening systems?2. Can impacts be minimized by increasing the size of the intake to decrease through-screen velocities?

3. Should the existing intake be abandoned and replaced with a new intake with a more appropriate design and/or at a different location?When making BTA decisions, staff will need to identify organisms that need protection, identify potential adverse environmental impacts (including impingement mortality and entrainment), and consider the potential for indirect impacts (e.g., disruption of thermal regimes and/or normal water circulation, aesthetics, noise, wetland disturbances, etc.). The following discussions should also be considered when evaluating whether a permittee has met the requirements of "best technology available." Location Intake location is an important factor influencing the potential for impingement, entrainment, and destruction of habitat. Careful site selection for a CWIS is the first line of defense in minimizing loss or damage ~to an aquatic population.

Once the site is selected, one or a combination of technologies can be employed to further reduce losses due to IM&E. Since the distribution of aquatic organisms is seldom random, historical and recent biological data in the area of the CWIS should be reviewed carefully. The following are some criteria for consideration during the selection of an appropriate CWIS location: 1. Generally, a CWIS shouldn't be located in spawning areas, nursery grounds, migratory routes, or river[ mouths, since these are areas large concentrations of fish are expected. Impacts to sensitive, threatened, and endangeredlspecies should be avoided. Historical data and current field studies should be designed to clearly illustrate the biological community present at the proposed/existing site. Survey results should be helpful when determining where new intakes and/or intake pipelines should be built to minimize impacts to spawning, feeding, nursery, or migration areas, as well as evaluating impacts to sensitive, threatened, and endangered species.2. The CWIS should be designed to minimize shelter and surface area for attachment or attraction of organisms which would counteract attempts to place the intake in an environmentally acceptable location. The CWIS should not serve as an attractant to immature or adult fish, either by physical alteration of the environment, by providing shelter, or by the, influence of heated water (except where heated water is essential for maintenance reasons).3. Withdrawal from various vertical depths in the water column should be investigated and attempts made to avoid the largest concentration of fish, eggs, and larvae (keeping in mind daily and seasonal variations).

4. Total design intake flows should not alter the natural stratification of the source water.Page 14 Guidance Effective:

DRAFT -October 2004 I Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures Is. 316(b)]5. If a new CWIS is proposed, a Chapter 30, Stats., permit for placing a structure on the bed and/or removal of material from the waterway may be required. As part of that permitting process, a s. NR 347, Wis. Adm. Code, sampling plan for reviewing the presence / absence of contaminants that may be dredged, moved or disturbed as the intake structure and pipeline are constructed may also be required.6. Navigation impacts should be evaluated. A minimum water depth should be maintained above the structure to avoid boats and other watercraft, where possible. (These issues will likely be evaluated at the time of Chapter 30 permit review, where appropriate.) Capacity One of the best ways to minimize the impacts of a CWIS is to reduce the rate and amount of the water that is withdrawn. This may only be an option for facilities with once through cooling and could come at the expense of an increase in heat through the discharge. Both of these consequences should be considered prior to making final decisions on the intake rate and amount.Cooling water withdrawals that result in water loss or consumptive use (likely for all power plants) that will be >2 MGD must comply with ch. NR 142, Wis. Adm. Code, Water Resources Management and Conservation. Department staff that process Chapter 30 permits will likely use s. 142.06(3) as the approval/denial process.Design/Technology It is impossible to design any one type of uniform structure that will minimize environmental impact in every situation. However, in general, most designs should incorporate some type of outside screening device that will guard against impingement losses. If field studies reveal a location where entrainment of fish eggs or larvae are also a concern, and the intake can't be located differently, screens with even smaller slots may be necessary. Regardless of screen mesh size, CWIS should be designed to minimize through-screen velocities. A maximum through screen velocity of 0.5 fps is thought to be protective of most fish species. Additional intake designs that maximize survival of impinged fish exist and may also be implemented. These include fish-handling systems such as fishbuckets, fish troughs, fish baskets, fish pumps, fish elevators and spray wash systems. These designs either divert organisms away from the intake structure or collect impinged organisms, protect them from further damage and return them back to the source water. In order to decide which technologies are best suited to obtain BTA for a given site, staff will need to understand the range of technologies available that address entrainment and impingement. As discussed previously, the location and design of each CWIS will be unique to the site-specific situation. Since the 1970s, industry and other groups have been working on CWIS technologies that would be both biologically-and cost-effective. This has led to the development of a variety of technologies that address different biological, environmental, and engineering concerns associated with different target species, waterbodytypes, and physical locations (onshore, offshore, in-river). Research continues on new technologies, as- well as modifications to existing technologies. Example CWIS Technologies. Descriptions and other information regarding the most commonly used CWIS technologies are contained in USEPA's "Technical Development Document for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities" (Chapter 5) and "Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule" (Chapter 3) which also contains additional references on intake impacts.USEPA 2001. Technical Development Document for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. Office of Water. EPA-82 I-R-0 1-036. htto://www.ea.gov/waterscicnco'3l6b/tcchnical/technicaldd.html. USEPA 2002. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase 1 Existing Facilities Rule. Office of Water.EPA-82 1-R-02-003. 16b/devdocl. Page 15 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]Monitoring Requirements in WPDES Permits Once proposed technologies and/or restoration measures have been implemented to meet BTA standards, follow-up monitoring should be required in the WPDES permit in order to determine whether these measures are in fact meeting the performance standards. IM&E monitoring can usually be accomplished through direct measurement of the numbers, sizes and weights of organisms impinged and entrained (accounting for daily and seasonal variation). Impingement monitoring usually involves sampling screens and/or catchment areas, counting impinged organisms, and extrapolating the count to an annual basis. Entrainment monitoring typically involves sampling a portion of the intake flow at a select location, collecting organisms by sieving water through nets or other collection devices, counting the organisms, and extrapolating the counts to an annual basis.In cases where a CWIS has been present for some time (without significant modification), and some monitoring has been done which demonstrates ongoing compliance, it may be acceptable to reduce the level of monitoring required in the WPDES permit from previous levels. However, where a new CWIS has been approved, or where significant changes in intake location, design, construction, capacity, or operation have taken place, a more vigorous monitoring program should be required to demonstrate that the CWIS is meeting BTA standards. WPDES permit language should include monitoring requirements for permittees with approved CWIS' to 1;demonstrate compliance with the appropriate standards. Monitoring programs should include measurements of impingement, entrainment, maximum through-screen velocity, and visual or remote inspections to insure that chosen technologies are operating as designed.Additional Guidance On Cooling Water Intake Structures And Related Topics* WDNR site -htp://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/energy/oe.htm 0 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin -http://psc.wi.gov/

• Electric Power Research Institute

-http://www.epri.com/

• EPA website -http://www.epa.gov/ost/316b/

Page 16 Guidance Effective: DRAFT -October 2004 Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures [s. 316(b)]APPENDIX 1: Statutory Timelines and Agency Responsibilities for Approval of New Power Plants The Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Department are both involved in making regulatory decisions regarding several categories of energy-related projects, including new electric-generating facilities. The PSC and DNR are also responsible for complying with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA).and the Power Plant Siting Law (s. 196.491(3), Wis. Stats.).The Power Plant Siting Law establishes a tight schedule for review of proposed power plant projects.The formal process begins with the DNR's review of an "Engineering Plan" to identify the regulatory requirements for the facility, which must be submitted at least 60 days before the filing of an application with the PSC. The Department's review of the Engineering Plan must be completed within 30 days of it's receipt. The applicant then has 20 days to submit applications for the permits identified during the review of the Engineering Plan and the Department has another 30 days to determine if those applications are complete. In making the application completeness determination, the Department also considers whether it has enough information to do an adequate WEPA review (including an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) and shares those conclusions with the PSC. Once the Department finds the applications to be complete, it has 120 days to make regulatory decisions for the permits or approvals necessary for construction of the facility to begin.The applicant must also file an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the PSC. The PSC then has only 180 days from finding that an application is complete to make a final determination on whether to approve the project. If the PSC does not make its determination within the statutory time frame, the CPCN is automatically granted.Within this time frame, the PSC (generally with the Department as a cooperating agency) must complete the WEPA process, hold a public hearing on the CPCN application, make a decision at an open meeting, and draft an order for final approval at a future open meeting.FIGURE 1. SCHEDULE OF STATUTORY EVENTS FOR REVIEWING POWER PLANTS (S. 196.491, WIS. STATS.)Day 0 -Engineering Plan received by DNR Day 30 -DNR response to Engineering Plan regarding permits and approvals required Day 50 -Project proponent submits applications for DNR permits Day 60 -Project proponent submits CPCN application to PSC Day 80- DNR makes determination of application(s) completeness Day 90 -PSC makes determination of CPCN application completeness (DNR and PSC review permit applications, prepare WEPA document, hold public hearings)Day 200 -DNR makes decisions on permits needed for construction of the facility Day 270 -PSC makes decision on CPCN Day 271 -Construction of power plant facilities may commence The rapid, statutorily required schedule described above puts considerable pressure on the Department to accelerate the review of proposed power generation facilities and complete activities necessary to issue the appropriate permits, when appropriate. In order to insure that strict timelines are met and all needed information is gathered and assessed appropriately, the Department usually assigns a team of staff to review each power plant project, including someone responsible for the review of CWIS submittals and requirements. The Department's new Office of Energy is assigned responsibility for overseeing the overall implementation of new power plant project review procedures and for coordinating the review of Engineering Plans for proposed power plants. For each project, a "Project Manager" may be appointed from either the central office or region, a case-by-case basis. The affected Region will designate a Regional Coordinator for the project (may be the same as the "Project Manager" if that person is in the Region). The Project Manager and Regional Coordinator are charged with establishing and maintaining effective communication between (and within) the Department, the PSC, and all affected outside parties. (Additional information regarding the Department's Office of Energy is available at http://dar.wi.gov/or,/es/science/energv/oe.htmh Appendix One Guidance For Evaluating Cooling Water Intake Structures (s. 316(b)]APPENDIX 2: CWIS Evaluation Report Format The following format is recommended for Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) reports and other information provided to support a finding that the cooling water intake represents best technology available. Copies of all such reports should be submitted to the CWlS Program Coordinator in Madison, the Permit Coordinator, Basin Engineer, and any other appropriate regional staff (e.g., fisheries experts, endangered resources specialists, etc., as appropriate).

1. Title page (facility name, waterbody name, company, permit information, etc.).2. Table of contents.3. An executive summary of 2-3 paragraphs (essence of material and conclusions).

4. Detailed presentation of methods used in data collection, analysis and/or interpretation.

5. Supportive reports, documents, and raw data.6. Bibliographic citations to page number of cited text.7. An interpretive, comprehensive narrative summary of all studies done to support a finding that the CWIS represents best technology available.

Sources of data used in the summary should be cited to page number. The summary should include a clear discussion stating why the report shows (or does not show) that the CWIS in question minimizes impact on the water resources and aquatic biota in the vicinity of the intake and throughout the waterbody segment.8. An appendix listing the companies and consultants who conducted the work used in the report.Reports can be mailed to the CWIS program coordinator and central office permit coordinators at: Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management 101 S. Webster Street P0 Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Appendix Two Northern States Power Company....... 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1927 Telephone (612) 330-5500 September 21, 2000 Metro/Major Facilities Attn: Discharge Monitoring Reports Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road' North St. Paul, MN 55155 Attention: Mary Hayes PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT NPDES Permit No. MN0004006 Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports In accordance with Chapter 6 Part 3 of the subject NPDES permit, we are submitting our Discharge Monitoring Reports for discharges SD-001, SD-002, SD-003, SD-004, SD-005, SD-006, SD-007, SD-012, WS-001 and WS-002 at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. These reports cover the period August 1, 2000 through August 31, 2000. We are also submitting the Bromine/Chlorine Monthly Supplemental Report. With the summary information to be found on the discharge SD-001 monitoring report form, we propose to discontinue this supplemental report after the MPCA and NSP determine any further need for it.Please note that the flows reported for discharges WS-001 and WS-002 include a total of both outfalls.In accordance with Chapter 2 Part 4 of the subject NPDES permit, we are submitting the records of the daily maximum, minimum, and average temperatures for the monitoring locations of the temperature monitoring system. As approved by the MPCA, the discharge monitoring report forms for stations SW-001, SW-002, SW-003, and SW-004 have been discontinued since the summary data requested by each form is found in the attached records. Discharge canal monitoring was out of service or operating incorrectly August 17 to 25.A plant status report of the continuous chlorination/bromination treatment program is included with the Bromine/Chlorine Monthly Supplemental Report, and provides a summary of August operations including the monthly demand result., With the cross connect valve open the unit 2 chemical injection system fed both cooling water systems in the continuous bromination mode from August 18 to 22. The cross connect valve was closed while the chemical injection systems were operating during the rest of the month. With the cross connect valve shut, both systems were operated in the Page Two continuous bromination mode except for several shutdown periods and except While the unit 2 system was in continuous chlorination mode from August 27 to 31. The dates of the unit 1 chemical injection system shutdown periods were August 14 until supply from unit 2 through the opened cross connect valve on August 18, and August 27 to 31. The dates of the unit 2 chemical injection system shutdown peri6ds were August 15 and August 16 to 18.The enclosed memorandum titled "August River Temperatures' describes two periods in August after average ambient river temperature had been at 78°F or above for two consecutive days. This ambient temperature condition triggers the permit requirement to run all cooling towers to the maximum practical extent, which was considered the operation scenario at the time. For your information, attached with the memorandum is the Star Tribune summary of the Twin Cities air temperatures for the month.The report on the zebra mussel control treatment conducted on the unit 1 circulating water system on August 15 and on the unit 2 circulating water system on August 17 is enclosed. The treatment was conducted with approved levels of Nalco-Calgon's EVAC, and the report provides details of the treatment levels, durations and effectiveness as well as information on the resultant loss of fish within the plant's circulating water system. Attached with the report is the assessment of fish loss as discussed at the follow up meeting with state agencies on August 28.If you have any questions, please call me at 612-330-6625. erely, Jim odensteiner S ior Environmental Analyst Enclosures c: Terry Coss Marilyn Danks (DNR)Gary Gramm (Dept of Ag)Kevin Holstrom Gerald Joachim Gary Kolle Katherine. Logan (MPCA Rochester) Ken Mueller Steve Schaefer John Sullivan (WI DNR)ERAD Record Center w:jjb/rpts/mpraire.doc XCEL ENERGY Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089 (651)-388-1121 DATE SEPTEMBER 01,2000 NAME JIM BODENSTEINER ADDRESS ENVIROMENTAL SERVICES

SUBJECT:

,CONTINUOUS CHLORINATION/BROMINATION The plant operated in the continuous bromination mode in a split feed mode(cross-connect shut) until the middle of August when there were numerous system manipulations during the addition of the zebra mussel chemical(Calgon EVAC) to the intake canal.At 1800 August 14th Unit 1 chem injection system was shutdown and the cross-connect valve remained shut. At 1000 August 15th Unit 2 chem injection sytem was shutdown for minor maintenance. At 2200 August 15th Unit 2 chem injection sytem was restarted in continuous bromination mode with cross connect valve shut. At 1600 August 16th Unit 2 chem injection system was shutdown. At 1630 August 18th Unit 2 chem injection system was restarted in the continuous bromination mode with the cross connect valve OPEN so it was feeding both cooling water systems. At 0600 August 22nd the cross connect valve was shut for repair on Unit 1 system. At 1400 August 23rd Unit 1 chem injection system was restarted in continuous bromination mode with the cross connect valve SHUT. At 0810 August 27th Unit 1 chem injection system was shutdown for repair and the cross connect valve remained shut. At 0600 August 28th Unit 2 chem injection system sodium bromide pump was off for unknown reason. Tank level. changes seems to indicate that it may have tripped off late on, August 27th. This put the plant in a continuous chlorination mode. Operation continued in this continuous chlorination mode until 1130 August 31 st when Unit 1 chem injection system was restarted in continuous bromination mode and Unit 2 sodium bromide pump was restarted placing Unit 2 chem injection system in a continuous bromination mode(cross connect SHUT). At 1530 Unit 1 chem injection system was shutdown for maintenance(cross connect SHUT)On August 19th and 20th the normal sample point for Unit 1 cooling water(WS001) was plugged and the daily sample was taken at an alternate sample point slightly upstream of the normal sample point which would have resulted in slightly higher sample results(conservatively higher). The sample point was unplugged and was returned to service on August 21st.Please contact me at Ext. 4440 if additional information is needed.Thank you.Sinc rely yours, SGe ald Jonac Pm Senior Radiation Protection Specialist XCEL ENERGY Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089 (651)-388-1121 DATE SEPTEMBER 01,2000 NAME JIM BODENSTEINER ADDRESS ENVIROMENTAL SERVICES

SUBJECT:

AUGUST RIVER TEMPERATURES A late July weather warmup that lasted into early August caused the daily average upstream river, temperature to rise above 78 degrees with the second consecutive day occurring on August 1st. In addit!ion an early August warmup caused daily average upstream river temperature to rise above 78 degrees for seven days. Daily average upstream temperatures listed below.UPSTREAM RIVER TEMPERATURE DAILY AVERAGE Augustl 79.2 S2 79.0 3 78.2 10 80.3 11 79.5 12 79.5 13 80.0 14 80.4 15- 80.3 16 78.3 The plant NPDES permit requires "running all: cooling towers to the maximum practical extent" after the second:,consecutive day above 78....degrees. The plant met this permit requirement by running. all four towers and 46 of the possible 48 fans. 2 fans remained out of. service because repair would require turning off 24 fans for around 1lday.-The daily average upstream.river temperature remained below 78 for the rest of August. The highest-daily average downstream temperature was, 81.5 degrees on August 14th.The discharge canal temperature system was out'of service from late August 17th to late afternoon August 25th..#121 intake screen remained out of service until 1100 August 31st due to bearing problems.Please contact me at Ext. 4440 if additional information is needed.Thank you.Sinc rely yours, rald Joa im Senior Radiation Protection Specialist 9 0 High/low temperatures for August 2uuu 100 0Iluur i ~~,Ag v M-i s ":~:i. :. 1: < ...ii! : VII JjjJ~ *. ~C 4 1 .1. (2. 0--- .-80'60 I... .. .. -J ...... I.... .......

.-......

k( ......:.U ..; ,-3/4 ..<...~$ : ,:~z .... ":; ....:-.,J:;.x 1 2 3 4 56 7. 8 9.101112 13141516 171819202122232425262728293031. Prm/ .-rt7 ? ),iGs.pN fz- ýK-0 , \' -'.. .. ..9_ NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Report on the Zebra Mussel control treatment of the Circ water system.This is a report on the treatment of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Circulating water systems at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. This report discusses the chronology of events, the killing of fish and the effectiveness of the treatment. Finally, some changes for the 2001 treatments will be discussed. Summary: NSP treated the Unit I circ water system on 15 August 2000. The Unit.2 side of the circ water system was treated two days later on 17 August. The treatment was very successful in eradicating Zebra Mussels. An unfortunate effect was the killing of approximately 100,000 primarily small fish in the circ Water system. For the treatment in 2001, a longer treatment time using a lower dosage of thebiocide will be considered, Also the treatments will likely be separated by approximately a week.Report: NSP contracted with the NALCO chemical company to provide services and the chemical biocide to treat the circ. water systems.. The biocide used was EVACTM.The treatment of Unit 1 cire water system was performed on 15 August 2000. During the summer months the circ water system at Prairie Island iso6perated in a once through configuration. Intake water is pumped through the plant, and then over four cooling towers. After the towers, the water flows through the'cooling tower return canal, down a/ mile discharge canal, and finally out to the Mississippi rivei.The Unit I treatment duration was 7 hrs. 4i5 (145 to.1930)." The chemical addition rate was raised to the maximum permitted rate of 4 ppm active ingredient. The flow treated was 270,000 gpm;. This ,isslightly.over .half ofath.e total circ water flow of 525,000 gpm. In the targeted area, whiCh was§primarily the platscreen house, concentrations of 1.3 to 2.3 ppmractive ingredient were-obtained.:. The. next day, 16 August,.dead fish were reported inhe discharge canal. A rough estimate of the number of dead fish wasg 75,000.,: Theappropriaite state'agencies were notified. The estimated; nurm berof fish kiled was.presented in a press release the same day. The dead fish were almot'setxcluelsively 2to, 3: inchesý in length. A few adult fish were killed. It is importa t to note that EVACiM attacksf he gi`llofaquatipc organisms, suffocating them. As a resultý,EVACTM isnot a threat to scavengers' feeding on the dead fish.It had not been expected that fish would be killeld:,in the discharge canal.,A few hundred fish in the intake canal were expected to be affected, :Based on experience with earlier chemical treatments, plant personnel expected three mechanisms would removeýnearly all of the biocide by the time the water reached the discharge canal. First, there is a high biological demand in the water and in the cooling towers. Second, the river water has a high concentration of suspended solids, Suspended solids tie up the EVACTM, making is unavailable to organisms. Finally, because only one Unit was treated at a time, the C:\TEMP\PI CW Aug 00 ZM treat revl.doc, 09/21/00 I NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Report on the.Zebra Mussel control treatment0oftIhe Circ water system.treated circ water experiences a 1: 1 dilution from the untreated Unit's discharge, before being pumped to the cooling towers.On 17 August, Unit 2 was treated. The treatment lasted 11 hrs. 20 minutes (1120 -2240). Again, the circ water flow treated was 270,000 gpm. The chemical addition rate was reduced slightly from the Unit 1 treatment, to 3.6 ppm active ingredient. The intent was to reduce the addition rate and increase the treatment duration to reduce the effect of the biocide on the remaining fish. In the targeted area, concentrations of 1.0 to 1.7 ppm active ingredient were obtained.On the evening of the 1 7 th, many distr'essed small fish were observed in the discharge canal, as well as some adult channel cat fish. Concentrations of EVACTM were measured in the discharge canal of 0.2 to 0.3 ppm active ingredient. It was estimated that an additional 25,000 fish were killed as a result of the treatment of Unit 2. It should be noted that for these treatments the permit approval was based on restricting the amount of biocide that could be applied. No discharge limits or monitoring were imposed. The treatments were conducted within these restrictions. As a result, no measurements of biocide were taken in the discharge canal for the first (Unit 1) treatment on 15 August.Presently, the population of Zebra Mussels at Prairie Island is sparse. It is estimated that there is no more than one adult mussel per square meter of surface area. No juveniles have been sighted yet. Therefore, to measure the efficacy of the treatments adult mussels are brought in from Lake Pepin and placed in bioboxes. The over all average mortality rates for the six bioboxes was just over 91%. This was very good, and a significant improvement over the treatment of Unit 1 in 1999. (Unit 2 was not treated in 1999). For the :treatments a control population of Zebra Mussels was located in an untreated area of the circ water system. The control population experienced a 1 %.mortality rate.Finally, on 28 August, representatives from NSP, Nalco, and the State agencies of-concern met to discuss the treatments and resulting fish kill. The exchange of information and cooperation was greatly appreciated by all participants. Root cause and contributing factors: Clearly the EVACTM was the cause of the fish kill. However two contributing factors are important. First, the discharge canal temperature was 88 'F during the treatments. This relatively high temperature may have already placed a stress on the fish making them more vulnerable to the EVACTM. Second, the two treatments were performed only two days apart. Fish not killed by the first treatment on the 1 5 th, could still have been distressed on the 17t, when the second treatment was performed. Again, this could have made these fish more vulnerable to the biocide.Considerations-for next year's treatments: For 2001 then, longer treatments will be considered, using a loWer dosage of the biocide.The next treatments will likely be 24 hours in length with a target of 1.0 ppm active in the C:\TEMP\Pl CW Aug 00 ZM treat rev Ldoc, 09/2 1 /00.2 NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Report on the Zebra Mussel control treatment of the Circ water system..portions of the circ. water systems being treated (i.e. the plant screen house). Also, consideration will be given to spacing the treatments out, increasing the time between treatments to around 5 to 7 days. Thought will be given to performing the treatment when the discharge canal temperature is cooler, however cooler discharge temperatures mean cooler intake temperatures. The biocide is less effective in cooler water, so this could be counter productive. C:\TEMP\PI CW Aug 00 ZM treat rev 1.doc, 09/21/00 3 Joachim, Gerald J From: Mueller, Kenneth N.Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:02 PM To: Gruber, Mark E; Kolle, Gary; Bodensteiner, James J Cc: *dl PI Environmental; Schuelke, Don; Giese, Bradley; Orr, Daniel J; Coss, Terry E -

Subject:

PI Aug.- 2000 Fish-kill Assessment Importance: High Report prepared 8/31/00 by KN Mueller- Environmental Analyst The following explanation is provided with intent to clarify rationale, assumptions, and calculations used for determining estimated numbers and composition of small fish killed in the discharge canalas a result of zebra mussel control treatments performed Tuesday 8/15 and Thursday 8/17 at the Prairie Island Plant.On Wed. 8/16/00 at approximately noon, KNM was paged by Mark Gruber alerting him to dead fish in the discharge canal. At approximately 3 pm KNM, DJO and BDG inspected the discharge canal between electrofishing runs. Thecomposition was estimated as 50% yoy channel catfish (11/2"- 4") and 50%shiner/minnow species (juv. & adult). No attemptwas made at that time to determine total numbers or collect fish, because we had to continue electrofishing. That afternoon M.Gruber & G.Kolle spot-checked areas around the discharge canal, and counted fish within a 10'section of shoreline that appeared representative of the entire discharge canal shoreline. They arrived at approximately 150 fish within that 10' section. They estimated -15 fish/foot, which they multiplied by the number of feet of discharge canal shoreline: 15 fish/foot X 5000 feet = ~ 75,000 fish (original reported estimate).' Using the composition estimate, that equates to -37,500 yoy channel catfish (11/21/" -4") and -37,500 shiner/minnow species (juv. & adult).On Fri. 8/18/00 KNM estimated approximately 20 fish/foot along the shoreline of the discharge canal, but there was a higher percentage of shiner/minnow species and green sunfish, and fewer additional small catfish than were observed on 8/16. The dead fish observed in the canal on Wednesday were not removed, so it was assumed that an additional 5 fish/foot had accumulated. The additional 5 fish/foot adds 25,000 fish to the original estimate of 75,000.The following percent composition is for the additional 25,000 small fish estimated on Friday. Percent composition was based on shoreline observations and further supported by examination of 11/2 5-gal. pails of small fish collected from the discharge canal:-80% shiner/minnow species (~ 20,000)-10% channel catfish (- 2,500)-10% green sunfish (~ 2,500)The following is the final estimated total number of small fish lost in the discharge canal: 8/16 8/18-37,500 + -20,000 = ~ 57,500,shiner/minnow species-37,500 + -2,500 = -40,000 channel catfish~ 2,500 green sunfish~ 100,000 small fish Assessment summaries of fish killed in the intake canal and large fish collected from the discharge canal are attached as Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. I Table 1.xls Table 2.xis 0 0 2 TABLE 1. .,_Screen house dead fish (count and lengths) I Tt Ch. cal. F-w drum Gr. Sun Bl. Gill F-h cal S-m buff Giz. Shad Carp Walleye Sauger S-h redh W. bass S-m bass R. carpsu Mooneye Goldeye Shiner Bowfin _ Total 2 2 1 12 7 ... 70 3 5 6 8 28 82 2 4 4 37 15 12 1 1 5 5 10 11 15 11 6 16 1 33 1 7 36 4 45 1 1 8 120 12 11 2 9 82 11 1 10 41 I" 15 2 11 12 10 3'12 110 S3. .... ... ....... ..(Inches) 13 6 1 1 14 17 7 15 9 1 16 10 3 1 1 2 17 8 1 2 1 18 7, 1 21: 3 4 1.9 3 1 2 20 1 1 1 6 1.21 1 1 4 22 2 2 31 23 "11 24 2 11 25 11 26 1 1 27i 1 28i 29!Total 4 1 11 3 11 __ 2 1 I 701 4 952--] -. I IN4--20mm TABLE 2. Discharge canal dead adult fish (count and lengths) I Ch. cat Gr. Sun S-r buff Carp Total 1 _ _ _1__ __ _ _2 _ _ 3_3 3 4 10 5 3 6 3 2 7 2 1 8 6 9 3 10 13 1 11 5 Length 12 .19 (Inches) 13 13 14 31 15 28 16 26 17 23 18 46 19- 18 20 36 21 13 22 17 23 13 24 18 25 7 26 9 27 5 28 4 29 3 30 10 4 Total 371 23 1 5 400 1+56 unmeasured

• _0 S 0 BROMINATION/CHLORINATION REPORT From: 01-AUG-00 To: 31-AUG-00 Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ,9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30.31 Bromine Kgms/day 72.7 72.7 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 72.7 44.7 28.0 55.9 78.0 55.9 67.1 61 .5 ....28.0 33.6 0 5 .6 '....28.0 28.0 44.7 39.2 67.1 78.3 111.9 89.5 67.1 0 '0 0.11.2 Chlorine Kgms/day 79.9 76.6 78.8 78.8 77.6 78.9 82.6 82.6 93.3 95.7 95.7 91.0 91.3 84.1 34.8 34.8 0 10.8 52.5:44. 7 49.9 50.5..65.2 70.6*70.6 93.2 84.0 S21.4 81.8 51.1 64.0 Time mins/day 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 960 108o 0 90 1440:1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1.440 1440 1440 1440 U-I Residual 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15<0.01<0. 01<0.01<NIS><NIS><0.01<0.01<0
• 01 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.13.0.19 0.-195 0.19 0.17<0.01<0. 01<0.01<0. 01 0.15 U-2 Residual, 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.14 0115 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.12<NIS>,<NIS>0.21 0.22 0..22 0.09 0.10 0-11~o0.08 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.221 0.17 0.21 0.26 0.22 0.20 Outfall Residual<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.pOl<NIS><NIS><.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<..001<.001< .001<001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001 Maximum Daily Chlorination Rate = 182.7 Kgms/day on the 26th.

FACILITY NAMEIADDRESS: NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-001 (Combined Effluent)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT V ~ER~ _L 1IMI TUNS1 FORMER #MN0004006 FINAL 0Ol0M I NIO I F- -0 PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS: NSP 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993 I-I No Discharge I~AM~JýDAY FRO 2TOCO10/0 _0008/~j31 50050 pH 00400 Phosphorus Total (as P)00665 Chlorine Rate 50059 Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that Iam familiar with the 0 // &-<---applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this reporting period to: report and that to the best of my SIGNAT OF PR) CIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4194, accurate.ATTN: Discharge Monitoring Report SIGNATUOF CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE _ IFICATION COMMENTS: W'We D3 of D24 FACILITY NAME"IRE-: NSP -Prairie Isla~clear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade DrE Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-001 (Combined Effluent)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water.WASTEWATER TREI-NT DISCHARGE MONITORII PORT PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS: NSP 414 Nicollet Mail Minneapolis. MN 554011993[__ER__T_ _ -O LIlT ý-FSTAJS T_0RMER# ft MN0004006-FINAL 0D A _ MONITORItNG -PffERIOD FROM O I UUDAY I FROM 206f-8/_017 A" DL AYA To 200008/3-~ PfcsefTa~t-~ ce~a5c4Q,~ /4 1 eczA2r~~-~ ~r'S>1Le~Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that I am familiar with the V" -0 applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in thisEXECUTIVUROFFICEREU AUTHORIZED AGENT 7-DATE reporting period to: report and that to.'the best of my.. IGAU R AiVE OFFICER OR AUH MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL, MN,55155-4194 accurate.ATTN: DlschargeMonitoring Report SIGNATURE OF CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE CERTIFICATIONJ COMMENTS: Page D4 of D24 FACIUTY NAMEJADDRESS: NSP -: Prairie Island: Nuclear Power Plant 1717 Waýonade Or E Welch, MN. 55089'.STATION INFORMATION: SD-002 (Steam Generator Blowdown Discharge) Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water.WASTEWATER TREATMENT .DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT PERMITTEE Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993 t:YMNT00406 IMIT SlTATLUS FORMiER LMN0004006 ý_FINAL 011M I&~?MONITORING PERIO'------q FROM 206o/08/01 [EARI MO DAYI TOI 2000/08/31 I I Min flicrhorno I I Send original with supplemental DMR (if applicable) by the 21st day of month following reporting period to: MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 520 LAFAY'EUE.fl ST. PAUL, MN 194 I certify that I am familiar with theM information contained in this report and. that to the best of my,.knowledge and belief the infor-mation is true, complete, and accurate.Mk , bp I'll T DATE J SIGNAT L1E5FPp'NCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT/.SIGNATa)F CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE M FICATIONA I1 I Report P~D27 of 0184 DischargIMnitoring Report jv I.J.w P3.ge Q.27 of D184 FACILITY NAMEaESS: NSP -Prairie Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr. E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-003 (Radwaste Treatment Effluent)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TRE T DISCHARGE MONITORIN G PORT PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993 07C T: " fMI 1TrS'T4TOS§ FORMER # ~MN0004006 FINAL 012M 1 GERIlOD tX&{;91 FO "Iuu.MO DAY,.'FROMI 2000/08/01fi TO 2000/08/31 I I Nn rlicrh~rna I.... ............ Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that ! am familiar with the. .t -applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this SIGNATURE OFPINCIP-/EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the-best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTERD. mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL.,MN55155-4194 I accurate. ..SIGNATUREOF CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE CERTIFICATIONý ATTN- Discharge Monitoring Report Page D39 of D184 FACILITY:NAMEIADDRESS: NSP.- Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant 1717.Wakonade DrIE Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-004 (Neutralizer + Resin Rinse Discharge) Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT PERMITTEE NAMEIADDRESS: Northern States PowerCo 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis; MN 554011993 FV ýý -,PIT,#Y--LIM It STATU:Sj ORME*E-MNooo400e FINAL 01 3M 1 L~tS~CsMP$!3ORING-,PERlOD ~ Z FOIuuJu2AY FROMJ 2000/08/01o] TO 2000/08/3 1 I Mn I ncrhnrnc I Ki Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that I am familiar with the ' .;applicable) by the 21st day of month following nformation contained in this SIGNATURE O-,-PINCIP,-/EXECUTIVE OFFICE R AUTHORIZED AGENT reporting period to: report and that to the best of my -_MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD marion is true, complete, and -l F ST. PAUL MN 5 j194 accurate. SIGNAT FCHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE A FICATION#_ATTVýDischa rg1W ito ring Report W Page D51 of D184 FACILITY NAMEhI ESS: NSP -Prairie Islandclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade DrE Welch, MN. 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-005. (Unit 1 Turbine Bldg Sump Dschg)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TREAST DISCHARGE MoNITORIN PORT PERMITTEE NAMEJADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993 I PERMITW # LIMIT STATUS IFORMER #.MN0004006 FINAL 014M 1 MONlTORINQJiPERIMODext~: jyý--MO I. ,DAY FROM 12000/08/011 TO n 2000/08/3I I I Mn flicrh~rnn I Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that I am familiar with the I " ( -applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this SIGNATURE OF PlI [iPAL CE/CUTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-.520 LAFAYETTERD: ..mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL,>MNW55155-4194 accurate. "SIGNATURE OF CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE CERTIFICATION ý8 Ris ,5ýharge:Monitodng Report Page D63 of D184 FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-006 (Unit 2 Turbine Bldg Sump Dschg)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATERTRMEATMENT. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT PERMITTEE'NAMEJADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall MinneapolisMN 554011993 Fr P;E$MITS#7 LIMIT STAR ORE LMN0004006 FINAL 015M 1 4-MONITORZINGPERIOD FROML 2000/08/01 T EAJMOu.JpAY;l TO 200n,'0813 1 I No Discharoe I Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that l am familiar with the --" applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this SIGNATURE OF-PR lIeIPAL EtECUTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL, MN AM-194 accurate. -SIGNATU -F CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DICATION ST AU N 5 194rtoin Reor .DATEf 018 ATTNý DischargdWitoring Report Aw PagTe T;75 of D 184 FACILITY t4AMEIMESS: NSP -Prairie Isla~clear Power Plant 1717 WakonadeDr E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-007 (Metal Cleaning Effluent Discharge) Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TRE NT DISCHARGE MONITORINGNEEPORT PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993[PiEMIT~#, 4L1-m'OtSTATUSI FORMERI R 4 MN00406 FINAL 016M 1 I 'MONITORING PERI OD 4ýýI -ilr l " ' " ill .*1 ...... ......... ..FROM L 'u uu u1'MEA O. DA TO 200/08/31l 0/TVo Discharge Send original with supplemental DMR (if /certifythatlam familiar with the /"-applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL -XfCUT IVE FFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the. infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD -mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4194 accurate. "SIGNATURE OF CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE CERTIFICATION# Discharge Monitoring Repprt Page D87 of D184 FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: SD-012 (Intake Screen Backwash + Fish Reitn)Surface Discharge, Effluent To Surface Water WASTEWATER TREATMENT. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT NAME/ADDRESS: Northern States Power Co.414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 554011993~tPEkMtr# JI;iItVIISTT~US&VuF~a 0 I9 MN0004006 j FINAL f 030M 1I` tMO NITORING PERIOD:AsA FROM 2 900u/08/01 OEA I DAY]TO[ 200T0/08/3 1 I Mn n;er~rna 14ý 1 i'?At Send original with supplemental DMR (if certify that / am familiar with the N , applicable) by the21st day of month following information contained in this SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EX UTIVE OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520,LAFAYETTE RD mation is true, complete, and ST. PAUL MN accurate. SIGNA CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE BIFICATION

• ATN DIscharM nitoring Report 1q of D 184 FACILITY NAMEJ*ESS:

NSP -Prairie Islainlclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: WS-001 (Unit 1 Plant Cooling Water Dschg)Waste Stream, Internal Waste Stream WASTEWATER TREA&T DISCHARGE MONITORINGtEPORT PERMITTEE NAMEIADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN. 554011993 MN004006 FINAL~MQNITQRING1R1ERIOD FROM I 2000/08/01 TOI 2000/08/31j I INnFtnw I VOTE4°, PFLoLJ I S A- ThrPrG 0oF- WSCs r Lcocs &~ C-C.-oczt. /011 If Send original with supplemental DMR (if certify that, lam amiliar.with the ; -t applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this. SIGNATURE OF PRNC EX TIVE OFFICER OR UTHORZED AGENT DATE reporting perio.d to: report and that to the best of my MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520LAFAYETTE-RD mation is true, complete, and.ST. ýPAUL, MN,:551554194 accurate. SIGNATURE OFCHIEF OPERATOR PHONE' DATE CERTIFICATIONM AT8N Discharge Monitoring Report Page D1 63 of D1 84 FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: NSP -Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant 1717 Wakonade Or E Welch, MN 55089 STATION INFORMATION: WS-002 (Unit 2 Plant Cooling Water Dschg)Waste Stream, Internal Waste Stream WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT PERMITUEE NAME/ADDRESS: Northern States Power Co 414 Nicollet Mall Minne~polis, MN 554011993 MN0004006 FINAL 022M 8$Jj:c~MNITORING;,PER1`OD-- 7>>FMDAY FROM 1 2000/08/0 1 TO r 2000/08/31 I 1 No Flow I gv-(Ctcý Fto W is XA- Wi-A'-1P-L o F- w.soo1 t WSoaL./Send original with supplemental DMR (if I certify that!I am familiar with. the I/$-'---applicable) by the 21st day of month following information contained in this.... SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL E!? TIVE OFFICER ORAUTHORIZED AGENT DATE reporting period to: report and that to the best of my DATE, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY knowledge and belief the infor-520 LAFAYETTE RD mation is true,.complete, and ST. PAUL, MN 5" 194 1 accurate. .SIGNAT"A F CHIEF OPERATOR PHONE DATE A DischarglW itoring Report.W Pag'W75 of D184 Cý q le Z- Lj't6f 4W M-p M.Northern Staes Power Company:"e""-,' 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 I A1 , October 14, 1983 Howard Krosch Don L Kri Division of Fish & Wildlife Division MN Dept of Natural Resources MN Pollut Centennial Office Building 1935 West St Paul, Minnesota 55155 RosevillE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Chlorination of Circulating Water System Fish Loss Report ens of Waste Quality.ion Control Agency '/County Road B2 e, Minnesota 55113 MA) 900 Enclosed, for your information, is a report on the fish loss due to chlorination of the circulating water system at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant in August, 1983.Feel free to contact Glen Kuhl at the Prairie Island Environ-mental Lab at (612) 388-1121, extension 349, if you have any questions concerning this report.W E J6nsren Senior Consultant Regulatory Services ah enclosure cc: G M Kuhl Internal Correspondc nce Date August 30, 1983 From G. M. Kuhl Location Prairie Island Phycologist To S. F. Schmidt Location GO (2)Admin Reg Compliance Subject FISH LOSS DUE TO CHLORINATION OF THE PINGP CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM An estimated total of 37,124 fish were killed during the chlori-nation of the circulating water system at PINGP on August 20, 1983. tables 1 and 2 list representative length frequencies and totals for all species lost. When possible, unmeasured fish were designated as young-of-the-year (yy), juvenile, and adult. Dur-ing instances where this was not possible fish not measured wer.e recorded as "unmeasured". Gizzard shad comprised 61.7% of the total loss with channel cat-fish representing 26.5% of the total. Other game fish in decreasing order of abundance, included white bass, crappie spp., bluegill, sauger and walleye. These species comprised 3.9% of the total fish loss.Adult fish were separated from yy and juvenile fish, enumerated and measured individually (Table 1). Estimated numbers of yy and juvenile fish were based on the number of fish counted per bucket with this number extrapolated over all buckets (Table 2).As in the 19.81 chlorination, copper sulfate was used in an attempt to drive fish from the circulating water system prior to chlorination. In cooperation with a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources licensed applicator, copper sulfate was added on two occasions. On Friday, August 19, copper sulfate was added at a rate of two pounds per minute for 15 minutes to the new dis-charge canal while the plant was operating in open helper cycle.This provided adequate mixing and flow to hopefully drive fish from the canal. On Saturday, August 20, copper sulfate was added at a rate of three pounds per minute for 60 minutes to the remainder of the circulating water system. Based on calculations of the quantity of water in the system the application rates were expected to allow copper sulfate concentrations to reach 0.5 ppm,-which should repel fish.11 Fish loss during the 1983 chlorination was slightly greater than the 28,095 lost during 1981 but considerably less than the 162,4.48 lost .during the 1980 chlorination. Species composition was similar to previous years with gizzard shad and channel cat-fish being major contributors of fish loss.G. M. Kuh SW It Section 316 (b) Demonstration for the P~rairie Island Generating Plant on the Mississippi River near-Red Wing, Minnesota December, 1976: Nus Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............... 1 2.

SUMMARY

............ 

...................... 3 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT ........... ............ 10 3.1 LOCATION OF PLANT AND INTAKE ...... .I........10

3.2 INTAKE

DESIGN ........ ............... 14 3.3 OPERATING MODES ...... .................. 17 3.4 INTAKE VELOCITIES ...... ............. 19 3.5 INTAKE FLOW VOLUMES .......... ............ 20 3.6 COOLING WATER TEMPERATURES ................ 22 3.7 BIOCIDES ........... .................. 23 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT NEAR PINGP ............... ...................... 26 4.1 HYDROLOGY .......... ................. 26 4.2 WATER QUALITY ........ ............... 33 4.2.1 General Characteristics ........... .. 33 4*2.2 Water Temperature ....... .......... 36 4.2.3 Dissolved Oxygen .................. 3.4.2.4 Other Existing or Planned Stresses 41 4.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY ...... ............... 42 4.3.1 Trophic Structure ............. .. 42 4.3.2 Primary Producers ....... .......... 43 4.3.2.1 Phytop1ankton ...... ....... 43 4.3.2.2 Periphyton ............ .. 45 4.3.2.3 Aquatic Macrophytes ... 46 4.3.3 Zooolankton ..... ............. .. 47 4.3.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .......50 4.3.5 Fish and Fisheries ... ......... .. 76 4.3.5.1 Sport Fishery. ......... ..4.3.5.2 Commercial Fishery. ......4.3.5.3 Tag and Recapture Studies 91 4.3.5.4 Trawl Studies ......... 95 4.3.5.5 Seining Studies ...... .i100 4.3.5.6 Electrofishing Studies. 107 4.3.5.7 Trap Nettina Studies. .119 4.3.5.8 Gill Net Studies ....... 131 4.3.5.9 Suimmarx of Fish Studies 125 4.3.3.10 Spaýning and Nursery Potential ....... .........13C 4.3.5.11 Spaw;ninc and --i e -4'stcor Information. ...... ........ 13S TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 5 INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES.139

5.1 INTRODUCTION

............

5.2 METHODS

USED FOR INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES.5.2.1 Entrainment-related Studies 5.2.1.1 Phytoplankton .........5.2.1.2 Zooplankton ........... 5.2.1.3 Fish. .............. 5.2.2 Impingement-related Studies ...5.2.2.1 Data Collection...... 5.2.2.2 Statistical Analysis 13!9 14 0 140* 140.144 148 155 155 137 5.3 RESULIS OF INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES ........5.3.1 Entrairnent Studies ..... ........5.3.1.1 Phytoplankton ........... 5.3.1.2 Zooplankton ............ 5.3.1.3 Fish ...... .........5.3.1.3.1 Taxonomic Com-position.5.3.1.3.2 Comparison of Sampling Locations 5.3.1.3.3 Die! Variations in Fish Entrainment.

5.3.2 Impingement

....... ............ 6 I:HPACT ASSESSMENT ......................

6.1 PRIDLkRY

PRODUCERS ........ .............

6.2 ZOOPLANKTON

.......... ................

6.3 BENTHIC

MACROIhVERTEBRATES ..... ........6.4 FISH EGGS AND ENTRAINMENT ........6.5 FISH IMPINGEMENT ......... ............. 7 LITERATURE CITED. ........... ............ APPENDIX I INTAKE "VELOCITIES AT PINGP, JUNE 23 AND 28, 1976 APPENDIX 2 NOTES ON SPAWNING AND REPRODUCTION OF 26 SPECIES OF FISH OCCURRING NEAR PINGP APPENDIX 3 MEAN AqND STANDA-RD DEVIATION OF DATA ON EGGS AND YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN PINGP ENTRAITNENT STUDIES, 1975.160 160 160 164 168 168 171 105 186 230 2382 240 241 243 258 264 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDIX 4 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF FISH IMPINGEMENT, PLANT OPERATING AND WATER TEMPERATURE DATA AT PINGP, 1975. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Pace 5 INTAKE-REL.ATED STUDIES ..3.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

..... ........... .139 5.2 METHODS USED FOR INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES. .140 5.2.1 Entrairnment-related Studies ....i4 5.2.1.1 Phytoplankton ...... ....... 140 5.2.1.2 Zooplankton ............. 144 5.2.1.3 Fish ................ 148 5.2.2 Impingement-related Studies ...155 5.2.2.1 Data Collection ...... 155 5.2.2.2 Statistical Analysis ...157 5.3 RESULIS OF INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES ..... 160 5.3.1 Entrainment Studies .......... 160 5.3.1.1 Phytoplankton ......... 160 5.3.1.2 Zooplankton ........... 164 5.3.1.3 Fish ............... 162 5.3.1.3.1 Taxonomic Com-position. .163 5.3.1.3.2 Comparison of Sampliha'Locations 171 5.3.1.3.3 Diel Variations in Fish Entrainment. 105 5.3.2 Impingement ........... ............ 136 6 I>PACT ASSESSMENT .... ........................ 230 6.1 PRIMARY PRODUCERS ...... ............. 23S 6.2 ZOOPLANKTON .......... ................ 240 6.3 BENTHIC MACROI-N'VRTEBRATES .......... 241 6.4 FISH EGCS AND LARVAZi ENTRPAINMENT ..... 243 6.5 FISH IMPINGEMENT ............ ............. 253 7 LITERATURE CITED .......... ................ .264 APPENDIX 1 INTAKE VELOCITIES AT PINGP, JUJNE 23 AND 28, 1976 APPENDIX 2 NOTES ON SPAWNING AUND REPRODUCTION OF 26 SPECIES OF FISH NEAR PINGP APPENDIX 3 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF DATA ON EGGS AND YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN PINGP ENTRAINMENT STUDIES, 1975. LIST OF FIGURES Fiaure Page 3.1-1 GENERAL LOCATION OF PINGP .... .......... .1 3.1-2 IMMEDIATE LOCATION OF PINGP. ... ........ 12 3.2-1 FLOW PATHS IN THE PINGP CONDENSER SYSTEM .15 3.2-2 CROSS-SECTION OF PINGP SCREENHOUSE ..... 15 3.3-1 FLOW RATES IN THE CLOSED-CYCLE MODE FOR CONDENSER COOLING AND THE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM ..................... ............... 18 3.6-1 MINI-MUM AND MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE IN THE PINGP INTAKE CANAL, JANUARY 1, 1974 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 ................ .................... 24 4.1-1 MEAN FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN, OCTOBER 1928-SEPTEMBER 197/4 .............. .......... 27 4.1-2 CONSECUTIVE DAY AVERAGE LOW FLOW FREQUENCIES, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN 1928-1974 ................ .................. 30 4.1-3 STURGEON LAKE FLOW VS. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW, AS MEASURED AT LOCK AND DAM NO. 3. 32 4.2-3 MAXIMUM A2D MINIMUM MONTHLY DISSOLVED OX-YGEN CONCENTRATION IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR THE PINGP INTAKE CANAL, JULY 1970-DECEMBER 1975 ....................................... 39 4.3-1 AREAS OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP, 1975.... ............ 48 4.3-2 BENTHOS SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR PINGP, 1971 AND 1972 ............ ......... ......... 52 4.3-3 ADDITTONAL BENTHOS ST._PLING STATIONS NEAIR PINGP, 1973 ........ ................. 56 4.3-4 LIGHT TRAP STATIONS USED IN EMERGENCE STUDIES AT PINGP, 1974 ........... ............... 58 0 LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) Figure Page 4.3-5 CREEL SURVEY AREAS NEAR PINGP, 1973-1975 81 4.3-6 FISH STUDY AREAS NEAR PINGP, 1970-1975 ....96 5.2-1 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PRODUCTIVITY, 1975 ...141 5.2-2 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PHYTOPLANKTON STUDIES, 1974-1975. .......................... 143 5.2-3 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR ZOOPLANKTON STUDIES, 1974 ................ ..................... 146 5.2-4 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR ZOOPLANKTON STUDIES, 1975 ................ ..................... 147 5.2-5 LOCATION OF FISH EGG AND LARVA SAMPLING STATIONS AT PINGP IN 1975 .... ........... 154 5.3-1 PHYTOPLANKTON DEGRADATION (PERCENT DEPLETION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS, RESPIRATION, AND CHLOROPHYLL a) DUE TO PASSAGE THROUGH PINGP, MAY-OCTOBER 1975 ................ ..................... 162 5.3-2 .MEAN DENSITY (NO/100 m 3) OF YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN THE STURGEON LAKE AREA BY MDNR AND AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE P!NGP INTAKE CANAL BETWEEN MAY 15 AND 4, 1975 ....... 173 5.3-3 DTEL VARIATION IN MEAN DENSITY (NO/l00 m3)OF EGGS AND LARVAE AT THE RECIRCULATION CANAL AND BAR RACK STATIONS AT PiNGP, MY 15-JULY 2, 1975 .................... .181 5.3-4 DIEL VARIATION IN MEAN DENSITY (NO/i00 m 3) OF EGGS AND LA-RVAE AT THE SKIMMER WALL AND BAR RACK STATIONS AT PINGP, July 10-SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 ................ ..................... 182 5.3-5 NUMBERS OF GIZZARD SHLAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974 .... .......... .. 201 5.3-6 NUMBERS OF GIZZARD SlAD COLLECTED FROM THE T'RASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 ........ .......... 202 LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) Figure 5.3-7 5.3-8 5.3-9 5.3-10 5.3-11 5.3-12 5.3-13 5.3-14 5.3-1'5 5.3-16 5. 3-17 5.3-18 5.3-19 Page TOTAL NUMBERS OF FISH LESS GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974 .................. ..................... NUMBERS OF FISH LESS GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 ........NUMBERS OF CHANNEL CATFISH COLLECTED FROM THE TRPASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 ........NUMBERS OF WHITE BASS COLLECTED FROM THE TRA.SEBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 ........... NUMBERS OF FRESHWATER DRUM COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 ........NUMBERS OF CRAPPIES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 ........... NUMBERS OF BLACK BULLH-EAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 ........... LENGTH FREQUENCY OF CHAýN-NEL CATFISH IM.PINGED AT PINGP, 1975 .......... ................ LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WHITE BASS IMPINGED AT?INGP, 1975. ............ ................ LENGTH FREQUENCY OF FRESHWATER DRUM IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 .......... ................ LENGTH FREQUENCY OF CRAPPIE SPP. IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 ............. ................. LENGTH FREQUENCY OF BLACK BULLHEAD. IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 .......... ................ LENGTH FREQUENCY OF NORTHERN PIKE IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 .......... ................ 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 213 214 215 216 217 218 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.5-1 MONTHLY PERCENTAGE OF M-LEAN MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW ENTERING P INGP INTAKE CANAL, JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1975 ........... ........... 21 4.1-1 MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW AT PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN, 1940-1975 ............. ............ 29 4.2-1 MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAIN CONCENTRATIONS OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS, SUBSURFACE SAMPLES UPSTREAM OF PINGP, JUNE 21, 1970 THROUGH DECEMBER 19, 1975 ................ 34 4.2-2 OBSERVED MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WATER TEMPERATURES IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ABOVE LOCK AND DAM NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 5, 1969-NOVEMBER 30, 1973 ...... ........... 37 4.2-3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN THE INTAKE CANAL AND RECIRCULATION CANAL, JANUARY 15 TO DECEMBER 19, 1975 .......... ............. 40 4.3-1 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1971 ............. ................ 54 4.3-2 ESTIMATED DENSITY OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (NUMBERS/M

2) COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIALT SUBSTRATES DURING 1972 ...... ...........

55 4.3-3 COMPOSITION OF ORDERS OF EM-ERGENT AQUATIC INSECTS COLLECTED FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, MAY 1-3 T .ROUGH DECEMBER 6, 1974 ................. .................. 59 4.3-4 MACROINViERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP IN 1974. ...60 4.3-5 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM HESTER-DENDY MULTIPLIATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEA-R PINGP IN 1975. .62 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Pace 4.3-6 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP IN 1975 ......... 72 4.3-7 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC FISH NAMES AND METHODS OF FISH CAPTURE IN THE PINGP AREA, 1975 ................ .................... 77 4.3-8 ESTIMATED HARVESTS OF THREE MAJOR GAME SPECIES CAUGHT IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP 1973 AND 1974 ......... .............. ..83 4.3-9 ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF FISH HARVESTED IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP, 1975, BASED ON OVERALL CATCH RATES AND ESTIMATED MAN-HOURS....... 84 4.3-10 OVERALL CATCH RATE OF ALL ANGLERS FISHING THE PINGP AREA MAY 10-NOVEMBER 5, 1973 AND PERCENT SUCCESSFUL ANGLERS ............... 85 4.3-11 OVERALL CATCH RATE FOR INTERVIEWED ANGLERS IN PINGP VICINITY, APRIL 30-DECEMBER 3, 1974 ................ .................... 87 4.3-12 OVERALL CATCH R.ATES FOR INTERVIEWED IN PINGP VICINITY, 1975 ............ ............ 88 4.3-13 COMlMERCIA.L CATCH OF FISH (POUNDS) IN POOLS 3, 4 AND 4A (IAKE PEPIN) DURING 1970-1974. WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA LANDINGS COMBINED 90 4.3-14 POPULATION ESTIMATES OF SPORT FISHES IN THE 12-MILE PINGP STUDY AREA BASED ON PETERSON AND SCHNABEL TAG AND RECAPTURE MTHODS. 92 4.3-15 TRAI' CATCH OF FISHES IN NORTH LAKE AND PINGP PLANT AREA (INTAKE AND DISCHARGE) IN 1973, 1974 AND 1975 ....... ............ 98 4.3-16 SEINE CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, 1974 ...101 4.3-17 SEINE CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, 1975 ...103 4.3-18 SEINE CATCH (NUMBER PER HECT? RE) IN THE PINGP REGION, 1973-1975 ..... .......... i06 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Page 4.3-19 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1970 AND 1971 ......... .. 108 4.3-20 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1973 ........... ........... 110 4.3-21 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1974 .......... .................. l1 4.3-22 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1974 .... ................... ....112 4.3-23 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, FALL, 1974 ................ ................. 113 4.3-24 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1975 .................. ........ 1.... 114_4.3-25 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1975 .......... ................ 115 4.3-26 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1975 ................ .................... 116 4.3-27 ELECTROFISHING CATCH (NUMBER/HOUR) OF MAJOR FISH SPECIES IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1974 AND 1975 ....................... 117 4.3-28 TRAP NETTING CATCH IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP IN 1970, 1972 AND 1973 ..... 121 4.3-29 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1974. 123 4.3-30 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1974. 124 4.3-31 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1974. 125 4.3-32 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP -REGION, SPRING, 1975. 126 4.3-33 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1975. 127 4.3-34 TPR- NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1975. 128 4.3-35 TrPAP NETTING CATCH OF MAJOR SPECIES IN PINGP REGION, 1974 ............ ................. 129 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Pace 4.3-36 TRAP NETTING CATCH OF MAJOR SPECIES IN PINGP REGION, 1975 ........ ............. 130 4.3-37 FISH CATCH IN GILL NETS IN PINGP REGION, 1972 AND 1973 ..................... ....132 4.3-38 GILL NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING AND FALL, 1974 .............. .............. 133 4.3-39 GILL NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING AND FALL, 1975 ............ .......... ....... 134 5.2-1 SAMP;LING DATES AND CORRESPONDING SAMPLING PERIOD .............. ................... 153 5.3-1 THE EFFECT OF PASSAGE OF PHYTOPLANKTON THROUGH PINGP ON CHLOROPHYLL a, PHOTO-S"YNHESIS AND RESPIRATION, 1974. ..........161 5.3-2 ESTIMATED PERCENT MORTALITY OF ZOOPLANKTON DUE TO PLANT PASSAGE AT PINGP IN.1974 ...165 5.3-3 ESTIMATED PERCENT MORTALITY OF ZOOPLANKTON DUE TO PLANT PASSAGE AT PINGP IN 1975 AND 1976 ....... .......... .. ..... ..... 16.6 5.3;4 FISH EGGS AND YOUNG COLLECTED IN ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING AT PINGP, 1975 .................... 169 5.3-5 MEEAN DENSITY AND PERCENT OF CATCH OF YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING AT PINGP, 1975 ........... ................ 172 5.3-6 MEAN DENSITY OF FISH LARVAE AT THE BAR RACK STATION AT PINGP, 1975 ....... ........... 174 5.3-7 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LluRVAE AND JU'VENILES PASSING THROUGH THREE LOCATIONS AT PINGP, 1975 ........ ...................... ..... 183 5.3-8 NUMBER OF FISH PER WEEK COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT P+/-NGP, 1974 ......... ........ 287 5.3-9 NUMBER OF FISH PER WEEK COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 ........191 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Paae 5.3-10 NUMBER OF FISH AND PERCENT OF YEARLY TOTAL FOR EACH SPECIES,BY SEASON,FOR FISHES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975. 199 5.3-11 LENGTH-FREQUENCY OF IMPINGED FISHES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 ............ 211 5.3-12 NUMBERS OF NON-FISH ORGANISMS FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 ............... .............. 219 5.3-13 NUMBERS OF CRAYFISH, TURTLES, MUD PUPPIES AND FROGS COLLECTED PER WEEK FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP, 1975. ... .... .......... 222 5.3-14 SUM!MARY OF SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION OF FISH IMPINGEMENT AND PHYSICAL DATA AT PINGP, 1975. 226 5.3-15 SELECTED CORRELATIONS AND PARTIAL CORRELATIONS OF FISH IMPINGEMENT DATA WITH PHYSICAL DATA, ALL SEASONS COMBINED ...... .................. 229 6.4-1 CALCULATION OF LOSS OF ADULT FISH DUE TO ENTRAINMENT OF EGGS, LARVAE AND JUVENILES AT PINGP IN 1975 ............. ............. 246 6.5-1 NUMBERS OF MAJOR FISH SPECIES IMPINGED AT PINGP, ESTIMATES OF STANDING CROP BASED ON TRAWL SURVEYS, SPORT CATCHESKAND ESTIMATES OF SPORT FISH POPULATIONS.. ................ 259

1. STATEMF-NT OF THE PROBLEM The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), Section 316(b), require that cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Adverse impact can result from entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms.

Entrainment is the withdrawal of organisms into the cooling water system. It involves organisms which are small enough to pass through the intake screen mesh, including primarily planktonic forms such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and benthic drift organisms. Mortality can vary, depending on the system and the trophic level involved, and is usually less than 100 percent in open systems but may approach 100 percent in closed systems.Larger organisms can become entrapped or impinged against screening equipment. These larger organisms are predominantly fish which may tire or become injured and are unable to escape. High impingement mortality often results from natural die-offs or weakening of fish prior to impingement (Edsali and Yocun 1972, Quirk, Lawler and Matuskv 1974) or cold-induced lethargy (EPA 1976a, USAC 1972). The use of traveling screens may reduce mortality but frequently induces additional injury. According to the current EPA draft guidance manual (1976a)for Section 316(b), "Regulatory agencies should clearly recognize that some level of intake damage can be acceptable and thus represents a minimization of environmental impact." This demonstration provides "best possible estimate of what damage is or may be occurring" and relates this to population levels and natural variability of the indigenous Mississippi River populations near the Prairie island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP).2

2.

SUMMARY

Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 requires cooling water users to determine biological effects of their intake systems and to demonstrate that the design, construction, location and operation re-flect the best technology available for minimizing impact.Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Section 402 of P.L. 92-500, Minnesota has been given the authority to administer the law using the Section 316(b)amendments and Minnesota Regulation WPC(u) (3).The Minnesota guide for the administration of Section 316(b)requires the demonstrator to show the environmental effects of cooling water intakes through documentation of the magnitude of impingement and entrainment impacts (MWCA 1975). Supple-mental information on the aquatic ecosystem in the intake region is also requested. Federal and state requirements have been addressed in this demonstration by providing extensive baseline data and a detailed presentation and analysis of entrainment and impingement data at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP).Northern States Power Company (NSPY has conducted six years of studies of the Mississippi River ecosystem near PINGP and, since plant operaticn began in 1974, NSP has conducted 3 extensive intake studies. The river at PINGP can be classified as somewhat eutrophic and supporting a healthy and very diverse flora and fauna. The main channel and the associated side channels of slack water provide a mixture of lentic and lotic habitats.The entrainment of primary producers (phytoplankton) reduced standing crops of chlorophyll a but did not produce detect-able effects on total numbers of algae. Chlorophyll a reduction usually amounted to 50 percent or less., Primary productivity of entrained algae was depressed up to 90 per-cent from passage through PINGP. Respiration was similarly depressed on most collection dates. In summary, while the numbers of intact algae are not greatly affected by plant passage, the biological activity of the algal community is frequently reduced by 50 percent or more.Studies of the effects of plant passage on phytoplankton failed to produce any detectable differences in the community of the main channel of the Mississippi River, either in species composition or primary productivity, corroborating the conclusion of EPA (1976b) that entrainment effects on phytoplankton are usually of short duration and confined to a relatively small portion of the water body.4 Zooplankton entrained by PINGP was noticeably affected on W two-thirds of the dates sampled. Usually only one or two groups exhibited detectable mortality after plant passage.Excepting cladocerans, some mortality was observed for all groups on some collection dates.Zooplankton collected at the intake and discharge was also compared to zooplankton collected in the water body near the plant. No significant differences in total zooplankton densities could be detected, even within the recirculation canal. Some preliminary data indicated reduction of copepods in areas directly within the discharge. The low degree of entrainment impact at PINGP is further supported by EPA's (1976b) comment that in most cases the effects of zooplankton entrainment are of relatively short duration and confined to a relatively small area of the water body.The entrainment of benthos was not studied; however, the extensive program of artificial substrate studies permitted a prediction of taxa most likely to be entrained. Benthic entrainment is not predicted to seriously affect aquatic communities near PINGP.There are two potential sources of impact to the fish communities near PINGP: entrainment of eggs and young and impingement of larger fish. A total of 8,371,000 eggs and 61,645,000 larvae and juvenile fish were estimated to have been entrained between May 12 and September 10, 1975.However, larval and juvenile entrainment represented only an estimated 6 percent of the 1,038,000,000 young fish estimated to have passed through the outlet of Sturgeon Lake during the same period. This represents a conservative estimate of loss to the total system because fish eggs and larvae are also present in the main channel.Entrainment losses of eggs and young fish were estimated to represent 2,830,000 potential adult fish, 99 percent of which were forage species. This loss of forage fish could decrease predator production by an estimated 3,400 kg (7,500 lbs) or 5,900 fish. However, the larval and juvenile forace fish entrained represent only about 3 percent of the esti-mated number nassina through the outlet of Sturgeon Lake.Entrained sport and commercial species represented less than one percent cf the total Dotential adult loss. Sauger had the greatest potential loss among the sport fish (5,600 fish). This potential loss is 0.9 to 2.4 percent of the estimated population for the Sturgeon Lake to Lake Pepin region. The impact of the potential adult loss will probably not be detectable due to the highly mobile nature of sauger in 6 the PINGP area. Approximately 730 potential adult white bass are estimated to be lost due to entrainment. This represents 0.4 to 0.5 percent of the population estimated between Sturgeon Lake and Lake Pepin. Walleye, sunfish, crappies, northern pike and yellow perch were the other sport fish that were entrained. Estimated adult loss for these species represented less than 10 percent of their combined annual angler harvest, and probably a much smaller percent-age of their actual populations in the PINGP area.Commercially important fishes that were entrained included reshwater drum, carp, buffalo, catfish, sucker and carp-sucker. The potential loss of carp and catfish appears insignificant compared to commercial catch data; the impact on the other taxa is unclear due to low commercial catches.However, a comparison of numbers entrained to estimated numbers of young passing through the mouth of Sturgeon Lake indicates low potential impact to resident populations. Impingement analyses were conservative estimates based on the number of fish impinged per year in relation to the best population estLmates that could be determined from available data.7 Small fish, mostly 40-200 mm, accounted for most of the 146,063 fish impinged in 1974 and 93,466 fish impinged in 1975.Although gizzard shad composed more than three-fourths of the fish impinged,losses represent only 1 to 2 percent of the estimated 1973 Sturgeon Lake population. Potential impact on the channel catfish population was inconclusive due to apparently low population estimates based on trawl samples. However, the numbers of young impinged represent a small fraction of the number which could be produced in one year by the estimated adult popula-tion or number of catfish commercially harvested in one year.The numbers of impinged freshwater drum represented 10 to 12 percent of the young estimated for the plant area or North Lake, based on trawl collections, and 5.2 percent cf the commercial harvest of adults in 1974.Annual impingement losses of young white bass, sauger and walleye were 0.1 to 1 percent of the estimated sport fish populations between Sturgeon Lake and Lake Pepin. Potential 8 adult losses would be substantially less die to mortality between the young and sport harvest sizes.The combined impact of the impingement and entrainment losses for fish, plankton and benthos is considered to represent an acceptable level of impact for a generating facility of the size of PINGP. Losses to lower trophic levels are, at most, barely detectable in the immmediate plant vicinity. Fish entrainment losses represent such low percentages of ambient populations that no short or long term effects are expected to be detectable. The numbers of young fish impinged per year appear to re-present only a small percentage increase in the mortality resulting from natural causes and fishing. The numbers of young white bass, walleye and sauger Lmpinged are approxi-mately 0.2 percent of their adult populations in the region and represent an even smaller percentage loss of recruitment into the sport fishery. Due to the apparent excess of forage fish (most gizzard shad) and minimal cropping of sport fish, there is not expected to be a noticeable change in the dynamic predator/prey relationship or in recruitment into the harvested populations. 0 3 DESCRIPTION OF TH.E P'LANT The Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) is a two-unit plant utilizing pressurized water nuclear steam supply systems. Each unit produces a gross electrical output of 560 MWe for Northern States Power Company's network system.Unit 1 operation began in December 1973 and Unit 2, one year later.3.1 LOCATION OF PLANT AND INTAKE PINGP is located on the Minnesota shore of the Mississippi River 65 km (40 mi) southeast of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota and 10 km (6 mi) upstream of Red Wing, Minnesota (Figure 3.1-1). The plant is situated on Prairie Island, a low island terrace peninsula formed by the Mississippi River on the east and the Vermillion River on the west.Most of the land surrounding the plant is under cultivation. Relatively small areas of forest and swamp vegetation occur in some lowlands. The Mississippi River in the vicinity of PINGP is a complex system of river lakes, sloughs, channels and islands (Figure 3.1-2). Major features include North and Sturgeon lakes, just upstream of the plant, and the main river channel, which is closer to the Wisconsin shore. Lock and Dam No. 3, which controls the levels of the Mississippi River and Sturgeon Lake, is 2 km (1 mi) downstream of the 10 I 'I-ST. PAUL MINNEAPOLIS-+I H--U. S. HIGHWAY 61 RED SCALE 0 50 100 KILOMETERS .1 z ,t WINONA CROSSE I".'1;O.-..S I'" .FIGURE 3.1-1 GENERAL LOCATION OF PINGP LOCK a DAM NO.3 STURGEON 7 MISSISSIPPI-RIV ER SREFAG t*. -N -A tGit. -A U AKIN .p A. ..' " ' ~A' A~ 1..4 O'A '.AA4 *A'.A A', -10 0 0 0.0O tO0 §00 100o 200 MI00 400 500 FIGURlE 3.1-2 IMMEDIATE T"'"ATION OF PINGP site. The average monthly river discharge at Prescott, Wisconsin, which is 24 km (15 mi) upstream from PINGP, is 457 m /sec (16,130 cfs) (USGS 1928-1975). 13

3.2 INTAKE

DESIGN Cooling water is drawn from the river into an intake canal, which is 34 m (112 ft) wide and 231 m (758 ft) long. A skimmer wall at the mouth of the intake canal excludes floating debris from the intake (Figure 3.2-1). At the screenhouse (Figure 3.2-2), the water passes through a bar rack, which consists of 1 cm wide vertical steel bars spaced 7.6 cm apart. The water then passes through eight vertical traveling screens. The screens are constructed of wire mesh with 1 cm square openings. After passing throuah the traveling screens, the water enters one of four circulating water pumps [capacity of one pump = 10.08 m3 /sec (356 cfs)] and is pumped through the condensers. Water velocities in the intake system vary from 2 to 6 cm/sec (0.1-0.2 fps) at the skimmer wall and from 6 to 30.5 cm/sec (0.2-2.5 fps) in front of the bar rack.Any debris collecting on the traveling screens as the water passes through is washed from the rotating screens by high-pressure water jets. The debris is carried into a sluice canal and then to the trash baskets. These baskets are constructed of metal grating with 1.7 X 3.3 cm openings and are 1.5 X 1.5 X 1.5 m overall.14 N S§CALE 0 500 1000 FE ET WING DAMS Ln 0-I-J UL I FIGURE 3.2-1 FLOW PATHIS IN THE PINGP CONDENSER SYSTEM 0 "TRAVr&LI Nc 5CREEN RACK PL ANT C I RCULATI NG WATER, PUMP FIGURE 3.2-2 CROSS-SECTION OF PINGP SCflEENHOU(],E

3.3 OPERATING

MODES There are three possible modes of operation at PTNGP because of the condenser cooling-water design. These are the open cycle mode, the helper cycle mode, and the closed cycle mode. Cooling towers do not operate in the open cycle mode and water taken through the condensers from the intake is discharged directly to the river. The helper cycle mode also signifies once-through flow but with the cooling towers in operation to decrease the temperature of the system water before it is discharged back to the river.Under closed cycle operation (Figure 3.3-1), the normal operating mode of the plant, water is piped from the con-densers to the cooling tower pump basin and then to the cooling towers. Water from the cooling towers drains into the discharge basin and is routed through the recycle canal and intake canal back to the screenhouse. Under these conditions, up to 90 percent of the intake water is recycled.Under normal closed-cycle operation with cooling towers in operation, the intake or makeup water appropriation is 5.2 m 3/sec 3 (183 cfs) to make up for the loss of 1 m /sec (33 cfs)cooling tower evaporation and 4.2 m 3/sec (150 cfs) discharge. 17 TOWER LOSS 33 cfs (MAX.)60 cfs 60 FROM RIVER 183 cfs SCREEN CON-HOUSE 1424 cfs DENSERS 1424 cfs 1484 cfs cfs1RECYCLE S C RE IPEEN 10 WASH FIGURE 3.3-1 FLOW RATES IN THE CLOSED-CYCLE MODE FOR CONDENSER COOING AND TUE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM

3.4 INTAKE

VELOCITIES W Intake velocities were measured on June 23 and June 28, 1976. Velocity profiles (Appendix

1) were taken in front of the bar rack and immediately in front of the skimmer wall.During the June 23 survey, the blowdown rate was 7.8 m3 /sec (275 cfs). In front ofthe skimmer wall, velocities ranged from 0.0 to 0.2 m/sec (0.0-0.7 fps). Velocities in front of the bar rack were higher, with most readings varying between 0.2 and 0.4 m/sec (0.7-1.3 fps).During the June 28 survey, velocities at the skimmer wall were measured at blowdown rates of 18.5 m 3/sec (655 cfs)and 36.8 m 3/sec (1300 cfs). At the lower blowdown rate, velocities at the skimmer wall were between 0.00 and 0.25 m/sec (0.00-0.82 fps). At the blowdown rate of 36.8 m 3/sec (1300 cfs), roughly equivalent to helper cycle operations, the velocities at the skimmer wall ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 M/sec (0.16-0.09 fps).

3.5 INTAKE

FLOW VOLUMES Recent studies indicated that intake flow volumes are an important factor in impingement and entrainment (EPA 1976a).Under closed cycle mode, the makeup water appropriation or intake volume at PINGP is approximately 5.2 m 3/sec (183 cfs). During 1975, the average makeup water appropriation was approximately 11.2 m 3/sec (400 cfs). A frequency analysis for appropriations based on 1975 plant records is: Appropriation Appropriation

• (m /sec) (cfs) Percent of Year (1975)<2.8 <100 <0.1 2.8-5.7 100-200 40.8 5.7-11.3 200-400 19.7 11.3-17.0 400-600 17.0 17.0-22.7 600-800 6.1 22.7-28.3 800-1000 8.6>28.3 >1000 3.1 no data no data 4.7 3 All appropriation flows greater than 17.0 m /sec occurred between May and September.

Highest intake volumes were reported in July when appropriation was greater than 22.4 3 m /sec more than 70 percent of the time. Peak intake volumes corresponded with the peak flow periods for the Mississippi River near PINGP and the appropriation was less than 5 percent of the total Mississppi River flow measured at Prescott, Wisconsin (Table 3.5-1). The maximum percent withdrawal for 1975 was recorded on September 8, when approxi-mately 14 percent of Mississippi River flow was used for the appropriation flow.20 TABLE 3.5-1 PERCENTAGE OF MEAN MONTHLY MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW",T ENTERING PINGP INTAKE CANAL, JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1975 Month January February March ADril May June July August September River Flowa 7,995 8,691 9,944 45,C60 65,220 36,200 38,010 11,790 10,950 Percent of Average Mean Monthly River Intake Flow Flow Entering (cfs) 'Intake Canal 188 2.4 299 3.4 341 3.4 454 0.1 791 1.2 304 0.8 782 2.1 576 4.9 415 3.8 a1975 USGS data (cfs) at Prescott, Wisconsin 21

3.6 COOLING

WATER TEMPERATURES When the generating station is operating in the closed cycle mode, an average of 36.9 m 3/sec (1301 cfs) of heated water is returned to the intake canal via the circulating water system.A survey was conducted on February 12, 1974 to establish temperature and flow patterns within the intake canal. The ambient water temperature during the survey was 0 0 C (320F), while that in the circulating water system was approximately 241C (750F). Considerable turbulence and upwelling occurred where the recycle flow entered the intake canal. The water stratified as it moved toward the screenhouse, with temperatures in the upper layer corresponding with the recycle water temperature of 22 to 241C (72-75'F). Bottom water temperatures were more closely related to ambient water temperatures, ranging from 1.0 to 12'C (34-54'F). The ranges of intake canal temperatures at varying depths on February 12, 1974 were: Depth TemDerature Range Surface 22-24 0 C (72-750F)1 m 18-23.4-C (64-74-F)2 m 3-23.4 0 C (37-74°F)2.5 m 1-23 (35-730F)22 Water temperatures near the bottom increased as flow pro-ceeded along the intake canal. Water temperatures near the screenhouse were nearly homogeneous from top to bottom (22.8-24 0 C) (73-75 0 F).Temperatures in the intake, discharge and circulation canal are recorded automatically. Figure 3.6-1 shows the monthly minimum and maximum water temperatures in the intake canal for the first two years of full time operation (1.974 and 1975).3.7 BIOCIDES Chlorine is used in many generating plant condensers and cooling towers to control biological growth, especially algae. PINGP employs a mechanical tube cleaning system;thus, no chemical additions are required for this aspect of plant operation. However, the inlet water for the service water system is chlorinated. Chlorine is injected for 20-minute periods three times a day. The injection rate is controlled so that total residual chlorine is less than 0.3 mg/l at the point where the service water system flow enters the circulating water system. The service water system flow at that point represents about 4 percent of the circulating water volume (see Figure 3.3-1); thus the maximum total 23 000 IOO 90-80-TO 70- MAXIMUM~~~~MINIMUM r --._Lo 60- I 50I 40 ------30-JAN 1 FEB IMAR i APR MAY I JUN t JUL t AUG SEP IFOCT (MONTHS)FIGURE 3.6-1 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURES IN THE PINGP INTAKE CANAL, JANUARY 1, 1974 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 (FROM NSP 1975 AND KING 1976)1 residual chlorine concentration which is present after W mixing with the recirculation water is 0.02 mg/l.The chlorine residual is further reduced by the chlorine-demand constituents of the recirculation water and by dilution which occurs when the recirculation water enters the intake canal. The permissible limit for total chlorine in the State of Minnesota for intermittent discharges is 0.2 mg/1, for periods not to exceed 2 hours (Olsen, personal communcation). Chlorine levels in the intake canal are, therefore, well below the permissible limits.250

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT NEAR PINGP 4.1 HYDROLOGY The river basin above PINGP has a drainage area of approxi-mately 72,500 km2 (45,000 mi2 ). The basin covers central and southern Minnesota, and includes portions of Wisconsin, South Dakota and Iowa.The numerous lakes in the region are the result of Pleistocene glaciation.

The flow characteristics of the Mississippi River and its tributaries are largely determined by the natural storage provided by these lakes and numerous swamps (USAEC 1973). The nearest permanent USGS hydrological gauging station is located at Prescott, Wisconsin, approxi-mately 24 km (15 mi) upstream from PINGP. Flow records at Prescott are available from 1928 through 1975.Records for the 48 years show an average monthly discharge of 457 m /sec (16,130 cfs). The annual mean flow duration curve for the Mississippi River at Prescott is show-n in Figure 4.1-1. Maximum discharge for the period of record was 3 6,460 m /sec (228,000 cfs), reported on April 18, 1965;. the 3 minimum flow was 39.1 m /sec (1,380 cfs), registered on July 13, 1940. The minimum consecutive-day, low-flow rates from 1928 to 1975 show that the five lowest years of record all ANNUAL 0 z -o 0 z I-,000 Z ~1,000.. , L... ----Li....I00 ---- -.-.-0 20 40 60 80 t00 PERCENT TIME FIGURE 4.1-1 MEAN FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT ]PRESCOTT,.. -WISCONSIN, OCTOBER 1922-SEPTEMBER 1974 27 occurred before 1941; thus it appears that structures, such as Lock and Dam No. 3, on the river have served to augment low flow (USAEC 1973). Median monthly flows and projected 7-day, 10-year. low flows are listed in Table 4.1-1. Con-secutive day, average-low flow frequencies for the Mississippi River at Prescott are shown in Figure 4.1-2.Flood flow conditions are most common during the spring and early summer months; highest frequencies occur in April.The most serious flooding is associated with heavy rainfall and melting of heavy snows. Major floods in the main streams occur on the average of 2-3 years out of 10 (USAEC 1973).The maximum flood of record for the upper Mississippi River occurred in April, 1965. The frequency probability of this flood was estimated as that occurring once in 150 years.The numerous side channels of slack-water areas are of special importance to PINGP. The North Lake-Sturgeon Lake chain has several cross connections resulting in a diversion of part of the Mississippi River flow through the lakes. In analysis of the flow through the lake, it was estimated that between 19 and 32 percent of the total river flow at Lock and Dam No. 3 passed through the outlet of Sturgeon Lake at river flows between 226.4 and 1867.8 m 3/sec, respectively. (Grotbeck personal communication). This was 28 TO 60 X o 0-i5 2 I0 10 0 0 5 10 20 25 STURGEON LAKE FLOW ( X &3 cfs)VIGURE 4.1-3.STURGEON LAKE FLOW VS. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW, AS MEASURED AT LOCK AND DAM NO. 3 22

4.2 WATER

QUALITY 4. 2. 1 General Character~istics PINGP is located in a section of the Mississippi River that is affected by discharges from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan complex. Other environmental factors which influence water quality near the site include the 2.7 m (9 ft) minimum depth navigation channel, nutrient and sediment runoff from surrounding croplands and the lock and dam system.Water quality at or near PINGP has been monitored from June 21, 1967 to the present. Table 4.2-1 lists the minimum, maximum and mean concentrations for the chemical parameters examined.Waters near PINGP show relatively high nutrient levels, a characteristic of waters located downstream from municipal waste treatment facilities. As a result of these enriched conditions, somewhat eutrophic conditions prevail. Phosphorus and nitrogen levels are generally highest during the winter-spring transition period and decrease markedly during the summer. Largely because of assimilation of CO 2 by algae, there is also a trend toward higher pH as summer progresses. 33 TABLE 4.2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2)MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS, SUBSURFACE SAMPLES UPSTREAM OF PINGP, JUNE 21, 1970 THROUGH DECEMBER 19, 1 9 7 5 a Concentration (mg/i unless otherwise noted)Solids, Total Solids, Dissolved Solids, Suspended Hardness, Total (as CaCO 3)Hardness, Calcium (as CaCO 3)Hardness, Magnesium (as CaCO 3)Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO 3)Alkalinity, Phenolphthalein (as CaCO3.Ammonia Nitrogen (N)Carbonateb (C0 3)b Bicarbonate (HCO 3)Chloride (Cl)Nitrate Nitrogenc (N)Sulfate (SO 4)C Phosvhorus , Soluble (P)Silica (S 1 0 2)b Cal ci um (Ca)b Magnesium (Mg)Sodium, (Na)Iron, Totalc (Fe)Colorc (APHA units)Turbidity (JTU)Ryznar Index (at 77 0 C)Conductivity (}h o s/cm)pH BODb Minimum 192 134 1.4 116 76 40 102 0 0 0 103 2 0.03 10 0.005 0.4 30.4 9.7 3.9 0.04 20 1 5.9 245 7.4! .I Maximum 443 367 85 268 180 100 232 24 1.14 27.6 235 32.9 4.2 110 0.550 16.2 72 24 28-5 2.36 100 52 8.5 572 9.2 9.45 Me an 272 244 29 185 120 66 156 2.9 0.39 2.2 178 12.8 1.03 39 0.15 8.6 48 16 11.5 0.68 53 13 7.2 390 8.0 3.2 34 TABLE 4.2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)aPrior to plant operation (1970-1973) samples collected at site loca.or bMinimum, maximum and mean calculated for the period of June 1970 to December 1975.CMinimum, maximum and mean calculated for the period of January 1970 to December 1975.35

4.2.2 Water

Temperature Monthly minimum and maximum temperatures at Lock and Dam No.3 from September 5, 1969 to November 30, 1973 (before plant operation) are listed in Table 4.2-2. The temperature patterns are typical of large temperate river systems. Water tempera-tures typically remain between 0.0 and 1.70C (32-35cF) from late November through early March and rise rapidly during the spring. Maximum water temperatures were reported in July and August. The ambient temperature regimes in the area are not likely to produce any stress on the fauna that would contribute to entrainment or impingement suscepti-bility (USAEC 1973).4.2.3 Dissolved Oxygen Organisms undergoing stress as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) levels may be more susceptible to impingement and entrainment. Reduced DO levels have been shown to reduce maximum sustained swimming speed of fish (Davis et al. 1963), as well as to affect reproduction, vigor and development. Dissolved oxygen levels have been monitored in the Mississippi River near the PINGP intake canal since July 1970. The pattern of DO in the Mississippi River at PINGP is character-istic of an enriched or eutrophic lotic environment. 36 TABLE 4.2-2 OBSERVED MAXIMUM AND KINIMUM WATER TEMPERATURES IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ABOVE LOCK AND DAM NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 5, 1969 -NOVEMBER 30, 1 9 7 3 a Month January February March April May , Maximum ,cC OF 2 35 2 36 4 40 17 62 22 71 26 79 29 84 29 84 27 80 19 66 12 54 2 35 Minimum cc OF 0 32 0 32 1 33 3 37 8 47 13 55 18 65 16 60 13 55 4 40 0 32 0 32 June July August September October November December aSeptember 5, 1969 to May 3, May 4, 1971 to November 30, 1971 data from USAEC (1973);1973 data from NSP (1972-1974) 37 Significant fluctuations in DO occur over the course of the year and during the diel cycle. Maximum monthly DO levels show supersaturation levels, especially during the spring and summer, whereas minimum levels are, in many cases, significantly undersaturated. Surface waters may contain 2 to 3 times more DO than bottom waters. Measurements taken from 1970 to 1975 in the Mississippi River near the intake canal show that DO levels fell below 5 mg/1 only once (to 3.65 mg/l on August 3, 1972), during that period (Figure 4.2-3).During the past 4 years, DO levels in the river near the intake canal and in the main channel have generally in-creased, probably as a result of improved waste treatment in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. No critically low dissolved oxygen levels (below 5 mg/i) have been reported since August 1972. Thus, it appears that ambient levels of DO will not contribute to the susceptibility of organisms to entrainment or impingement. Dissolved oxygen within the intake and recirculation canals was monitored in 1975 (Table 4.2-3). DO readings in the intake and recirculation canal were also taken in 1974 during one unit operation. DO was measured at two stations within 38 20 19.5 mg/I jAugusi, 1973 MAXIMUM MINIMUM 15-z 0>- L.i X 0 t.U)Q 5-L I-"* 3.65 mg/I (AfigustI 1971 JAN I FEB I MAR 1 APR-I MAY i JUN 1 JUL 1 AUG 1-SEP I OCT I NOV (MONTHS)FIGURE 4.2-3 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM MONTHLY DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR THE PINGP INTAKE CANAL, JULY 1970 -DECEMBER 1975 (FROM MILLER 1971-1976) aMeasured at surface, middepth and bottom bMeasured at Prairie Island Station B- 'Figure 4.3-2) (1970-1972)(Figure 4.3-3) (1973-1975) 5)2)and X-1 TABLE 4.2-3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN THE INTAKE CANAL AND RECIRCULATION CANAL, JANUARY 1.5 TO DECEMBER 19, 1975 Station XI Intake Canal At Skimmer Wall X2 Intake Canal After Recirculation Water Added X3 Recirculation Canal D)ate 1/15 2/1.8 3/il 4/22 5/20 Co 6/24 7/24 9/2 9/16 10/14 11/25 12/19 T M B T M B T M 13.85 9.6 8.15 7.1 9.5 5.8 8.05 9.05 11.3 12.9 13.0 9,6 11.1 11i.0 8.1 9.9 12.4 9.6 10.9 13.05 7.0 10.5 5.9 8.0 9.5 10.25 13.0 9.15 8.95 9.7 10.0 9.0 9.7 9.45 9.35 9.7 8.75 8.6 9.55 8.2 7.3 9.8 7.15 9.65 7.75 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.8 8.65 9.55 B 8.7 8.7 9.55 8.15 7.1 10.0 7.1 9.1 7.75 8.3 8.0 8.6 T = Top M = Middepth B = Bottom the intake canal (Xl and X2) and one station in the re-circulation canal (see Figure 4.3-4).DO levels'in the intake canal at the skimmer wall ranged from 5.8 to 13.85 mg/l, with lowest levels being reported in July. DO measurements at Station X2 were taken during the first 3 months of 1975, and indicated that levels followed those at the skimmer wall and, to a greater degree, the recirculation canal. Recirculation water showed relatively high DO levels throughout the year, ranging between 7.1 mg/l and 9.8 mg/l (Table 4.2-3).4.2.4 Other Existing or Planned Stresses The major factor contributing to the eutrophic character of the Mississippi River near PINGP is the cumulative effect of effluents from the Twin Cities, approximately 28 miles (45 kmn)upstream of the site.In the PINGP area, maintenance dredging of the navigation channel has been required once since 1930: in 1950 the Army Corps of Engineers removed 150,000 cubic yards of material. Barge traffic on the river causes resuspension of particulate matter.There are no other known planned stresses to the Mississippi River near PINGP.41

4.3 AQUATIC

ECOLOGY The biotic community of the Mississippi River near PINGP has been studied since 1969. Dr. Alan J. Brook of the University of Minnesota began phytoplankton surveys in 1969 and NSP began monitoring other biotic groups in 1970. These environmental monitoring programs are continuing as outlined in the Environ-mental Technical Specifications for PINGP.4.3.1 Trophic Structure The aauatic communities of the PINGP area of the Mississippi River may be characterized as typical of large midwest rivers and as having a trophic status of "eutrophic". Major factors affecting the river ecology are the proximity of the Twin Cities, the lock and dam system, the wing-dam system, barge traffic, and the numerous side channels and associated lakes of the Mississippi River. Particularly in the PINGP area, the river has a dual character: lotic in the main channel and lentic in the associated side channels and lakes, such as Sturgeon Lake. The planktonic communities in the PINGP area are well developed due to the impoundments and the numerous slackwater areas associated with the river channel.The flushing effect of the river is somewhat compensated by recruitment from associated lentic waters.42 The food web of the Mississippi River near PINGP is very complex due to the interaction of the lotic and lentic environments. Benthic macroinvertebrates, excluding most molluscs, are an important link in adult fish food chains.Benthos of the PINGP area depends largely upon detritus and plankton within the water column, as evidenced by the large numbers of filter feeders in the benthic community. Thus, the planktonic input from the associated lentic habitats may be one of the major "fuels" for the ecosystem near PINGP.4.3.2 Primary Producers Primary production in the PINGP area results from phyto-plankton, periphyton and macrophytes. Periphyton and macro-phytes are restricted to areas of favorable habitat and are thus excluded from much of the deep river channel. Phyto-plankton is likely the most important source of primary production (see 4.3.1) and, due to its potential for being entrained, is the primary producer that will be emphasized in this report. Primary production in the Mississippi River near PINGP may be somewhat depressed because of turbidity caused by barge traffic on the river.4.3.2.1 Phytoplankton The phytoplankton studies which began in 1969 (Brook 1971)have continued to the present (Brook 1972; Brook 1973; Baker and Baker 1974, 1975, 1976; Baker 1975, 1976). The following generalizations are derived from all the cited studies.43 The phytoplankton associations of the PINGP area are typical of large rivers (Hynes 1972) and are dominated by diatoms most of the year. The dominant diatoms were species of Stephanodiscus and Cyclotella. Benthic diatoms (species of Navicula, Nitzschia and Synedra) were also common. While the centric diatoms tended to dominate much of the year, during the six years of phytoplankton studies at PINGP there were varying degrees of abundance of greens and blue-greens in summer and early autumn. Cryptophytes were usually abun-dant in late summer due to the influence of the St. Croix River. Brook (1972) reported large concentrations of Ankistrodesmus falcatus and Scenedesmus species in the summer and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Anabaena species in late summer and considered the area eutrophic, based on the Nygaard Quotient of 18.5.Densities often reached 10,000 to 20,000 organisms/ml during spring and fall peaks. Lower densities occurred in 1972 and were attributed to high river flows. The studies con-cluded that flow is the most important determinant in algal density, phytoplankton densities being inversely proportional to flow. Baker (1975) states that "phytoplankton concentration near Prairie Island approaches the upper limit that is found in any aquatic system".44 Production and productivity of the phytoplankton at PINGP have been studied using chlorophyll, biovolume, suspended particle mass and dissolved oxygen methods. Baker (1975) considered summer productivity relatively similar from 1970 through 1974. Productivity was generally higher in Sturgeon Lake than in the main channel of the Mississippi River. Within Sturgeon Lake there was often an increase in productivity along its downstream axis. Baker (1976) considers the phytoplankton of the PINGP area "nutrient-unlimited" and feels that the only productivity-limiting factors are light and the flushing rate of the Mississippi River.4.3.2.2 Periphyton Since periphyton is composed of largely sessile algae, it has little potential for entrainment at PINGP. The only organisms that will be entrained will be those that are scoured free from substrates and enter the phytoplankton community. Periphyton studies at PINGP started in 1972 (NSP 1973) using glass slide artificial substrate samplers and chlorophyll a analyses. Baker (1974) started analyses of community com-position in 1972 and continued in 1973, 1974 (Baker 1974) and 1975 (Baker 1975). Periphyton densities were generally maximum in summer months and resulted from several diatom 45 species. Production was not considered limited by nutrients, but by light and temperature, depending on the season.The communities of the main channel were composed of numerous centric diatoms (many of which were planktonic in origin) as well as typical pennate attached taxa. In early winter the diatoms Stephanodiscus niagarae and Cyclotella kutzingiana were abundant and were likely of planktonic origin. Early spring communities were dominated by Gomphonema species, Nitzschia dissipata and Cocconeis placentula. Later in spring Melosira varians became abundant and, along with species of Fragilaria, Nitzschia, Navicula and Gomphonema, dominated the collection until late fall. Navicula cincta and Nitzschia dissipata were the dominant species.4.3.2.3 Aquatic Macrophytes Aquatic macrophytes are generally not considered very significant as a source of food in lotic food webs. However, as a habitat former they are very significant; in particular, macrophytes provide important cover for fish and often serve as spawning and nursery areas. Macrophytes have been. studied in the .PING2 area from 1970 to the -present. (MillerJ1971, 1972;Vose 1974; Mueller 1975,-1976). 46 Mueller (1975, 1976) examined submerged macrophytes and found the major plants to be Potamogeton crispus, P. nodosus, P. pectinatus and Vallisneria americana. The plant beds were similar in location (Figure 4.3-1) in both years although the densities of plants were somewhat less in 1975, probably due to high waters. The main channel of the river is essentially lacking in macrophytes; protected areas such as upper Sturgeon Lake support an abundant flora. The area immediately surrounding the intake supports little vegetation.

4.3.3 Zooplankton

Zooplankton, while of limited trophic significance to most lotic systems, is entrainable and thus is potentially subject to impact from plant operation. Zooplankton studies' at PINGP began in 1970 (Miller 1971) and continued to the present (Miller 1972, 1973; Szluha 1974, 1975; Daggett 1976;Middlebrook 1975, 1976).Trends in seasonal species succession and density peaks were similar for the five years of study. However, total zooplankton densities varied considerably from year to year. In 1974, mean annual densities ranged from 200 to 323/liter and monthly values often exceeded 500/liter, whereas in 1975 mean annual densities ranged between 68 and 129/liter and monthly values did not exceed 400/liter. 47 )7 SUBSTATIC PRAIRIE I$LAND [GENERATING !PLANT 0 cj C: SCALE Soo 0 500 1000 1000 0 1000 200o0 3C0 4000 FIGURE 4.3-1 AREAS OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP, 1975 (FROM MUELLER 1976) (Sheet 1 of 2)48 Code: a. Curled pondweed = Potamogeton crispus (L.)b. River pondweed = Potamogeton nodosus (Poir.)c. Sago pondweed = Potamogeton pectinatus (L.)d. Wild celery = Vallisneria americana (Michx.)Area 1. a, b, c 2. -3. -4.C 5. a, b, 6.- a, b, 7. a, b, 8. a, c C C C 9.10.A.1 A.2 A.3 a a, b, c, d a c a, c FIGURE 4.3-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)49 Seasonal trends in densities indicated maxima in summer or fall and minima. in winter and spring.Rotifers generally dominated the zooplankton of the PINGP area, as they usually do in river systems (Hynes 1972).Dominant rotifer taxa included Brachionus angularis, B. calyciflorus, B. budapestinensis, B. caudatus, Kellicottia longispina, Keratella cochlearis, K. guadrata, Polyarthra spp. and Synchaeta spp. Daggett (1976) considers the abundance of Brachionus species to indicate eutrophy.Crustaceans were seldom dominant at the PINGP site, although in June 1974 Cyclops vernalis, Daphnia sp. and copepod nauplii dominated samples. Protozoans or copepods occasionally dominated winter or spring samples.4.3.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates of the Mississippi River near PINGP have been studied since July 1970. Preoperational information comprises about 3-1/2 years of study and operational informa-tion presently includes 2 years of study.Several different collecting techniques were used to sample the different types of aquatic habitats near PINGP. Sub-strates in the main river channel and near the plant are 50 composed of sand, silt and organic muck which are continually shifting. The Army Corps of Engineers artificial wing dams and shore stabilization areas are constructed of willow and rock. Quantitative samples of soft substrates (Miller 1973, McConville 1974, Haynes 1976) were taken with Ponar or Peterson grabs. Quantitative samples of the wing dams and shore stabilization construction were taken with artificial substrates. The artificial substrates used included a design by Miller (1971) which is composed of two concrete and two balsa wood blocks; this design was used for about 2-1/2 years in the preoperational .study. Other types used included a concrete block sampler similar to that of Britt (1955), a barbeque basket sampler (Mason et al. 1967), and the Hester-Dendy multiplate sampler (Hester and Dendy 1962).Qualitative samples, collected by dip nets and hand picking, were used to describe the benthos of shallow littoral zones that are not sampled by quantitative methods.The organisms which colonized artificial substrates upstream of PINGP will be emphasized because they represent the species which could potentially be entrained through the phenomenon of drift.The stations used by Miller (1972) in his preoperational studies of 1971 and 1972 are shown in Figure 4.3-2..51 N iN STURGEON LAKE-P iN -= KE-Y SBENTHO SAMPLIN STAION FIGURE 4.3-2 BENTHOS SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR PINGP, 1971 -1972 (FROM MILLER 1972)52 Miller (1972) experimented with various exposure times and finally decided on a 30 day exposure period for coloniziation. The 1971 studies show that Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Diptera are the major macroinvertebrates to colonize the Miller substrate apparatus (Table 4.3-1). In 1972, these same three orders dominated the artificial substrates (Table 4.3-2).In October, 1973 an additional series of sampling stations was established in the area of the intake, recycle and discharge canals (Figure 4.3-3). Station X-l, a control station, was located immediately outside the skimmer wall of the intake canal. Station X-2 was located immediately outside the screenhouse within the intake canal. Station X-3 was in the recycle canal above the juncture of recycled water and incoming make-up water from the river.Unit 1 of PINGP began operation in 1974, although the plant was in operation for only four periods during this year (Simonet 1975). McConville (1974) states that the intermittent operation had a minimal effect on the river environment and, although subtle changes may have begun to occur, long term studies would be required to substantiate them.53 TABLE 4.3-1 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1971 (FROM MILLER 1972)Transect Trichoptera Ephemeroptera Diptera Other Minn W 42.3 17.9 38.7 1.2 Min C 71.7 14.7 10.6 2.6 Wisc W 59.7 8.3 26.4 5.5 C 32.3 14.1 30.3 23.2 W 32.1 5.6 47.1 15.1 M- n C 68.7 8.9 14.9 7.4 A cW 29.3 8.6 60.8 1.0 Wisc C 46.0 20.1 22.2 11.1 W 37.5 14.6 20.8 27.1 B-1 C 13.2 17.3 4.0 65.3 Bi W 42.0 4.0 52.0 2.0 C 25.0 65.0 8.8 1.2 Minn W 50.8 22.1 27.1 0.0 B-2 C 70.6 10.2 8.0 0.0 W 56.9 8.8 32.1, 2.2 Center C 68.1 13.0 14.0 4.6 aSee Figure 4.3-2; Minn = Minnesota side, Wisc = Wisconsin side, Center = island that divides channel from main channel; W =balsa wood blocks, C = concrete blocks 0 54 TABLE 4 .3-2 2 ESTIMATED DENSITY OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (NUMBERS/M COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATES DURING 1972 (FROM MILLER 1973)(a)Station Substrate (b) June AIW AIM A2W A2M TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC TW TC BW BC 418 215.514 215 1084 122 1027 151 533 590 230 237 209 108 114 50 399 79 647 50 609 187 704 158 1065 165 1103 179 July 1655 280 1349 266 2682 294 2149 287 1369 266 1617 244 742 208 932 280 742 151 780 65 647 115 894 108 September 1217 129 932 108 6714 1586 7418 1227 4356 431 3443 545 8407 1062 8083 1127 1484 309 2073 287 913 36 609 93 October 4413 395 3214 395 3424 545 3538 560 3119 416 3899 251 5744 388 4717 667 9015 158 782 647 29 742 187 1407 93 913 43 BIW BIM B2M aSee Figure 4.3-2; W = Wisconsin side, M = Minnesota side= top wood; TC = top concrete; BW = bottom wood; BC = bottcm concrete 55 0 400 1 inch -400 Ft Intake Canal S TLU R G E 0 N L A KE xl L Dii--Skimmer wall X2 slant Site r X3 Recycling Canal-Y21 FIGURE 4.3-3.ADDITIONAL BENTHOS SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR PINGP, 1973 (FROM McCONVILLE 1974)56 In addition to the regular baseline studies, an emergence study was conducted between May 13 and-December 6, 1974 (McConville 1975). Emergent organisms were collected with black light insect traps at four stations (Figure 4.3-4).Some of the insects, in particular the caddisflies, emerge by migrating from the bottom of the water column and those emerging near the intake could be susceptible to entrainment at PINGP. Table 4.3-3 describes the numbers and percentage composition of the adults collected in the study.The colonization period for the two types of artificial substrate studies was 30 days in 1974. Table 4.3-4 quali-tatively lists the taxa taken from concrete block samplers and barbeque basket samplers from all the control stations as well as Station X-2 in the intake and Station X-3 in the recycling channel.Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers were utilized for the colonization studies in 1975. A 6 week exposure period was allowed for colonizing the substrate with exception of the first two collection dates. Table 4.3-5 describes the mean number of organisms/m2 and mean relative abundance of taxa per colonization period in stations above or in the intake structure plus Station X-3 in the recycle channel.57 STURGEON LAKE&WA250 METE IWATER FLOW-RS,/2 tTRAP ORIENTATION MISSISSIPPI Xi--INTAKE RIVER GENERATING PLANT FIGURE 4.3-4 LIGHT TRAP STATIONS USED IN EMERGENCE STUDIES AT PINGP, 1974 (FROM McCONVILLE 1975)58 TABLE 4.3-3 COMPOSITION OF ORDERS OF EMERGENT AQUATIC INSECTS COLLECTED FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, MAY 13 THROUGH DECEMBER 6, 1974 (FROM McCONVILLE 1975)a Order/Family Sturgeon Lake X-I Recycle Canal Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 151277 81.89 9155 52.26 8113 61.78 Psychomiidae 13406 7.26 4228 24.14 2078 15.82 Leptoceridae 7240 3.90 1171 6.68 1507 11.47 Hydroptilidae 12801 6.93 2960 16.89 1428 10.87 Other 4 *,? 3

• 7 *Total 184728 100.00 17517 100.00 13133 100.00 Ephemeroptera Caenidae 740 51.75 2980 86.85 1766 98.77 Ephemeridae 670 46.85 439 12.80 8 0.45 Other 20 1.40 12 0.35 14 0.78 Total 1430 100.00 3431 100.00 1788 100.00 Diptera Chironomidae 440602 99.13 71581 98.69 80679 99.20 Other 3888 0.87 947 1.31 647 0.80 Total 444490 100.00 72528 100.00 81326 100.00 aSee Figure 4.3-4 b less than 0.10 percent TABLE 4.3-4 (Sheet 1 of 2)MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGPa IN 1974 (FROM McCONVILLE 1975)Macroinvertebrates Gastropoda R sp.Acari Hydrachnae Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dineutus sv.Berosus sp.Hydrochus sp.Hydraena sp.Diptera Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Chaoborus sp.Simuliidae Ephemeroptera Baetis sp.Psuedocloeon sp.Baetisca sp.Caenis sp.Hexagenia sp.Cinygma sp.Rhithrogena sp.Stenonema sp.Isonychia sp.Lepidoptera Elophila sp.Odonata Anisoptera Zygoptera P lecoptera Alloperla sp.Taeniovteryx sp.Perlidae Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche sp.Hydropsyche sp.Athripsodes sp.Oecetis sp.Block Samplers B-1 X-1 X-2 X-3 Basket Samplers SL B-1 X-1 X-2 X-3* ** *** * * ** * ******** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * * *** * ~* ** * * ** * * *** * * ,.************** ** * * .******* * **** * ** * * *********** * * ** * * *** * ** *. ** * ******60 TABLE 4.3-4 (Sheet 2 ofý 2)Block Samplers B-I X-1 X-2 X-3 Basket Samplers SL B-1 X-1 X-2 X-3 Macroinvertebrates Pycnopsyche sp.Neureclipsis sp.Polycentropus sp.** ** ****** ** * * *** * *Malacostraca Amphipoda Decapoda Isopoda Asellus sp.*** * ~** * * * *Hirudinae* * * ** * * ** * * ** * * **Oligochaeta Naididae Tubificidae
• ** *Ectoprocta Phylactolaemata Cristatellidae (only as statoblasts)

Plumatellidae,** ** * * * ** ~* * ** * *Nemata Turbellaria Tricladida Hydrozoa Hydra sp.* * * ** * * *** ** ****a. See Figures 4.3- 2 and 4.3-4 for location of stations 61 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet I of 9)BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM HESTER-DENDY MULTIPLATE SAMPLERS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP IN 1975 (ADAPTED FROM:HAYNES 1976)Station a ,S.L. B-I X-1 X-2 X-3 Numberb Percentc Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent FEBRUARY 3, 1975 Taxa Turbellaria Nexnertina Oligochacta Naididab 10.8 <1.0 43.2--54.0 1.4 1.7-3294.0 99.0 3024.0 96.2Gastropoda Physa app.Crustacea flyalella azteca Ephemeroptera Tricorythodes ap.Total Individuals Total Taxa--10.8 -1.0 10.8 <1.0 10.8 <1.0 3142.9 0 10.8 3326.4<1.0 0 045 4 5 0 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet Taxa S.L. -B-I NumberPerWeUnt Number Percent 2 of 9 )Station8 X-1 Number Percent MARCH 3, 1975 X-2 Number Percent 16.2 <1.0 21.6 <1.0-X-3 Number Percent Turbellaria Nemertina Nematoda Oligochaeta Naididae Gastropoda Physa Opp.Diptera Cr cotoeuapp. Total Diptere Total Individuals Total Taxa 5.4 100.0 10.8 5.4 11.1 5.6--4617.0 99.0 37.8 38.9-43.2 44.4 a%S -10.8--10.8 5.4 4665.6<1.0<1.0 97.2 0 0 4 TABIB 4.3-5 (Sheet Taxa S.L. B-i Nuberb Percent: Number Percent 3 of 9)Stationa X-1 Number Percent APRIL 15, 1975 X-2 Number Percent X-3 Number Percent Turbellaria Hemertina Oligochaeta Naididae Gastropoda Physa app.Diptera Crcot! us spp.Tot eraTotal Individuale Total Taxa 340.2 42.0 226.8 46.7 232.2 28.7 118.8 24.4 237.6 29.3 135.0 27.8 5.4 d 5.4 d 5.4-5.4" 810.0 486.0 3 4 1.1 1.1 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet 4 of 9 )Taxa S.L. B-I Number- Percent- Number Percent Stationa X-i1 Number Percent X-2 X-3 Number Percent Number Percent MAY 27, 1975 Turbellaria Naemertina 183.6 3.1 -64.8 1.1 -0)Ln Ectoprocta Plumatella repens Oligachaeta Naldidae Gastropoda Physa app.Ephemeroptera Caenis op.Total Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Ipoperla op.Total Plecoptera Trichoptera A g 'lea ap.thr-Uipsodes tarel-punctatus llydrop~syche ANNi Total Trichoptera Diptera Conchapelopia ep.Cricotopus app.Dtcrotendies sp.Cl ypotdpea op.Labrundinia sp.Parach ronomus ap.Polypedilum (Pentapedllum) up.Bec-t-r~cadius ap.SImulium jenningsii.nilentified Chironomidae Total Diptera Total Individuals Total Taxa 205.2 3.5+ e +e 5.4 5.9 5.4 5.9 5.4 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 21.6 5.4 59.4 91.B 178.2 237.6 610.2 394.2 43.2.21.6 685.3 10. 8 2393.6 799.2<1.0<1.0 1.0 1.6 3.1 4.1 10.5 6.8<1.0<1.0 11.8<1.0 41.0 13.7 5.4 75.6 5.9 82.4 5.9 94.1--5.4 5196.3 09.1 86.4 5833.4 91.9 17 4 TABLE 4.3-5 t 5 of 9 )S.L.Number" Percento B-i Number Percent Stationa X-1 Number Percent X-2 Number Percent X-3 Number Percent Neamertina JULY 2 and 8, 1975-18.9 <1.0--oW Ectoproota Plumatella repens Oligoohaeta Naididae Tubifioidae Total Oligochaeta Gastropoda Physa opp.Crustaoea 1_yaleLla azteca Ephemeroptera Baetis up. B C op.lleptagenia flavescena Potamanthus op.Pseudocloeon parvulum S inegrum S. interpunctatum Stenonema up. A Stenonema sp. B Tricorythode. Sp.Total Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Perlesta placida Trichoptera op.Hydroptila up.HM21rosacne orris Neure .7 a up.P1y~cent us op.-oralTrchoptera DipterA Conchapelopia up.Corynoneura up.£S.osapp.Dicrotendi e up.F lea up.GTly , 9 op.ParachironomEUs up.Polypedilum Pentapedilithu) up.Pr0cladiusjiPp. Fs'ectrocladius up.Rheotan tarsus up.S tenochirnomus up.Total Diptera Total Individuals Total Taxa 10.8 10. B-340.2 15.5 --<1.0 2.7 <1.0<1.0 342.9 15.6 ---2.7 <1.0-10.8 <1.0 194.4 64.8 259.2 2.7<1.0 3.6 97.2 10.8 10.8 118.8 54.0 291.6 2.7<1.0<1.0 3.3 1.5 8.1 194.4 2.7 18.9 2.7 2.7 10.8 232.2 8.9<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 10.6 21.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 32.4<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 1.3+21.6 1.0 540.0 5724.0 172.8 6436. 8 151.2 43.2 129.6 172,8 496.8 72ý1 4. 4 7.5 79.3 2.4 89.2 2.1<1.0 10.8 10.8 75.6 151.2 280.8 529.2 86.4 10.8 10.8 2473.2<1.0<1.0 2.1 4.2 7.0 14.7 2.4<1.0<1.0 68.6<1.0<1.0 3.9<1.0 76.9 2.7 210.6 78.3 291.6 32.4 24.3:1061.1 54.0 70.2 10.8 35.1 18.9 1306.8 2192.4<1.0 9.6 3.6 13.3 1.5 1,1 48.4 2.5 3.2<1.0 1.6<1.0 59.6 2.7 137.7 5.4 2.7 148.5 72.9 108.0 2.7 1771.2 108.0 110.7 97.2 2.7 2273.4 2467.8<1.0 5.6<1.0<1.0 6.0 3.0 4.4<1.0 71.8 4.4 4.5 3.9<1.0 92.1 1.8 2.4 6.0 32.4 10.8 140.4 10.8 2775.6 3607.2 10 19 20 19 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet 6 of 9)Taxa 8 'L.Nmer's Percent'B-i Number Percent Stationa X-1 Number Percent X-2 Number Percent X-3 Number Percent AUGUST 19, 1975 Hlydrozoa Turbellaria Nematoda Oligochaeta Naididae Ephemeroptera Beetle ep. B e p. c Cani p.e e flavescens Iaonychia op.Stenonema exiquum S. guilnguepinatum Stenonema up. B Stenonema up.Tricorythodes up.Total Ephomeroptera 861.3 1.0 ,10.8 A 10 648.0 5.3 507.6 <1.0 5313.6 43.8 74884.5 96.6 194.4 43.2 43.2 129.6 21.6 21.6 453.6 2.5<1.0<1.0 1.7<1.0 5.8 16.9 55.4 12.2 84.5 129.6 75.6 21.6 194.4 21.6 97.2 43.2 583.2 712.8 10.8 4546.8 345.6 291.6 280.8 6188.4 1.8 1.0<1.0 2.7<1.0 1.3<1.0.8.1 9.9<1.0 63.0 4.8 4.0 3.9 85.8 5.4 10.8 13.5 5.4 62.1 2.7 99.9<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 ,1.4 1.0 2.3<1.0 2.8 9.5 3.6<1.0 16.5 2.7 2.7<1.0 Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche up. 1317 ,yrpyche frisoni I1. orr 4320 eurl sina op. 950 Polycentropus op.fla~71va Unidentified -lydropaychidae Total Trichoptera 6588 Coleoptera Stenelmie Bpp.18.9 124.2 421.2 162.0 5.4 731.7 86.4 32.4 5270.4 10.8 140.4 172.8 5713.2<1.0<1.0 43.5<1.0 1.2 1.4 47.1 156.6 64.8 21.6 243.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 43.2 <1.0-2.7 <1.0 Diptera A~Dix3~esmia op.Conchape1opia op.DIicrotedi~ea p.G~ypooen I peu op.IHererod~romlaopT. Perachironomus op.(Pentapedillum. op.Psectrocladius op.Rheotanytaruu op.Tr ibeloouop. Total Diptera Total individuals 86.4 1.1 410.4 5.3 237.6 21.6 756.0 7797.6 162.0 32.4 194.4 10.8 399.6 7214.4 2.,2<1.0 2.7<1.0 5.5 194.4 5.4 3346.9 2.7 5.4 16.2 29.7 5.4 3608.1 4439.7 4.4<1.0 75.4<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 01.3 3.0<1.0 9.7 97.2 10.8 270.0 10.8 21.6 43.2 453.6 12128.4<1.0<1.0 2.2<1.0<1.0 56.7 21.6 912.6 2.7<1.0<1. 0 1.2<1.0<1.0 1.3<1.0 2.7 3.7 996.3 77508.9 Total Tax&13 18 19 14 14 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet 7 of 9)Taxa Stationa S.L. B-I X-1 X-2 X-3 Number" Percent' Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent SEPTEMBER 29, 1975--27.0 <1.0--27.0 <1.0 0C O0 Hydrozoa Turbellarla Ectoprocta Pectinatella magnifica Plumatella repens Endoprocta Oligochaeta Naldidae Ephemeroptera Baet'e up. C Isonychia op.Stenonema integrum i. interpunctatum Stenonema op. A Total Ephemeroptera Odonata Enallagma up.Trichoptera CheugatoIe,,h8 up.y-Yopche fr inoni H. orris op.poycentropul up.Potamy a flava Unidenti fied Ilydropsychidae Total Trichoptera Coleoptera Stenelmis app.Diptera Ablabesmyla sp.Conchapelopia op.sjcto u app.Dicrotend pea sp.~jp~~d eap.Parachironomus op.Pypedoum (Penta edilum) op.Psectrocladius sp.Rheoytnarau op.Unidentified Chironomidae (pupae)Total Diptera Total Individuala .Total Taxa+++-267.3 8.3 48599.9 85.4 159494.4 99.4 10.8 10.8 21.6<1.0<1.0<1.0 21.6 37.8 67.5 126.9<1.0<1.0 1.1 2.1 8.1 2.7 10.8<1.0<1.0<1.0+ --+----+-10.6 <1.0 326.7 1304.2 275.4 10.8 367.2 5.9 23.5 5.0<1.0 6.6 756.0 2646.0 129.6 86.4 406.0 12.7 44.5 2.2 1.5 8.2 4.4 73. 4 27.0 245.7 194.4 10.8<1.0 7.6 6.0<1.0 124.2 10.8 7732.8 32.4 218.7 21.6 8140.5 1036.8 18.7 259.2 3321.1 59.9 4363.2 477.9 14.8<1.0<1.0 13.6<1.0<1.0<1.0 14.3<1.0<1.0<I. 0 108.0 27.0<1.0<1.0 27.0 <1.0 162.0 <1.0-5.4 <1.0 48.6 121.5 1428.3<1.0 2.2 25.8 97.2 140.3 874.7 1.6 2.4 14.7 2 .1 118.8 2251.8<1.0 3.7 69.9 10.8 2.7 145.8 617.1 27.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 75.6 1.4 523.8 9.5-18.9 302.4 5.1 54.0 43.2 <1.0<1.0 1.7 5.4<1.0 54.0 2197.8 5540.5 13 39.7 1457.8 24.5 2451.6 5947.9 3223.6 14 0@14---54.0 <1.0 76.1 164.7 <1.0 752.1 <1.0 56905.1 11 160462.5 10 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet 8 of 9)Taxa-s. t. B-1 Number" Porce-n-tu Number Perce-nt Stationa X-1 X-2 X-3 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent NOVEMBER 11, 1975--243.0 <1.0 Hlydrozoa Turbellaria Nematoda 167.4 <1.0.... 27.0 <1.0 54.0 <1.0 108.0<1.0 324.0 <1.0 621.0<1.0 0., Ectoprocta Plumatella repens Oligochaeta Naididae Ephemeroptera Stenonema Integru Total Ephemeroptera Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche op.11yd~ropaIchorr__s Nerclipsls sp.-Po ycantropuIs up.Potma flava Total richoptera Diptera Conchapelopla up.Crc2oto us opp.Glyptotenipes up.Orthocladlus app.Psectrocladlus up.ihiotan tarsus up.Total Diptera Total Individuals 19826.1 09.5 36561.6 97.7 126009.0 99.4 233604.0-72.0 <1.0-72.0 <1.0 99.7 59.4 351.0 62.1 496.8 969.3 16.2 159.3 135.0 837.0 1147.5 22164.3<1.0 1.6<1.0 2.2 4.4<1.0<1.0<1.0 3.0 5.2 3.6 10.8 36.0 43.2 93.6 36.0 36.0 381.6 36.0 72.0 36.0 597.6<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0"1.6 108.0 108.0<1.0<1.0 234225.0 37432.8 126711.0 Total Taxa 11 13 5 2 TABLE 4.3-5 (Sheet 9 of 9)S.L. B-I Numberý Percentc Number Percent Taxa Turbellaria X-i X-2 Humber Percent Number Percent 13.5.0 <1.0 783.0 1.8 umbe.r P2ercent 13905.0 12.1 Nematoda Ectoprocta Plumatella repens 01igochaeta Naididae Gastropods Physa app.Trichoptera ilydropoyche orris Total TricrioFt-te-{a Diptera Cricotou ap.L-ps app.GEyptotendines op.Poypedium Pentapedilum} op.Total Di---ptera 42228.0 97.4 100927.0 87.8 54.0 <1.0 54.0 <1.0 54.0 <1.0 54.0 1.0-j CO 54.0 27.0 27.0 108.0<1.0<1.0<1.0'1.0 Total Individuals 43362.0 a 114886.0 3 Total Taxa aSee Figure 4.3-2 1 bMean number of organisms per wa2 cMean corcant relative abundance dDead at time of collection, not included in totals a+ -present as colonies; not included in totals The faunal composition shown in the colonization studies of 1974 and 1975 is important because the community formed is a result of drift phenomenon. Thus, the taxa of this community could potentially be entrained. During the 1975 survey a total of 147 macroinvertebrate taxa was collected by all sampling methods (Table 4.3-6).Fifty-one taxa were exclusive to qualitative sampling, 13 to Petersen grab-sampling, and 23 to the multiplate samplers.Throughout all years of study, the quantitative grab samples contained mainly 0ligochaeta and Chironomidae. Numerous Mollusca were also collected in the grab samples.71 TABLE 4.3-6 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP IN 1975 (FROM HAYNES 1976) (Sheet 1 of 4)Petersen Multlplate Qualitative Taxa Dredge Sampler Samples Porifera +Hydrozoa +Turbellaria + + +Nemertina +Nematoda + +Ectoprocta Pectinatella manifica Leidy + + +Plurnatella repens (Linnaeus) + +Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis Leidy +- +Annelida Oligochaeta Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard + +Other Tubificidae + + +Naididae* + + +Dina lateralis (Verrill) +Erpobdella punctata (Leidy) +Helobdella stagunlis (Linnaeus) +Placobdella montifera Moore +P. parasitica (Say) +Unidentified Hirudinea +Mollusca Gastropoda Amnicola sp. + +Bulimnaea EeEasoma (Say) +Ferrissia sp. + +Goniobasis sp. + +Gyraulus sop. + +Heliosoma spp. + +Lymnaea sp. + +Physa spp. + + +Pleurocera sp. + +Stagnicola sp. + +Valvata tricarinata (Say) +Unidentified Gastropoda +72 TABLE 4.3-6 (Sheet 2 of 4)Petersen Multiplate Qualitative Taxa Dredge Sampler Samples Pelecypoda Lampsilis sp. +Leptodea fragilis Rafinesque +Pisidium sp. +Sphaerium sp. + +Unidentified Unionaceae +Arthropoda Hydracarina +Crustacea Asellus sp. + + +Crangonyx gracilis group Smith +Gammarus lacustris Sars +G. pseudolimnaeus Bousfield +Gammarus sp. +Hyalella azteca (Saussure) + +Orconectes sp. +Collembola Isotomurus palustris (Muller) +Ephemeroptera Bactis sp. A +Baetis sp. B +Baetis sp. C +Baetisca bajkovi Neave +Baetisca sp. +Caenis sp. + + +Ephemerella temporalis McDunnough +Ephoron album (Say) +-eptagenia flavescens (Walsh) +Hexagenia limbata (Serville) +Isonychia sp. +Leptophlebia sp. +Metretopus borealis Eaton +Potamanthus sp. + +Pseudocloeon parvulum HcDunnough + +Pseudocloeon sp. +Siphlonurus alternatus (Say) +Stenonema exiguum Traver +S. integrum (HcDunnough) + +S. interpunctatum (Say) + +S. quinguespinatum Lewis + +S. tripunctacum (Banks) +Stcnoncma sp. A +Stenonema sp. B +Tricorythodes sp. + +73 TABLE 4.3-6 (Sheet 3 of 4)Peterscn Multiplate Qualitative Taxa Dredge Sampler Samples Odonata Argia sp. +Enallagma sp. + +Unknown Zygoptera +Plecoptera Isoperla bilineata (Say) + +Isoperla sp. +Perlesta placida (Hagen) +Taeneopteryx maura Pictet +Hemiptera Belastoma sp. +Corixidae +Cerris sp. +Plea striola +Ranatra sp. +Saldidae: +Trepobates sp. +Neuroptera Ciimacoa arcclaris (+Trichoptera Agraylea sp. +Athripsodes tarsi -punctatus (Vorhies) + +Cheumatopsyche sp. + + +Hydropsyche frisoni Ross +H. orris Ross + + +Hydroptila sp. + +Leptocella sp. +Neureclepsis sp. + + +Orthotrichia sp. +Polycentropus sp. + +Potamyia flava (Hagen) + + +Pycnopsyche sp. +Unidentified Hydroosychidae + +Unidentified Hvdroptilidae +Coleoptera Berosus sp. +Coptotomus nr. interrogatus (Fabricius) +Dubiraphia vitctaa (adults) (Melsheimer) +Dubiraphia sp. (larvae) + +Dineutus nr. discnlor Aube +Gyrinus sp. A +Gvrinussp. B +Haliplhs sp.74 TABLE 4.3-6 (Sheet 4 of 4)Petersen Mu~tiplate Qualitative Taxa Dredge Sampler Samples Coleoptera Helophorus sp. +Hygrotus sp. +Laccobius sp. +Liodessus sp. +Peltodytes spp. +Stenelmis spp. + + +Tropisternus lateralis (adults) (Fabricius) +Tropisternus sp. (larvae) +Unidentified Hydrophilidae +Diptera Ablabesmyia sp. + + +Chaoborus punctipennis (Say) + +Chironomis spp. + +Coelotanypus sp. +Conchapelopia sp. + + +Corynoneura sp. + +Cricotopus spp. + + +Cryptochironomus spp. + + +Dicrotendipcs sp. + +Endochironomus sp. + +Eukiefferiella sp. +Glyptotendioes sp. + + +Hemerodromia sp. + + +Labrundinia sp. +Micropsecta sp. +Nanocladius sp. +Orthocladius spp. +Palpomyia spp. group + +Parachironomus demijerea +Parachironomus sp. + +Polypedilum (Fallax) sp. +P. (Pentaoedilum) sp. + + +Procladius spp. + +Psectrocladius sp. +Rheotanytarsus sp. +Simulium jenningsii Malloch + +Stenochironomus sp. + +Tanypus sp. +Tribelos sp. + +Trissocladius sp. +Xenochironomus sp. +Unidentified Chironomidae + + +Totals 147 54 69 105 Mixed populations of Nais spp. and Pristina sp., the former predominating. 75 4.3.5 Fish and Fisheries Fishes in the vicinity of PINGP have been the subject of intensive studies since 1970. Additional data on commercial fishing are available from the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources. Species collected at PINGP by type of gear in 1975 and species colIected by all types of gear in 1973 and 1974 are presented in Table 4.3-7. Sampling was conducted with multiple gears to reduce the inherent bias resulting-from gear selectivity. Electrofishing and seining yielded more species than the other sampling methods. However, seining data are biased against fishes which are large and occur offshore whereas electrofishing data are biased against smaller and demersal fishes. Standing crops of small fishes can be estimated from seining data for shallow waters and trawl data for deeper waters. Gill net and trap net data permit spatial comparisions of the relative numbers of the larger and most important species.Fishes of the PINGP region have been classified according to their value and size by Gustafson et al. (1976) as follows.76 TABLE 4.3-7 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC FISH NAMES AND METHODS OF FISH CAPTURE IN THE PINGP AREA, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976) (Sheet 1of 3)Method of Capture Scientific Name Trapnet Gillnet Trawl Electro-Fishing Seine 1973 1974 Common Name Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin American eel Gizzard shad Goldeye Mooneye Northern pike SCarp Brassy minnow Silvery minnow Silverchub Golden shiner Emerald shiner River shiner Common shiner Pugnose minnow Blacknose shiner Spottail shiner Red shiner Rosyface shiner Spotfin shiner Redfin shiner Mimic shiner Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Ichthyomyzon caataneus Ichthyomyzon unicuspia LepisosteuB osseus Lepisosteua piatostomus Amia calva Anquilta roatra-a.Dorosoma cepedianum Hiodon alosiodes Hiodon tergisus Eaox lucius Cyprinue carpio Hybognathus hankonsoni Hybognathus nuchalis Hybopsis atoreriana Notemigonus orysoleucaa Notropus atherinoides Notropus biennius Notropia oornutuB Notropis emiliae Notropis heterolepis Notropis hudsoniua Notropis lutrensis Notropia rubellue Notropis spilopterus Notropis umbratilis Notropia Volucel us Pimephales notatus Pimephalea promelas x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x"X.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TABLE 4.3-7 (Sheet 2 of 3)Method of Capture Trapnet Gillnet Trawl Electro-Fishing Seine 1973.Common Name Scientific Name 1974 Bullhead minnow'Carpsucker species'White sucker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Spotted sucker Silver redhorse River redhorse Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish-Tadpole madtom c Flathead catfish Trout perch Burbot White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Hybrid sunfish Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Johnny darter Pimephales eigilax.Carpiodes species Catostomus commersoni Ictiobus buballis Iotiobus cypinellus Minytrema melanops Moxostoma anisurum Moeostoma carinatum Moxostoma macrolepidotum Ictalurus melis Ictalurue natalie Ictalurus nebulosus Ictalurus punctatus Noturus gyrinus Pylodictis olivaris Percopsis omiscomaycus Lota Iota Morone chrysops Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis maoroohirus X?Micropterus dolomieui Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Pomoais nigromaculatus Etheostoma nigrum x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x'C x'C'C'C x'C x'C'C'C'C x x'C'C x x x x x'C'C x 'C'C 'C C 'x x x x x 'C x'C X x x x 'C x x 'C x x'C X 'C x'C'C'C x'C x'C'C x x'C x'C C C C X'C X'C x x'C C C X x TABLE t,5-7 (Sheet 3 of 3)Method of Capture Common Name Scientific Name Trapnet GMilinet Tfrawl Eiectro-fishing Seine 1973 1974 Yellow perch Perca fiavescena x x x x x Log perch Peraina caprodes x x x Sauger Stizoatedion canadenee x x x x x x x Walleye Stizoatedion vitreun vitreum x x x x x x x Freshwater drum Aplodinotus x x x x x x x Large rough fish (carp, carpsuckers, shorthead redhorse)Game fish (channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleye, sauger, white bass, northern pike)Panfish (rock bass, bluegill)Minnows and darters Other fish (gizzard shad, mooneye, black bullhead, freshwater drum)These categories will be used in subsequent discussions to summarize the voluminous data collected in the PINGP area.4.3.5.1 Sport Fishery In the PINGP area the angling season is continuous for all species except sturgeon. Although tip-up apparatuses can be used for ice fishing, there is little ice fishing because of ice-choked channels and treacherous conditions. A creel survey was undertaken to establish a series of guidelines or indices to be used in assessing sport fishery success, pressure, and harvest in relation to PINGP operation (Hawkinson 1974). During 1973-1975, six river sections (Figure 4.3-5) were surveyed in rotation. PINGP is located at the lower end of sections 1 and 2 and at the upper end of section 3. Section 4 includes the tail-waters of Lock and Dam No. 3.80 0 f/o I 2 , 3 4 5 6 SCALE IN MILES o i 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 1o SCALE IN KILOMETERS co a, S.N Alli:....!:..o.: FIGURE 4.3-5 CREEL SURVEY AREAS NEAR PINGP, 1973-1975 (FROM NAPLIN AND GUSTAFSON, 1975) Estimated sport harvest and catch rates of fish in the PINGP region are shown in Tables 4.3-8 through 4.3-12.Fishing pressure was very similar in 1973 and 1974 but de-clined by about 33 percent in 1975. In March and April, in the fishery in the tailwaters of the dam, there was a steady increase in fishing pressure from 18,378 man-hours in 1971 to 93,594 man-hours in 1974 and a decline to 88,855 man-hours in 1975.There is little fishing pressure in Sturgeon Lake, the main channel above the Lock and Dam No. 3 and the immediate plant area. The highest fishing pressure occurs in section 4, especially in March and April (Gustafson et al. 1976) be-cause (1) fishing is good in this section and highly publicized, (2) the section is easily accessible and easy to fish, and (3) sauger, walleyes and white bass concentrate in the tailwaters. Interviews with fishermen indicated that the most sought after species were saugers, walleyes and "anything that bites." The most commonly caught fish were walleyes, saugers, white bass and drum. The composition of the May-November sport catch was similar from 1973 through 1975, 82 00 TABLE 4.3-8 ESTIMATED HARVESTS OF THREE MAJOR GAME SPECIES CAUGHT IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP 1973 and 1974 (FROM NAPLIN AND GEIS 1975)SPECIES Date 1974 April 30-Dec. 3 Number of fish Weight of fish (kg)Kilograms per hectare White bass 10,349 6,416.4 4.01 Sauger 19,522 11,518.0 7.19 Walleye 6,342 4,756.5 2.97 Total 36,213 22,691.0 14.17 Number of 10,284 15,503 5,591 31,378 fish 1 9 7 4W e g t o 197 Weight of 6,376.1 9,146.7 4,193.4 19,716.2 May 10- fish (kg)Nov. 5 Kilograms per 3.98 5.71 2.62 12.31 hectare Number of 13,942 18,042 7,381 39,365 fish 1973 1973i0 Weight of May 10- fish (kg) 7,528.5 7,036.5 4,133.3 18,-698.3 tNov. 5 Kilograms per hectare 4.70 4.40 2.58 11.68 TABLE 4.3-10 a OVERALL CATCH RATE OF ALL ANGLERS FISHING THE PINGP AREA MgY 10 -NOVEMBER 5, 1973 AND PERCENT SUCCESSFUL ANGLERS (FROM HAWKINSON 1974) (Sheet 1 of 2)*Fishing Success (fWsh/m-h) Sectiona.1 2 4.o 3 3.0 2,643.0 5 1,820.0 6 6oo.0 Total 5,081.0 H-h sarveyed% successrul anglars 11.0 75 100 59 56 51 57 Spocies Caught Northern pike Walley*Sauger White bass Crappies Bluegill sunfish Pumpkinseed srh.Green sunfish Hlybrid sunfish L. H. bass S. H. bass Perch Flathead catfish Buckers & Rdho.carp Drum 0.50(2)0.25(l),(6)0.o0 (96)0.30(787)0.33(1) 0.29 (72)0.01 (23* (5)* (1) 0.02(10 o.16(291 0.10(62 o.14(254 0o.13 70 0.03 (6o 0.05(30 0.01 (25 o..oi (6 0.01 (10 * (1 0.02 (10 0.02 (35, a t11 a (IT 0.09 (1151 0.22(1120 0.17 (864 0.01 154* 16 0.01 (0 0.01 35 0.02 (85* (I 0.01 (25 0.02 (115)0.36 a (5)o.02 (44)0.01 (Ii)0.03 (70)0.02 (3.)0.01 (1 0.02(14)a In fish/man-hours; numbers of fish caught in parenthesis next to the rate and the man-bhours fished under the section number At least one fish caught TABLE 4.3-9 co ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF FISH HARVESTED IN THE VICINITY OF PINGP, 1975,' BASED ON OVERALL CATCH RATES AND ESTIMATED MAN-HOURS.... (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL., 1976)Mar.-Apr. only March -November 23, 1975 Section __________ 2 4' 5 6 Total Hrs. Surveyed 7795.9 16.5 4.0 4. 9980.3 1355.5 298.7 Estimated man-hours 63737 394 187 212 88855 17513 4556 111717 Species: Mooneye/goldeye 0' 0 0 0 0 0 ..0 0 Northern pike 127 0 0 0 177 70 0 223 Carp 0 0 0 0 89 158 46 293 Brown bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 53 Channel catfish 0 0 0 0 267 88 0 355 Flathead catfish 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 Burbot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White bass 0 24 0 53 5776 823 200 6876 Rock bass 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 Sunfish 64. 0 0 0 355 1190 0 1545 Smallmouth bass 0 0 0 0 177 18 0 195 Largemouth bass 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 53 Crappies 0 0 0 0 267 2487 0 2754 Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 Sauger 15042 310 0 0 22036 1313 1130 24789 Walleye 3187 167 94 53 ,4620 2855 501 8290 Freshwater drum 0 0 -0 0 355 18 228 6o0 Overall estimated harvest 18420 501 94 106 34119 9197 2105 46122*None were caught by interviewed anglers (Sheet 2 of 2)'Ohl, rih/h I car Rock I3as Catch/rzbr 0.75(3)3 4.0.69(.131.)

0. -36(4)5* (i)O.44(2~91)

Total 6 0o 0.36(e16) O.56(28)6) TABLE 4.3-11 OVERALL CATCH RATE FOR INTERVIEWED ANGLERS IN PINGP VICINITY,APRIL 30-DECEMBER 3, 1974 (FROM NAPLIN AND GEIS 1975).SECTION 1974 1 2 3 4. 5 6 Total Han-hours surveyed 16.3 14.5 2872.8 961,1 226.3 4091.0 Percent Successful 64 84 63 55 45 61 anglers*SPECIES CAUGHT Carp 0.01 (20) 0.01 (6) 0.01 (2) 0,01 (28)Channel catfish 0.31 (5) 0.14 (2) tr** (11) tr (3) 0.02-(4) 0.01 (25)Brown bullhead tr (8) tr (8)Flathead catfish tr (1) tr (1), tr (2)Northern pike 0.07 (1) tr (12) 0.01 (9) O.0i (2) tr (24)White bass 0.49(8) 1.38 (20) 0.18 (510) 0.02 (21) 0.06 (14) 0.14 (573)Sauger 0.07 (1) .0.37 (1061) .0.10 (94) 0.12 (26) 0.29 (1182)Walleye 0.18 (3) 0.07 (1) .0.03 (81) 0.22 (214) 0.19 (44) 0.08 (343)Smallmouth bass 1 tr (10) tr (10)Largemouth bass tr(1) tr (2) tr (3)Sunfish*** tr (2) 0.05 (46) 0.01 (48)Rock bass 0 0.01 (19) 0.01 (19)Crappies tr (4) 0.01 (7) tr (11)Freshwater drum 1.23 (20) 0.41 (6) 0.02 (60) 0.01 (11) 0.06 (13) 0.03 (110)197.4 Total 2.21 (36) 2,14 (31) 0.63 (1800) 0.43 (414) 0.46 (105) 0.58 (2386)0)ixi le oft LLSII CaUgt.**O < trace (tr) < 0.005***Bluegillt pumpkinseed, green sunfish, and hybrid sunfish TABLE 4.3-12 OVERALL CATCH RATES FOR INTERVIEWED ANGLERS IN PINGP VICINITY, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON AND DIEDRICH 1976)co 0O Par.-Apr. Only March-November 23, 1975 Section 4 1 2 _ 4 .6 Total Hrs. Surveyed 7,795.9 16.5 4.0 4.0 9,980.3 1,355.5 298.7 11,659.0 Estimated Man-hours 63,737 394 187 212 88,855 17,513 4,556 111,717 Species: Mooneye/goldeye ---tr (2) --tr (2)Northern pike 0.002 (14) ---0.002 (20) 0.004 (6) -0.002 (26)Carp -0.001 (7) 0.009 (12) 0.010 (3) 0.002 (22)Brown bullhead .... tr (1) 0.003 (4) -tr (5)Channel catfish ... 0.003 (26) 0.005 (7) -0.003 (33)Flathead catfish .... tr (4) 0.001 (i) -tr (5)Burbot .... tr (2) --tr (2)White bass tr (1) 0.O61 (1) 0.250 0.065 (650) 0.047 (64) 0.044 (13) 0.063 (729)Rock bass .- tr (2) 0.002 (3) -tr (5)Sunfish O.O01 (6) --0.004 (39) 0.068 (92) -0.012 (131)Smallmouth bass .... 0.002 (24) 0.001 (2) -0.002 (26)Largemouth bass .- 0.003 (4) -tr (4)Crappies tr (3) --0.003 (35) o.142(192) -0.019 (227)Yellow perch .... -0.001 (2) -tr Sauger 0.236(1,842) 0.788(13) --0.248(2,472) 0.075(102) 0.248 (74) 0.228(2,661) Walleye 0.050 (393) 0.424 (7) 0.500(2) 0.250(1) 0.052 (516) 0.163(221) 0.110 (33) 0.067 (780)Freshwater drum ... 0.004 (41) 0.001 (2) 0.050 (15) 0.005 (58)Overall estimatedI harvest 0.290(2,259). 1.273(21) 0.500(2) 0.500(2) 0.385(3,841) 0.527(714) 0.462(138) 0.405(4,718)

• None were caught 'y interviewed anglers*ý0 <trace (tr) <.Cr1 aCatch/man-hour with number caught by interviewed anglers in parentheses except that crappies became more prominent in 1975. Domin-ant species during 1975 were sauger (33.3 percent), white bass (29.6 percent), walleyes (15.7 percent) and crappies (9.1 percent).

Number of fish caught per man-hour was 0.56 in 1973, 0.58 in 1974, and 0.41 in 1975.4.3.5.2 Commercial Fishery Fishes are commercially harvested in the PINGP region with gill nets, seines, and set lines. Commercial fishing pressure is lighter in Pool 3 than in Pools 4 and 4A (Grotbeck, personal communication). Catch data for the major species are presented for five recent years of record to establish the present status of the fishery (Table 4.3-13). Carp were predominant in the catch, with most of them coming from Lake Pepin. The catch of carp has generally increased after 1970 in Pool 3 and decreased in Pool 4.Freshwater drum or sheepshead in Lake Pepin represented the second largest catch during most years but were exceeded by buffalo in 1974. The catch of drum declined after 1970.Most of the buffalo were harvested in Pools 3 and 4A whereas most of the catfish were harvested in Pools 4 and 4A.89 TABLE 4.3-13 COMMERCIAL CATCH OF FISH (POUNDS) IN POOLS 3, 4 AND 4A (LA2E PEPIN)DURING 1970-1974. WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA LANDINGS COMBIllED (FERNHOLZ, PERSONAL COMMUNICATION) Catfish Buffalo 3 4 4A 3 4 4A 1970 759 19,223 27,181 83,234 7,405 56,364 1971 202 14,556" 23,193 23,749 7,033 51,518 1972 652 17,912 12,935 39,141 5,350 65,936 1973 630 9,246 19,792 47,967 5,418 31,970 1974 64 19,854 17,902 13,285 4,387 80,279 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 26,231 13,418 195,820 307,908 231,093 Ca-rp I14 109,104 197,484 51,333 35,512 56,371 4A 1,500,784 2,026,879 969,236 1,355,626 987,362 Freshwater Drum 3 4 4A 5,492 3,919 186,029 594 2,617 187,865 1,449 2,092 101,128 1,076 3,187 60,836 913 4,771 55,587 90 Other species of fish are unimportant in the harvest. These include suckers, quillback, mooneye, goldeye, bowfin and gars. Turtles are also harvested. A majority of the total fish harvested were from Lake Pepin.The catch of catfish and drum was relatively low in Pool 3 and the catch of buffalo and drum was. relatively low in Pool 4.4.3.5.3 Tag and Recapture Studies Sport fishes were tagged and released near PINGP during 1973, 1974 and 1975. Some of the species moved considerable distances upstream and downstream. The average distance moved in 1975 was 52.6 miles for white bass, 17.6 miles for sauger, and 22.2 miles for walleye. These studies indicate that discrete populations of these species do not occur in the PINGP region.Although not designed for population estimates, the tag and recapture data can be used to obtain a rough estimate of the population numbers within the angling size range (Table 4.3-14).The simplest method of population estimation assumes that the rate of capture of tagged fish is identical to the rate of capture in the whole population. Thus, the percentage of tagged fish caught is equivalent to the percentage of the total population caught within the same size range of those 91 TABLE 4.3-14 POPULATION ESTIMATES OF SPORT FISHES IN THE 12-MILE PINGP STUDY AREA BASED ON PETERSON AND SCHNABEL TAG AND RECAPTURE METHODS a Species Northern pike Channel catfish White bass Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Sauger Walleye Number in 1:2-Mile Study Area Peterson Schnabel 2,442 -b 22,720 173,910 155,335 7,215 795 609,809 228,784 162,721 123,512, aEstimates for number of fish within the size range caught by fishermen. Calculated from data in Gustafson et al. (1976) and Naplin and Geis (1975).bDash indicates no estimate made because total catch not determined in 1974.92 TABLE 4.1-1 MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW AT PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN, 1 9 4 0-1 9 7 5 a Median Flow m/3sec cfs 7-day 10 year m/i3sec Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 238 228 377 1,137 822 719 459 339 286 350 350 260 8,390 8,050 13,320 40,125 29,020 25,390 16,190 11,970 10,080 12,360 12,340 9,160 103 105 120 213 246 185 123 98 107 112 119ý107 flowb cfs 3,641 3,719 4,222 7,523 8,699 6,527 4,340 3,445 3,785 3,969 4,200 3,767 a 1 9 4 0-1 9 6 5 data from USAEC bBased on 46 years of data May, and 47 years of data (1973); 1965-1975 data from USGS.for the months of January through for June through December." 29 -" 4000--3000-o 3- DAY---J iLDAYLý2000-2000-1000-0 2 5 10 20 40 100 RETURN INTERVALS (YEARS) BASED ON INDEPENDENT ANNUAL LOWS FIGURE 4.1-2 CONSECUTIVE DAY AVERAGE LOW FLOW FREQUENCIES, MISSISSIPPI AT PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN 1928-1974 the range of flows from May 21 through September 4, 1975 when fish entrainment studies were conducted. The average flow for this period was 650 m3 /sec. The relationship between the flow through Sturgeon Lake and the flow in the main channel of the Mississippi River is shown in Figure 4.1-3.The approximate retention times for the North Lake-Sturgeon Lake chain are 74 and 7.6 hours for total river flows of 226.4 and 1867.8 m3 /sec, respectively, based on lake volumes given in Stefan (1973). Sturgeon Lake alone had estimated retention times of 42.6 and 3.8 hours for the above flows.31 tagged. Assuming that tags were observed and conscientiously reported, there is no reason to expect that the ratio of recaptured fish (R) to tagged fish (M) does not represent the rate of exploitation due to fishing in the region. Rate of exploitation (u) is given by Ricker (1975) as: R Having established u for the PINGP region, the distribution of the population to be estimated is determined by the distribution of the catch or sample taken for census.(C). The sport fish catch in the 12-mile (1,601 hectares) PINGP study area (Section 4.3.5.1) is taken as C to estimate sport fish populations (N) in the same region. The formula for the Petersen method (Ricker*1975) is: MC _C N- R u These parameters are more specifically defined as follows: N = total number of fish in the 12-mile study area from Sturgeon Lake to the headwaters of Lake Pepin M = total number of fish tagged in 1974 and 1975 (total of 3,737 for all species) minus the number (92) of recaptures in 1974. In this case, data were treated as a single census by estimating the numbers of tagged fish at large in 1975. This approach provides a somewhat high estimate of tagged fish available in 1975 because natural mortality of fish tagged in 1974 is not accounted for.C =-sport catch of each species in the 12-mile study area. The fact that many of the tagged fish moved out of the study area does not affect the rate of recapture if it is assumed that all tagged fish were reported or that distance from the site did not affect degree of reporting. 93 In an electrofishing study of river carpsuckers, Behmer (1969) concluded that the Schnabel method gave a low estimate and the Peterson method (Ricker 1975) gave a maximum estimate of the population. Application of both methods gives a possible range which is expected to include the actual population size.Ricker's (1958) formula for the Schnabel method for a multiple census is: N = EI CtMt)R+1 where Ct = total catch on day t,ýmt.= total tagged fish at large oiý day t, R = total number of recaptures For this analysis the formula is applied as: N CM197.4 +CM19.75 R 1974 & 1975 + 1 This formula gives a high estimate because many of the fish were not tagged until the summer of each year and therefore were less available for recapture. 94 Of the six assumptions needed to justify tag and recapture estimates (Ricker 1975), five were probably reasonably met: (1) marked and unmarked fish suffer the same mortality, (2)marked and unmarked fish are equally vulnerable to capture, (3) marked fish do not lose their marks, (4) marked fish become randomly mixed or at least disperse both upstream or downstream, (5) there is a negligible amount of recruitment to the population between tagging and recapturing, or at least recruitment is balanced by movement out of the area.'- Because the sixth assumption (that all tags are reported) may not be met, the population estimates may be somewhat high for the size ranges considered. 4.3.5.4 Trawl Studies Fishes were trawled in the immediate PINGP plant area in 1973, and in North Lake and the intake and discharge area during the spring, summer and fall of 1974 and spring and fall of 1975. (Figure 4.3-6). In 1974 and 1975, a semi-balloon trawl having a 29 ft (8.8 m) footrope and 24 ft (7.3 m) headrope was trawled approximately 600 m (2000 ft) in 7 minutes at each station. Area sampled per tow (0.2788 ha or 0.689 acre) was calculated from an estimated effective sampling width of 15 ft times distance of tow. Efficiency of the trawl is assumed to be approximately 50 percent due 95 /1.1 0 1 SEC. 2 ,-"or.,. 2 0 PRAIRIE _ ----ISLAND

• A,/I,,.SCA SEC. 4/SEC. 3--/RED WIN FIGURE 4.3-6 FISH STUDY AREAS NEAR PINGP, 1970-1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976)SCALE IN MILES 4 5 6 7 LE IN KILOMETERS 8 9 0.2 3 4 5 6 F! lI.'!.f :1 to partial closing of the net and avoidance reaction to the net. A definitive efficiency factor is not available.

Fish trawling studies were conducted in the PINGP region during 1973-1975 (Table 4.3-15). Consistent sampling protocol during the last two years permitted calculation (described in Table 4.3-15) of standing crop in terms of number per hectare. Data for the three years can be directly compared in terms of catch per hour since number per hectare is approximately half of catch per hour in the 1974 and 1975 data.In the pre-operational (1973) sampling of the plant area, catches were dominated by YOY (young-of-year) freshwater drum (88 percent), followed by YOY channel catfish, YOY gizzard shad, and carp. These species and several important sport fish species showed no decline in subsequent years and often showed much higher population densities than in 1973 when YOY were recruited into the populations near the plant.Relatively large numbers of gizzard shad, white bass, white crappie, and black crappie in the North Lake samples were dominated by YOY. Thus, the habitats occurring in North Lake are more important as a nursery ground than those in the plant area.97 0 TABLE 4.3-15 TRAWL CATCH OF FISLES IN NORTH VKE AND PINGP PLANT AREA (INTAKE AND DISCHARGE) IN 1973 a 1974 , AND 1975 .DENSITIES ROUNDED TO NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.Sp~ecies Shortnose gar Hooneye Gold eye Gizzard shad Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpsucker app.Shorthead redhorse Carp River shiner Silver chub 00 Pugnose minnow Emerald shiner Spottail shiner Bullhead minnow Channel catfish Tadpole madtom Northern pike Trout-perch White bass Bluegill White crappie Black crappie Walleye Sauger Freshwater drum Total Plant area 1973 Catch/hour Plant area 1974 Spring Summer Fall North Lake 1974 Spring Summer Fall 3 Plant area 1975 Spring Fall North Lake 1975 Spring Fall 8 c 3 19 27 2 4 248 2 2 326 c 3 2 1 1 2 5 2 1 3 6 3 7 3 258 3 1 2 1 2 618 11 15 24 20 2 4 3 7 1 3 16 13 24 4 3 84 c 1 32 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 60 6 3 1 6 21 17 3 2 11 4 22 21 4 119 10 5 2 144 c 334 c 2 22 18 4 5 4 9 81 c 134 70o -669 889 3 1 877 c 1,000 1 1 5 25 59 2 5 1 1 5 i 794 c 79 S5-5 160 10 5 4 3 4 10 T8 2 2 1 3 16 42 5 6 137 5 1 10 49 3 35 3 2 9 4-2 T82 a bCatch/hour; data from Hawkinaon (1974).'Number/hectare; 1974 data from Naplin and Geis (1975),1975 data from Gustafson at al. (1976). CaTrawl had Single tow area calculated as 15 ft. width (to allow for partial closing of net and avoidance of trawl)0.2788 hectares. Density timea,-2 -catch/hour. 0 Predominantly or entirely YOY.29 ft. footrope and 24 ft. headrope.times 2000 ft. per tow -30.000 sq. ft. - Assuming that trawl samples were representative of the water bodies sampled, total population estimates can be calculated. Maximum densities observed during 1974 and 1975 were multiplied by surface areas given by Hawkinson (1974): 438 ha (1,082 acres) for North Lake and 83.4 ha (206 acres) for the plant area. Population estimates for'certain dominant or important species are: Plant Area North Lake Gizzard Shad 2,252 270,684 Carp 2,002 4,818 Channel Catfish 2,669 4,818 White Bass 2,190 60,006 Crappies 417 154,176 Walleye 250 2,190 Sauger 417 1,752 Drum 66,220 58,692 The calculations represent low population estimates because these species are likely to concentrate in habitats that were not trawled (e.g., shallows, heavy beds of macroflora, other types of cover). Due to the pelagic nature of gizzard shad, many of them would be missed by bottom trawling. The estimate of six million gizzard shad in the 323.8 ha (800 acre) Sturgeon Lake during the late summer of 1973 (Andersen 1975) may be a more realistic standing crop.99 4.3.5.5 Seining Studies Seining studies have been conducted in the PINGP region from 1971 through 1975. A 100 ft (30.5 m) seine used in the early studies was replaced with a 50 ft (15.3 m) seine in 1974 and 1975. Area seined (300 sq m (3,228 sq ft)]was estimated from the length of the seine and the distance seined per tow in 1974 and 1975.The 1971 and 1972 studies established the species composition and general distribution of the small species and YOY of the area.Fish were seined near and above PINGP during the summer of 1973. Subsequently sampling was expanded to below Lo'ck and Dam No. 3 during spring, summer and fall.Seining data for 1974 (Table 4.3-16) and 1975 (Table 4.3-17)permit a comparison of the relative abundance of fishes along the shoreline in the three major study areas. Areas seined (Gustafson et al. 1976) were used to determine total number of fish per hectare.Seine catches were highest in the tailwaters of Lock and Dam No. 3 in 1974, followed by the region above the plant and the immediate plant area. In these samples, species of 100 TABLE 4.3-16 SEINE CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, 1974 (ADAPTED FROM NAPLIN AND GEIS 1975) (Sheet 1 of 2)Tailwaters of Above Plant Plant Area Lock and Dam 3 Total No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of Species Fish Total Fish Total Fish Total Fish Total a 1 0.1 Shortnose gar --3 1.2 1 .0.2 Gizzard shad (YY) 162 15.8 17 7.0 150 18.0 329 15.6 Gizzard shad (Other) 2 0.2 ---.2 0.1 Bigmouth buffalo --- -1 0.1 1 0.1 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.1 2 o.8 --3 0.1 Carpsucker (YY) 3 0.3 6 2.5 --9 o.4 Carpsucker (Other) 11 1.1 5 2.1 2 0.2 18 0.9 Shorthead redhorse 4 0.4 1 0.4 2 0.2 7 0.3 Carp (YY) ---2 0.2 2 0.1 Carp (Other) 4 0.4 2 o.8 4 0.5 10 0.5 17 7.0 40 4.8 157 7.5 c: Silver chub 100 9-7 13 4 .Notropis species 479 46.6 56 23.0 499 59.8 1034 49.2 Common shiner 8 O.8 1 0.4 --9 o.4 Emerald shiner 181 17.6 15 6.2 264 31.6 460 21.9 Roseyface shiner 85 8.3 5 2.1 172 20.6 262 12.5 Spotfin shiner 26 2.5 3 1.2 --29 1.4 River shiner 2 0.2 ---2 0.1 Spottail shiner 171 16.6 30 12.3 63 7.6 264 12.5 Mimic shiner --1 0.4 --1 0.1 Blacknose shiner 6 0.6 1 0.4 --7 0.3 Other minnows 32 3.1 47 19.3 7 0.8 86 4.1 Brassy minnow ----1 0.1 1 0.1.Bullhead minnow 25 2.4 28 11.5 6 0.7 59 2.8 Bluntnose minnow 7 0.7 19 7.8 , --26 1.2 Channel catfish 8 0.8 1 0.4 --9 0.4 Yellow bullhead ---1 0.1 1 0.1 Northern pike 1 0.1 -1 0.1 2 0.1 Trout perch 1 0.1 ----1 0.1 White bass (YY) 137 13.3 24 9.9 69 8.3; 230 10.9 White bass (other) 9 -0.9 12 4.9 5 0.6 26 1.2 aHyp*(-) indicates no fish 0 TABLE 4.3-16. (Sheet 2 of 2)Above Plant No. of %Species Fish Total Plant Area No. of %Fish Total Tailwaters of Lock and. Dam 3 No. of Tt Fish Total Total No. of %Fish Total Yellow perch Sauger'(YY) Sauger (Other)Log perch Johnny darter Smallmouth bass Green sunfish Bluegill (YY)Bluegill (Other)Rock bass White crappie (YY)White crappie (Other)Black crappie (YY)Black crappie (Other)Drum (YY)Drum (Other)3 7 2 3 2 3 10 1 5 1 14 1 19 2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.9 0.2 2 2 4 5 4 9 1 2 1 2 4 3 11 0.8 0.8 1.7 2.1 1.7 3.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.7 1.2 4.5 4 7 1 H C-O~6 3 3 12 3 9 2 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.3 4 9 8 14 8 3 4 19 7 3 9 6 30 7 39 4 0.2 0o4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.9 0.2 Total Hectares seined Fish per hectare 1027 0.81 1268 835 2105 1.41 1493 0.27 900 0.33 2530 TABLE 4.3-17 SEINE CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976) (Sheet 1 of 2)Species Above plant Plant area Below Lock.& Dam #3 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent of fish of total of fish of total of fish of total Total Number Percent of fish of total0 Longnose gar Shortnose gar Gar (unidentified) Bowfin Gizzard shad Northern pike Carp Brassy minnow Silver chub Emerald shiner River shiner Common shiner Bigmouth shiner Pugnose minnow Spottail shiner Red shiner Rosyface shiner Spotfin shiner Redfin shiner Mimic shiner Bluntnose minnow Bullhead minnow Carpsucker spp.Whitesucker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse Bullhead spp.Channel catfish 1 2 I 354 9 3 233 46 1 1 46 1 17 34 4 1 19 22 77 1 15 33 4 0.08 0.16 0.08 28.99 0.74 0.25 19.08 0.90 0.08 0.08 3.66 0.08 1.47 2.78 0.33 0.08 1.47 1.80 6.14 0.08 1.23 2.70 0. 33 0.66 110 6 3 45 1 20 1 Ii 2 7 4 2 0.4 37.9 2.1 1.1 15.5 0.4 6.9 0.4 0.4 3,8 0.7 2.4 1.4 0.7 I 291 1 1 301 1 30 2 2 1 1 37.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 38.6 0.1 3.8 0.3 0.3 1.0 0-1 0.1 75 1 57 1 9 2 3 I 4 7 1 4.1 0.04 2 0.09 1 0.04 1 -0.04 5 32.89 4 0.17.5 0.65 1 0.04 7 0.30'9 25.22 1 0.47 1 0.04 1 0.04 2 0.09 6 4.18 4 0.17.0 0.87 4 1.48 4 o.17 1 0.04.9 0.82 1 1.78'7 3.35 1 0.04 L7 0.74 1I 1.78 8 0.34 2 0.09 9 0.39 0 TABLE 4.3-17 (Sheet 2 of 2)H Above plant Plant area Below Lock.&Dam-#3 Total Species Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent of fish of total of fish of total of fish of total of fish of total Tadpole madtom 3 0.25 --3 0.13 Troutperch.

---

7 0.9 7 0.33 White bass 223 18.26 29 10.0 107 13.8 359 15.65 Rock bass --2 0.7 --2 0.09 Green sunfish 2 0.16 2 0.7 -4 0.17 Bluegill 17 1.39 8 2.8 -25 1.09 Smallmouth bass 5 0.41 ---5 0.21 White crappie 25 2.05 9 3..l 1 06] 35 1.52 Black crappie 12 0.98 --4 0.5 16 0.74 Crappie spp. --21 7.2 --21 n.c. 0.91 Johnny darter 5 0.41 2 0.7 2 0.3 9 0.39 Yellow perch 4 0.33 2 0.7 --6 0.26 Logperch .15 1.23 --6 0.8 21 0.91 Sauger II 0.90 3 0.4 14 0.61 Walleye 1 0.08 --1 0.4 2 0.09 Freshwater drum 2 0.16 1 0.3 7 0.9 10 0.43 Total 1223 100.00 290 100.00 781 100.00 2294 100.00* Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.

Notropis (minnows) accounted for approximately half of the total numbers. The most abundant non-cyprinid YOY were gizzard shad (15.6 percent) and white bass (10.9 percent).The 1975 catch was similar to that of 1974 in terms of species composition and relative numbers in the three regions.However, total standing crop estimates were higher in 1975.Species of Notropis and YOY gizzard shad each comprised approximately one-third of the 1975 catch (Table 4.3-17).The dominant species of Notropis was the emerald shiner, as in 1974. YOY white bass were again a major component of the catch (15.6 percent).Table 4.3-18 compares numbers of fishes seined at all stations during 1974 and 1975 and those sampled above Lock and Dam No. 3 in 1973. The tally excludes the older fish included in Tables 4.3-16 and 4.3-17 with the exception of minnows and darters.The 1973 seine catches are not directly comparable to sub-sequent surveys because sampling was done at different times of the year and a larger seine was used in 1973 (Gustafson et al. 1976) The large catch of gizzard shad, carpsucker, white bass and freshwater drum YOY in 1973 may be attributable 105 0 TABLE 4.3-18 SEINE CATCH (NUMBER PER HECTARE -) IN THE PINGP REGION, 1973-1975 (ADAPTED FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL, 1976)Species 1 9 7 3 a 0.33 ha seined Number No./ha 1974 b 1.41 ha seined Number No./ha 1.38 ha seined*Number No./ha Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin Gizzard shad Northern pike Carp Minnows & darters Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Carpsucker White sucker Shorthead redhorse Bullheads Channel catfish Tadpole madtom White bass Sunfish Crappies Smallmouth bass Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Freshwater drum 1729 4 504 98 1523 13 22 26 100-2 5239.39 329-1 12.12 2 1527.27 1300-3 296.97 9-7-1-9 4615.15 230 39 ; 39 23 66.67 39-1-8 78.79 9 303.03 39 1.42 233.33 0.71 1.42 921.99 2.13 6.38 4.96 0.71 6.38 163.12 16.31 27.66 0.71 5.67 6.38 27.66 1 755 676 17 41 77 1 8 2 3 201" 26 72 1 6 14 2 10 0.72 0.72 547.10 489.86 12.32 29.71 55.80 0.72 5.80 1.45 2.17 145.65 18.84 52.17 0.72 4.35 10.14 1.45 7.25 4019 12,178.79 2012 Total 1426.95 1914 1386.96* 1975 area isan estimate.**Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.a 100 ft seine; summer 50 ft seine; spring, summer and fall 106 to the greater effectiveness of the larger seine and the fact that sampling was limited to the summer. However, a strong year class of gizzard shad in 1973 is also apparent from electrofishing studies (Section 4.3.5.6).A comparison of the 1974 and 1975 data reveals a marked similarity in total catch and dominance by the same taxa.However, the data suggest stronger age classes of gizzard shad and suckers and a decline in the minnow/ darter com-ponent in 1975.4.3.5.6 Electrofishing Studies Electrofishing studies have been conducted in the PINGP region from 1970 to 1975. The earlier studies were limited in scope, but provide information on species composition which can be compared to more recent data. During the summer and fall of 1970, fish were sampled in Sturgeon Lake and tailwaters of Lock and Dam No. 3. Carp and white bass were the dominant species, followed by mooneye, walleye, black crappie, freshwater drum, and 11 other species (Table 4.3-19).The 1971 survey from above Lock and Dam No. 3 yielded larger numbers of carp and fewer white bass than the 1970 survey.YOY gizzard shad were abundant in the late summer of 1971.107 TABLE 4.3-19 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1970 AND 1971 (FROM MILLER 1971, 1972)Species 1 9 7 0 a 1 9 7 1 b Summer Fall EarlyýSu. mner Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin Gizzard shad Mooneye Northern pike-Carp Silver chub American eel Weed shiner White sucker Carpsucker spp.Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Yellow bullhead Channel catfish White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Sauger Walleye Freshwater drum 2 4 2 20 68 3 2 68 3 3 6 1 4 9 3 1 8 14 1 1 41 170 1 Late Fall 5 7 1 110c 1 4 1 1 4 7 4 2 3 1 2 41 3 5 3 9 4 17 6 8 2 29 1 1 2 8 12 9 6 16 3 18 6 5 11 2 7 33 14 17 aData for above and below Lock and Dam No.total catch given; from Miller (1971)bsturgeon Lake and Mississippi River above No. 3, total catch; from Miller (1972)3 combined, Lock and Dam CPredominantly or entirely YOY 108 Electrofishing surveys were conducted from 1973 to 1975 in the Mississippi River above PINGP, in the plant area, and below the plant at stations described by Hawkinson (1974).Stations above the plant include locations in North Lake, Sturgeon Lake, Brewer Lake, and the main river channel.Stations sampled in the plant area were located in the main channel above Lock and Dam No. 3, in the intake and discharge areas, and in several sloughs in the area. Below the plant, sampling was conducted in the tailwaters of Lock and Dam No.3 and in the main and back channels to the Highway 63 bridges.Table 4.3-20 presents summer electrofishing catches for 1973 in terms of total numbers and catch per hour. YOY gizzard shad dominated the catches in all three regions and were most abundant in the tailwaters. YOY of carpsucker, black crappie, and freshwater drum were also commonly caught.Larger sport fishes were most commonly caught in the tail-waters of the lock and dam.Electrofishing catches for 1974 and 1975 are presented by season to permit an analysis of the temporal variability as related to recruitment of young fishes (Tables 4.3-21 through 4.3-26). Data are summarized for major species in Table 4.3-27. For 1974 and 1975, the number of fish per kilometer is roughly equivalent to catch per hour times 0.75.0 109 TABLE 4.3-20 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1973 (FROM HAWKINSON 1974)Above Plant No. Catch/hour (1.25 hours)Tailwaters below Plant Area Lock and Dam No. 3 No. Catch/hour No. Catch/hour (2.75 hours) (1.5 hours)Species American eel Gizzard shad Mooneye Northern pike Carp Carpsucker spp.Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Pumpkins eed Bluegill Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie.Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Freshwater drum aPredomi nately YOY 1191 a 1*69 2 4 a 17 a 5 1 16 15 7 1 8 6 6 3 16 9 59 1 0-.36 619a 225.09 317.60 0.27 18.40 6.40 4.53 1.33 0.27 4.27 4.00 1.87 0.27 2.13 1.60 1.60 0.80 4.27 2.40 15.73 4 1 2 a 45 43 a 1 2 1 9 27 9 158 20 22 3 a.11 8 101a 16.36 15.64 0.36 0.73 0.36 3.27 9.82 3.27 57.45 7.27 8.00 40.36 1.09 4.00 2.91 36.73 8 17 1 1 8 274.67 5.33 11.33 0.67 0.67 5.33 44.00 24.00 4.00 2.00 20.00 34.67 1.33 4.67 27.33 66 36 6 3 30 52 2 7 41 3 2.00 Space indicates no fish were caught 110 TABLE 4..3-21 a ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1974 (FROM N;CPYJIN AND GEIS .1975)Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock Dam 3 Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Species No. (7.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours)Silver lamprey --...Shortnose gar 2 0.27 ....Longnose gar ..... .Bowfin 1 0.13 ....-Mooneye 3 0.40 ....Goldeye --...Gizzard shad --1 0.40 --Bigmouth buffalo 3 0.40 2% 0.80 4 1.60 Smallmouth buffalo ----1 0.40 Carpsucker spp. 62 8.27 3 1.20 <>1 O.4O White sucker ----2 0.8o Silver redhorse 2 0.27 --. 1 0.40 Shorthead redhorse 53 7.07 17 6.80 24 9.60 Carp 214 28.53 152 60.80 73 29.20 Silver chub 24 3.20 2 0.80 --Pugnose minnow ----Golden minnow --1 0.40 --Common shiner -----Bulerald shiner 28 3.73 --2 0.80 Rooyface shiner 10 1.33 --2 0.80 Spotfin shiner 0. ..Spottail shiner -I 1 .40 o Silvery minnow .....Fathead minnow ---.Bullhead minnow 1 0.13 1.8.Bluntnose minnow 3 0.40 -...Channel catfish 6 0.80 4 1.62 0 1 .40 Flathead catfish ..... .-Northern pike 5 0.67 1 0.40 5 2.00 White bass 76 10213 12 4 1.80 97 38.80 Yellow perch 3 0.40 ---Sauger 36 4.8p 8 3.20 30 12.00 Walleye 7 0.93 1 2.40 17 6.80 Logperch ----Smallmouth bass 20 2.67 3 1.20 9 3.60 Largemouth bass --1 0.40 --Green sunfish 2 0.27 0..Pumpkinseed --3 1.20 --Bluegill 15 2.00 5 2.00 17 6.80 Hybrid sunfish n .. .Rock bass 1? 2.27 8 3.20 45 18.OO White crappie ... i 0 .4o Black crappie 2 0.27 1 0.40 6 2.4o Freshwater drum 68 9.07 11 4.4o 25 1O.00 Burbo t ..... 7-.. ....aCatch/hour 'X 0.75 = ish/km Hyphen indicates no fish Tvere caught -.TAkBLE .4 .3-2.2 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN THE PINGP REGION, SU~MMER, 1974___ (FROM NAPLIN AND GEIS 1975)Above Plant Catch/Hour No. (7.5 Hours)Plant Area Catch/Hour No. (2.5 Hours)Below Lock & Dam 3 Catch/Hour No. (2.5 Hours)Silver lamprey Shortnose gar Longnose gar Bowfin Mooneye Goldeye Gizzard shad a Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpsucker spp.White sucker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Carp Silver chub Pugnose minnow Golden minnow Common shiner Emerald shiner Rosyface shiner Spotfin shiner Spottail shiner Silvery minnow Fathead minnow Bullhead minnow Bluntnose minnow Channel catfish Flathead catfish Northern pike White bass a Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Log perch Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Hybrid sunfish Rock bass White crappie Black crappie Freshwater druma Burbot 2 0.27 140 18.67 1 0.13 2 0.27 27 3.60 23 3.07 139 18.53 19 2.53 25 3.33 8 1.07 4 0.53 2 0.27 4 0.53 1 0.13 2 0.27 69 9.20 8 1.07 32 4.27 6 0.80 5 0.67 27 3.60 1 0.13 25 3.33 2 0.27 4 0.53 76 10.13 3 1 152 1 6 7 18 121 5 2 8 1 2 24 2 96 6 18 5 21 1 41 252 3 54 1 11 76 1 1.20 0.40 6o.8O 0.40 2.4o 2.80 7.20 48.40 2.00 0.80 3.20 0.40 0.80 9.6o o.80 38.40 2.40 7.20 2.00 8.40 0.40 16.40 100.80 1.20 21.6o O.40 4.4o 30.40 0.40 1 54 5 1 4 20 67 2 16 4 4 1 4 112 25 9 3 27 5 3 202 3 34 6 12 2 0.40 21.60 2.00 0.40 1.6o 8.00 26.80 0.80 6.40 1.60 1.60 0.40 1.60 44.80 10.00 3.60 1.20 lO.8O 2.00 1.20 8o.8o 1.20 13.60 2.40 4.80 0.80 a Predominantly YOY 112 TABLE 4.3-23 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN (FROM -IAPLIN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1974 AND GEIS 1975)Above Plant Catch/Hour Species No. (7.5 Hours)Plant Area Catch/Hour No. (2.5 Hours)Below Lock & Dam 3 Catch/Hour No. (2.5'Hours) Silver lamprey Shortnose gar Longnose gar Bowfin Mooneye Goldeye Gizzard shada Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpsucker spp.White sucker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Carp Silver chub Pugnose minnow Golden minnow Common shiner Emerald shiner Rosyface shiner Spotfin shiner Spottail shiner Silvery minnow Fathead minnow Bullhead minnow Bluntnose minnow Channel catfish Flathead catfish Northern pike White bass Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Log perch Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Bluegill Hybrid sunfish Rock bass White crappie Black crappie Freshwater drum Burbot 3.1 2 540 9 2 11 96 25 3 1"6 3 1 16 1 3 2 2 4 47 7 7 15 4 36 52 1 9 12 16 47 0.40 0.13 0.27 72.00 1.20 0.27 1.47 12.80 3.33 0.40 0.13 0.80 0.40 0.13 2.13 0.13 0.40 0.27 0.27 0.53 6.27 0.93 0.93 2.00 0.53 4.80 1.47 6.93 0.13 1.20 1.60 2.13 6.27 2 0.80 388 152.20 100 4o.o0 6 35 6 1 3 4 10 1 1 16 3 2 2 1 11 6 50 342 8 52 12 9 4 2.40 14.oo 2.40 0.40 1.20 1.6o 4.00 o.40 O.40 6.40 1.20 0.80 0.80 0.40 4.40 2.4o 20.00 136.80 3.20 20.80 4.80 3.60 1.60 1 7 181 2 2 4 5 4 5 41 1 8 15 1 14 25 9 275 1 14 14 2 o.4o 2. bo 72.40 0.80 0.80 o.4o 1.60 2.00 16.40 0.40 3.20 6.00 o.4o 5.60 10.00 3.60 110.00 0.40 5.60 5.6o 0.80 a Predominantly YOY 113 TABLE 4.3-24 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976)Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock & Dam 3 Species Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Catch/Hour No. (7.5 Hrs.) No. (2.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours)Longnose gar 1-Shortnose gar 1 Gizzard shad 5 Mooneye 1 Northern pike 1 Carp -147 Silver chub 12 Emerald shiner 61 River shiner Pugnose minnow 4 Spottail shiner 3 Red shiner 1 Rosyface shiner 4 Spotfin shiner -Redfin shiner 1 Bluntnose minnow 2 Bullhead minnow 1 Carpsucker spp. 8 Smallmouth buffalo 2 Bigmouth buffalo. 1 Silver redhorse -Shorthead redhorse 31 Channel catfish 8 Flathead catfish -White bass 35 Rock bass 7 Green sunfish -Pumpkinseed 8luegill 6 Smallmouth bass 20 White crappie. 2 Black crappie 3 Yellow perch 1 Logperch Sauger 32 Walleye 19 Freshwater drum 63 Total A82 0.13 0.13 o.67 0.13 0.13 19. 0 1.60 8.13 0.53 0.40 0.13 0.53 0.13 0.27 0.13 1.07 0.27 0.13 4.13 1.07 4.67 O0.93 0.80 2.67 0.27 0.40 0.13 4.27 2.53 8.40 64. 27 2 0.80 28 11.20 1 0.40 7 2.80 4 1.60 1 0.40 2 0.80 4 1.60 1 0.40 12 4.80 2 0.80 1 0.40 1 0.40 22 8.80 4 1.60 2 0*80 16 6.40 10 4.00 6 2.40 3 1.20 5 2.00 17 6.80 1 0.40 1 0.40 4 1.60 2 0.80 7 2.80 167 66.80 werC cauLhit .1 30 48 I 1 1 3 1 20 6 0.40 12.00 19.20 0.40 0.40 o.40 1.20 0.40 8.00 2.40 0.80 2.00 1.20 0.40 3.20 5.60 6.80 64 8R 2 5 3 1 8 14 17* Hyphen (-) indicates no fish 114 TABLE 4.3-25 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1975 (FflOM GUSTA.-SON ET AL. 1976)Species Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock & Dam3 Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Catch/Hour No. (7.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours)Silver lamprey -* -.1 0.40 Longnose gar 1 0.13 .- -Bowfin 1 0.13 ---Gizzard shad 226 30.13 57 22.80 29 11.60 Mooneye ----1 0.40 Northern pike 4 0.53 --1 0.40 Carp 97 12.93 44 17.60 386 15.20 Silver chub 20 2.67 4 1.60 2 0.80 Emerald shiner 52 6.93 2 0.80 75 30.00 Spottail shiner 6 0.80 1 0.40 --Rosyface shiner 33 0.40 1 0.40 14 5.60 Spotfin shiner 2 0.27 ----Redfin shiner 3 0.40 --1 0.40 Bluntnose minnow 4 0.53 4 1.60 2 0.80 Fathead minnow --1 0.4 0 --Bullhead minnow 9 1.20 10 4.00 --Carpsucker ssp. 27 3.60 3 1.20 4 1.60 Smallmouth buffalo 6 0.80- 12 4.80 --Bigmouth buffalo --1 0.40 --Silver redhorse 1 0.13 --1 0.40 Shorthead redhorse 25 3.33 --18 7.20 Black bullhead 1 0.13 2 0.80 17 6.80 Channel catfish 5 0.67 3 1.20 4 1.60 Flathead catfish 3 0.40 1 0.40 3 1.20 Burbot ----1 0.40 White bass 37 4.93 17 6.80 114 45.60 Rock bass 11 1.47 11 4.40 21 8.40 Green sunfish 3 0.40 16 6.40 6 2.40 Pumpkinseed 2 0.27 --1 0.40 Lluegill 22 2.93 37 14.80 71 28.40 Smallmouth bass 28 3.73 14 5.60 55 22.00 Laraemouth bass ---4 1.60 White crappie --2 0.80 --Black crappie 4 0.53 2 0.80 4 1.60 Johnny darter 1 0.13 --.Yellow perch 32 4.27 3 1.20 1 0.40 Log perch 17 2.27 1 0.40 4 1.60 Sauger 38 5.07 3 1.20 6 2.40 Walleye 22 2.93 4 1.60 20 8.00 Drum 66 8.80 8 3.20 5 2.00 Thtal 809 107.87 274 109.60 524 209.60 Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught. TABLE 4.3-26 ELECTROFISHING CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET' AL. 1976)Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock & Dam 3 Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Catch/Hour Species No. (7.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours) No. (2.5 Hours)Silver lamprey 1 0.13 --1 0.40 Longnose gar --2 0.80 --Gizzard shad 325 4.33 a 121 48.40 165 66.00 Mooneye 1 0.13 --3 1.20 Northern pike 2 0.27 --2 0.80 Carp .61 8.13 47 18.80 63 25.20 Silver chub 15 2.00 --2 0.80 Emerald shiner 121 16.13 31 12.40 106 42.40 Spottail shiner 5 0.67 --.Bullhead minnow 13 1.73 18 7.20 --Carpsucker spp. 3 0.40 3 1.20 --Smallmouth buffalo 2 0.27 3 1.20 --Silver redhorse .... 2 0.80 Shorthead redhorse 9 1.20 4 1.60 31 12.40 Yellow bullhead --1 0.40 Channel catfish --6 2.40 5 2.00 Trout perch 3 0.40 ,-Burbot -....1 0:.40 White bass 17 2.27 36 14.40 44 17.60 Rock bass 4 0.53 12 4.80 28 11.20 Green sunfish 2 0.27 2 0.80 6 2.40 Bluegill 71 9.47 30 12.00 70 28.00 Smallmouth bass 15 2.00 14 5.60 17 6.80 Largemouth bass 1 0.13 3 1.20 2 0.80 White crappie --3 1,20 --Black crappie 17 2.27 2 0.80 8 3.20 Johnny darter 1 0.13 --.Yellow perch 6 0.80 2. 0.80 --LoR perch 2 0 .27 3 1.20 --Sauger 24 3.20 5 2.00 18 7.20 Walleye 28 3.73 17 6.80 37 14.80 Drum 22 2.93 6 2.40 3 1.20 Total 771 102.80 360 144.00 615 245.60 Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.aprobably should be 43.3 116 TABLE 4.3-27 ELECTROFISHING CATCH (NUMBER/HOUR) OF MAJOR FISH SPECIES IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP, 1974 AND 1975a Spring Summer Fall Above Plant Below Above Plant Below Above Plant Below Species Plant Area Lock Plant Area Lock Plant Area Lock 1974 Gizzard shad 0.4; 1 8.7b 6 0.8b 2 1.6b i.7 2.0b 1 5 2.2 b 4 0.0 b Carpsucker 8.3 1.2.. 0.4 3.6 2.8 1.6 1.2 Shorthead redhorse 7.1 6.8 9.6 3.1 7.2 8.0 1.5 2.4 2.8 Carp 28.5 60.8 29.2 18.5 48.4 26.8 12.8 14.0 72.4 Channel catfish 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.5 9.6 1.6 0.3 0.4 1.6 Northern pike 0.7 0.4 2.0 0.3b 1.6 0.5 2.0 White bass 10.1 4.8 38.8 9.2 3 8.4 b 4 4.8 b 6.3 .6.4 16.4 Sauger 4.8 3.2 12.0 4.3 7.2 10.0 0.9 0.8 3.2 Walleye 0.9 0.4 6.8 0.8 3.6 2.0 0.8 6.0 Smallmouth bass 2.7 1.2 3.6 3.6 8.4 10.8 4.8 4.4 5.6 Bluegill 2.0 2.0 6.8 3.3 100.8 80.8 6.9 136.8 110.0 Black crappie 0.3 0.4 2.4 0 5 4.4 2.4 2.1 3.6 5.6 Freshwater drum 9.1 4.4 10.0 10:1k 30.4b 4 8 b 6.3 1.6 0.8 1975 Gizzard shad 0.7 30.1 22.8 11.6 43.3; 48.4 66.0 Carpsucker 1.1 0.8 0.4 3.6 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.2 Shorthead redhorse 4.1 8.8 1.2 3.3 7.2 1.2 1.6 12.4 Carp 19.6 11.2 12.0 12.9 17.6 15.2 8.1 18.8 25.2 Channel catfish 1.1 1.6 0.7 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.0 Northern pike 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 White bass 4.7 6.4 8.0 4.9 6.8 '45.6 0.5. 4.8 11.2 Sauger 4.3 1.6 3.2 5.1 1.2 2.4 3.2 2.0 7.2 Walleye 2.5 0.8 5.6 2.9 1.6 8.0 3.7 6.8 14.8 Smallmouth bass 2.7 6.8 2.0 3.7 5.6 22.0 2.0 5.6 6.8 Bluegill 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.9 14.8 28.4 9.5 12.0 28.0 Black crappie 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.6 2.3 0.8 3.2 Freshwater drum 8.4 2.8 6.8 8.8 3.2 2.0 2.9 2.4 1.2 a, From Naplin ahd Geis (1975) and Gustaf: al. (1976)0 Gizzard shad was the most commonly caught fish in both years although very few were caught in the spring. These were predominantly YOY. An unusually strong year class of YOY gizzard shad was apparent in 1973 (Table 4.3-20).Carp was the dominant rough fish in collections during both years. The largest catches were taken below the dam in the fall each year. Concentration in the plant area was apparent in 1974 but not in 1975.White bass was the most commonly caught sport fish and many YOY were collected during the summer. The largest catches were taken below the dam in the summer.Walleye and sauger were collected in all areas sampled, with the highest catch rate occurring below the dam. The catch of these species was lowest in the plant area during both sampling years. Preference for the tailwaters is apparent from a creel survey (Naplin and Gustafson 1975) as well as from this study.The smallmouth bass and black crappie are two additional sport fishes that were generally most abundant below the dam. The highest catch rate of smallmouth bass (22 per hour) occurred below the lock in the summer of 1975.118 Electrofishing studies were also conducted during the night in October of 1974 and summer and fall of 1975. Lower night-time catch rates of gizzard shad, bluegill, and smallmouth bass, in comparison to daytime catches, were partially attributable to reduced visibility. However, catches of walleye, sauger, and white bass were highest at night.4.3.5.7 Trap Netting Studies Trap nets were fished experimentally in Pool 4 in 1957 and 1963 (Anonymous 1964). Both studies were performed at approximately the same time of year and at the same locations. In 1957 the most abundant fish were walleye, black crappie, bluegill, white bass, carp, freshwater drum, and shorthead redhorse. The 1963 catch was similar except that walleye and carp catches had declined and northern pike and white crappie catches were higher.Fish were trap netted in the PINGP area from 1970 to 1975.Fyke nets were used during 1970 and 1972. A trap net des-cribed by Krosch (1968) was used subsequently. Nets were fished in 24-hour sets. Sampling was limited to August in 1973 (Hawkinson 1974) and expanded to spring, summer, and fall in subsequent years.119 Table 4.3-28 indicates a dominance of carp, shorthead red-horse, white bass, crappies, sauger, and freshwater drum in 1970, 1972 and 1973. The higher 1973 catches may be attributable to using a more effective net.Trap net data for 1974 and 1975 are presented in Tables 4.3-29 through 4.3-34 and summary Tables 4.3-35 and 4.3-36.For the 1973-1975 sampling period, the summer catch per lift of fishes above the plant was highest during 1974 when large numbers of carp and white bass were collected. In the plant area, the summer catch per lift was also highest in 1974, with freshwater drum and carp dominating the catch.Additional studies will be needed to assess possible popula-tion trends.Total catch per net of major species was highest above the plant except during the spring when large numbers of carp and freshwater drum were collected below Lock and Dam No. 3.Catches of major sport fishes (white bass, walleye, sauger)were generally highest above the plant although these fish are known to concentrate in the tailwaters in the spring (Section 4.3.5.1). None of the major species demonstrated a clear preference for the plant area.120 TABLE 4.3-28 TRAP NETTING CATCH IN THE MIgSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR PINGP 19720 AND 1973c (Sheet 1 of 2)Above and Below Lock Down No.3 1970a 1972 b Plant Area 1973c No. No. Catch/lift No. Catch/lift (52 lifts) (70 lifts)a IN 1970 Above Plant 1973 c No. Catch/lift (40 lifts)Fj Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin Gizzard shad Mooneye Northern pike Carp Carpsucker White sucker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Greater redhorse Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Flathead White bass Rock bass Bluegill Pumpkinseed Largemouth bass White crappie Black crappie Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Drum 9 68 1 25 22 2 4 1 22 1 1 4 1 3 1 3 8 128 2.46 1 2 3 64 7 11 1 61 282 15 4 13 2 2 110 1 2 5 231 10 19 1 6 61 1 123 24 202 0.04 0.96 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.87 3.74 0.21 0.06 0.19 0.03 0.03 1.57 0.01 0.03 0.07 3.30 0.14 0.27 0, 01 0.09 0.87 0.01 1.76 0.34 2.89 3 62 7 7 1 48 134 14 12 2 1 87 0.08 1.55 0.18 0.18 0.02 1.20 3.35 0.35 0.30 0.05 0.02 2.18 1 0.02 3 0.08 90 1.73 28 0.54 54 25 1.03 0.48 198 6 9 1 3 43 1 80 19 78 4.95 0.15 0.22 0.02 0.08 1.08 0.02 2.00 0.48 1.95 20 0.38 26 0.50 TABLE 4.3-28 (Sheet 2 of 2)aFrom Miller 1971. Total catch in fall with fyke nets.bFrom Miller 1973. Catch of dominant species with fyke nets in August.cFrom H-awkinson 1974. Summer catch with trap nets. Above plant data for North, Sturgeon, and Brewer lakes. TABLE 4.3-29 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING,1974 (FROM NAPLIN AIND GEIS 1975)Abo. o Plant Catch/Lit No. for 20 lifts Plant Area Catch/Lift No.. fo,- 10 Below Lock & Dam 3 Catc./Li f t No_ fin- In 1 fts Snar.sr Snecies No for 10 lifts Silver lamprey Shortnose gar Loannose gar Bowfin Mooneye Goldeye Gizzard shad Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpeucker spp.White sucker Sootted sucker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse River reodorse Carp Channel catfish Black bullbead Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead Flathead catfish Northern pike American eel White bass Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Smallmouth base Largemouth bass Bluegill Rock base.White crappie Black crappie Freshwater drum Burbot 20 21 2 1.00 1.05 0.10 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.10 2 2 0.20 0.05 0.20 0.10 2 1 0.10.0.20 1 0.10 5. 0.25 39 1.95 1 0.05 132 6.60 1 0.05 1 0.05 40 2.00 1 0.10 17 .1.70 70 7.00 1 0.10 2 0.20 69 6.99 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 217 26 10 2 1 22 10.85 1.30 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.05 1.10 30 1 5 3 3.00 0.10 0.50 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.50 64 2 2 6.40 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.50 1 3 5 1 5 1 5 67 3.35 70 7.00 148 14.8o 1 0.10 123 TABLE 4.3-30 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER, 1974 (EROM NA-PLIN AI:D_ GEI_1975)Above Plant Catch/Lift No. for 20 Lifts Plant Area Catch/Lift No. for 10 Lift-Below Lock & Dam Catch/Lift No. for 10 Lifts Snecies Silver lamprey Shoatnose &ar Longnase gsr Bow fin Hooneye Goldeye Gizzard shad Bigmouth buffalo Sma.llmouth buffalo Carpsucker spp.White sucker Spatted suacker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse River redhorse Carp Channel catfish Black bullhead Brawn bullhead Yellow bullhead Flathead catfish Northern pike American "eel White bans Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Bluegill Pxck bass White cranpie Black crappie Freshwater drum Burbot 41 2.05 4 0.20 8 o.4o 4 0.20 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.10 1 6 I 1 0.10 o.6o 0.10 0.10 0.20 3 3 2 2 8 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 o.8o 13 3 0.65 0.15 2 U 0.55 100 5.00 29 2.90 152 1 1 36 1 146 23 11 10 6 4 55 107 7.60 0.05 0.05 1.80 0.05 7.30 1.15 0.55 0.50 0.30 0.20 2.75 5.35 81 2 2 1.5 12 1 2 3 6 2 110 8.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.50 1.20 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.60 0.20.1.00 65 6.50 23 1 24 3 2 2 1 2 13 27 2.3o C. 10 2. 40 0.30 0.20 C.10 0.10 0.20 1.30 2.70 124 TABLE 4.3-31 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1974 (FROM NAPLIN AN4D GEIS 1975)Above Plant -Catch/Li ft Species No. -for 20 Lifts Plant Area Catch/Lift No. for 10 Lifts Below Lock & Dam 3 Catch/Lift No. for 10 Lifts Silver lamprey Shortnose gar Longnose gar Bowfin Mooneye Goldeye Gizzard shad Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpsucker spp.White sucker Spotted sucker Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse River redhorse Carp Channel catfish Black bullhead Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead Flathead catfish Northern pike American eel White bass Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Bluegill Rock bass White crappie Black crappie Freshwater drum Burbot 51 1 1 8 2 4 1 2.90 0.05 0.0.5 0.05 0.4o 0.10 0.20 0.05 0.20 3.30 3.20 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 0.10 0.10 2 1 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 5.00 4 1 66 13 64 1.30 50 1 0.05 7 1 1 2 15 315 22 8 1 0.10 0.75 15.75 1.10 0.40 0.05 1.45 0.15 0.25 1.25 1.40 1 47 7 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.10 4.70 0.70 1 1 23 9 4 0.10 0.10 2.30 0.90 0.40 29 3 5 25 28 19 4 2 19 21 1.90 0.40 0.20 1.90 2.10 12.2 62 31 1 1.20 0.20 6.20 3.10 0.10 TABLE 4.3-32 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING, 1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON tET AL. 1976)Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock&Dam3 Species Catch/lift Catch/lift Catch/lift No. 361ifts No. 20 lifts No. 16 lifts Longnose gar 2 0.06 --Shortnose gar 22 0.61 7 0.35 -.Bowfin 8 0.22 --3 0.19 Gizzard shad 1 0.03 -Mooneye -.. --Northern pike 36 1.00 3 0.15 -4 0.25 Carp 123 3.42 68 3.40 117 7.31 Carpsucker 6 0.17 3 0.15 -_White sucker 3 0.08 1 0.05 2 0.13 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.03 ---Bigmouth buffalo --2 0.10 Silver redhorse --- -Shorthead redhorse 33 0.95 10 0.50 6 0.38 Black bullhead 2 0.06 1 0.05 6 0.38 Brown bullhead .- --Channel catfish 2 0.06 3 0.15 -Flathead catfish ---.White bass 106 2.94 15 0.75 37 2.31 Rock bass 4 0.11 2 0.10 3 0.19 Bluegill 9 0.25 7 0.35 1 0.06 Smallmouth bass ----White crappie 5 0.14 7 0.35 2 0.13 Black crappie 31 0.86 5 0.25 9 0.56 Yellow perch ----1 0.06 Sauger 11 0.31 6 0.30 4 0.25 Walleye 8 0.22 2 0.10 7 0.44 Drum 35 0.97 57 2.85 146 9.13* Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.126 TABLE 4..3-33 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SUMMER,1975 --(FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976)Above Plant Plant Area Below Lock& Dam3 Species Catch/lift Catch/lift Catch/lift No. 36 lifts No. 20 lifts No. 16 lifts Longnose gar 13 0.36 4 0.20 --Shortnose gar 64 1.78 9 0.45 3 0.19 Bowfin 22 0.61 --3 0.19 Gizzard shad ---.....Mooneye 7 0.19 --.2 0.13 Northern pike 78 2.17 1 0.05 22 1.38 Carp 168 4.67 52 2.60 75 4.69 Carpsucker 15 0.42 3 0.15 --White sucker 1 0.03 --4 0.25 Smallmouth buffalo 18 0.50 3 0.15 --Bigmouth buffalo 32 0.89 1 0.05 --Silver redhorse 5 0.14 --2 0.13 Shorthead redhorse 44 1.22 4 0.20 2 0.13 Black bullhead --4 0.20 ,1 0.06 Brown bullhead ---1 0.06 Channel catfish 1 0.03 ----Flathead catfish 2 0.06 6 0.30 1 0.06 White bass 138 3.83 28 1.40 13 0.81 Rock bass -1 0.05 1 0.06 Bluegill 13 0.36 1 0.05 4 0.25 Smallmouth bass 1 0.03 ... .White crappie 9 0.25 10 0.50 10 0.63 Black Crappie 174 4.83 19 0.95 19 1.19 Yellow perch 1 0.03 1 0.05 --Sauger 15 0.42 3 0.15 2 0.13 Walleye 5 0.14 --6 0.38 Drum 47 1.31 53 2.65 36 2.25 Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.127 -TABLE 4.3-34 TRAP NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, FALL, 1975.(FROMGUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976)Above Plant PrTffEl Area Below Lock & Dajfi-3 Species Catch/lift No. 36 lifts Catc]No., 20 h/lift Catch/lift lifts No. 16 lifts Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin Gizzard shad Mooneye Northern pike Carp Carpsucker White sucker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Rock bass Bluegill Smallmouth bass White crappie Black crappie Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Drum 34 7 27 17 83 8 1 2 1 11 31 341 1 15 7 52 6 27 15 73 0.94 0.19 0.75 0.47 2.31 0.22 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.31 0.81 9.47 0.03 0.42 0.19 1.44 0.17 0.75 0.42 2.03 1 4 3 13 2 1 10 1 21 15 22 14 2 6 2 21 0.05 0.20 0.15 0.65 0.10 0.05 0.50 0.05 1.05 0.75 1.10 0.70 0.10 0.30 0.10 1.05 2 3 0.19 2 0.13 1` 0.06 7 0.44 22 1.38 1 0.06 5 0.94 2 0.13 0 0.63 8 0.50 8 4.88'7 0.44 1 1 7* Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.1"28 HC-4 5-4 zz H 0E-1 z u 0 E-4 m00 E-4 :0: E-4 W ZE-4 E-4~r4I a 0 0 CD o U C C,4 r-4 0 %.0 C C ,-4 ,l t.0 C) ul ,--4 C) N4 ¢q r-r'1 m -4 ~H H- 0 4 4 -CN r-4 s-i 4.)rrsQ)Q 4-)a45-a4j 4.Hn co N- N- 0ý 0) C-4 r) L r.1 Co -4~-i 0 0 0 -4 Ul N 0 0 e U, co CN r, r-i H m U, ~0 o) r- 0 1.0 0 0) H1 U, CN ,-'4 C14"4 r- C0 m) r-i 0 0 r- D N4 04 M-CN r-~ CN-4 r4 M co 0 s:: 0 X., 0 5-4-0 to ra~ ~ a44 -54 >1 3: 4) )a~d ) 0) -% .0 4.4) 4- l t r-4 U U) E-s- *,- m5 H )54 cr5 0 0 129 0 TABLE 4.3-36 TRAP NETTING CATCH OF MAJOR SPECIES IN PINGP REGION, 1975 NUMBERS ARE CATCH PER 24-HOUR SET ROUNDED TO NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.1975 Summer Spring Above Plant Below Plant Area Lock Above Plant Below Plant Area Lock Fall Above Plant Below Plant Area Lock Shortnose gar Shorthead redhorse Carp Northern pike White bass Sauger Walleye Black crappie Freshwater drum 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 9 2 1 5 2 4 0 0 5 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 9 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 FJ Uj C 1 Total 11 8 19 20 8 10 17 5 7 4.3.5.8 Gill Net Studies Fish populations were studied in the PINGP region by sampling with gill nets from 1972 to 1975 (Tables 4.5-37 through 4.3-39). An experimental gill net having dimen-sions of 250 ft x 6 ft (76 x 1.8 m) and mesh (stretch) of 1-1/2, 2, 2-1/2, 3 and 4 inches (3.8, 5, 6.4, 7.6, 10.2 cm)was used (Hawkinson 1974). Lifts were made at 24-hour intervals. Gill netting data permit some assessment of temporal and spatial distribution of fishes. Sauger dominated the 1972 catch. The 1973 program yielded more species in the lakes above the plant (18) than in the plant area (11) and showed highest population densities in the lakes above the plant area for several species (e.g., gizzard shad, white bass, and possibly walleye).The spring catches of 1974 and 1975 were dominated by carp, sauger, white bass, shorthead redhorse, and shortnose gar.Major species were fairly evenly distributed with the excep-tion of longnose gar, walleye, and crappies which were most abundant above the plant. No preference for the plant area was apparent for any species in 1974 and 1975.131 TABLE 4.3-37 FISH CATCH IN GILL NETS IN PINGP REGION, 1 9 7 2 a AND 1 9 7 3 b 1972 No. Catch/lift 1973 No. Catch/lift .Plantl.area No. Catch/lift Shortnose gar Longnose gar Goldeye Mooneye Gizzard shad Northern pike Carp Carpsucker Smallmouth buffalo Shorthe.ad redhorse Channel catfish White bass Rock bass Black crappie Yellow perch Sauger Walleye Freshwater drum 14 14 14 15 163 11 10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.54 5.82 0.39 0.36 2 1 8 2 757c 14 14 4 3 c 10 23 103 2 4 1 120 42 24 c 0.13 0.06 0.50 0.13 47 .31 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.19 0.63 1.44 6.44 0.13 0.25 0.06 7.50 2.63 1.75 3 5 c 1 4 3 c 1 2 1 1 19 3 11.67 0.33 1.33 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.33 6.33 1.00 5.00 toJ a Miller 1973; 28 gill nets;fall, region not given;only dominant species listed b Hawkinson 1974; summer; North, Sturgeon and Brewer Lakes cpredominantly or entirely YOY TABLE 4.3-38 GILL NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING AND FALL, 1974 (FROM NAPLIN AND GEIS 1975)SPRINC Above Plant Catch/Lift No. (for 20 Lifts)Plant Area Catch/Lift No. (for Lifts)FALL Above Plant Plant Area Catch/Lift No. (for 5 Lifts)Catch/Li ft No. (for 20 Lifts)S-e-ies to (A Shortnose gar Longnose gar Bowfin Mooneye Goldeye Gizzard. shad Bigmouth buffalo Smallmouth buffalo Carpsucker app.White sucker -Shorthead redhorse Carp Channel catfish Black bullhead Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead Northern pike White bass Yellow perch Sauger Walleye S:nallmouth bass Bluegill Rock bass White crappie Black crappie Freshwater drum 21 1.05 19 0.95 1 0.05 2 0.10 1 0.05 2 0.10 1 0.05 1 0.05 34 1.70 112 5.60 7 0.35 1 0.05 17 0.85 38 1.90 96 4.80 18 0.90 1 0.05 2 0.10 1 0.05 5 0.25 13 0.65 6 1 6 37 1 6 16 9 1 1 4 1 4 2 1.20 0.20 1.20 0.20 1.20 3.20 1.8o 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.20 0.80 0. 10 2 2 7 4 602 1 14 1 27 110 18.2.90 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.20*30.10 0.05 0.70 0.05 1.35 5.50 0.90 2 117 2 1 9 12 6 1 4 45 9 31 2 8 8 1 0.%0 23.40 o.4o 0.20 1.80 2.40 1.20 0.20 o.8o 9.00 1.80 6.20 0.%0 1.60 1.6o 0.20 1 0.05 19 249 6 14o 37 2'18 26 21 0.95 12.45 0.30 7. 00 1.85 0.05 0.10 0.90 1.30 1.05 TABLE 4.3-39 GILL NET CATCH IN PINGP REGION, SPRING AND FALL ,1975 (FROM GUSTAFSON ET AL. 1976)SPRINGO FALL Above Plant Plant Area Above Plant Plant Area Catch/lift Catch/lift Catch/lift No. 16 lifts No. 8 lifts No. 16 lifts No. 8 lifts Shortnose gar 48 3.00 29 3.63 --1 0.13 Longnose gar 26 1.63 .- --Bowfin 6 0.38 --14 0.88 --Gizzard shad 45 2.81 24 3.00 -874 54.63 --562 70.25 Goldeye 1 0.06 2 0.25 12 0.75 --Mooneye 5 0.31 --5 0.31 2 0.,25 Northern pike 26 1.63 5 0.63 30 0.31 2 0.25 Carp 108 6.75 66 8.25 36 2.25 18 2.25 Silver chub 1 0.06 ------Carpsucker 5 0.31 1 0.13 2 0.13 8 1.00 Smallmouth buffalo 2 0.13 2 0.25 4 0.25 5 0.63 Bigmouth buffalo ---1 0.06 1 0.13 Silver redhorse 1 0.06 -----Shorthead redhorse a3 1.43 29 3.63 14 0.88 10 1.25 Black bullhead 2 0.13 22 2.75 1 0.06 4 0.50 Brown bullhead ------1 0.13 Channel catfish 14 0.88 13 1.63 20 1.25 6 0.75 Burbot ----1 0.06 --White bass 48 3.00 16 2.00 48 3.00 27 3.38 Rock bass 3 0.19 1 0.13 1 0.06 --Bluegill 1 0.06 --2 0.13 1 0.13 Smallmouth bass 1 0.06 -----.White crappie 2 0.13 9 1.13 9 0.56 5 0.63 Black crappie 3 0.19 4 0.50 19 1.19 2 0.25 Yellow perch 3 0.19 1 0.13 1 0.06 4 0.50 Sauger 49 3.06 43 5.38 136 8.50 105 13.13 Walleye 22 1.38 2 0.25 25 1.56 15 1.88 Drum 17 1.06 8 0.50 5 0.31 6 0.75* Hyphen (-) indicates no fish were caught.134 During the fall of 1974 and 1975 the same .species were dominant except that the shortnose gar had declined and gizzard shad was highly dominant. There was no apparent preference of dominant species for either of the regions when both years of data are considered. -An-analysis of population level trends is hampered by variability of sampling stations and the inherent sampling error which resuits from variability of weather and sampling conditions. However, catch-per-lift data for sport fishes (northern pike, white bass, crappies, sauger, walleye) have remained stable or have generally increased during the study period.4.3.5.9 Summary of Fish Studies Tagging studies show that sport fishes move on the average of 18 to 53 miles (29-85 km) or more upstream and downstream in a single year. Therefore, the populations affected by PINGP are highly mixed and very large in comparison to the"populations" estimated for the PINGP region.Assessment of population trends during 1973-1975 is complicated by variation in sampling procedures and conflicting results with different types of sampling gear. Relatively large seine catches of YOY of gizzard shad, white bass, and freshwater 135 drum in 1973 may be attributable to sampling exclusively in the summer or to size of seine used. A strong 1973 year class of gizzard shad was also apparent from electrofishing catches, but not from trawl catches.Trawl, electrofishing, and gill net catches indicate that the major sport fish (walleye, sauger, white bass) maintained their levels in the plant region during 1973-1975 and generally throughout the study area. A relatively high abundance of sauger below the lock and dam in 1973 was apparent from electrofishing and seine data, but not from trawl or gill net data.Seasonal changes in populations result primarily from recruit-ment and mortality of YOY. Year-to-year variability is determined primarily by differences in year-class strengths. Both types of population fluctuation were parallel in all three study areas.4.3.5.10-Spawning and Nursery Potential Adult fish which have been reported to occur in the vicinity of PINGP can be assumed to spawn in the area also. A variety of habitats are utilized for spawning and early development. 136 A large number of species (e.g., shortnose gar, gizzard shad, northern pike, carp, catfish)* that occur near the generating plant prefer backwater areas, sloughs, or flooded vegetated lowlands with minimal current for spawning.Areas of this nature provide protection from predation, prevent downstream displacement of eggs and/or larvae by river currents, and may contain a rich zooplankton food supply which may be critical in the early development period.Pool 3 appears to contain an abundance of such habitats.Species such as white sucker, spotted sucker, silver red-horse, shorthead redhorse, sauger, and walleye prefer to spawn in swift-flowing water where the substrate varies from rock to gravel. The water currents in such areas provide a means of downstream dispersal for larvae and juveniles. This movement balances the upstream migration of these species. Areas of this habitat type are limited in the main or secondary channels in the vicinity of PINGP.However, walleye and sauger will spawn in rivers and lakes on substrates ranging from small stones to rock riprap along shore where wave action can prevent the eggs from being silted over.Other fish, including mooneye, goldeye, and freshwater drum, produce eggs which are non-adhesive and buoyant. Eggs of 0 137 this type aid in downstream dispersal. This group of fish may utilize the main channel or backwater areas of Pool 3 for spawning purposes.In general, it appears that most species of fish that inhabit Pool 3 in the vicinity of PLNGP prefer shallow backwater areas, where currents are minimal, for spawning activities. These species generally produce eggs which are demersal and adhesive in nature and are not commonly found in the water column and are therefore less susceptible to entrainment. The young of these species are also probably most abundant in backwater and shallow shore zone areas of the river.The young of other species, including carp, sauger, walleye, white sucker, black crappie, and white crappie, can be expected to occur throughout the water column and in deeper waters.4.3.5.11 Spawning and Life History Information Spawning and life history information for major species occurring in the PINGP region are given in Appendix 2.This information is useful in assessing the impact of PINGP on the production of fish stocks.138 5 INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Entrainment and impingement are the two major sources of intake impact for large water users such as PINGP. In order to assess the impact of plant intakes, EPA (1976b) has out-lined a suggested program of monitoring for entrainment and impingement. Northern States Power Company has conducted several years of intake related studies at PINGP; the most recent studies include extensive impingement and entrainment programs that are similar to those recommended in the current draft guidelines (EPA 1976b). The following sections summarize the methods and results of these studies.The following section, as well as Section 6, often uses Sturgeon Lake as a basis for comparison to plant intake effects. This will be especially true for entrainment effects. Baker (1975) demonstrated that, in spite of the dredged channel leading to the main channel of the Mississippi River, the source of plant water was largely, if not entirely, from Sturgeon Lake. While Sturgeon Lake is not totally isolated from the Mississippi River, it is sufficiently protected from main channel flow (see Section 4.1) that it tends to have a somewhat lentic character (see Section 4.3).139

5.2 METHODS

USED FOR INTAKE RELATED STUDIES 5.2.1 Entrainment-related Studies 5.2.1.1 Phytoplankton The effects of entrainment on phytoplankton productivity were studied by Baker (1974, 1975). Productivity was measured using "light" and "dark" bottles suspended for 2 to 4 hours during midday at a depth of 25 cm (10 in.). Different studies were conducted to determine (among other things) the source of plant water, the effects of entrainment on phyto-plankton and the overall effects of the plant on river productivity. To accomplish these goals, nine sampling stations were used: three in Sturgeon Lake, four in the main channel, one in the intake canal between the bubble curtain and the skimmer wall, and one in the discharge canal at the discharge gates (Figure 5.2-1). The entrainment studies were conducted from July to December 1974 and from May to October 1975.The effects of entrainment on phytoplankton standing crop were investigated using chlorophyll a and mass of suspended particulates. Chlorophyll a was measured by spectrophoto-metric analyses .of samples filtered through 0.45 micron pore membrane filters and extracted with 90 percent acetone saturated with magnesium carbonate. Pigment concentration 140 ° o.STA. 4 STA. 5* " " STA. --3,..-

• STA. 6 .PLANT SITE-S -STA. 9 ,-"00,- STA. 8 0 STA. 7 LOCK a DAM 1 L FIGURE 5.2-1 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PHYTOPLANKTON PRODUCTIVITY, 1975 (FROM.BAKER 1976)...":'....Ns 141 was calculated using Lorenzen's (1967) formulae.

Suspended particle mass was determined by filtration into pre-weighed membrane filters (0.45 micron pore size), desiccation and weighing.To measure the degradation of entrained phytoplankton in 1975 studies, Baker (1976) used: ((I-D)/I) X 100 where I = value in intake sample and D = value in discharge sample, resulting in a percentage of degradation. Baker and Baker (1975, 1976) studied phytoplankton from 18 stations, including stations in the intake and discharge canals of PINGP (Figure 5.2-2). Samples were preserved in Lugol's, sedimented, and counted and identified using an inverted microscope with a 50X oil immersion objective. Organisms (filaments, colonies) were counted as units. Cell volumes were calculated and used to compute the biovolume contribution of each species. Results of these studies were used to evaluate the cumulative effect of plant passage and heated effluent on phytoplankton and can be considered a good measure of the significance of entrainment effects on the main channel phytoplankton. 142 W ISCONJ SIN}~TA.Cc ( VI- , H-, ;-ICf-M I N N ES O"TA FIGURE 5.2-2 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PHYTOPLANKTON STUDIES, -1974-1975 (FROM BAKER AND BAKER 1975-1976) 143 5.2.1.2 Zooplankton Middlebrook's (1975, 1976) studies on zooplankton entrain-ment used a pump to obtain samples, which were then concen-trated through a 64 micron net submersed in a tank. Samples were collected monthly from July 1974 through December 1974 (except August) and from June 1975 through May 1976 (except July). Collections were taken in the intake canal immediately outside the skimmer wall and in the discharge canal immediately outside the discharge gates.Samples were taken to the laboratory where they were portioned into two subsamples, one to be counted in live condition and one preserved in formalin. The "live" samples were immediately studied'and all organisms exhibiting no external or internal movement were considered dead and were enumerated. The number of "dead" organisms was subtracted from total organism counts made from preserved samples to determine the proportion that had been living at the time of collection. Counts were made in Sedgwick-Rafter cells and adjusted for volume sampled and prepared to provide organisms per liter. Organisms were grouped into Copepoda and copepodites, nauplii, Cladocera and Rotifera.Counts of organisms from the intake and discharge canals were compared using the Students two-tailed t-test. When mortality was significant, confidence limits were determined. 144 To determine the effects of total plant operation (including intake effects) Szluha (1975) evaluated zooplankton of the recycle canal, discharge area and other areas in proximity to the plant (Figure 5.2-3). Samples were collected in Van Dorn bottles, filtered through a Wisconsin net and counted in a Sedgwick-Rafter cell. ANOVA analyses were used to determine differences in zooplankton among the collection stations and what effect PINGP had on zooplankton near the plant. Daggett (1976) conducted similar studies using nine sampling stations (Figure 5.2-4).145 MN B-1 X-1 X-3 Y-1 Y-27 x- ..c-3 Lock & Dam Nc FIGURE 5.2-3 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR ZOOPLANKTON STUDIES, 1974 (FROM SZLUHA 1975)146 ,. 3 / V.~oi FIGURE 5.2-4 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR ZOOPLANKTON STUDIES, 1975 (FROM DAGGETT 1976)147 5.2.1.3 Fish Entrainment monitoring studies were conducted at PINGP between April 25 and September 5, 1975. Field collection and taxonomic enumeration were performed and supervised by Kenneth Mueller, NSP Field Biologist. Samples were collected during one 24-hour period each week, except for the week of August 24-30 when no samples were collected. Three stations were sampled. Samples were collected in front of the bar rack, on the plant side of the skimmer wall, and in the middle of the recirculation canal.The Bar Rack Station was sampled throughout the study. The Bar Rack Station is the point of greatest flow of make-up water (water that had not previously passed through PINGP)through the intake canal. This point was located by a temperature survey completed in April, 1975.The Recirculating Canal Station was sampled from April 25 through July 3, 1975. This station was used to sample the eggs and larvae reintroduced into the intake canal when cooling water was routed through the recirculating canal during closed cycle operation. The Skimmer Wall Station was sampled from July 10 through the termination of the study. Because it was felt that the 148 closed cycle mode of operation (5.3 m 3/sec water appropriation) would not provide sufficient flow to effectively fish the nets, this station was not sampled during the first half of the study. However, during the course of the study, make-up water appropriations were as low as 5 m 3/sec only a few times so the Skimmer Wall Station was added to the program.All samples were collected with plankton nets constructed of 560 micron mesh nylon gauze. Each net was 2.5 m long and 2 was attached to a frame 42.5 cm square (0.181 m mouth area). A General Oceanics Model 2030 flowmeter with an R-2 low speed rotor was fitted in the mouth of each net.All nets were fished as stationary drift nets. Betwieen 3 and 7 nets were stacked vertically, depending on location and water depth. Early in the program all 7 nets were fished at the Bar Rack Station because of excessively high water. After May 9, only 3 or 4 nets were needed at each station to cover the entire water column.During the first 3 weeks of the program a considerable amount of experimentation with sampling time and frequency was conducted. After May 9, collections were standardized to once every 4 hours for 24 hours with the nets in the water 2 hours of each 4 .hour period. Sampling generally began at 0800 hr throughout the study..149 Within 10 minutes of collection, all samples were returned to the Prairie Island laboratory where they were condensed into 0.5 gallon jars for storage. Samples were concentrated by pouring them into a #60 brass sieve (0.250 mm mesh) and washing the strained material into an 0.5 gallon jar. The samples were stained with rose bengal dye and preserved in 3 percent buffered formalin.Prior to sorting, samples were again poured into a #60 brass sieve and washed in running water to remove the formalin.The contents of the sieve were rinsed into glass or enamel sorting pans. Both reflected light and transmitted light were used to sort samples. Fish eggs and larvae were removed from the sorting pans with fine forceps and/or pipettes and were stored in 3 percent buffered formalin until identified at a later date.Larvae were identified to the species level when possible, but in many cases identification was possible only to the generic or family level. Eggs or larvae which could not be identified because of physical damage were termed unidenti-fiable. Those which could not be identified due to a lack of taxonomic information were labeled unidentified. References used in the identification of larvae included Fish (1932), Gerlach (1973), Lippson and Moran (1974), May and Gasaway 150 (1967), Meyer (1970), Nelson (1968), Norden (1961), Snyder (1971), Snyder and Snyder (1976), and Taber (1969).The criteria used to differentiate the early developmental periods into phases are those proposed by Snyder and Snyder (1976): Egg -the period that starts with oogenesis and terminates upon hatching Protolarva -the larval phase which begins at hatching continues until the appearance of at least 3 distinct fin rays in the finfold Mesolarva -the larval phase which begins at the end of the protolarval phase and continues until just before the appearance of pelvic fins or fin buds, and the appearance of the full complement of soft fin rays in the median fins Metalarva -the larval phase which extends from the termination of the mesolarval phase to just before the disappearance of the undifferentiated finfold and attainment of the full complement of spines and fin rays with segmentation apparent in the soft rays, 151 Juvenile -the period extending from the end of the metalarval phase to sexual maturation. The total number of eggs, larval fish and juvenile fish for each taxon entrained was calculated as follows: 16 N.=E X...V.Sj=l 13 where Ni = the total number of eggs, larvae or juvenile of taxon i Xij = the mean density of taxon i during week j V. the total circulating water volume for period j j = the sampling period corresponding to the designated sampling date, i.e., May 15, May 22...September 4.A sampling period was defined as the 7 day period centered on the actual sampling dates (Table 5.2-1).Studies related to intake monitoring were conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) who collected fish eggs and larvae in the vicinity of the PINGP weekly between May 19 and August 15, 1975. Sampling procedures and stations (Figure 5.2-5) are detailed in Gustafson et al.(1976).152 TABLE 5.2-1 SAMPLING DATES AND CORRESPONDING SAMPLING PERIOD a Sampling Date May 15 May 21 May 29 June 5 June 12 June 19 June 26 July 2 July 10 July 17 July 24 July 31 Aug. 7 Aug. 14 Aug. 21 Sept. 4 Days in Period 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 13* Exten -of'Sampling Period May 12 -May 18 May 19 -May 24 May 25 -June 1 June 2 -June 8 June 9 -June 15 June 16 -June 22 June 23 -June 29 June 30 -July 6 July 7 -July 13 July 14 -July 20 July 21 -July 27 July 28 -Aug. 3 Aug. 4- Aug. 10 Aug. 11 -Aug. 17 Aug. 18 -Aug. 28 Aug. 29 -Sept. 10 aSampling also took place on April 25, May 2 and May 8; however, these dates have been omitted because of the considerable experimentation and lack of consistency on these dates.153 N LAKE MILES a ./4 k/s 3/4 KILOMETERS S M 11 31 I 1/4 1/2 3/4 PLAMT FIGURE 5.2-5 LOCATION OF SOURCE WATER FISH EGG AN'D LARVA SAMPLIG STATIONS AT PINGP IN 1975 154 5.2.2 Impingement-Related Studies 5.2.2.1 Data Collection Impingement sampling procedures were similar in 1974 and 1975 as described by Mayhew and Hess (1976). The 1974 sampling period ran from January 2, 1974 to January 2, 1975;the 1975 sampling period ran from January 1 to December 31.Trash baskets remained in place from January 2, 1974 to December 31, 1975. Trash baskets were lifted and emptied, with few exceptions, one to three times per week. All impinged organisms were separated from debris and counted.Organisms overlooked because of heavy debris loads were estimated at less than 2 percent of the total. All fish except gizzard shad were individually counted. Whený more than 1,000 gizzard shad were present in a sample, the total number of gizzard shad was estimated by counting the number of fish in a full pail and multiplying this number by the number of pails of gizzard shad in the sample.Generally, total lengths of all fish were recorded. However, when the number of fish of a species exceeded 150 to 200 fish, a subsample of 50 to 100 fish was randomly chosen and measured.155 Whenever feasible, live fish were released in Sturgeon Lake or the discharge canal. This occurred particularly in spring when a great number of bullheads survived the rigors of impingement. In addition, special efforts were made to rescue and release live fish during late October and early November.Some species were grouped in reporting impingement losses.With the exception of carp and silver chub, all members of the family Cyprinidae were grouped as "minnow spp." This group included at least 10 species of minnows, shiners, and dace. River carpsucker and quillback were grouped as "carp-sucker spp." "Crappie spp." included both white and black crappie. Many black, yellow, and brown bullheads were listed as "bullhead spp.", primarily in spring. Sauger and walleye were frequently reported as "sauger-walleye spp." These groupings were necessary because of the deteriorated condition of many fish and, often, the sheer numbers of fish in a sample.Ambient water temperature and recycle canal water temperature data were taken from hourly plant computer logs; average circulating water flow, and blowdown flow and make-up water appropriation data were taken from plant thermal effluent logs. Weekly mean values were calculated from these data.156 0 Ambient water temperature sensors were located approximately 150 m (492 ft) out from the skimmer wall on the river side of the plant.Recycle canal water temperatures generally corresponded with upper layer intake canal water temperatures. Ambient water temperatures were similar to bottom intake canal water temperatures. 5.2.2.2 Statistical Analysis Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (Sokal and Rohlf 1969) were calculated for the 1975 data to determine the association between average circulating water (cfs), 0 makeup-water appropriation (cfs), recycle canal water temperature ('F) and river water inlet (ambient) temperature (0 F) with the number of impinged channel catfish, white bass, freshwater drum, black bullhead, and crappie spp.These species were selected because of impingement impor-tance. The sample statistic calculated was: r = Z (Xi-X) (Yi-Y)[ Xi-X 1/2 where: Xi = Sample observation of variable X S= Mean of all observations of variable X Yi = Sample observation of variable Y Y = Mean of all observations of variable Y *157 This sample statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the population correlation coefficient was equal to zero (i.e., Ho:Ip1=o). The 0.05 level of significance was used.Partial correlation coefficients (Snedecor and Cochran 1967)were computed on several combinations to remove effects of other associated parameters. The sample statistics are of the forms: r 12 -r 1 3 r 2 3 r1.2.-3= [(El-r 1 3 2 (1-r 2 3 2)]1/2 and r 1 2.3 4 r12'.4 -ro13.4 r23 .4[( -13.4 2 .(i-r 23.42)']1/ The original data consisted of three data sets: 1. Hourly measurements of recycle-canal water temperature and river water inlet temperature.

2. Daily measurements of makeup-water appropriation and average circulating water.3. Weekly measurements of the number of impinged fish.Daily arithmetic averages were calculated for data set (1)and merged with daily measurements for data set (2). These daily measurements were then averaged to obtain weekly measurements to merge with data set (3). The final data 158 set was used to calculate correlation coefficients.

Computer programs used in performing the statistical analyses in-cluded selected programs from the Statistical Analysis System developed by North Carolina State University (Barr and Goodnight 1972).159

5.3 RESULTS

OF INTAKE-RELATED STUDIES 5.3.1 Entrainment Studies 5.3.1.1 Phytoplankton Studies conducted by Baker (1975) demonstrated that the major source of water and phytoplankton withdrawn by PINGP is lower Sturgeon Lake, which generally supports greater densities of algae than the main channel of the river.Standing crops of phytoplankton were lower in the dis-charge canal than in the intake canal in 1974 and 1975 (Table 5.3-1 and Figure 5.3-1), based on chlorophyll a data.There were no evident trends in suspended particulate mass after passage through the plant, indicating that the algae may remain physically intact although they have lost some photosynthetic capacity. Loss of chlorophyll a was at times as high as 58 percent but usually was 50 percent or less.Primary productivity of phytoplankton in the discharge canal was reduced up to 90 percent over that of the intake canal (Table 5.3-1, Figure 5.3-1). Seasonal trends in produc-tivity degradation were not evident in 1975, but in 1974 the highest degradation occurred during high ambient temp-eratures. In 1975 two units were in operation, 160 TABLE 5.3-1 THE EFFECT OF PASSAGE OF PHYTOPLANKTON THROUGH PINGP ON CHLOROPHYLL a, PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND RESPIRATION, 1974 (FROM BAKER 1975)Destruction of b Reduction of Reduction of Date Chlorophyll aa' Photosynthesisga Respiration a July 16 58% 75% 80%22 54 90 18 23 49 84 45 31 24 73 54 Aug. 6 51 76 30 10 24 74 59 14 29 72 60 22 34 61 --29 34 63 82 Nov. 2 0 35 Stimulated 9 17 44 Stimulated 25 0 31 Stimulated Dec. 3 40 60 Stimulated apercent Destruction or Reduction = 100 x (1 -discharge level/intake level) .bChlorophyll a destruction estimates are conservative. I 0 161 ml~H-H->1'4 0 H 0 C-0 0 Ln 0 1~o0 0 C-'-I 0*0-I 0 Cl z 0 a 0D 0 C LZ~ 0 1'1**.0 0 0 00-I 00 coo 0 o 0 o0 I 00-I Or,3 0'z H E-rH E4H-00 Hz 0Ocn HHV W 04L z r 0z 00~4 Ht/0 4-, 0 0ý4 0 z 0 H H4 A.0 ,-H In 0 NOUV'A~aS90 JO T'DNanoaud 162 probably explaining the higher percentage of time that productivity was severely depressed due to passage through PINGP.Respiration was usually depressed by passage through PINGP (Table 5.3-1, Figure 5.3-1), although in 1974 respiration was stimulated by plant passage in late fall. There were no late fall studies in 1975.The apparent lack of pattern to phytoplankton degradation is likely due to the variable plant operation modes (Baker 1976). Baker (1976) also calculated photosynthetic capacity (the productivity efficiency of phytoplankton based on oxygen production per unit of chlorophyll a) for phyto-plankton before and after entrainment. These calculations were performed on 1974 data which the author considered more reliable, although they only reflected one unit operation. Photosynthetic capacity of the non-entrained algae was twice that of the entrained algae.In 1974, Baker (1975) studied productivity differences in the main channel of the Mississippi River and concluded that "any effects of Sturgeon Lake or the power plant on the productivity of the main stream were immeasurable, 0 163 and were probably insignificant because of the predominant flow of the main channel." The studies by Baker and Baker (1974, 1975) indicated little detectable damage to phytoplankton that had passed through the plant. Subtle differences were evident in the discharge canal. In 1974 concentrations of blue-green algae were usually lower than in the intake and Aphanizomenon flos-aguae was visibly damaged by plant passage. In 1975 there were increases of algae in the plant effluent on some dates and decreases on other dates. There were no detectable differences in phytoplankton composition or densities in the main river channel that could be attributed to the plant operation in either 1974 or 1975. These conclusions corroborate those of EPA (1976b) who stated that if there are effects from phytoplankton entrainment they are of short duration and confined to a relatively small portion of the water body.5.3.1.2 Zooplankton Middlebrook (1975, 1976) found that zooplankton at PINGP was significantly affected by entrainment on a number of dates. Of the fifteen dates sampled from 1974 to 1976, 66 percent of the samples were significantly affected by entrainment, based on t-tests of copepod, nauplius, cladoceran and rotifer densities (Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3).164 TABLE 5.3-2 ESTIMATED PERCENT MORTALITY OF ZOOPLANKTON DUE TO PLANT PASSAGE AT PINGP IN' 1974 (FROM MIDDLEBROOK 1975)Organism July 30 August 14 September 4 November 21 Decem Copepoda 51.0+15.9* 36.2+30.0 N.S. N.S. N Nauplii 41.0+14.7* 33.2+28.3 N.S. N.S. 65.Cladocera N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N Rotifera N.S. 33.6+26.1 15.3+14.4 N.S. 48.AT (OF) 23.9 19.3 20.9 30.0 3 aEvaluated using two-tailed Student t-test, paired observations (P<0.05)*Significant at P<0.01 NS = No significant difference ber 18 ,.S.9+29.0.S.4+6.4 0.7 FI Ln 0 TABLE 5.3-3 ESTIMATED PERCENT MORTALITY OF'ZOOPLANKTON DUE TO PLANT PASSAGE AT PINGP IN 1975 AND 1976 (FROM MIDDLEBROOK 1976)Date AT (OF) -Copepoda Nauplii Cladocera June 13, 1975 22.5 NS NS NS Aug 7, 1975 15.7 30.6+25.5 NS NS Sep 8, 1975 23.0 NS NS NS Oct 9, 1975 25.6 26.6+22.7 NS NS Nov 5, 1975 30.0 NS NS NS Dec 9, 1975 38.5 NP 18.7+60.3 NP Jan 12, 1976 28.1 NP NS NP Feb 9, 1976 36.2 NS 13.3+12.8 NP Mar 4, 1976 33.9 NS NS NP Apr 5, 1976 13.5 NS NS NS May 4, 1976 22.1 19.9+10.7* 26.6+16.7* NS Rotifera NS 19.8+13.5* 15.0+6.5*NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 25.4+13.5* aEvaluated using two-tailed Student t-test, paired observations (P<0.05)NS = No significant difference in mortality between intake and discharge NP = Calculation not possible -* = Significant at P<0.01 0 In many cases only one or two groups were affected by plant passage. In 1975-1976 copepod mortality was significant in August, October and May; copepod nauplii mortality was significant in December, February and May; and rotifer mortality was highly significant ( p < 0.01) in August, September and May. Lack of significant mortality in other months and for cladocerans in all months may be partly attributable to insufficient zooplankton densities for statistical treatment. The AT during plant passage could not be correlated to mortality. Szluha (1975) and Daggett (1976) compared zooplankton collections at the intake, discharge and nearby locations to determine if any differences could be related to plant operation. Sziuha (1975) was unable to demonstrate statisti-cally any change in zooplankton densities or composition due to plant operation, even within the recirculation canal.Daggett (1976) found slightly lower zooplankton densities in the discharge canal as compared to intake canal densities in May and September 1975. The recycle canal had slightly (not statistically significant) lower numbers in fall and winter. Copepods were significantly reduced in areas directly affected by the discharge (Stations X-3, Y-l, B-1 and C-l)compared to densities at-the intake and Sturgeon Lake (intake 167 source), but Daggett (1976) stresses that these data are preliminary. 5.3.1.3 Fish Entrainment of fish eggs and young (larval and juvenile fish) was monitored on 19 dates between April 25 and September 4, 1975 (Table 5.2-1). The three earliest sampling dates (April 25, May 2 and May 8) were considered experimental because of marked-differences in sampling procedures and times and were not used in the development of entrainment losses.Collections on the three early dates yielded only 22 carp larvae, 1 unidentified percid larva and 2 burbot larvae.Collections from the remaining 16 dates between May 15 and September 4 resulted in mean densities of 2.39 eggs/100 m 3 , 19.5 larvae/100 m 3 and 0.05 juveniles/100 m 3 5.3.1.3.1 Taxonomic Composition A total of 39 taxa, including at least 26 species from 12 families, were represented in the collections (Table 5.3-4).Freshwater drum eggs accounted for 89 percent of the eggs and mooneye eggs less than 0.1 percent; the remainder of the eggs were unidentified. Emerald shiners were the most abundant young fish collected, followed by gizzard shad, 168 FISH EGGS AND YOUNG Scientific Name Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Salmonidae Coregonus clupeaformis? Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus Hiodon spp.TABLE 5.3-4 COLLECTED IN ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING AT PINGP, 1975 (Sheet 1 of 2)Common Name Herrings Gizzard shad Trouts Lake whitefish Developmental Phasea E PL ML MeL J.+ + + ++01 4,0 Esocidae Esox lucius Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio H ybopsis aestivalis Notropis atherinoides? Pimephales vigilax Catostomidae Catostomus commersoni Carpiodes spp.Ictiobus spp.Moxostoma spp.Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictus olivarus Noturus gyrinus Mooneyes Mooneye Mooneye or Goldeye Pikes Northern pike Minnows and Carps, Carp Speckled chub Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Suckers White sucker Carpsuckers Buffaloes Redhorses Freshwater catfishes Channel catfish Flathead catfish Tadpole madtom+ +++++++++ + + +++ ++ +++++++++++++++ TABLE 5.3-4 (Sheet 2 of 2)Scientific Name Percopsidae Percopsis omiscomaycus Common Name Trout-perches Trout-perch Developmental Phasea E PL ML MeL J Gadidae Lota Iota Percicthyidae Morone chrysops Codfishes Burbot+Temperate basses White bass+ + +I-I 0 Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis gibbosus L. macrochirus Lepomis spp.Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus Pomoxis spp.Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Etheostoma spp.Perca flavescens Percina caprodes ?Percina shumardi ?Percina spp.Stizostedion canadense S. vitreum Stizostedion spp.Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Sunfishes Rock bass Pumpkinseed Bluegill unidentified sunfish White crappie Black crappie unidentified crappie Perches Johnny darter unidentified darters Yellow perch Log perch 'River darter unidentified darters Sauger Walleye Sauger or Walleye+1*+++ + + ++ +-+++ ++ +++ ++++++ ++ + +++- ++ + ++ + +Drums Freshwater drum+ + + + +a. E = Egg; PL = Protolarva; ML = Mesolarvae; MeL = Metalarva; J = Juvenile unidentified suckers, white bass, carp, freshwater drum, buffalo, sauger, unidentified minnows and carpsuckers (Table 5.3-5). These 10 taxa comprised 90 percent of the catch of young fish.Eggs were taken between May 15 and July 31 and again on September 4, whereas young fish were collected throughout the study.Peak egg density (27.5/100 m 3) occurred on May 29; a secondary peak (3.34/100 m 3) occurred on June 19 (Appendix 3). On both occasions the collections were dominated by freshwater drum eggs.Peak density of young (101/100 m ) occurred on May 29.Secondary peaks occurred on May 21, June 26, July 10 and July 24 (Figure 5.3-2, bar rack data). On May 29, the collections were dominated by emerald shiner, white bass and gizzard shad (Table 5.3-6). Young gizzard shad and carp were most abundant on June 26, with emerald shiner, carp and sunfish predominant on July 10, and emerald shiner and freshwater drum on July 24.5.3.1.3.2 Comparison of Sampling Locations In the present study samples were collected at 3 locations within the cooling systems of PINGP: the skimmer wall, 171 TABLE 5.3-5 MEAN DENSITY AND PERCENT OF CATCH OF YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN ENTRAINMENT SAMPLING AT PINGP, 1975 No/1100m 3 Notropis atherinoides? Dorosoma cepedianum Catostomidae Morone chrysops Cyprinus carpio Aplodinotus grunniens Ictiobus spp Stizostedion canadense Cyprinidae Carpiodes spp Percina spp Hiodon tergisus Lepomis spp Percidae Percina shumardi?Pomoxis spp Ictalurus punctatus Stizostedion vitreum Hiodon sp Perca flavescens spp Lepomis macrochirus Percopsis omiscomaycus Etheostoma nigrum Etheostoma spp Percina ca2prodes? Pomoxis nigromaculatus Coregonus clupeaformis? Esox lucius Pimephales vigilax Catostomus commersoni Moxostoma spp Noturus gyrinus Pylodictus oiivaris Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis macrochirus Pomoxis annularis Centrarchidae Unidentifiable Unidentified 4.36 4.00 2.45 2.26 1.36 1.03 0.62 0.55 0.51 0.44 0.33 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Percent 22.3 20.5 12.5 11.6 7.0 5.3 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 172 10000.0.-. BAR RACK STATION 1000.0 =--- -DNR STATIONS Ithrough/---o-o DNR STATIONS 1,2and4-, DNR STATION 3 100.0 ~\E/0 0 10.0 0 4-1.0 w hi z 0 z 0.1 m I I I I I i I I I I I I I MAY MAY MAY JUN JUN JUN JUN JUL JUL JUL JUL JUL AUG AUG AUG 15 21 29 5 12 19 26 2 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 FIGURE 5.3-2 MEAN DENSITY (NO/100m 3) OF YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN THE STURGEON LAKE AREA BY MDNR AND AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE PINGP INTAKE CANAL BETWEEN MAY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 4, 1975. (REFER TO FIGURE 5.2-5 FOR STATION TOCATIONS) 7 SEP 4 TABLE 5.3-6 MEAN DENSITY OF FISH LARVAE AT THE BAR RACK STATION AT PINGP, 1975 174 MEAN DENSITY INO./100 CUBIC METERS) OF FISH LARVAE COLLECTED AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE INTAKE CANAL OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GENERATING PLANT ON EACH COLLECTION DATE IN 1975.MAY MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY JULY JULY JULY JULY AUG AUG 15 21 29 5 12 19 26 2 t0 17 24 31 7 14 PAGE I AUG SEPT 21 4 AVG.UNIDENTIFIABLE a PROTOLARVA 0.03 0.38 0.72 0.03 0.0 0.12 0.24 0.0 0.04 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 NESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.03 0.38 0.73 0.03 0.0 0.12 0.24 0.0 0.04 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.11 UNIDENTIFIEDb EGG 0.01 1.09 2.00 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.56 0.0 0.0 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.26 PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 APLODINOTUS GRUNNIENS EGG 0.0 0.32 25.52 2.90 0.61 3.34 0.76 0.10 0.05 0.41 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.13 PROTOLA14VA 0.0 0.01 0.93 2.02 0.44 3.30 0.99 0.20 0.04 0.13 1.02 0.81 0.09 0.33 0.58 0.0 0.68 MESULARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.22 4.36 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.31.METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.05 0.0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.10 0.02 0.0 0.02 L JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 TOTAL 0.0 0.01 0.93 2.08 0.66 7.75 1.43 0.20 0.06 0.25 1.05 0.83 0.14 0.44 0.69 0.0 1.03 COREGONUS CLUPEAFORMIS ?METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 MORONE CHRYSOPS PROTOLARVA 1.05 2.38 3.45 0.22 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.47 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 18.23 0.65 0.18 0.19 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.21 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.97 7.24 0.69 0.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.56 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 1.05 2.38 21.68 1.84 7.49 1.03 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.26 PERC IDAE PROTOLARVA 0.16 0.56 3.12 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 MESOLARVA 0.0 0o.0 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.16 0.56 3.34 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 STIZOSTEDION SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.37 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 TOTAL 0.37 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 "0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 STIZOSTEDION VITREUM PROTOLARVA 0.72 0.6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.72 0.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 MEAN DENSITY (NO./100 CUBIC METERS) OF FISH LARVAE COLLECTED AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE INTAKE CANAL OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GENERATING PLANT ON EACH COLLECTION DATE IN 1975 PAGE 2 MAY MAY MAY JUNE JUNE 15 21 29 5 12 JUNE JUNE JULY 19 26 2 JULY JULY JULY JULY 10 17 24 31 AUG 7 AUG AUG SEPT 14 21 4 AVG.STIZOSTEDION CANADENSE PROTOLARVA 0.57 7.02 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.48 MESOLARVA 0.0 1.08 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL. 0.57 8.1o 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.55 PERCINA SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.09 1.09 3.49 0.41 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.32 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.06 O.d 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.09 1.09 3.53 0.47 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.33 PERCINA SHUMARDI?MESULARVA 0.0 0.0 0.34 0.14 .0.0 2.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17 TOTAL 0.0. 0.0 0.34 0.14 0.0 2.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17-PERCINA CAPRODES?PROTOLARVA H .MESOLARVA METALARVA TOTAL 0.0 0.05 \0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 05 oo0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 PERCA FLAVESCENS PROTOLARVA 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.04 0.23 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 ETHEOSTOMA SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 ETHEOSTOMA NIGRUM PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 PERCOPSIS OMISCOMAYCUS PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.08 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.08 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 PYLODICTIS OLIVARIS METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0o0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O0O 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 MEAN DENSITY (NO./300 CUBIC METERS) OF FISH LARVAE COLLECTED AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE INTAKE CANAL OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GENERATING PLANT ON EACH COLLECTION DATE IN 1975 PAGE 3 MAY MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE 15 21 29 5 12 19 26 JULY JULY JULY JULY a 10 17 24 JULY AUG AUG 31 7 14 AUG SEPT 21 4 AVG.NOTURUS GYRINUS METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.70 0.11 0.0 0.24 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.70 0.13 0.0 0.25 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 HIODON SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 MESCLARVA 0.0 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.91 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 HIODON TERGISUS EGG PROTOLARVA MES.LARVA TOTAL 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 4.23 0.02 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 4.97 0.02 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.32 ESOX LUCIUS PROTOLARVA 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 CYPRINIDAE PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.07 0.84 0.40 0.32 0.07 3.89 0.41 3.01 0.41 0.50 0.53 0.27 0.68 0.15 0.0 0.47 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 0.15 0.0 0.03 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.07 0.88 0.42 0.32 0.11 3.89 0.41 1.13 0.43 0.51 0.53 0.27 0.87 0.30 0.0 0.51 PIMEPHALES VIGILAX JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.00 NOTROPIS ATHERINOIDES? PROIOLARVA 0.0 0.18 48.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.02 1.88 3.85 0.02 4.07 3.63 0.39 0.25 0.02 0.0 4.08 MESULARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 0.71 0.09 0.52 0.50 0.07 0.43 0.48 0.0 0.19 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.21 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.15 0.42 0.0 0.07 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.15 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.18 48.00 0.07 0.20 0.03 3.02 2.08 4.77 0.20 4.65 4.21 0.52 0.83 0.92 0.15 4.36 HYSOPSIS AESTIVALIS JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 MEAN DENSITY (NO./I00 CUBIC METERS) OF FISH LARVAE COLLECTED AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE INTAKE CANAL OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GENERATING PLANT ON EACH COLLECTION DATE IN 1975 MAY MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY JULY JULY JULY JULY AUG 15 21 29 5 12 19 26 2 10 17 24 31 7 PAGE 4 AUG AUG SEPT 14 21 4 AVG.CYPRINUS CARPID PROTOLARVA 0.82 2.11 0.53 0.0 0.20 0.0 14.86 0.62 0.44 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.23 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 1.65 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 HE7ALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.62 2.11 0.60 0.0 0.20 0.0 14.86 0.82 2.15 0.03 0.10 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.36 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.87 14.79 Io04 0.44 1.28 29.98 1.37 0.32 0.03 0.02 0.64 0.49 0.0 0.16 0.0 3.21 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.55 2.64 1.13 4.14 0.60 0.53 0.25 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.43 0.12 0.0 0.72 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.34 0.23 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.06 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.15 0o04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.0 0.87 15.79 3.59 3.09 2.41 34.20 1.96 1.21 0.67 0.07 0.69 0.59 0.66 0.28 0.0 4.00 CENTRARCCHIDAE PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00-J*: .OMOXIS SPP.PROTOLARVA MESOLARVA TOTAL 0.0 0.16 1.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.16 1.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 PONOXIS NIGROMACULATUS MESOLARVA 0.0 "0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 POMOXIS ANNULARIS MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 IOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 LEPOMIS SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.0 1.75 0.20 1.81 0.04 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.0 1.75 0.20 1.84 0.08 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 LEPONIS MACROCHIRUS PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.18 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 METALARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 MEAN DENSITY (NO./I00 CUBIC METERS) OF FISH LARVAE COLLECTED AT THE BAR RACK STATION IN THE INTAKE CANAL OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GENERATING PLANT ON EACH COLLECTION DATE IN 1975 PAGE 5 MAY MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY 15 21 29 5 12 19 26 2 JULY JULY JULY JULY t0 17 24 31 AUG 7 AUG AUG SEPT 14 21 4 AVG.LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS PROlDLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O0O 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.00 AMBLOPLITES RUPESTRIS MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 JUVENILE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 CATOSTOM IDAE PROTOLARVA 0.20 34.61 0.81 0.3B 0.23 0.09 1.37 0.0 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.44 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 TOTAL 0.20 34.61 0.87 0.38 0.23 0.09 1.37 0.0 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.45/ MOXOSTOMA SPP.PROTOLARVA kTOTAL 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 ICTIODUS SPP*PHOTOLARVA. 0.0 8.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.22 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.56 MESOLARVA 0.0 0.0 0.85 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 TOTAL 0.0 8.74 0.88 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.22 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.62 CARPIODES SPP.PROTOLARVA 0.0 5.20 0.36 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.40 MESOLAkVA 0.0 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 TOTAL 0.0 5.20 1.04 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.44 CATOSTOHUS COMMERSONI PROTOLARVA 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.0 O.OZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 aLoo damaged or deteriorated for identification tataxonomic data or characteristics insufficient for identification 0 the bar rack and the recirculation canal (see Section 5.2.1.3). No consistent differences between the densities of eggs and young at the Bar Rack Station and those at the Recirculating Canal Station or at the Skimmer Wall Station were apparent (Figures 5.3-3 and 5.3-4). Densities occasion-ally appeared to be higher at both the Recirculating Canal Station and the Skimmer Wall Station than at the Bar Rack Station, probably as a result of the inherent variability in ichthyoplankton densities. The Bar Rack Station apparently yields as good a representation of the number of larvae entrained as the Skimmer Wall Station, and is not markedly influenced by eggs or young fish recirculated through the recirculation canal.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) collected fish egg and larva samples in the vicinity of the PINGP intake and in Sturgeon Lake on a weekly basis between May 19 and September 5, 1975 (Gustafson et al. 1976).These data were used to estimate total numbers of young fish passing through the Sturgeon Lake Outlet, which, in turn, were compared to the total numbers entrained by PINGP on a weekly basis (Table 5.3-7). The MDNR data are considered low estimates of young fish densities due to their sampling methods: 1) sampling was only conducted in daytime, when densities are usually lower, and 2) sampling 180 300.RECIRC. CANAL 0.0 300.BAR RACK 0.0 DIEL VARIATION IN AND LARVAE AT THE STATIONS AT FIGURE 5.3-3 MEAN DENSITY (No./100 m 3) OF EGGS RECIRCULATION CANAL AND BAR RACK PINGP, MAY 15-JULY 2, 1975 181 20.TIME BAR RACK 0.0/04 20.;'SKIMMER WALL 0.0 1/04 FIGURE 5.3-4 DIEL VARIATION IN MEAN DENSITY (No./100 m 3) OF EGGS AND LARVAE AT THE SKIMMER WALL AND BAR RACK STATIONS AT PINGP, JULY 10 -SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 182 TABLE 5.3-7 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LARVAE AND JUVENILES PASSING TIHRUGH THREE LOCATIONS AT PINGP, 1975a Bar Rack (BR)MDHR Station 3b (Skimmer-Wall) Sturgeon Lakeb Outlet (SLI Percent entrained BR/sL x 100 May is 21 29 0.975 17.0 23.7-- 0.655 0.308-- 20.0 61.0-- 85.0 38.8 5 0.908 19.2 12 1.55 0.580 19 3.28 0.365 26 7.45 1.50 2 0.438 0.193 10 3.17 1.86 June July 17 0.591 0.302 24 1.72 2.37 31 1.66 0.326 August 7 14 21 0.366 0.435 0.887 2.01 0.231 --September 4 0.068 0 0.43 610 36 54 38 140 26 24 6.2 8.6 5.4 3.1 3.0 d 0.1 4.3 6.1 19.6 0.3 12.2 2.5 27.7 19.3 .6.8 14.0 32.2 15.8--No sample taken or value could not be computed H Total Number of larvae and juveniles x 10 per week c omputed from data of Gustafson et al. (1976)Estimated from previous and succeeding

dates, was done with 787 micron mesh nets (compared to 560 micron nets in present study) for the first half of the study, when small larvae were most abundant, possibly resulting in loss of specimens.

Thus the estimates of entrainment as percent-ages of Sturgeon Lake discharge (Table 5.3-7) are probably high.The mean density of young for all MDNR stations (Stations 1-7) and for the MDNR stations in the vicinity of the PINGP intake (Stations 1, 2, and 4) were generally higher than or equal to those at the Bar Rack Station in the PINGP canal.However, there were no evident trends in the fluctuations in abundance (Figure 5.3-2). Densities peaked at the Bar Rack Station a week earlier than in Sturgeon Lake. Over the remainder of the sampling program, the density at the Bar Rack Station fluctuated widely from week to week while at the same time the mean densities for all MDNR stations and Stations 1, 2 and 4 exhibited a fairly constant rate of decline. However, densities at MDNR Station 3 fluctuated with those at the Bar Rack Station during late June, July and early August. These fluctuations are probably attribut-able to a number of factors including:

1) differing sampling procedures used for the present study and in MDNR studies, 2) changes in plant operation mode, and 3) changes in intake area of influence due to river flow changes. At present no single factor can explain the variations.-

184 5.3.1.3.3 Diel Variations in Fish Entrainment During the first half of the sampling program (May 15 to July 2), there was no consistent pattern in the abundance of eggs and larvae over the 24-hour sampling period at either the Recirculating Canal Station or the Bar Rack Station.During the second half of the program, however, densities of young fish at both the Bar Rack Station and the Skimmer Wall Station were generally higher between sunset and sunrise (i.e., 2000-0000 hrs, 0000-0400 hrs and 0400-0800 hrs sampling periods).An examination of the vertical distribution of eggs and young of the ten most abundant taxa collected at the Bar Rack Station appears to indicate that, for most taxa, densities were consistently higher near the bottom. This did nto appear to be influenced by the time of day or the date the collections were made. White bass, the only exception, showed no consistent pattern in depth distribution. 185

5.3.2 Impingement

A total of 44 species representing 14 families were impinged in 1974; 48 species and one hybrid fish representing 16 families were impinged during 1975. In the 1974 study, 146,063 fish, representing an average of 400 fish per day, were impinged (Table 5.3-8). In 1975, the total number of impinged fishes was 93,466, representing a daily average of 256 fish (Tables 5.3-9 and 5.3-10). Gizzard shad comprised 94 percent of the total in 1974 and 75 percent of the total in 1975. Other than gizzard shad, freshwater drum, white bass, crappies, channel catfish, black bullhead, and minnows were the most abundant fishes in the impingement catch.Impingement rates showed wide seasonal variability. 'Gizzard shad were most frequently impinged in fall and winter (Figures 5.3-5 and 5.3-6). Impingement of other species occurred primarily during April-May and July-November (Figures 5.3-7 and 5.3-8). Peaks shown reflect impingement of channel catfish, white bass, freshwater drum, crappies, and black bullhead (Figures 5.3-9 through 5.3-13, respectively). Gizzard shad were impinged primarily during the winter.Bullheads were caught primarily during the spring of 1975.Carp, white bass, and crappie spp. occurred in greatest numbers in the summer. Gizzard shad, channel -catfish, freshwater drum, and minnow spp. were impinged in greatest numbers in the fall.186 NUMBERS OF FISH TABLE 5.3-8 (SHEET 1 OF 4)PER WEEK COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974 1-2 1-2 to SPECIES 1-9 Weekly Periods 1-9 1-16 1-23 1-3 2-6 2-13 2-20 to to to to to to 1-16 1-23 1-30 2-6 2-13 2-20 2-27 2-27 3-6 3-13 3-20 3-27 4-3 to. to to to to to 3-6 3-13 3-20 3-27 4-3 o4-10 H ca Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Undetermined lamprey Longnose gar Shortnose gar Gizzard shad Goldeye Hooneye Northern pike Carp Silver chub Minnows Carpsucker app.Stealimouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorsa Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Tadpole madtom Flathead catfish Undetermined ictalurid Trout-perch Burbot White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Crappie app.Undetermined centrarchid Yellqw perch Logpprch Sauger Walleye Sauger-walleye Freshwater drum Undetermined fish TOTAL FISH TOTAL FISH LESS GIZZ.RD S IMD I 8750 .3500 859 242 42.63 650 134 18". 81 21 1 2 1 2 I 3 1 2 114 1 3 23 3 50 1 I 1 4 3 5 I 1 I I 2 4 1 4 17 I 1 1. 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 5 3 I I 7 12 6 48 14 3 38 16 8 9 0 10 .3 I 4 1 3 .1 12 11 3 15 12 1 124 2 1 1 30 8 7 8 98 42 4 4 91 61 107 47 I 8819 3515 889 262 4431 745 242 102 219 94 31 1 .39 2 2 427 2 313 69 15 30 20 L68 95 108 84 138 73 0 0 TABLE 5.3-8 (SHEET 2 OF 4)t-1O 4-17 4-2t to to to 4-17 4-24 5-1 5-1 to 5-8 5-V 5-15 to to 5-15 5-22 Weekly Periods 5-22 5-29 to to 5-29 6-5 6-5 6-12 6-.9 6-26 7-3 to to to to to 6-12 6-19 6-26 7-3 7-10 aO O3 SPECIES Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Undetermined lamprey Longnose gar Shortnose gar Gizzard shad Coldeye Mooneye Northern pike Carp Silver chub Minnows Carpsucker app.Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Tadpole madtom Flathead catfish Undetermined Lctalurid, Trout-perch Blurbot White bass Rock bass Green sunfish.Bluegill Largemouth bass'Smallmouth bass Crappie app.Undetermined centrarchid Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Walleye Sauger-walleye Freshwater drum Undetermined fish I 16 a 9 1 3 1 2 3 1 4 13 12 3 2 53 1 3 5 1 16 10 26 26 2 76 29 2 1 21 3 2 I 11 43 17 I 3 1 2 10 I 2 2 I 43 2 I 4 1 4.1 5 1 1 I 13 4 2 36 2 2 5 36 2 3 14 t0 I 3 I I 2 I 2 44 5 2 3 8 9 3 26 I 6 6 2 2 7 7 4 3 2 2 13 59 111 2 3 I 22 6 5 2 I 5 I 2 4 I I I 2 3 1 9 4 5 TOTAL 1i3*3 125 4-4 TO 7 2 5 12 25 S T4_8 101 i 3-3 23 148 279 233 TflTAL FiISH LESS GCLZzAM SHLAD 117 117 135 19 4 2 7 TABLE 5.3-8 (SHEET 3 OF 4)7-10 7-17 7-24 7-3]to to to to 7-17 7-24 7-31 8-7 Weekly Perlod.9-8-7 8-14 8-21 , 8-28 9-4 9-11 9-18 9-25 10-2 10-9 to to to to to to to to to to 8-14 8-21 8-28 9-4 9-li 9-18 9-25 10-2 1o-9 1o-16 SPECIES Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Undetermined lamprey Longnose gar Shortnose gar Gizzard shad 61deye Mooneye Northern pike Carp Silver chub Minnows Carpsucker app.Smallmouth buffalo 00 Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Tadpole madtom Flathead catfish Undetermined ictalurtd Trout-perch Burbot whitt. bass Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Crappie app.Undetermined centrarchid Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Walleye Sauger-walleye Freshwater drum Undetermtned fish t 7 2 96 10 47 2 1 19 145 1 12 96 77 54 289 104 590 2 9 1 13 3 22 2 1 9 5 26 2 I 4 2 10 1 3 26 1 3 2 3 1 8 I t I 12 I 1 1 1 I I I 2 4 12 8 , 1 4 3 1 1 46 19 20 61 23 I 7 ' I I 2 I 67 3 1 3 53 164 5 1 6 2 43 55 3 1 175 7 15 43 20 4 2 23 1 2 8 7 2' 9 2 1 62 25 41 I 13 3 23 2 --2 23 77 75 1 39 189 284 178 70 L 20 99 2 87 lit 174 39 744 529 743 2 52 TOTAL 329 150 492 122 517 355 388 TOTAL FISH LESS GIZZARD 322 .131 347 110 421 310 334 455 425 153 0 43 TABLE 5.3-8 (SHEET 4 OF 4)SWeekly. Periods ko 0D 10-16 to*10-23 SPECIES Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Undetermined lamprey Longnose gar Shortnosa gar Gizzard shad Coldeye Hooneye Northern pike Carp Sliver chub Minnows Carpsucker app.Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Tadpole madtom Flathead catfish Undetermined ictalurid Trout-perch Burbot White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Crappie spp.Undetermined centrarchid Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Walleye Sauger-walleye Freshwater drum Undetermined fish 1u-;3 to 10-30 10-3o 11-b to to u.-6 11-13 11-13 to 11-20 11-20 to 11-27 11-27 to 12-4, 12-4 to 12-11 12-11 to 12-18 12-i0 to 12-26 I 2 13797 1 6 7 336 1 1 I 23445 57189 I 521 273 7183 1 2559 2700 2458 6470 1 10 2 1 1 9 21 1 4 1 I 1 1 4 3 18 98 14 I1 2 2 I 5 3 3 24 12-26 to 1-2 2 4 I 2 2 I 2 2 3 1 3 324 7 4 143 2 25 157 l 4 112 1 3 1 23 1 2 24 2 3 14 15 Annual Total 2 4 2 6 2 136,667 2 1 35 296 98 776 79 9 3 18 146 12 637 31 35 3 26 19 1.367 57 56 674 5 13 1,704 1 13 13 13 5 69 3,143___2 I 146,063 9,396 14 30 1 2 1 1 91 177 2 2 1 20 27 1 1 3 9 8 125 36 2 1 4 16 19 1o 1 20 2 5 59 I 1 2 3 28 I I 2 16 7 1 23 I.9 9 I I I 2 11 490 115 611 389 4 15553 24011 22 1 1 1 166 21 13 21 17 3 TOTAL 57955 675 351 7651 2669 2752 2575 6581 *TOTAL FISH LESS GIZZARD SIAD 1756 566 .766 154 78 468 11o 52 117 III TABLE 5.3-9 NUMBER OF FISH PER WEEK COLLECTED (SHEET 1 OF 8)FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 1-2 1-9 1-16 to to to 1-9 V-1 1-21 týspoo led Chestnut lamprey iblver lamprey Lamprey app.Ingmnoae gar Shortnose gar Car app.powrln alisard shad Goldays Hoooeys Ooldeye/tooneye Opp.Central mo"lnnow lorthern pike Carp silver chub minnow app.Carpsucker app.Carpsucker-buffalo app.ma l1outh buffalo Sigasouth buffalo Ihorthead redhore.%hite sucker black bullhead grown bullhead Tellow bullhead iullhead app.Total bullheads 1-23 1-30 to to 1-30 2-6 WIIKLT PURIOD8 2-6 2-11 2-20 to to to 2-13 2-IQ 2-17 2-27 3-6 to to 3-6 3-13 1 2 4,364 2,263 750 1.80) 3,257 2,136 3,519 459 1,250 703 1.344 455 364 264 I 3-13 3-20 3-27 4-3 to to to to 3-20 3-27 4-3 4-10 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 5 1 4 t 1 3 1 4 4 7 I 2 1 1 1 I 1 3 3 I 3 I 2 2 2 2 I 2 I.2 I it 3 2 12 2 2 3 TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 2 OF 8)H t'J speci es channel catflih Tadpole madtom rlethead catfish Undeteriined lctaluridv Trout-petch burbot chite bass Baock bass Green eunfish slueqill Bluegill X Green sunfish Smallmout) base Crappi. app.Tallow porch LOgnprch Johnny darter Sauget Walleye Sauger-Walleyo freshwater druin UndeteItined fish Total Total long olizzrd Shad I I I 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 31 39 I 17 1 15 11 24 27 11 15 21 25 11 9 WhZKLT PERPOW 1-2 1-9 1-16 1-23 1-30 2-4 2-13 2-20 2-27 3-6 3-13 3-20 1-27 4-3 to to to to -to to to to to to to to to to 1-9 1-16 1-23 1-30 2-_ 13 2-20 2-27 3-6 3-13 3-20 3-27 4-3 4-10 7 17 S 11 6 1 7 9 4 24 25 10 s 1 2 I 3 2 3 1 2 4 1. 6 2 3 3 1 4 3 -. 2.4 4 2 5 57 15 29 1 1 I 1 2 15 12 13 20 25 27 63 5s 51 27 62 4 4 4 4 6 2 21 2 4,429 2,363 s03 1,996 3,311 20191 2,622 594 1,341 759 1,490 65 99 31 59 54 55 103 105 91 56 146 4 2 3 1 51 41 31 649 471 365 194 107 101 TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 3 OF 8)I" species Chestnut lamprey silver lamprey Lamprey app.Longnoae Vat Shortnove gar Oar Epp.Rovwln Gizzard shad Goldeys Mooneys GoldeyeoAooneye app.Central audminnow Northern pike Carp silver chub minnow app.Carpsuokor app.Carpsucker-buf falo app.Smllmouth buffalo Iquouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse White sucker Black bullhead Drovn bullhead urolye bullhead Bullhead app.Total Sullheads 1 2 3 2 120 274 375 495 113 1 1 3 4 5 1 2 1 6 £ 5 25 1 5 26 26 7 6 50 48 101 13 1 2 2 7 .1 2 2 23 1 3 2 2 1 2 1., 1 ,3 1 S 3 , 3 2 I1I I VI I=Ly PBaIOaS 4-10 4-07 4-24 S-i S-S "-IS 5-32 5-29 9-5 6-12 6,19 6-16 7-1 7-10 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 4-17 4-24 5-1 S-. 5-15 5-22 5-29 6-5 6-12 6-19 6-26 7-3 7-10 7-17 4 1 1 a p i 1 3 19 25 15 13 5 23 10 a i5 7 53 SO 43 91 1 S 17" I 1 a 3 *1 1 4 31 1.75) 831 42 22 34 19 14 12 21 .2 I 2 31 324 230 50 4 32 "1,767 1,377 273 24 64 19 14 1 1 O TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 4 OF 8)WK'KLY PfRIOOS 4-10 4-11 4-34 5-1 $-1 S'15 3 -22 5-29 6-5 6-12 6-19 6-26 7-3 7-10 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 4-17 4-24 s-I 5- 5-15 5-22 5-29 6-5 6 6-1 19 6-26 1- L O 1-17 9 1 1 1 21 2 a a 1 1 1 FA Channel catfish Tadpole imdtol Flathe&4 catfish Undetermined Ictalurlde Trout-perch burbot WhIte bass Rock basg Green sunfish luegill aluegill I Green sunfish Snelleouth bass crappie mpp.TYllow Zogporch Johnny darter:augar Valleye 8auger-Walleye freshwater drum Undetermined fish Total Total lees Gizsard shad 2 I 1 4 21 I 1 3 3 S 2.1 S 13 42 5? 74 14 5 4 4 5 7 2 1 1 12 2 2 4 .6 1*51 20 5 .6 P 2 19 5 I .1 3 3 2 4 1 2 I I 21 4 1 22 4 34 06 33 20 38 18 6 2 as 28 1i 21 2 1 1 I 4 1 I 3 12 21 11.I 2 3 1 1 1 19 1 17 26 9 45 49 20 8) 25 10"110 1-1 4 1 _215 488 2,316 2,263 690 124 507 232 141 171 12 34 95 214 2,041 1,760 371 121 S00 229 134 169 12 29 Spoala.Chestnut lauvrey Silver lamprer Laieprey app.LongnaVe gar Shortnose gar Gar opp.Dowf in Olueard $had TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 5 OF 8)WTMLY PRIoO5.-17' 7-24 7-31 6-7 0-14 8-31 0-28 9-4 i-II 9-18 9-25 10-2 19-9 10-16 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 7-34 7-31 6-7 e-14 8-21 8-20 9-4 9-11 5 10-2 10-9 10-1 10-33 1 I 2 .3 3 I I 1 1 3 I I 1 90 1 1 1.213 1680 1,216 1,566 358 516 283 431 332 529 878 3,660 592 Ln H~Goldays hooneys Goldeya-Noosye app.Central muwifnnov Northern pike Carp Silver chub Minnov *pp.Carpauckar app.Carpsucker-buffalo app.6mallmouth buffalo Digmouth buffalo fuffalo app.hoorthead tedhorse White sucker Slack bullhead Drovn bullhead Yellow bullhead Rullhead *pp.I I.I 33 1521 36 32 1s 76 11 53 14 4 14 13 4 3 1 21 7 2 32 23 3 5 4 16 43 50 8ia 75 20 1 Is 33 23 a I 1 1 4 1 7 6 5 44 91 45.1 3 2 1 2 9 a 6 63 116 179 149 4 3 1 2 I 1 1 1 6 I 1 1 1 1 1 4 I 3 1 1i 4 1 1 1 41 0 I 4'@4 4 0 0 TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 6 OF 8)species Channel catfish Tadpole mad3to rlaLhead catfish Undeterminod Ictalurlds Trout-perch Burbot Nhlta baat Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Bluegill X Oroen sunfish Bmal lmouth bass Crappie app.Unldentified Centrarchtd Yellow perch Logperch WEEKLY PMI003 7-1 7L 7-24 7-31 8-7 8-14 8-21 8-26 9-4 9-11 9-18 9-25 10-1 10-9 10-16 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 7-24 7-31 B-7 0-14 8-21 8-28 9-4 8-11 9-10 9-25 10-2 10-9 10-16 10-23 7 a 24 171 6G 381 173 53 99 109 060 1,650 290 228 1 6 2 3 1 3 1 9 31 11 6 3 1 3 1 1 4 8 I I 1 390 218 100 138 6 3 2 3 1 1 61 207 00 1 1 21 14 73 78 38 29 51 66 22 1 1 2 2 1 £ 1 3 4 2 2 3 15 23" 7 H-0JO 301 158 56 42 81 105 102 168 153 60 35 77 43 8 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 I Johnny darter I ssuger 1 2 Walleye 2 Uauger-Wallaye 16 7 6 1 2 1* raeshwater drum 33 64 49 00 60 96 48 49 56 86 147 366 729 100 Undetermined fish 1 14 7 13 24 19 10 14 2 2 Total 1,115 960 602 1.801 1,944 1,439 1,059 713 939 684 1,105 3,202 5,013 1,133 Total loss olzzard shad 1,025 647 434 599 718 1,081 543 428 488 351 1,176 2,324 1,353 541 1IMany fish not Identif1edor countead due to decomposition -J Chestnut lamprey Silver lamprey Lampry app.Longnome gar Shortnes gar Gar app.bow fin .OIzzard shad Goldeaye Mooney.Goldeye/mooneys app.Central wuA inngw lNorthern pike Carp Bilver chub Minnov Opp.Carpsuoker app.Carpaucker-butftao app.."llpouth buffalo 519i6outh buffalo Buffalo app.fhorthead redhoree White sucker Black bullhead Drown bullhead bu"Ioy bullhead Bullhead app.Total Bullheads I 1 1 *1 I'12 a 12.519 2,932 5.581 1,684 2,306 1,578 17 916 3.098 1,623 1,622 .70,506$2 TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 7 OF 8)WEEMiY PERIODS 10-23 10-30 11-4 11-13 11-20 11-3T 11-4 12-11 12-19 12-Y6 to to to to , to to to to to to Annual 10-30 11-6 11-13 11-20 11-21 12-4 12-IL 12-18 12-36 1-2 Total 1 2 1 S 1 1 36 3 2 185 1 2 1 1 79 71 1* 2.1 1 1.34 63 2 1 3 1 110 3

• 427 539 38 1 2 2,231 2 150 83 1 11 S t is I 22 1 34 is I I 2 1 2 I 2,797 36 4 611 3,651 0 1 2 1 0 0 TABLE 5.3-9 (SHEET 8 OF 8)spec ies Channel catfish Tadpole wadton Flathead catfish Undetermined lotaturida Trout-parch Durbot Whits basl R~ock bass Oreen sunfish blusqill aluegill X arson sunfish Bsmallmouth bas.Crapple app.Undetermi ned Centrerchid Yellow perch V"-XLV PKRIODS 10-13 1o-30 11-4 11-11 11-20 H1-27 12-4 12-11 12-18 12-26 to to to to to to to to to to Annual 10-30 11-6 11-13 11-20 2127 12-4 12-i1 12-18 12-26 1-2 Total 71 45 321 656 181 51 87 71 153 212 6,223 1 1 33 1 3 4 9o 12 1 45 1 53 52 1 2 10 2*11 1 25 18 2 1 1 24 164 140. 28 39 1 7 3 2 6 4 5 12 a 7 3 3 6 27 51 31 2,712 2 1 76 2
• 2 111 1 1 *242 1 H to co 2 29 17 30 I 2,030 6 81 15.3 Johnny darttr I gauger 2 S 13 21 2 97 Walleys 9 3 1 1 27 gauger-Wulleye spp. 4 4 5 2 1 73 Freshwater drum 395 133 90 92 243 16 t9 15 S 4 !3,789 Undetermined fish 3 1 1 1 160 Total 13,274 3,310 6,145 2,418. 3,02) 1,714 1,127 5.274 1,842 2.078 93.466 Total loc. Oluvard Shad 754 370 564 994. 717 136 211 176 219 256 23,960 TABLE 5.3-10 (Sheet 1 of 2)NUMBER OF FISH AND PERCENT OF YEARLY TOTAL FOR EACH SPECIES, BY SEASON, FOR FISHES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 Ta DECEMBER 31, 1975 H Chestnut lamorey Sliver lamprey Lamprey app.Longnose gar Bhortn6ae gar Oar app.Sowftn Gizzard shad Goldeye Hooneye Ooldeye/Mooneye app.Central mudminnow Northern pike Carp Silver chub Hinnow app.Carpsucker app.Carpaucker/buffalo dpp.Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Buffalo app.Shorthead redhorse white sucker Black bullhead S.Winter Jan. 3 to Her. 20 Number I of Total 1 2.3 Paer. .0 .Jn 1 Number Sof Total 3 37.5 28 77.7 2 66.7 6 50.0 20.912.29.7 1 4.0 June 19 toE0ept. 19 Number I of Total 7 2,3783 3 23*6 17 119 125 473 26 1 26 6 3 I 0., 6.1 2.3 1.7 0.7 27.3 4.5 41.2 3.4 60.0 83.1 75.0 15.5 27.9 48.3 21.2 17.3 27.3 45.3 47.1 93.3 93.5 a 50.0 3 25.0 1 50.0 3 47.0.4,965 7.0 1 4.0 1 100.0 2 25.0 91 32.7 265 26.2 92 35.5 647 29.0 79 52.7 83 100.0 3 21.3 10 45.5 1 100.0 12 35.3 1 6.7 20 o.7 ranl Dept. 1a to Dec. 31 Number I of Total 4 50.0 8 22.3 1 33.3 8 50.0 3 25.0 1 50.0.2 11.8 42,251 59.9 2 40.0 1 3.9 1 17 36 1,072 44 2 1 0.9 3.9 13.9 48.1 29.3 19.1 4.5 3 10 2 6.3 6 (0.1 16 14 2,755 4 11.3 16 <0.1 TABLE 5.3-10 (Sheet 2 of 2)N)C: C: ope ule Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead Bullhead app.Channel catfish Tadpole madtom rlathead oatfish Undetermined latalurids Trout-perch 7'Burbot White bass Rock bass Green sunfish Bluegill Bluegill X green sunfish Smalimouth bass Crappie app.Undetermined Centrarchid Yellow perch Logperoh Johnny darter Bauger Walleye Gauger/Walleye app.Freshwater drum Undetermined fish Winter Jan. 3 to Mar. 20 Number S of Total 1 2.6 Sprlpq Mar. 20 to June 19 Number I of Total 35 92.2 4 100.0 804 99.1 154 2.5 11 33.3 4 4.4 4 33.3 39 86.7 Summer June 19 to Sept. 10 Number I of Total 1 2.6 99 4 2 1 225 1 6 19 31 1 3 1.6 12.1 1.1 4.4 16.7 8.3 1.3 5.4 7.9 50.0 1.5 1.2 20.0 323 45 52 56 1'11.9 59.2 46.6 24.0 100.0 7 975 13 71 3 2 1.343 15 7 56 1,171 I 2 1 3 2 33 557 78 0.9 15.7 39.4 78.9 6.7 33.3 49.5 19.7 6.3 23.1 Fall Sept. S6 to Dec. 31 Number I of Total 1 2.6 4,995 5 14 a 1 3 821 15 46 109 80.2 15.6 15.6 66.7 2.2 50.0 30.3 19.7 41.5 45.0 486 23.9 1 1.0 77 4 1 59 22 408 16 95.1 26.7 50.0 60.8 40.7 30.1 10.6 10.0 57.7 1.2 13.3 50.0 3.1 7.4 45.2 14.7 40.1 S1 50.0 342 16.9 6 100.0 2 2.5 6 40.0 373 28 2.7 9.8 17.5 34 14 16 2,451 38 35.1 51.9 22.0 64.7 23.7 5000O C0 I-L -ýr4000-ILl 300C LI)0 -z JAN. FEB.IMAR APR. MAY JNE .IJULYK I SEPT. I OCT. I V.I I.EQ FIGURE 5.3-5 NUMBERS OF GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974 80000 IL 300 5L2000 0 K30 JA. I FEB.' MAL API. I MAY IJULY I AU.I SEPT. OCT. I ,OV. I DEC.FIGURE 5.3-6 NUMBERS OF GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 80-wi 7oo -Ci C.4C, Ui.0 w C13 2 0 C z IiJAR IFEB. ItAAR AP" MAY IJUNE IJULY IAUG. iSEPT. OCT.:'"V.

'DEC.FIGURE 5.3-7 TOTAL NUMBERS OF FISH LESS GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974 floss 11041, tal a.U)40 0 a: I JAH. IFEB.I MAR. IApil. IMAY IJUNE JULY IAMJ. ISEPT. 'OCT. I NOV. I DEC.FIGURE 5.3-8 NUMBERS OF FISH LESS GIZZARD SHAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1.975 700 197.5 ci:_ 600 ILd IL tw. 400 C)00 300 I ILO S200-JAN. I FEB. I MAR. I APl. I MAY I ,JUNE I JULY AUG. SEPT. I OCT. I NOV. DEC.FIGURE 5.3-9 NUMBERS OF CHANNEL CATFISH COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 S 0 0 600 GI 'oo-nl 0Oe a.500 u 4-Ii.0 k) 300 w m 200 --IJAN. JFEB.IMAR. APIM. Y M"JUNE JULY AUG.ISEPT. OCT. NO.ov.DEC. FIGURE 5.3-10 NUMBERS OF WHITE BASS COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 80C n:600 w 0..400 0 300:3 z OCc-19.7 ~I ,,~~j¶*111 II II.I.'~,, *I jlI I I I.I v 0 I JAn. I FE& I MAR. I APR. I MAY I JUNE I JULY I AUO. I SEPT. I OCT.I NOV. I DEC.FIGURE 5.3-11 NUMBERS OF FRESHWATER DRUM COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 eoct-ILl 600-w -U.5ot C)Wi.20 03 20CY-z-10-! JAN. I FEB. I MAR. I APR. 1 AY I JUNE I JULY i AUG. I SEPT. i oct. I NOV. I DEC.FIGURE 5.3-12 NUMBERS OF CRAPPIES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 1.31 til 1955 800 -.w LL 11600 -Iil 500 LL 40C;--0 300 W (r 200-1001--I JAN. EEL I MAR. I APR. I MAY I JUNE I JUL I U: SEPT. I OCT. I tOV. I DEC.FIGURE 5.3-13 NUMBERS OF BLACK BULLHEAD COLLECTED FROM THE TRASHBASKETS AT PINGP, 1974-1975 a B 0 Size ranges of all impinged fishes (Table 5.3-11) and the ranges for six selected species (Figures 5.3-14 through 5.3-5.3-19) indicate that impingement primarily affected juveniles in 1975. Generally, impingement did not affect many fishes under 60 mm or over 150-200 mm during 1974 or 1975.Data on impingement of organisms other than fish in 1975 are presented in Tables 5.3-12 and 5.3-13. A wide variety of organisms were encountered; dominant animals were crayfish', turtles, and clams. Many of the organisms recorded, particularly birds and mammals, probably died elsewhere and floated passively into the intake. Crayfish were impinged more frequently during winter and spring. Turtles occurred primarily during late summer and early fall./Correlation tests were made on the 1975 data to compare impingement of five fish species with water temperature and intake flow data (Tables 5.3-14 and 5.3-15; Appendix 4).The data are based on weekly impingement totals for each species and weekly mean values of temperature and flow data.Correlations between various physical data, e.g. river water inlet temperature with makeup-water appropriation, were included to assist in finding the strongest correlations of impingement with physical data when several were apparent.210 TABLE 5.3-11 (Sheet 1 of 2)LENGTH-FREQUENCY OF IMPINGED FISHES COLLECTED FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975.Total Lape th In Hillalotara -otal 1 3 4 1 34 1 1 9 1 1 5 2 3 1 221 1 1 Chestnut lamprey silver lamprKey lwignoge gat fihortnose 96C powftin Oiasar4 shad Gaidaye btoonoys 1 1 1.135 1,080 217 41 13 3 4 31 1 1 2 2 21 1 1 1 4 4 16 9 6,451 4 51 294 744 2,177 1 1 s0 17 0 3 2 3 H H central udmirnnou Uotthern pike Carp 8ilver chub Hinnow @pp.Carpiucker upp.Carpsucker/ Buffalo app.smalimouth Butfalo 2 12 44 37 214 332 16 20.4 13 17 395 9 21 46 40 3'3 11 3 3 3 1 2 1 11 13 12 3 2 5 , 3 5 3 1 5 1 5 12 5 12 16 1s is 1 3 1 a 1 2 0 I 3 1 4 1 4 5 3 26 10 09 1 291 250 1,521 73 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 I I 1 40 2 10 25 3 3 1 1 1 1 I bigmouth Buffalo buffalo $pp.Shorthoa4 radhorse%hits Sucker Black bullhead Brown bullhead 1 7 4 4 5 11 64 3i 1 1.12 1 5 3 2,~ *1 I 1 37 1 41 102 1 59 113 44 25 1 1 1 3 1 12 5 1 1 2 4 21 I 1 I I I 29 14 517 7 TABLE 5.3-11 (Sheet 2 of 2)Total Lenqt~h *s )4 L111imterg Total1 ld I Yellow bullhead Bullhea4 app.channel catfish Tadpole Hadtom flathead cattish Trout-Perch burbot White bass Rock bass Green auntish blueLIlL Bluegill x green sunfish remal lmouth base Crapple app.Yellow parch Lope rch.Johnny darter gauger al leye eye app.Freshwater drLm Undateranead fish 2 1 79 2 8 2 S42t S 10 "78 4 188 32 227 3 7 34 1 3 14 18 is 173 14 27 4 457 a 14 16 19 12 1 4 .1 449 179 71 29 21 12 11 6 7 3 4 4 3 1 6 85 2.166 371 3 23 I S 5 1 3 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 7 l6 23 20 11 9J 1 I 77 49 I 612 12 40 1S 236 22 33 7 6 I.11 15 34 14 "6 1.32 14 1,535 57 99 220 1 1 2 1,225 77 15 4 2 4l4 1 1 1 152 567 5 1 4 248 15 a I 128 12 2 42" 1i 17 14 12 16 11 1 1 2 3 11 17 2 S 2 .3 5 461 731 242 10 3 25 5 8 12 9 6 3 1 2 ,: 11 11 1 1 1 1 84 27 2 3 4 15 174 299 4 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 31 S0 .41 39 43 34 2S 13 11.t 8 2 3 3 I 22 1 57 2,266 3

• 0 800 X 600 U)0tn-N Z 200-N F0C wr ma.TOTAL LENGTH AS MILLIMETERS FIGURE 5.3-14 V I-Ill V E LENGTH FREQUENCY OF CHANNEL CATFISH IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 300-X 600 0 tL .0 400-"31'>-::3 Z 2 0 0-w-4 -4 t4 N N N 4 N M TOTAL LENGTH AS MILLIMETERS FIGURE 5.3-15 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WHITE BASS IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 N 800-:C 600-U)U.q 400 Z 2 0 0-00 TOTAL LENGTH AS MILLIMETERS FIGURE 5.3-16 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF FRESHWATER DRUM IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 V., 0 a, 800 X:600 -'0 400-Z 200 cn c +mNN m mc n " C-- -"-- -"tq A,1'- m ",M"V-TOTAL LENGTH AS MILLIMETERS FIGURE 5.3-17 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF CRAPPIE SPP, IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975-N 0 0 200 3:150-1000 Z50 in 0*M a(n)am) M a)m MM(00 0 000 TOTAL LENGTH AS FIGURE 5.3-18 MILLIMETERS LENGTH FREQUENCY OF BLACK BULLHEAD IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 200 riso X ISO-U)IL.0 100 co~ m Z 50 N C'J4~)@r C4bU r4)1 10 0 C ,4 C 4 M ) mC 010 0)In0 ,4Mmaa l-(~itr (1.a ) %C-4 mIl m m 't 4Mf -4 Ln u(TiVIIFI , *TOTAL LENGTH AS MILLIMETERS FIGURE 5.3-19 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF NORTHERN PIKE IMPINGED AT PINGP, 1975 db TABLE 5.3-12 (Sheet 1 of 3)NUMBERS OF NON-FrSH ORGANISMS COLLECTED FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP FROM JANUARY 3, 1975 TO DECEMBER 31, 1975 Organism Crustaceans Orconectes virilis-..

Orconectes imnmunis cambaruS diogenes Female crayfish unidentified crayfish Reptiles Snapping turtle Spiny softshelll turtle Western painted turtle Map turtle False map turtle Turtle carapace Amphibians Leopard frog Unidentified frog American toad Mudpuppy Molluscs Lemtodea fraqilis Proptera laevissima 219 No. Collected 31 45 2 62 8 1 59 9 4 2 1 11 2 7 30 5 1 TABLE 5.3-12 (Sheet 2-of 3)Organism Molluscs (Continued) Unidentified clam Land snail Insects HexacLen.ia Hydrophilidae Belostomidae Dytiscidae Birds Sparrow Pigeon Starling Unidentified bird skeleton Unidentified bird skull.Unidentified bird Duck bones Bird skull (pigeon)Miscel.laneous Unidentified leech F ilamentous algae P ectinatella magnifica No. Collected 134 2 1 2 4.3 6 2 4.,9*1 2 2 3 220 TABLE 5.3-12 (Sheet 3 of 3)Organism Miscellaneous (Continued) Pocket gopher Meadow vole Muskrat skull Mouse Unidentified small mammal Unidentified mammal skull No. Collected 1 2 1 1 2 1 q 221 TABLE 5.3-13 (Sheet 1 of 4)NUMBERS OF CRAYFISH, TURTLES, MUD PUPPIES AND FROGS COLLECTED PER WEEK FROM THE TRASH BASKETS AT PINGP, 1975 species Camiarus diogenes Orconectem virlils Oronectes Jmmunie Crayfish (fuale)Undeteralned oreytish Total crayfish Snapping turtle Spiny sottuhell turtle Western painted turtle Map turtle False map turtle Total turtle rudpuppy Leopard fxog 1-1 to izL I I 1 MyEKL PZRIOD8 1-' 1-14 1-21 1-14 1-- 2-11 2-20 to to to to to to to 1-16 1-21 1-30 2-6 2-13 2-20 2-27 2-27 1-6 1-13 3- -0 3-21 4-3 to to to to to to 3-6 2-13 3-20 3-27 4-_ 4-10 4-10 4-11 to to 4-17 4-24 2 I I 2 I 1 1 4 1 4 S 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 4 4 i 5 4 4 2 I 6 2 3 2 S 10' 6 a 4 8 6 10 4 1 1 1£I 3 2 4 1 I 3 I a. 3 1 I TABLE 5.3-13 (Sheet 2 of 4)4-24 5-1 5-6 5-19 S-23 .-29 6-5 6-12 6-19 6-26 7-3 7-10 7-17 7-34 7-31 8-7 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 5-1 5-6 5-15 5-22 5-29 6-3 6-12 6-19 6-26 7-3 7 1,0 1-17 7 -24 7-31 .8-7 _-14'Cambarue daogenew Orconectes vlrtlle Orconectes Irmunis Crayfish (females)Undetermined crayfish Total crayfish Snapping turtle Spiny softahell turtle Wastern painted turtle map turtle ralse map turtle Total turtle mudpuppy Leopard frog I I 1 2 1 2 I I" I I 1 3 a I I I I 1 1 2 1 2 N)3 3 2 3 -*1 TABLE 5.3-13 (Sheet 3 of 4)WZML P3IMX0IJ I-14 5-31 0-28 9-4 9-11 9-1' 91-iS 10-3 10-9 16-14 10-23 10-30 11-6 11-13 11-20 11-27 to to tA to to to to to to to to to to to to 0-21 8-28 9-4 9-11 9-1i 9-23 10-2 .0-9 10-15 10-23 10-30 11-6 11-13 11-20 11-27 12-4 Cambarum dlogenes Orconectes virillm Orconectes twounim Crayfish (females)Undetsrmined crayfish Total crayfish anapping turtle Spiny boftmwhel turtle Western painted turtle I V'I I 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 S 4 ,2 S S 1 I 1 1 2 1 1 1 t\3.t~.1 1 1I 4 1 2 2 3 5 3 1 Map turtle raise sap turtle Total turtle Mudpuppy Leopard 1 Iraq I a 7 is 1 I 3 3 2 5 2 I 2 2 TABLE 5.3-13 (Sheet 4 of 4)VUBXL PETUODU 13-4 12-11 12-1 12-26 to to to to 12-It 12-18 12ý26 12-31 specie.Cambarus, diogenes Orconecte. virtle Orconectu. lmmunim Crayfish (females)Undetermined crayfish Total crayfish snappindg turtle Spiny softetiell turtle Western pRInte4 turtle map turtle ratues mup turtle Total turtle Hudpupvy XLeopard frog 3 1 4 9 3 4 31 45£2 75 30 SI .1 4 NJ I'j 1 4 I 2 4 4 0 TABLE 5.3-14 (Sheet 1 of 3)

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS OF FISH IMPINGEMENT AND PHYSICAL DATA AT PINGP, 1975 winter -1/1-3/9 (N chancat vs. rwit -frhwdrm vs. mwa -rcwtrt vs. acw -rwit vs. date mwa vs. date Spring- 3/20-6/19 (N blJkbu.l vs. acw -crappie vs. mwa -frhwdrm vs.. mwa -.rwit vs. date Summer- 6/20-9/18 (N acw vs. rcwtrt -mwa vs. rcwtrt -rwit vs. date Fall -9/19-12/31 (N chancat vs. rwit -chancat vs. mwa -crappie vs. rwit -crappie vs. rcwtrt-crappie vs. mwa -frhwdrm vs. rwit.-12)r = 0.79;r 0.93;r " 0.70;r 0.65;r 0.*73;= 13)r= 0.61;r = 0.67;r = 0.63;r = 0.91;= 13)r = 0.63;r= 0.80;r -0.78;= 14)r =0.57;r = 0.79;r = 0.79;r -0.60;r = 0.89;r = 0.64;<0. 01<0.01 0.01 0.02*-0.01l p p p= 0.02 0.02 0.04= <0.01 0.02<0.01<0.01 p p p p p p= 0.03= <0.01= <0.01= 0.02= <0.01= 0.02 226 TABLE 5.3-14 (Sheet 2 of 3)Fall -9/19-12/31 (Continued) frhwdrm vs. rcwtrt-.frhwdm vs7. mwa -rcwtrt vs..*wit -acw vs. rwit mwa vs. rwit mwa vs. rcwtzt -date vs. rwit date vs. rcwtrt -date vs. acw date vs. mwa All Seasons Combined blkbull vs. acw -blkbull vs. mwa -whtbass vs. rwit -whtbass vs. mwa -crappie vs. rwit -crappie vs. rcwtrt-crappie vs. mwa -frhwdrm vs. rcwtrt-frhwdrm vs. acw -:cwtrt vs. rwit -mwa vs. rwit -r =-0.67; p = <0.01 r -:r r r r 0.68;-0.88;0.55;0.67;-0.59;-0.94;0.86;0. 64;-0.56;52)-0.41;0.32;0.37;0.41;0.53;-0.44;0.57;-0.30;0.29;-0.70;0.63;p = <0.01 p = <0.01 p = 0.04 p = <0.01 p = 0.03 p = <o. 01 p = <0.01 p*= 0.02 p = 0.04 p = <0.01 p = 0.02 p <0.01 p = <0.01 p = <0.01 p = <0.01 p = <0.01 p = 0.03 p = 0.04 p = <0.01 p = <0.01 227 TABLE 5.3-14 (Sheet 3.of 3)All Seasons Combined (N = 52)mwa vs. rcwtrt date vs. rwit-r = .-0.35; p = 0.02-r = 0.28; p = 0.04 blkbull black bullhead chancat = channel catfish whtbass = white bass crappie = crappie sp.frhwdrm = freshwater drum twit = river water inlet temperature rcwtrt = recycle-canal water temperature acw = average circulating water mwa = makeup-water appropriation r = correlation coefficient p -level of significance I 22Q TABLE 5.3-15 CSheet 1 of 2)SELECTED CQRRELATIONS AND PARTIAL CORRELATIONS OF FISIT IMPINGEMENT DATA WITE PHYSICAL DATA, ALL SEASONS COMBINED CN = 52)blkbu.ll vs.blkbull vs.blkbull vs.blkbull vs.whtbass vs.whthbass vs.whtbass vs.whtbass vs.crappie vs.crappie vs.crappie vs.crappie vs.crappie vs.crappie vs.frhwdm vs.frhwdr vs.frhwdzm vs.frhwdr vs.acw mwa acw mwra rwit*mwa rwit mwa.rwit rcwtrt mwa rwit rcwtrt mwa rcwtzt ac-w rcwtrt acw-- r-r 1 2.3-r 1 3.2-- r-r 12.34-r 1 4.2 3-r-r r12. 34-r 1 3.2 4-r 1 4.2 3 r12.34-r13.24--0.41;= 0.32;= -0.51;= 0.45;= 0.37;= 0.41;= 0.01;= 0.34;= 0.53;= -0.44;= 0.57;= 0.06;= 0.20;= 0.40;= -0.30;= 0.29;= -0.30;= 0.30;p = <0.001 p = 0.02 p <0.01 p =<0.01 p = 7:<0.01 p = <0.01 p = >0.05 p= 0.03 p = <0.01 p = <0.01 p =. <0.01 p = >0.05 p = >0.05 p = <0.01 p= 0.03 p= 0.04 p= 0.03 p= 0.03 (N.S.)(N.S.)(N .S.)re: blkbull: r12.3= partial correlation coefficient of blkbull vs. acw minus mwa effect 229 TABLE 5.3-15 (Sheet 2-of 2)re: whtbass: re: crappie: re: frhwdrm: r 3 -2 partial correlation coefficient of" blkbull vs. mwa minus acw effect r 1 2.3 4 = partial correlation coefficient of whtbass vs. rwit minus date and mwa effect= partial correlation coetficient of whtbass vs. mwa minus date and rwit effect r 1 2.3 4 partial correlation coefficient of crappie vs. rwit minus rcwtrt and mwa effect r 1 3.2 4 = partial correlation coefficient of crappie vs. rc-wrt minus. rwit and mwa effect= partial correlation coefficient of crappie vs. mwa minus rwit and rcwtrt effect r partial correlation coefficient of.12.34 frhwdrm vs. rcwtrt minus date and acw effect r 1 3.2 4 partial correlation coefficient of frhwdrm vs. acw minus rcwtrt and date effect 230 On a seasonal basis, few significant correlations were determined between impingement rates and physical parameters for winter and spring and none for summer. However, a number of correlations were realized for the fall period, when river water inlet temperature fell and recycle canal water temperature remained relatively higher. Little con-sistency was found in the correlations from season to season. There was a significant positive correlation between freshwater drum impingement and make-up water appropriation in winter, spring and fall; however, no correlation was found on an annual basis (all seasons combined; Table 5.3-14).Also, channel catfish impingement was correlated with river water inlet temperature in winter and fall, but not for all seasons combined. White bass impingement was correlated with river water inlet temperature and makeup-water appro-priation on a yearly basis, but not in any one season.Because of these inconsistencies, the low number of ob-servations within a season (11-13) compared to the yearly basis (52), and the need to reduce the effect of time (seasons) on the correlations, further analyses were concentrated on the annual correlations. Black bullhead, white bass, crappie spp., and freshwater drum all showed significant correlations with at least two physical parameters on an annual basis (Table 5.3-14).231 It is difficult to estimate cause and effect relationships on the basis of the multiple correlations. For example, although white bass impingement was highly correlated with river water inlet temperature and makeup-water appropriation, these physical parameters did not necessarily affect white bass impingement because both were also highly correlated with each other (Table 5.3-14).To examine the relationship of a given impingement rate with a single physical parameter, free of the influence bf other physical or time (date) parameters, partial correlation coefficients were computed for the pertinent combinations (Table 5.3-15). In the case of the black bullhead, high correlations with average circulating water volume and makeup-water appropriation were retained after partial correlations were computed. The high correlation of white bass with river water inlet temperature was rendered insig-nificant after the partial correlation was computed, remov-ing the date and makeup-water appropriation effects. The partial correlation of white bass and makeup-water appropria-tion retained its statistical significance. Of the para-meters (two temperatures and one flow) originally correlated with crappie impingement, only crappies vs. makeup-water appropriation remained significantly correlated after partial correlations were computed. Freshwater drum 232 impingement remained significantly correlated with recycle-canal water temperature and average circulating water volume.After subjecting the annual correlations to partial corre-lation analysis, flow parameters, either makeup-water appro-priation or average circulating water volume, remained significantly correlated with impingement rates in almost all cases while temperature parameters were no longer correlated. One exception was the partial correlation of freshwater drum with recyle canal water temperature. Average circulating water volume was also highly correlated with freshwater drum impingement. These correlations do not imply a direct cause and effect relationship. They strongly suggest that some aspect of flow volume may be influencing impingement rates. Fish impingement may be influenced by changes in velocity in the intake or recycle canal due to changes in flow volume.The occurrence and abundance of impinged fishes at PINGP during 1974 and 1975 was generally similar to that in 1973 (See Anonymous 1974) with a few exceptions. Two minnows (stone-roller and redbelly dace) were collected from the screens during 1975 but were not collected during the 1973 or 233 1974 impingement studies, nor during the 1974 waterbody sampling reported by Naplin and Geis (1975). Bluntnose minnow and johnny darter were reported from screen washes for the first time in 1975; previously they had been reported only from waterbody sampling.Of the abundant fishes in the 1975 impingement catch, white bass, gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and crappie were also reported as abundant from the surrounding waterbody areas (including Sturgeon and North Lakes) in 1974 by Napiin and Geis (1975). Channel catfish and black bullhead were abundant in the 1975 impingement catch but insignificant in the waterbody catch in 1975; they were insignificant in the waterbody and impingement Catches in 1974.The total number of impinged fishes in 1975 was 36 percent less than the total impinged in 1974. The lower 1975 total was due to reduced gizzard shad impingement; this species comprised 75 percent of the total in 1975 compared to 94 percent in 1974. Freshwater drum, white bass, and crappie were abundant in 1975, as in 1974. Channel catfish, black bullhead, and minnows were relatively insignificant in 1974 compared to 1975.234 Some annual variation in impingement was apparent. Nearly 137,000 gizzard shad were impinged in 1974; 70,506 were impinged in 1975. Gizzard shad impingement rates for 1973 (see Anonymous 1974) were apparently high, as 65,000 fish were impinged in less than three months, a number nearly as high as the total recorded for a full year of sampling in 1975. Extreme yearly variation occurred in black bullhead impingement. The numbers of black bullheads impinged during the mid-March'through April period of 1973, 1974, and 1975 were 833, 76, and 1,792, respectively. Annual variations may involve one or more factors, such as fish year-class strength, environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and pool level), or plant operating modes.The correlation analyses of the 1975 data present a somewhat different picture than that suggested by the 1974 data. The correlations in the 1974 data were inferred from simple plots of two parameters (e.g., white bass impingement rate and makeup-water appropriation) against time (see Figures 17-21 in Andersen 1975). These plots suggest correlations between white bass and recycle canal water temperature, crappies and river water inlet temperature, and crappies and recycle canal water temperature. No correlation was indicated for freshwater drum with average circulating water and recycle canal water temperature, crappies with makeup water 235 appropriation, or white bass with makeup water appropriation. In each case, the corresponding correlation analysis for 1975 data gave opposite results. Inferences made from the 1974 data are considered to depict gross correlations. The more sophisticated correlation analyses performed on the 1975 data allow for greater accuracy in pinpointing relation-ships between impingement and physical parameters. The result of the correlations on the 1975 data, i.e., that flow parameters appear to be the key plant operational characteristic affecting impingement, was also acknowledged in the 1973 and 1974 reports (Anonymous 1974 and Andersen 1975).Increased flow volumes and greater velocities in the intake and recirculating canals at PINGP could be a significant factor affecting impingement (Anonymous 1974). Intake flow velocities have been demonstrated to be an important factor in fish impingement (Kerr 1953, Sazaki et al. 1973, USAEC 1972, Bibko et al. 1974). However, flow volume or velocity is not always a primary factor in impingement rates (EPA 1976a). Grotbeck and Bechthold (1975) found little or no association of pumping rate with impingement, except for black crappie, at NSP's Monticello plant on the Mississippi River. Edwards et al.. (undated) found no apparent corre-lation between impingement and intake flow at four Duke 236 Power Company plants. Grimes (1975) found cold water temperature during darkness to be a major factor in impingement. From the above, it is clear that each case is unique and must be examined independently in order to pinpoint factors affecting impingement. 237 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 PRIMARY

PRODUCERS Phytoplankton is likely the most important primary producer in the PINGP area of the Mississippi River. Assuming a relatively random distribution of phytoplankters, it may be assumed that entrainment will be directly proportional to water appropriation. Thus, the entrainment of phytoplankton is estimated at 0.1 to 4.9 percent over the year based on 1975 operation data (Table 3.5.1). However, in a nQrmal year the seasonal distribution of entrainment would follow a different pattern (see Section 5.2.1).The damage to phytoplankton resulting from entrainment has been studied for two years, mainly in the summer and fall (see 5.2.1). Standing crops of chlorophyll a and the rates of photosynthesis have been shown to be reduced after passage through PINGP. Under two unit operation the reduction of productivity of,entrained phytoplankton may exceed 50 percent.In spite of the obvious degradation of photosynthetic ability of the entrained algae, Baker (1975) was unable to detect any effect on the productivity of main channel phytoplankton below the plant, based on 1974 one unit data. No conclusion was drawn from 1975 data; however, the lack of detectable difference due to Sturgeon Lake input to main channel 238 productivity (Baker 1975) would indicate that a reduction of the normally higher Sturgeon Lake productivity through entrainment would only further serve to mask effects of the lake or plant. The conclusions of Baker and Baker (1975, 1976) indicate that there are no detectable differences in composition or density of phytoplankton in the main river that may be attributable to PINGP operation. Considering the s6mewhat enriched status of the Mississippi River and the potential enhancement of already high algal populations due to Sturgeon Lake inputs, reductions in algal production due to entrainment at PINGP cannot be considered an adverse effect. The conclusions of the phytoplankton studies at PINGP agree with EPA (1976b) which states that entrainment effects on phytoplankton are of short duration and usually confined to a relatively small portion of the water body.0 239

6.2 ZOOPLANKTON

Zooplankton is susceptible to entrainment in proportion to the water appropriation at PINGP, assuming a relatively uni-form distribution of organisms in the source water body (which is chiefly Sturgeon Lake). Entrainment studies (see Section 5.3.1.2) have shown some detectable mortality among three of the four major groups of zooplankters. However, in 1974, during one-unit operation, Szluha (1975) was unable to detect significant differences among stations associated with the plant and those outside of plant influence. Daggett (1976) concluded preliminarily, that while total zooplankton, total rotifers and total cladocerans were not significantly different among plant-affected and control stations, there were reductions in copepod densities that could be associated with plant passage.Entrainment effects appear to produce minimally detectable effects on the cladocerans in the discharge area of PINGP, but even the total effects of plant operation do not detect-ably affect total numbers of zooplankton. As noted by EPA (1976b), zooplankton entrainment does not present a potential for significant adverse impact due to the rapid reproduction rates and short life spans.240

6.3 BENTHIC

MACROINVERTEBRATES Benthic macroinvertebrates comprise a major link in the food webs of the PINGP area (see Section 4.3.1). A number of benthic organisms are sessile, some burrow, some attach to substrates and others move around freely on the river bottom.Many benthic organisms drift freely or are scoured loose from substrates and many aquatic insects also enter the water column when emerging as adult flying insects. Either of the latter cases make the organisms vulnerable to entrainment. Species composition of these benthic organisms which may be entrained can partially de determined from artificial substrate data. The organisms that colonize these substrates are generally non-burrowing surface-residing invertebrates that are likely to be the major components of the normal drift fauna of the river. Caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and flies (Diptera) were the major groups colonizing artificial substrates (see Section 4.3.4). Caddisflies were Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, Potamyia, Polycentropus, Neureclipsis, Ceraclea, Agralea, Hydroptila and unidentified species. Mayflies included Caenis, Baetis, Isonychia, Heptagenia, Stenonema, Tricorythodes and Potamanthus. Flies were mainly represented by Chironomidae and lesser numbers of Chaoborus, Polpomyia and Simulium. In.some periods of 1975 the worms Naididae dominated collections. 241 Another estimate of the benthic invertebrates that may be entrained may be made from the emergence studies (NSP 1975)in which Hydropsychidae, Psychomyiidae and Hydroptilidae were the dominant families collected. Representatives of these families would be entrainable during emergence. 242 6.4 FISH EGGS AND LARVAE ENTRAINMENT Analysis of the impact of entrainment of fish eggs and young at PINGP is based on the simple population modeling approach, described by Horst (1975) in which the number of larvae entrained is converted to an estimate of the number of adult fish that would have been produced had the larvae not been entrained. If the entrained stage is an egg, the estimate of the number of adults lost is calculated as follows: N = SN 2 N a e -e F where Na = number of adults in mature age classes S = survival from egg to adult stage N = number of eggs entrained e F = total life time fecundity of a female 2 = number of adults needed to be produced by a breeding pair to maintain a stable population If the entrained stage is a larva: N = N = 2 X N a 11 SF e where N 2 and F are defined as above S = survival from larva to adult stage 243 N1 = number of larvae entrained Se = survival from egg to larva The following assumptions are made in this analysis: o There is 100 percent mortality of entrained eggs and larvae on passage through the plant o The populations are at equilibrium and the total lifetime'fecundity produces 2 adults o That 0.5 percent of the eggs produced by a species with high fecundity and/or randomly broadcast eggs and little parental protection survive to the larval stage o that 75 percent of the eggs produced by a species which exhibits nesting behavior and a high degree of parental care survive to the larval stage.Before estimating the number of adults lost it was necessary to consolidate some taxonomic groups because of a lack of reproductive information for certain taxa. In some cases, such as the suckers, the individuals which could only be identified to family level were divided among the genera of that family based on the proportion of the larval catch comprising each genus. If only a few larvae were captured in each of several taxonomic categories, they were combined at the family level with the exception of emerald shiner and carp. Larvae were never grouped above the family level.244 A total of 8,371,000 (+ 4,694,000 at 95 percent confidence.interval) fish eggs and 61,645,000 (+/- 34,529,000) larval and juvenile fish were estimated to be entrained by PINGP between May 12 and September 10, 1975. The number of larval and juvenile fish entrained represents about 6 percent of the total number of larvae and juveniles passing through the Sturgeon Lake outlet during the same period (based on a conservative estimate from data collected by the MNDR of about one billion larvae and juveniles, Section 5.3.1.3.2). Weekly estimates of entrained larvae and juveniles ranged from less than 1 to 85 percent of the estimated Sturgeon Lake production. These estimates are conservative because they do not take into account the larvae and juveniles in the main channel. No estimates of larvae and juveniles in the main channel are available. The entrained eggs and young represent a potential loss of about 2,830,000 adult fish from at least 28 taxa. The number of eggs and young entrained, the number of adults lost and the values for fecundity and survival used to calculate the losses are summarized in Table 6.4-1.Over 99 percent of the potential adult fish loss consisted of 8 taxa of forage fish. Taxa of either sport or commercial importance (e.g., sauger, walleye, white bass', sunfish, 245 TABLE 6.4-1 OF LOSS OF ADULT FISH DUE TO ENTRAINMENT OF EGGS, LARVAE AND JUVENILES AT PINGP IN 1975. (Sheet 1 of 2)a.69.*Dorosoma capedianum Coregonus c1Iuikfaormiq flT-55-7-E-rTi aus Esox -ucius Cyp1nu carplo Notropis atherinoides Cyorinidae uarp~oces app Catostomus comnersoni Ictiobus spp Moxostoma upo Ictalurus punctatus Noturus gyrnu Pladictlys-o-livaris Percops~ I miscomaycus Morone chr sops m to, rupestris isgibbosus L. macroch1Irus P-omoxis app Etheostom~a nigrum Perca TIavescons Percina caprodes P. shum-ardi. Stizostedion canadense S. vitreum Percidase Aplodinotus grunniens Eggs Larvae L Juveniles Unidentifiable Larvae.CALCULATION Number M trained 10,370,000 4,000 1,221,000 4,000 3,257,000 15,961,000 1,575,000 4,598,000 13,000 6,617,000 36,000 325,000 3,000 16,000 25,000 7,297,000 5,000 122,000 742,000 480,000 67,000 102,000 88,000 1,711,000 1,881,000 319,000 956,.000 7,484,000 3,408,000 403,000 Fecunditya 1,560,000 178,000 60,000 981,000 7,360,000b 2,900 2,900b 619,200 954,000 1,610,000 135,000 214,800 200 108,300 1,400 3,390,000 63,000 16,425 97,000 462,200 1,600 436,800 6,0002 1,200 159,500 2,257,000 477,000 1,300,000 Survival Egg to Larva 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.75 0.75.4 0.75 0.005 0.005 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Larvae Produced Survival by One Female Larvae to Adult 7,800 0.0003 900 0.002 300 0.007 4,900 0.0004 36,800 0.00006 15 0.13 15 0.13 3,100 0.0006 4,800 0.0004 8,000 0.0002 680 0.003 160,000 0.00001 150 0.01 500 0.004 7 0.3 17,000 0.0001 300 0.007 12,000 0.0002 73,000 0.00003 35,000 0.00006 1,200 0.002 13,100 0.0001 30 0.07 6 0.3 800 0.003 11,300 0.0002 2,400 0.0008 Number of Adults Lost 3,111 8 8,547 2 195 2,075,000 204,700 2,759 5 1,323 108 3 30 64 7,500 730 35 24 22 29 134 10 6,160 513,300 5,643 64 765 Economic Classificationc F C C,S S C F F C C C C C F C F S S S S S F S F F S S, 6,500 0.0003 11 1,022 TABLE 6.4-1 (Sheet 2. pf 2)Unidentifiable eggs Unidentified Larvae Total Eggs Total Larvae & Juveniles Number Entrained 887,000 39,000 8,371,000 61,645,000 Fecunditya Survival Larvae Produced Survival Number of Economic Egg to Larva by One Female L4rvae to Adult Adult Lost Classificationc Total Forage Sport/Commercial 2,831,304 2,809,935 21,339 aFecundity information obtained from Scott andCrossman (1973); Wrenn (19 8U) Swee and McCrimmon (1966);(1953); Winn (1958)1 Wolfert (1969)1 Ulrey, Risk and Scott (1968)b b~Average of fecundities of several similar species.F -Foragel C -Commerciall S -Sport.Bodola (1955), Daiber 0 crappies, freshwater drum, carp, buffaloes and-carpsuckers) represented less than 1 percent of the adults lost.Minnows (mainly emerald shiner) accounted for 80 percent of the potential adult loss. Darters (logperch, river darter and johnny darter) and unidentified percids comprised the next greatest proportion (18 percent) of the potential adult loss. Gizzard shad (0.1 percent) and trout-perch (0.3 percent) were the remaining forage taxa.Since there are no catch statistics for forage species, another means of relating the extent of impact was used. If it is assumed that each fish weighed about 8 grams (0.3 oz, the average weight of young emerald shiner in the fall as reported by Scott and Crossman 1973) when consumed by predators, approximately 22,500 kg (49,600 lbs) or 144 kg/ha (131 lbs/acre) of forage would be lost to the PINGP area (1600 ha MNDR study area). If all 22,500 kg were consumed and were converted to predator biomass at an efficiency of 15 percent, about 3,400 kg (7,500 lbs) of predator production could be eliminated from the PINGP area. The average individual weight of the three major predators (sauger, walleye and white bass) found in the area as determined from creel censuses between 1968 and 1975 was 0.57 kg (1.26 lbs)248 (Gustafson and Diedrich 1976). Based on this weight, the estimated loss in predator production would be 5,900 fish.However, the surplus production of forage fish may be sufficient to accomodate both predation and exploitation due to entrainment with no loss of sport fish production. If ;these estimated losses are looked at by themselves, it appears that there has been a significant loss to the forage base in the PINGP area. Another approach is to compare the number of young forage fish entrained to the total number available. This can be accomplished by using the larval fish data collected in 1975 by the MNDR (Gustafson et al.1976) at stations near the mouth of Sturgeon Lake to develop an estimate of the total number of young forage fish passing through the Sturgeon Lake outlet (see Section 5.3.1.3.2 for discussion of MNDR data). It is assumed that the taxonomic composition of the young in the outlet is similar to that at the bar rack in the intake canal. The number of young forage fish entrained represents only 3 percent of the available production (51 million young, based on Sturgeon Lake outlet densities) of the North Lake-Sturgeon Lake complex.Although sport and commercial species represented less than 1 percent of the total adult loss, the actual numbers of 249 adults lost of several of the individual taxa appear to be high. Approximately 5,600 saugers (based on all mature age classes), one of the most sought after sport fish in the PINGP vicinity, were estimated to be lost due to the entrainment of larvae (Table 6.4-1). This represents about 0.9 to 2.4 percent of the estimated population between Sturgeon Lake and Lake Pepin or one-third the average spring angler harvest from section 4 of the PINGP survey area, which annually contributes about 70 percent of the entire sauger harvest for the survey area (Naplin and Gustafson 1975, Gustafson and Diedrich 1976). It is nearly 18 times the annual harvest for the area above Lock and Dam No. 3.The impact of the loss of 5,600 sauger to the PINGP area fishery depends on the size of the population, the geograph-ical distribution of the population and spawning activity and the proportion of available young entrained. The greatest impact would occur if Pool 3 had a small, discrete population of sauger and a majority of the spawning activity for the population occurred in the lakes upstream of the PINGP intake with .a large proportion of the young produced being entrained. If, on the other hand, the population was rather 250 mobile, capable of free movement into and out of Pool 3 and/or spawning activity were spread over a large portion of the Upper Mississippi River, the impact on the population would not be as great.Hawkinson (1974) stated that data from tagging studies con-ducted by Krosch (1969) and Finke (1964) indicated that the larger fish which inhabit the PINGP area are extremely mobile and move throughout the area between Taylors Falls on the St. Croix River and Lansing, Iowa on the Mississippi River. Preliminary analysis of tag returns from the PINGP tagging study seem to indicate that the sauger found in the plant area are highly mobile (Gustafson et al. 1976). On the basis of preliminary tagging data, it would seem'that Pool 3 does not have a discrete population of sauger. It also seems unlikely that North and Sturgeon Lakes are unique and, as a consequence, are not primary spawning areas for the population. There appears to be a considerable amount of similar spawning habitat in Pool 3 which would be available to the sauger population utilizing the PINGP area. Further-more, the number of larvae entrained represents less than 3 percent of the sauger larvae carried out of Sturgeon Lake during May, (assuming that larval drift from Sturgeon Lake has a taxonomic composition similar to that at the Bar Rack Station in the intake canal).251 Because of the high mobility of adult sauger, the wide availability of suitable spawning habitat, and the low proportion of sauger larvae available that are actually entrained, it is not anticipated that entrainment of larvae by ;the PINGP will have a significant impact on the local sauger population. Approximately 730 adult white bass were estimated to be lost due to the entrainment of larvae at PINGP (Table 6.4-1).This represents only 0.4 to 0.5 percent of the population estimated between Sturgeon Lake and Lake Pepin -and only 7 percent of the average annual sport harvest of 10,400 fish, and appears to be only a small portion of the total production for the North Lake-Sturgeon Lake cotnplex.If it is again assumed that the taxonomic composition of the larvae in the Sturgeon Lake Outlet is similar to that at the Bar Rack Station, about 250 million white bass larvae would be present in the North Lake-Sturgeon Lake complex. Using the same method of calculation as was used for deriving entrainment losses, this would result in the production of about 25,000 adults, nearly 35 times the entrainment loss.Nearly 11 million freshwater drum eggs and larvae were entrained at PINGP during the 1975 sampling period, resulting 252 in a potential loss of about 1,000 adults (Table 6.4-1).This was approximately

1.5 percent

of the population of young drum in the plant area, one-third of the total annual sport harvest (Section 4.3.5.1) and about equal to the average commercial harvest (Pool 3) reported by the MDNR (Section 4.3.5.2). At present, however, this species does not appear to be heavily exploited by either the recrea-tional or sport fishery above Lock and Dam No. 3. Sport fishing pressures in Pool 4 during the 1960's were 300 to 700 times higher than current levels in the area above Lock and Dam No. 3 and harvests were 38 to 50 times greater (Skrypek 1964, Sternberg 1969, Hawkinson 1974, Naplin and Gustafson 1975, Gustafson and Diedrich 1976). During the same period, the abundance of drum in Pool 4, indicdted by experimental gill net and trap net catches, was equal to or less than current levels in the area upstream of Lock and Dam No. 3 (Skrypeck 1966, Anonymous 1964, Hawkinson 1974, Naplin and Geis 1975, Gustafson et al. 1976). This indicates that the drum population in the PINGP area can stand consider-ably more exploitation pressure without serious damage.Other sport fishes sustaining entrainment losses include walleye, and species of sunfish, crappies, northern pike and yellow perch (Table 6.4-1). The total adult loss was estimated to be 184 fish, which is less than 10 percent 253 in a potential loss of about 1,000 adults (Table 6.4-1).This was approximately

1.5 percent

of the population of young drum in the plant area (Table 6.5-1), one-third of the total annual sport harvest (Section 4.3.5.1) and about equal to the average commercial harvest (Pool 3) reported by the MNDR (Section 4.3.5.2). At present, however, this species does not appear to be heavily exploited by either the recreational or sport fishery above Lock and Dam No. 3. Sport fishing pressures in Pool 4 during the 1960's were 300 to 700 times higher than current levels in the area above Lock and Dam No. 3 and harvests were 38 to 50 times greater (Skrypek 1964, Sternberg 1969, Hawkinson 1974, Naplin and Gustafson 1975, Gustafson and Diedrich 1976). During the same period, the abundance of drum in Pool 4, indicated by experimental gill net and trap net catches, was equal to or less than current levels in the area upstream of Lock and Dam No. 3 (Skrypeck 1966, Anonymous 1964, Hawkinson 1974, Naplin and Geis 1975, Gustafson et al. 1976). This indicates that the drum population in the PINGP area can stand considerably more exploitation pressure without serious damage.Other sport fishes sustaining entrainment losses include walleye, and species of sunfish, crappies, northern pike and yellow perch (Table 6.4-1). The total adult loss was estimated to be 184 fish, which is less than 10 percent 254 of the combined annual angler harvest for these species.The operation of PINGP should not cause a significant de-crease in the number of these sport fish available in the area of the plant.Commercial fish whose larvae were entrained at PINGP in-cluded carp, buffalo, catfish, suckers and carpsuckers (quillbacks). Since the MDNR publishes only total weights of harvested species it was necessary to convert the number of adults lost to weights for comparison to commercial landings. This was accomplished by multiplying the number lost by an average weight per individual, which was usually obtained from information given in Scott and Crossman (1973).. All commercial fishery data were obtained from MDNR unpublished reports.Nearly 3.3 million carp larvae were entrained in 1975, resulting in a potential loss of 195 adults. At an average weight of 9 kg, this loss represents 1,755 kg (3,869 lbs)or about 8 percent of the average annual commercial catch from Pools 3 and 4.Over 6.6 million buffalo larvae were entrained, resulting in a potential adult fish loss of 1,323 fish. At an average individual weight of 2.3 kg (5.1 lbs), the loss represents 255 3,043 kg (6,708 lbs.), an amount about equal to the average commercial harvest for Pools 3 and 4 during the period 1970 to 1974 (Section 4.3.5.2).Approximately

4.6 million

carpsucker larvae were entrained in 1975. This represents a potential adult loss of 2,759 fish or about 25,000 kg (55,000 ibs). The average annual catch for Pools 3 and 4 between 1970 and 1975 was 103 kg (227 ibs).Over 300,000 channel and flathead catfish young were entrained, resulting in an estimated loss of 122 kg (269 lbs or 67 fish) or 5 percent of the average annual commercial catch.The mooneye is listed as an incidental catch in both the commercial and sport fisheries statistics. It has not been abundant in the catch of any type of experimental gear fished in the PINGP area between 1973 and 1975, but in 1975 it accounted for 2 percent of the larvae entrained at the PINGP. The estimated number of adults lost due to entrain-ment of larvae was 8,547. This is considerably higher than the combined annual sport and commercial harvest.Losses of carp and catfish do not appear to be significant when compared to commercial catches. The impact on the 256 fishery of losses of the magnitude exhibited by buffaloes, carpsuckers and mooneye is unclear. It is unknown whether the low numbers of these taxa in commercial landings are due to low abundance in Pools 3 and 4 or a lack of interest by commercial fishermen. Experimental gear catch data suggests that these fish have been low in abundance in the PINGP area between 1973 and 1975. However, if the number of larvae of each taxon at the outlet of Sturgeon Lake is considered, (assuming a taxonomic compositionsimilar to that at the Bar Rack Station), it appears that the experimental catch may not be an adequate indicator of abundance of these species. (This is especially true since the MNDR data on'larvae Of Sturgeon Lake Outlet are probably relatively low estimates as discussed in Section 5.3.1.3.2). Approximately 111 million buffalo larvae, 21 million mooneye larvae and 78 million carpsucker larvae were estimated to have passed the PINGP intake in 1975. These larvae would have been the progeny of 96,00C, 280,000 and 202,000 spawning pairs of buffalo, mooneye and carpsuckers, respectively. Potential losses of adults due to entrainment represent only a small proportion of those adults which produced young that were estimated to have passed the PINGP intake; therefore, it is not likely that significant impact has or will result from larval entrainment. 257 6.5 FISH IMPINGEMENT Fish losses due to impingement at PINGP were 146,063 in 1974 and 93,466 in 1975. The significance of losses of fish because of impingement at PINGP can be subjected to a general evaluation based on comparisons with population estimates (Table 6.5-1).The most obvious result of studies at PINGP (Section 5.3.2)is the large numbers of gizzard shad impinged. Most of the gizzard shad were impinged during the late fall and winter.As pointed out by Andersen (1975), the high impingement rates appear to be temperature-related. A number of investi-gators have reported apparent temperature-related fall die-offs of gizzard shad (Wickliff 1953, Agersborg 1930; Miller 1960, Bodola 1966). The large number of gizzard shad in Sturgeon Lake and nearby areas and their sensitivity to temperature changes in the fall are apparently major factors causing high impingement rates at PINGP. Andersen (1975)pointed out that gizzard shad die-offs in the PINGP area appear to begin when the water temperature falls to near 12 0 C (53.6 0 F).Total numbers of gizzard shad impinged at PINGP were 136,667 in 1974 and 70,506 in 1975 (Table 6.5-1). Bottom trawling data probably provide a low estimate of gizzard shad 258 TABLE 6.5.-i NUMBERS OF MAJOR FISH SPECIES IMPINGED AT PINGP, ESTIMATES OF STANDING CROP BASED ON TRAWL SURVEY, SPORT CATCHES, AND ESTIMATES OF SPORT FISH POPULATIONS Total impingedb 1974 1975 C Trawl survey Plant area North Lake 33.4 ha 438 ha d Tag and recapture Peterson Schnabel Gizzard shada Channel catfish White bass Crappies Drum Walleye Sauger Sauger/walleye 136,667 637 1,367 1,704 3,143 5 13 87 70,506 6,223 2,712 2,030 3,789 2,252 2,669 2,190 417 66,220 250 417 667 270,684 4,818 60,006 154,176 58,692 2,190 1,752 3,942 22,720 173,910 162,721 609,809 772,530 155,335 123,512 228,784 352,296 197 t'J asix million estimated for Sturgeon Lake (Andersen 1975)bSection 5.2 CSection 4.5, 1974 -1975.dSection 4.5, Sturgeon Lake to Lake Pepin, 1974 and 1975. populations because this species is a filter-feeder and occurs throughout the water column (Scott and Crossman 1973). Population estimates for the plant area are not directly comparable to impingement data because trawling was not conducted during the late fall and winter when most gizzard shad were impinged. The MNDR estimated that roughly six million gizzard shad were present in the 324 ha (800 ac)Sturgeon Lake in late summer of 1973 (Andersen 1975).Assuming this to-be a representative figure, the 1974 and 1975 losses represent approximately 1 to 2 percent of the Sturgeon Lake population. Losses of this magnitude would not reduce the forage value of this species.Trawl survey data are relatively appropriate for interpre-tation of losses of sport and commercial species because similar size fish occur in both trawl and impingement catches.However, trawling yields low population estimates due to concentration by certain species in untrawlable habitats such as nearshore shallows, macroflora beds, or other cover.The average number of catfish impinged (3,430) is roughly equivalent to the apparently low population estimates for the 83.4 ha plant area and 438 ha North Lake (Table 6.5-1).However, the Peterson population estimate (22,720) and 1974 commercial landings (37,820 lbs) of adult fish suggest that 260 the number of impinged catfish represent a small fraction of the young occurring in the region.Young white bass losses were comparable to the trawl popula-tion estimates occurring in the plant area and represent

6.8 percent

of the numbers estimated for North Lake. The young white bass represent about 1 percent of the sport fish populations estimated in tag and recapture studies. Due to natural mortality, the number of white bass impinged would have yielded an even smaller number of adults.The number of impinged crappies is greater than the popula-tion estimated for the plant area from trawl survey data, but represents only 2.4 percent of the North.Lake population. Low population estimates in the plant area are probably due to concentration of crappies in relatively unsampled habitats.Freshwater drum in the PINGP area would be highly vulnerable to impingement, judging by the large population occurring in the plant area. However, impingement losses represent only 10 percent and 12 percent of the estimated young occurring in the plant area and North Lake, respectively. Walleyes and saugers were impinged at a low rate relative to other species and represent 43 percent of the estimated 261 plant area populations, 3.6 percent of the estimated North Lake populations and less than 0.1 percent of the estimated sport fish populations. Assessment of life-of-the-plant effects on fishes near PINGP is complicated by a number of interacting factors.A balanced indigenous species of fish is multi-aged and fluctuates in relation to variability of year-class strengths, exploitation, natural mortality, and density-dependent mechanisms. Year-class strength is determined primarily by abiotic factors, especially water temperature regimes, during spawning and early development stages. Exploitation is often the major source of mortality in adult fish.Surplus production is the substainmJble yield or production of new weight by a fishable stock, plus recruits added to it, less what is lost to natural mortality (Ricker 1975).In a discrete population, surplus production will increase as exploitation increases until the total rate of exploitation from fishing and power plants reduces surplus production below the level needed to sustain the population (McFadden 1975).McFadden's hypothetical model shows that a population will not decline when exploitation from power plants and fishing is less than 40 percent per year.262 When the Oneida Lake walleye population was subjected to exploitation of approximately 40-50 percent in one year, it exhibited high growth rates and population levels in sub-sequent years (Forney 1967). Adult walleyes in Lake Erie showed no decline when subjected to 70-78 percent exploitation per year during 1962-1966 (Regier et al. 1969). High rates of exploitation resulted from heavy fishing pressure in Lake Erie and low abundance of forage fish in other lakes (Forney 1976, Moyle 1949). These studies suggest that fairly high rates of exploitation will not cause a sustained decline if year class formation and recruitment are normal.Additional exploitation associated with operation of a power plant would represent a relatively minor source of mortality in the long-term fluctuations of upper Mississippi River fish populations. Even in the immediate plant area, entrainment and impingement losses may be masked due to the great mobility of fish in the PINGP area.263 7 REFERENCES CITED Agersborg, H. P. K. 1930. The influence of temperature on fish. Ecology 2(l):136-144. Andersen, R. A. 1975. Impingement of fishes and other organisms on the Prairie Island Plant intake traveling screens. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Anonymous. 1964. Exploratory fishing in Pools 3, 4, 5 and 5A of the Mississippi River, 1957 and 1963. Minnesota Department of Conservation. Anonymous. 1974. Impingement of fishes and other-oxrganisms on the Prairie Island Plant traveling screen. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Baker, A. L. 1974. Studies of the periphyton of the Mississippi River, near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generat-ing Plant -- 1973. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power'1973 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Baker, A. L. 1975. Primary productivity of the phytoplankton in the Mississippi River at Prairie Island; the effects of heated water discharge on the levels of production; and a turbidometric analysis of mass flow. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Baker, A. L. 1976. Studies of the productivity of the phytoplankton of the Mississippi River at Prairie Island -1975. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. 264 0 Baker, K. K. and A. L. Baker. 1974. Studies of the phyto-plankton of the Mississippi River, near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant -- 1973. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Baker, K. K. and A. L. Baker. 1975. Studies of the phyto-plankton of the Mississippi River, near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant -- 1974. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Baker, K. K. and A. L. Baker. 1976. Studies of the phyto-plankton of the Mississippi River, near the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1975. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northe-rn States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Barr, A. J. and J. H. Goodnight. 1972. A user's guide to the statistical analysis system. North Carolina State University, Sparks Press, Raleigh, North Carolina.Behmer, D. J. 1969. Schooling of river carpsuckers and a population estimate. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 98(3): 520-523.Bibko, P. N., L. Wirtenan and P. E. Kueser. 1974. Prelim-inary studies on the effects of air bubbles and intense illumination on the swimming behavior of the striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepdanum). pp. 293-304 In: Jensen, L. D., (ed.).Proceedings of the second entrainment and intake screening workshop. Electric Power Research Institute Report No. 15.Palo Alto, California. Bodola, A. 1966. Life history of the gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur) in western Lake Erie. Fishery Bull.65(2):391-425. Britt, N. W. 1955. New methods of collecting bottom fauna from shoals or rubble bottoms of lakes and streams.Ecology 36:524-525. 0 265 Brook, A. J. 1971. Phytoplankton study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1970 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Brook, A. J. 1972. Phytoplankton. In: Environmental monitoringand ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1971 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near RedWing, Minnesota. Brook, A. J. 1973. Phytoplankton. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1972 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Daggett, R. F. 1976. Zooplankton study. In: Environ-mental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Daley, S. A. and J. S. Skrypek. 1964. Angler creel census of Pools 4 and 5 of the Mississippi River, Goodhue and Wabasha Counties, Minnesota in 1962-63. Minnesota Department of Conservation. Davis, S. E. et al. 1963. The influence of oxygen con-centrations on the swimming performance of juvenile Pacific salmon at various temperatures. Trans. Amer. Fish.Soc. 92(2):111-124. Edsall, T. A. and T. G. Yocum. 1972. Review of recent technical information concerning the adverse effects of once-through cooling on Lake Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich.Edwards, T. J., W. H. Hunt, L. E. Miller and J. J. Sevic.Undated. Fish impingement at four Duke Power Company steam generating facilities. Duke Power Company, Environ-mental Sciences Unit, Charlotte, North Carolina. Manuscript. EPA. 1976a. Development document for best technology avail-able for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water structures for minimizing adverse environ-mental impact. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (Draft).266 EPA. 1976b. Guidance for determining best technology available for the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures for minimizing adverse environmental impact, section 316(b) P.L. 92-500.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft 2.Fernholzr W., Work Unit Supervisor, State of Wisconsin Dept.Natural Resources. Personal communication to V. Kranz, NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. Letter of September 23, 1975.Finke, A. H. 1964. White bass tagging study upper Mississippi River. Wisconsin Department of Conservation, Division of Fish Management, Management Report No. 6.Fish, M. P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 47: 293-3.9.8. Forney, J. L. 1967. Estimates of biomass and mortality rates in a walleye population. N. Y. Fish Game J. 14: 176-192.Gerlach, J. M. 1973. Early development of the quillback carpsucker, Carpiodes cyprinus. M.A. Thesis, Millersville State College, Millersville, Pa.Grimes, C. B. 1975. Entrapment of fishes on intake ,water screens at a steam electric generating stations. Ches.Sci. 16(3):172-177. Grotbeck, L. M. and J. L. Bechtold. 1975. Fish impingement at Monticello Nuclear Plant. J. Power Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. PO1, Proc. Paper 11409, pp. 69-83.Gustafson, S. P. and P. J. Diedrich. 1976. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey March 1 -November 2,3, 1975. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Gustafson, S. P., J. L. Geis and P. J. Diedrich. 1976.1975 progress report on the Prairie Island fish population study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. 267 Hawkinson, B. S. 1974. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey May 10 -November 5, 1973. In: Environ-mental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 Annual Report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Hawkinson, B. S. 1974. 1973 fish population study progress report of Mississippi River near Prairie Island July 1973 -February 1974. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. 1, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Haynets, C. 4. 1976. Macroinvertebrate study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Hester, F. E. and Dendy, J. S. 1962. A multiplate sampler for aquatic ipacroinvertebrates. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.91(4).Horst, T. J. 1975. The assessment of impact due to entrain-ment of ichthyoplankton. In: Saila S.B. 1975. Fisheries and energy production, a symposium. D. C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass.Hynes, H. B. N. 1972. The ecology of running water. University of Toronto Press.Kerr, J. E. 1953. Studies on fish preservation at the Contra Costa Steam Plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.Calif. Dept. Fish and Game Fish. Bull. 92.Krosch, H. F. 1969. 1968 progress report on Lake St. Croix fish population study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1968 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Lorenzen, C. J. 1967. Determination of chlorophyll and pheopigments: spectrophotometric equations. Limnol.Oceanogr. 12:343-346. Lippson, A. J. and R. L. Moran. 1974. Manual for identifi-cation of early development stages of fishes of the Potomac River Estuary. Envir. Tech. Center, Martin Marietta Corp., Baltimore, Md. PPSP-MP-13. 268 May, E. B. and C. R. Gasaway. 1967. A preliminary key to the identification of larval fishes of Oklahoma with particular reference to Canton Reservoir, including a selected bibliography. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fisheries Resource Laboratory, Bull. No. 5.Mayhew, D. A, and H. K. Hess. 1976. Impingement of fishes and other organisms on the Prairie Island Plant intake traveling screens. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. McConville, D. R. 1974. Macroinvertebrate studies. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. McConville, D. R. 1975. Macroinvertebrate studies. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. McFadden, J. T. 1975. Environmental impact assessment for.fish populations. pp. 89-138 In: R. K. Sharma et al.(eds.) Proceedings of the conference on the biological significance of environmental impacts. USNRC, Washington, D.C.Meyer, F. A. 1970. Development of some larval centrarchids. Prog. Fish-Cult. 32(3):130-136. Middlebrook, K. 1975. Zooplankton entrainment. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Middlebrook, K. 1976. Zooplankton entrainment. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Miller, E. F. 1971. Ecological studies. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1970 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. 269 Miller, E. F. 1972. Ecological studies. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1971 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Miller, E. F. 1973. Fisheries study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1972 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear*Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Miller, R. R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fish. Fish. Bull.60:371-392. Moore, G. A. 1957. Fishes: Part 2, pp. 21-165 In: W. F. Blair, et al., Vertebrates of the United States. 2nd edition. 1968.McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Moyle, J. B. 1949. Fish population concepts and management of Minnesota lakes for sport fishing. Trans. N. Am. Wildlife Conf. 14:283-294. Mueller, K. N. 1975. Aquatic vegetation of the Prairie Island area 1974. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Mueller, K. N. 1976. Prairie Island aquatic vegetation study -1975. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1975 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. MPCA. 1975. Minnesota's guide for biological demonstrations for administration of 316(a) and (b) for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Minnesota Regulation WPC 36 (u)(3). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality.Naplin, R. L. and J. L. Geis. 1975. 1974 progress report on the Prairie Island fish population study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. 270 Naplin, R. L. and S. P. Gustafson. 1975. Progress report on the Prairie Island creel survey April 30 -December 3, 1974.In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Nelson, W. R. 1968. Embryo and larval characteristics of sauger, walleye, and their reciprocal hybrids. Trans.Am. Fish. Soc. 97(2) :167-174.Norden, C. R. 1961. The identification of larval yellow perch, Perca flavescens, and walleye, Stizostedion vitreum. Copeia 1961 (3):282-288. NSP. 1972. Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1971 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. NSP. 1973. Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1972 annual report for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. NSP. 1974. Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report f6r the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Olsen, L., MPCA. Personal communication to J. Ericson, NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. Letter of October 18, 1976.Quirk, Lawler and Matusky. 1974. Nine Mile Point aquatic ecology studies, Vol. II, fish impingement. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Reiger, H. A., V. C. Applegate, and R. A. Ryder. 1969. The ecology and management of the walleye in western Lake Erie.Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 15.Ricker, W. E. 1975. Handbook of computation and inter-pretation of statistics of fish populations. Fish. Res.Bd. Canada Bull. No. 191.Sazaki, M., W. Heubach and J. E. Skinner. 1973. Some preliminary results on the swimming ability and impingement tolerance of young-of-the-year steelhead trout, king salmon and striped bass. Final report for Anadromous Fisheries Act Project AFS-13. Manuscript. 271 Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman, 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. No. 184.Simonet, R. J. 1975. Macroinvertebrate study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. II, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Skrypek, J. 1966. Analysis of physical and biological changes at selected sampling stations in the Mississippi River. Minnesota Department of Conservation. Snedecor, B. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods.6th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Ia.Snyder, D. E. 1971. Studies of larval fishes in Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir near Holtwood, Pennsylvania. A.S.' Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.Snyder, D. E. and M. B. M. Snyder. 1976. Identification of larvae of Notemigonus crysoleucas, Notropis spilopterus, and Pimephales promelas. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:* 000-000. (Recently submitted for publication). Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W. H., Freeman and Co., San Francisco. Stefan, H. 1973. A preliminary evaluation of the flow through Sturgeon Lake upstream of Lock and Dam No. 3 on the Mississippi River. Prepared for John W. Gorman, Inc.and Northern States Power Company.Sternberg, R. B. 1969. Angler creel census of Pools 4 and 5 of the Mississippi River, Goodhue and Wabasha Counties, Minnesota in 1967-68. Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish. Report No. 306.Szluha, A. 1974. Zooplankton study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Szluha, A. 1975. Zooplankton study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1974 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. 272 Taber, C. A. 1969. Distribution and identification of larval fishes in the Buncombe Creek Arm of Lake Texoma with observations on spawning habits and relative abundance. Ph.D.Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.USAEC. 1972. Draft environmental impact statement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 3, Con-solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Docket No. 50-286.USAEC. 1973. Draft Environmental Statement by the United States Atomic Energy Commission Directorate of Licensing related to the proposed issuance of an operating license for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant by Northern States Power. Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306.USGS. 1928-1975. Water resources data for Minnesotai Part 2. Surface water records. U. S. Geological Survey.Vose, R. 1974. Aquatic macrophyte study. In: Environmental monitoring and ecological studies program, Northern States Power 1973 annual report, Vol. I, for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesota. Wickliff, E. L. 1953. Gizzard shad rides again. Ohio Conserv. Bull. 17:23-25.0 273 APPENDIX 1 INTAKE VELOCITY PROFILES AT PINGP JUNE 23 AND 28, 1976 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT SKIMMER WALL, JUNE 23, 1976 Measured immediately in front of skimmer wall at light posts numbered from north to south Blowdown: 275 cfs Depth (ft)Surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 11.5 12 13 14 14.5 15.5 2 0.10 0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05<0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.(0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10. 0.(0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT BAR RACK, JUNE 23, 1976 Measured 4.5 ft in front of bar rack at 24 equidistant points numberea from east to west-Blowdown: 275 cfs 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Depth (ft)Surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.50 0. 45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10 0 10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.25.0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.10 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT BAP, RACK, JUNE 23, 1976 (Continued) Depth (ft)Surface 1 2 3.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13.5 14 14.5 9 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.25-0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.10 10 11 12 13 14 *15 16 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.20 0*30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0 0 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT BAR RACK, JUNE 23,1976 (Continued) Depth (ft)17: 18 19 20 21 22: 23 Surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.20 0. 20 0.20 0.25 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT SKIMMER WALL, JUNE 28, 1976 Measured immediately in front of.skimmer wall numbered from north to south at light posts Blowdown: 655 cfs Depth (f t)Surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13.5 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0..05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.10 0 0 VELOCITIES (m/sec) AT SKIMMER WALL, JUNE 28, 1976 Measured immediately in front of skimmer wall at numbered from north to south Blowdown: 1300 cfs light posts Depth (ft)Surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 13.5 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05.0.05 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 APPENDIX 2 NOTES ON SPAWNING AND REPRODUCTION OF 26 SPECIES OF FISH OCCURRING NEAR PINGP 0 APPENDIX 2 NOTES ON SPAWNING AND REPRODUCTION OF 26 SPECIES OCCURRING AT THE PINGP SITE Species Amia calva (Bowfin)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Male: III-V 6 , 457; 3805;Female: 6106 .Fecundity 23,600-64,0005 Spawning Season"Temperature (oC)Area Egg Deposition Mid-May through June, possibly as early as late April (Canada)6;late March through May 5.16-195 Shallow vegetated waters in lakes and rivers-'; shallow, sluggish, stagnant water up to 122cm or deeper 5.38-76 cm diameter nets among thick vegetation hollowed out circular or elliptical depression with bottom of fibrous roots, water-soaked leaves or gravel, also under stumps, logs, and bushes.2,000-5,000 eggs per nest; eggs attach to decaying vegetation and reeds by thread-like exten-sions of egg surface 5.Adhesive, darker from original creamy yellow 6; attachment struc-ture 5 .2.2-3.0,capsule progressively 5 distends to twice original size 8_106; 4-145.86; 3-75 Larvae attach to vegetation with adhesive on the tip of the snout for 7-9 days by which time they are 10-13 mm total length, young guarded by male parent for sev-eral weeks until young are about Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (days)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior Survival Amia calva (cont'd.)102 mm total length 6 ; larvae also attach to roots and lie on bottom of nest, then form tight guarded swarms, larvae 9-13 mm at yolk absorbtion, young among weeks in shallows 5.0 Species Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (oC)Area Egg Deposition Esox lucius (Northern pike)Male: I-I, 3032; II-III6;Female: II-IV, 3252 595,000,32,0006; 2,000-545,0002; 32,0001.March through May (Canada)6;March to May (Michigan)l; Feb-ruary to mid-June 2.4.4-11.16; 5-142.Heavily vegetated flood plains of rivers, marshes, and bays;larger lakes, often in water no deeper than 18cm 6; shallow areas with vegetation 2; swamps, ponds, and lakesI; grassy or rush beds 4.Eggs scattered at random and attach to vegetationO; no nest 2;no parental care 4; eggs clear and amber 6.Demersal, adhesive 6 2.5-3.06; 2.2-3.4 1.12-14, 4.5 @!7.8-20OC6 Fertility rate over 50%6, 52-99%fertile, 64-90% egg hatch 2.6-76; 6.5-8 with average of 72;9-104 99.8% mortality prior to young leaving spawning grounds; young attach to vegetation with ad-hesive glands on head for 6-10 days while consuming yolk; young grow rapidly, 43 mm by first Type Water-hardened Size (mm)incubation Period (days)Survival Larvae Hatching Size Habits, Behavior, Survival Esox lucius (cont'd.)month and 152 mm by the end of first summer, young after yolk absorption feed on larger zoo-plankton and immature insects for 7-10 days -then begin consuming small fish; by 50 mm, fish are a predominant food6; begin feeding at 13.3-15.1 mm, 99.6-99.9% mortality from egg to fingerling

2.0 Species

Cyprinus carpio (Carp)Spawning Season Temperature (°C)'Area Late A2ril to mid-August (Great Lakes) b; mid-May through August (Wisconsin) 2; May through mid-August (Pennsylvania) 7; mid-May to early July (Maryland) 5; March through August (U.S.)5.Late March through mid-June (Okla.)8.17-286; 14.5-23.4 but mostly at 18.5-202 &.5, 10-30 but optimal at 225.Weedy or grassy shallows of lakes, ponds, tributaries, swamps, flood plains, and marshes; 8-180 cm in depthl, 2, 4, 5,.6, 8, 9.Broadcast randomly, eggs attach frequently in clusters to weeds, grasses or rootsl, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.Egg Deposition Type Adhesivel, 2, 5, 6 Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (days)Survival 16 F 1.0-2 .05 .3-66; 3-16, 3-5 @ 20 0 C, 4-8 @17.6-18.4-C, 12-161; 2-3 at 22-C 5.High mortality 8 Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival 3-6.4S Larvae attach to or lie among vegetation after hatching 5 1'most larvae remain in shallow water, few are found in deeper open water 8; after 12 mm, total length, young appear to move from near-shore surface water to deeper water 7. Species Notropis hudsonius (Spottail shiner)Spawning Season May through July (Lake Erie) 46 June to early July (Lake Erie)Temperature (*C) 20.02 Area Over sandy shoals in water 90-150 cm deep 6.Egg Deposition Found in algae masses along Lake Erie shore.Fecundity (mm Total 2 Length) 100-2600 0 0 Species Notropis spilopterus (Spotfin shiner)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)I, 47 mm (minimum)2 225-1,5806 Fecundity Spawning Season Egg Deposition Type Larvae Habits, Behavior Survival Mid-May through August (New York)6;late May to early September (New York)2; late May through June (Maryland) 2; early May to mid-September (Pennsylvania)7. Underside of logs and roots 6;underside of submerged objects 9;*attached to branches and logs in clusters 2.Adhesive6 Larvae appear to prefer' the shallow shoreline to the more open waters 7. Species Notropis dorsalis (Bigmouth shiner)Spawning Season Late May to early September 2;late June to late August (Colorado) i.Area Probably spawns in mid-stream 2.Egg Deposition Eggs probably carried by.current 2.Type Pelagic 2 0 0 Species Maturation by Year -Class or LengLI, (mm.total., length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (oC)Area Egg Deposition Pimephales notatus (Bluntnose minnow)Male:-: 116; 1112; Female:ý .16;1,743-2.223 averaging 2,0052.May to mid-August (Canada) 6;May through August (Michigan) 2;mid-April through August (Illi-nois, Pennsylvania) 2 , 7; late May to early August (Wisconsin) l.21-262; 27.84 Shallow water up to 62 cm deep, sand and gravel bottom shoals 1 Male hollows out nest beneath stone or other object upon which the eggs are laid on the under-side 6; intermittent sp'awners, 200-500 eggs per spawning 2;several broods per nestl 1 Adhesive6 Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (days)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival 1-1.56 7-146; 8-9 @ 21-24OC1._96 Larvae are 12 mm 2 weeks after hatching 6. Species Fecundity Rhinichthys cataractae (Longnose dace)200-1,2006; 160-6802.Spawning Season Temperature (°C)Area Egg Deposition Late April through July (Canada)6;late April to mid-June (Maryland) 2;late Maý to early September (Min-nesota)11.7 minimum 6 In riffles 6 Over gravelly bottom, in or near Nocomis micropogon nests, one parent believed to guard area though no nest is built 6-.Type Adhesive 6 Incubation Period (days)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival 7-10 @ 15.6°C 0 Yolk absorbed 7 days after hatching, young are pelagic 6 and remain so for about 4 months 0 I Species Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (°C)Area Semotilus atromaculatus (Creek chub)Male: 1116; IV 2; Female: 116;II12 2,820-4,671; 4,250 average for 76-703 mm total length 1.Late April to mid-July (Canada)6;April to mid-May (Illinois) 2;*early March to mid-June (Iowa)2;mid-April to July (Michigan) 2.12.8 minimum 6; 12.8-16.71 Small, gravelly streams in smooth water just above or below a riffle 6; in quiet riffles or gravel bar in a lake 1.Male creates a nest or depres-sion (trench); eggs deposited in pit, then covered with stones and gravel, male guards nest 6; conspicuous nests with large stone ridge and oval pitl-Egg Deposition Type Demersal 6 Species Maturation by Year -Class or Length (rm total length)Fecundity. Spawning Season Temperature (OC)Area Catostomus commersoni (White sucker)III-VII1 6; 76 mm minimum;Male: IV-VI1 2; Female: III-IX 2 20*,000-139,0006; 775-139,000 for fish 120-510 mm total length 2;, average of 20,000-50,000 for.fish 410-540 total length 1.April through mid-June (Canada)6;late March to mid-May (Wisconsin)l; earls May to early July (Wiscon-sin) ; late March to mid-June (Lake Erie)1; April-May (Michi-gan)2; mid-March through early April (Illinois) 2; early May through early June (New York)1;early March through July. (U. S.) 5, 8 6-235; usually 10-208.Gravelly stream, lake margins or quiet areas in blocked streams, usually shallow with gravel, sometimes in rapids 6; in riffles over gravel 2; shallow swift water over gravel, may spawn in lakes but not typical'.Eggs scattered; adhere to gravel or drift downstream 6.Pelagic, adhesive 4; slightly adhesive until water-hardened; demersal 5.8-11 @ 10-15 0 C; 5 @ 18 0 C;7 @ 15.5-16.1 0 C, 11 @ 13.6oC 2;4 @ 21.1 0 C, 7 @ 15.6 0 C, 17-21@ average of 10.3oC5.Larvae remain in gravel 1-2 weeks then migrate to lake or Egg Deposition Type Incubation Period (days)Larvae Habits, Behavior Survival Catostomus commersoni (cont'd.)river at which time they are 12-17 mm, may be as little as 3% sur-vival from egg to migrant larvae 6;prolarvae lie on bottom, larvae in schools in quiet shallows 5;12-14 mm at first downstream movement 2; occasionally pelagic 7* 0.Species Moxostoma anisurum (Silver redhorse)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)V 2 Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (oC.)Egg Deposition Type-Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival 14,190736,3406 April and May 2; late May through mid-June, possibly as early as late March (Chippewa River, Canada)6.13.52; 13.36.Swiftly flowing streams, main channel of turbid rivers in 30-91 cm of water, do not as-cend tributary streams 6;spawn upstream 4.On gravel to rubble bottoms 6.0 Young inhabit slow-moving waters over hard or soft bottoms with overhanging banks 6.0 Species Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Shorthead redhorse)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity 13,580-29,7326; 13,500-27,150Q5 Spawning Season Temperature (OC)Area Egg Deposition Early April to early May (Iowa)2;late May through July (Canada)6;early April through May 2; mid-March through June (Maryland)5 " 11.16 Small rivers or streams gra-velly riffles 6; quieter upper parts of streams at least 10 m wide, also over sand bottoms 5-Eggs scattered 6; scattered in small lots, buried in bottom5-Species Ictalurus melas (Black bullhead)Maturation by Year -Class or Length, (mm total length)111, 2542.3O000-68006; 3000-40001; 1638-62002. Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (OC)Area Egg Deposition Late April through June, possibly through August6; June through July (Wisconsin)l; late May to July (Ohioj.; early May to July (Illinois) 216; begins @ 21-25.:ýShallow water among moderate to heavy vegetation 6.Female excavates nest; intermitent.spawning, both parents guard and care for eggs, about 200 eggs per brood 6.Somewhat adhesive;

• gelatinous coat;pale cream color 6.36 5 @ high temperature.

Newly hatched young school in loose sphere about parent until 25 mm in length 6; young school by day 2.Type Water-hardened Size (nun)Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival Species Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown bullhead)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)III; 203-3306 2000-130006. Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (0 C)Area Egg Deposition Late April to July, possibly through September (Canada)6;May to July (Illinois)l; May to mid-August (Pennsylvania)7; May through June (Maryland) 5.21.16; 21-255.Among roots of aquatic vegetation, usually near stump, rock, and trees, near shore 6; sluggish weedy, muddy streams and lakes shallow to a several meters.Shallow nest in botoam of mud;at times in burrowst; nests in open excavations in sand, gravel, or rarely mud, and often in shelter logs, rocks or vegetation, in burrows up to one meter long under roots of plants, in cavities of various objects, deposited in clusters 5.Adhesive; gelatinous, mucous coat pale cream color 6.36 6-9 @ 20.6-ý3.30C 6 5 @ 25°C;2 @ 20-21*C ; 5-14i; 71.66 Begin swimming and active feeding by 7th day after hatching, school in loose spear with parents until 51 mm total length 6; larvae in tight mass on bottom for 6-16 days, then herded by parents for a few weeks, sometimes in schools throughout first summer among vegetation or near cover Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival 0 Species Percopis omiscomaycus (Trout-perch) 16; male 12; female I-I12 Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total.length) Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (*C)Area Type 240-728; averaging 3496 Late April to June6; late April through May, possibly to September (Lake Erie) ; Lake May through August (Minnesota) 6; late April through June 2; late May to mid-June (Lake Erie)2.16-202; 19-21.41.Shallow rocky streamns, also sand and gravel bottom in 0-1.3 m shoreline water of lakes 6; shallow swift water over rocky.or gravel bottom 1.Single 0.7 mm diameter; o'l globule in fertalized egg adhesive demersal 2.1.36-1.85; 1.25-1.456. 8 days-at 201C1250 degree-days above 60c2.6.04 Young feed mainly on ostracods, Gammarus, Leotodora, chironomids, or zooplanktonz. Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)Hatching Size (mm)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival Species Lota lota (Burbot)Maturation by Year -Class or Lenath (mm total length)Fecunaity Spawning Season Temperature (*C)Area i III-IV,. 280-480. ;'111, 1343-419245,600-13620076; 68498-ll531442; 160,000-6700001. Late December through March (Canada)6;mid-January to March 2; late September through March, possibly through April 1 , 0.6-1.76.30-120 cm of water over sand or gravel in shallow bays or gravel shoals 1.5-3 m deep, usually in lakes but has been known to move into rivers 6; deep holes in streams or "Bear" deep water 1.Spawn as a writing bal!,,61 cm in diameter of 10-12 interwined and constantly moving individuals; no nest or parental care 6; eggs scattered loose on bottom ; 250 eggs at a time 2.Semi-pelagic 6; non-adhesive 1.Egg Deposition Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)1.25-1.776; 1.71 30 @ 6.1*C; 3-4 weeksI. Species Ambloplites rupestris (Rock bass)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)11-V but typically 11-IlI3;109-2676.Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (°C)Area 3,000-11,0006; averaging over 5,0003.Late March through July3 ; late April to July (Lake Erie)4; 1 late March to July (New York) ;May-June (Indiana)

May to August (Pennsylvania) 7.6 3 15.6-21.16; 20.5-26 Swamps to gravel shoals, very diverse 6; near vegetation in shallow water up to 62 cm deepl.Male digs shallow nest up to 61 cm diameter; female spawns male guards eggs; nest produces average of 800 larvae63/4 nests on gravel, soil, marl, in swampy places, near rocks, sticks, etc.1.6 Adhesive Egg Deposition Type Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival 3-4 @ 20.5-21.0 0 C.Male broods young for short time;young usually inhabit protected areas onlyl.

Species Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature ('C)Area II-V, occasionally less than 13 male: IV-V 6; female: III-IV 6.2,000-109,314, average 7,000-94,1573. Late March to August (Lake Erie)4.late March to July (New York)';mid-April to July (Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire) 3; May (New York, Indiana)1 , 3; mid-April to early July (Wisconsin, Pennsyl-vania)jl,3i 7.Earlý April through mid-August (Okla.).. .11.5- 29, 1,4.4-23.93; 17.81;16.7-18.36. In quiet bays among emergent vegetation, gravelly sand, marl, or solt mud in reeds, bullrushes or water lilies 6; in shallow water, usually less than 61 cm deep, over clean sand, gravel, roots or aquatic vegetation, sometimes on fallen leavesl, 3; usually near boulders, 3 pilings or under sandstone ledges Nest 61-92 cm diameter; 2-20 cm deep, and 9 m apart; eggs laid over whole bottom of nest, nest guarded by male, nests produced 751-11,457 (averaging 5000-7000) larvae 6;will.not nest on silt bottoms 3; eggs attach to stones 4; eggs attach to roots and other objects in nests 1.Adhesive 4; demersal, amber to pale yellow 6.Egg Deposition Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)1.5-1.7 3-56; 1.5-13.2, 1.5 @ 30'C, 2.9 @20-22.5'C; 4-43 @ 17.5%, 6.8 @ 15'C;13.2 @ 10-C 3.0-94%, averaging 80%, usually 92-100%3 Survival Micropterus salmoides (cont'd.)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival 36 Young remain on bottom of nest for 6-7 days and rise and begin to feed at 5.9-6.3 mm total length;brood may remain together for 31 days and 15 guarded by male all or part of the time 6; free-swimming at 6.2 mm total length; remain in nest two weeks then leave as a compact schooll, 4; survival from 90 days to fall is 58-91% from 47 days to fall is 19-100%3. Species Micropterus dolomieui (Smallmouth bass)Maturation by Year -Class or LentLh (mm total length)II-IV but usually III-IV 3; male II-IV 6; female IV-VI.5,000-14,0006; 2,000-20,825, averaging 5,040-13,8633. Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (0 C)Area Egg Deposition Early May through July 6; mid-April to early June '(Ohio, Missouri)

May to early July (Maryland, New York, Michigan)3; late May through July (Cayuga Lake)3; late April through July (Pennslyvaania, Lake Erie) 47. -16.1-18.36; 15.5-17.8; 11.7-21, usually 15-213.Lakes and rivers; sandy, gravely or rocky bottom usually near rocks, logs, or more rarely dense vegetation 6;usually in shallow water near over-head cover, stumps, stones, steep banks or at edges of pools, in tributatries 1 , ,4,8; along lake shores 1.Nests, depressions, formed in clean gravel or sand with bedrock, wood debris, or clam shells on bottom 1 ,3,4, 8" nest circular, 30-120 cm in diameter-eggs usually attach to stones at 6 center of nest; nest guarded by male Demersal, adhesive, light amber to pale yellow 6.1.2-2.56.2.2-161,3,4; 2.2 @ 75'C, 9'8 @12.8 0 C, 7 @ 15.°C 3.2 @ 21.1-C 3;4-106.55.2 -100%,average 94.1%3.Type Water-hardened Size (mu)Incubation Period (Day!;)Survival Larvae Hatching Size 5.6-5.96.

Habits, Behavior, Survival Micropterus dolomieui (cont'd.)Young guarded for 2-10 days or up to 28 days after leaving nests 3;yolk absorbed 12 days after hatching at which time they are 8.7-9.9mm total length and leave the nest, still guarded 6. Species Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (*C)Area I-II, rarelK 03; Ii; female III-IV 6;male I-111 7,208-38,184, 4,670-224,9006j 2,36G-81,104, means of 3,820-58,000 for fish 122-151 mm total length 3.Late April to mid-September

(Wisconsin) 3; June to mid-October (Michigan) 3; June to July (Indiana)l; mid-May through August (Pennsylvania) 7;late April through September (Illinois) 3.EarlyM-ay through late September (Okla.)8 .24.56; 22-26, 17-323.Water less than 120 cm deep over variety of substrates but fine gravel or clean sand preferred, area usually exposed to sun 3.Nests in colonies over hard bottom of sand or mud-with little vegetationl; nest is a shallow depression 45-60 cm in diameter;guarded by male 6.Adhesive, demersal, amber 6; very heavy 1.3.56; 13.3, 3 @ 22.6WC; 1.4 @ 26.9'C;1.3 @ 22.3WC; 2.1 @ 240C; 1.7 @23.5WC in light but 1.8 in dark 3.56% @ 22.6*C; 83% @ 26.9'C; 90% @27.3oC 3; survival higher where dense vegetation is present 3.Egg Deposition Type Incubation Period (Days)Survival Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)2-36.

Habits, Behavior, Survival Lepomis macrochirus Mortality rate of larvae is very high 6; young free-swimming four days after hatching leave nests and remain in littoral zone until 10-12 mm when they move to limetic zone; when 21-25 mm they return to littoral zone 3; larvae found in both limetic and littoral zones 7.0 Species Poxomis annularis (White crappie)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Spawning Season Temperature (*C)Area Egg Deposition Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival 1 .6 II-IIll; II-IV; 152-203 Late April to mid-July (Ohio)l;" mid-May through July (Pennsylvania) 7.mid-March to mid-Jtine (Okla.)8 14-23, mostly 16-206.Shallow water up to 1.7 meters deep 8; near or under overhanging ledges 1.Eggs adhere to plants .and rootletsl, 8;clean ill-defined nests, 300 mm diameter with no depression over a variety of bottoms, nests isolated or in colonies of 35-50, 61-122 cm apart, eggs adhere to substate, especially algae and each other 6.6 Adhesive; demersal, colorless 0.896 2-2.2 @ 21.1-23.3OC 3; 2-4.5, 4 @ 14.4°C 6.Larvae present in limnetic and near shore waters of Conewingo Reservoir, PA (Darrel E. Snyder); tiny young remain in nest for a very short time, sometimes only four daysb. Species Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black crappie)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)II-IV 6 Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (M.)Area Egg Deposition 20.,000-140,0001; 26,700-65,570, averaging 37,7966/Late April to early August (Indiana, South Dakota)l; late April through June 6.17.81; 19-206.Shallow water, usually with bottom of fine sand or gravel 6.Male clears shallow depression or just section of bottom of sand, gravel, or mud where there is some vegetation; nests, 20-40 cm diameter, colonial, 1.6-1.9 m apart, male guards nesf 6.Type Adhesive, demersal, whitish, 6 transparent Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubat'ion Period (Days)3-56 Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival Male guards young in nest until a few days after hatching 6. Species Etheostoma nigrum (Johnny darter)Spawning Season Area Egg Deposition May to early July Shallow water, usually small streams 1.Eggs deposited one by one on underside of rocks, 30-200 eggs at each of 5 or 6 spawning sessions, male guards-territory including nest and eggs (even if eggs or rock with eggs are removed)6; eggs laid on under surface of submerged objects in single layer 1.Adhesive 6; sphericall.>__ 5-8 @ 22-240C Type Incubation Period (Days) Species Perca flavescens (Yellow perch)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total length)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (1C)Area Egg Deposition Male: III6; Female: IV 6.3,035-109,0006. Mid-March to July. (Lake Erie)4;mid-April through May, possibly through July;6 mid-April through May (Lake Erie).ll 6.7-12.21; 8.9-12.26; 6.6-12.611 Usually over or neai aquatic vegetation or brush ; shallows of lakes, tributary streams, 6 sometimes over gravel or sand Eggs extruded in uniqu- transparent, gelatinous, accordian-folded strands as long as 2.1 m and as wide as 51 to 102 mm weighing as much as a kilogram and containing' 2,000 to 90,000 eggs (average: 23,000), strands undulate by water movement and adhere to bottom or submerged vegetation, eggs are easily cast 6 ashore and lost, no parental care Adhesive in gelatinous, porous strands; transparent, semiiXýbuoyantl. 3.56 66 27 @ 8. 3 0 C; 8-106 Larvae limnetic, late May to early June (D.E. Snyder personal obser-vations based on Conowingo Reser-voir collections 1966-1971). In Oneida Lake, N.Y., larvae pelagic soon after hatching to 25.4 mm (May and June) and usually occupy ,upper 6 m of water column.1 2 Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival 0 Species Spawning Season Area Egg Deposition Water-hardened Size (mm)Survival Percina caprodes (Logperch) Mid-March through May (Oklahoma) 8 Probably a short distance from creek mouth 4; sandy inshore shallows 6.Female joined by male on bottom substrate to spawn their vibration tends to bury the eggs; 10-20 eggs released with each spawning session;act repeated with other males 6.1.36 Embryos survive 22 days @ 260C 6.Larvae limnetic (D. E. Snyder)Larvae Habits, Behavior, Survival Species Stizostedion vitreum (Walleye)Maturation by Year -Class or Length (mm total larvae)Fecundity Spawning Season Temperature (OC)Area Female: III-VI, 356,432;Male: II-IV, , 2796;Male: II 1 Female: III 50,000-3,000,000 1; 612,000 for an 801 nmn specimen 6; 72,000-110,000 per 3,178-3,405 g femalel 3.Mid-March to early July ; mid-March through April (Lake Erie)4; mid-April to early July 6; April and Mayll and 13; April (Lake Erie)1 4 4.4-101; 5.6-11.16; 3.9-10.011. Upstream spawning runs soon after ice breaks, prefers sandy bars in shallow water spawns in water 1-3 m deep, usually on gravel or sand W with good water flOwl; rocky areas in white water below impassible falls and dams in rivers, or boulder to coarse gravel shoals of lakes.6 Eggs spread over bottoml; eggs released in shallow water 6.Broad-cast and fall into crevices in sub-strate. 14,17 Adhesive 16; non-adhesive after water hardening 6.1.5-26 12-186 (at temperatures prevalent on spawning grounds)6-8.6 mm total length Egg Deposition Type Water-hardened Size (mm)Incubation Period (Days)Larvae Hatching Size (mm total length)Habits, Behavior, Survival Larvae begin feeding before yolk is completely absorbed; yolk absorbed rapidly; larvae disperse to upper levels of open water 10-15 days after hatching 6.Pela-qic but become demersal near end of summer.6

1. Breder and Rosen. 1966.2. Carlander.

1969.3. Carlander. Undated.4. Pish. 1932.5. Mansueti and Hardy. 1967.6. Scott and Crossman. 1973.7. Snyder. 1971.8. Taber. 1969. -9. Trautman. '1957.10. Snyder. 1975. Personal communication.

11. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Undated.12. Noble. 1968.13. Parsons. 1972.14. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1971. APPENDIX 3 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF DATA ON EGGS AND YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN PINGP ENTRAINMENT STUDIES, 1975 APPENDIX 3 (Page 1 of 2)MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (S.D.) OF EGGS AND YOUNG FISH COLLECTED IN PINGP ENTRAINMENT STUDIES, 1975 Bar Rack Recirculation Canal Mean S.D.Skimmer Wall Mean S.D.Date Mean S.D.5/15-16/75 5/21-22/75 5/29-30/75 6/5-6/75 6/12-13/75 6/18-19/75 6/26-27/75 7/2-3/75 7/10-11/75 Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total 0.01 4.17 4.18 1.43 71.69 73.12 27.51 100.89 128.40 3.06 7.36 10.43 0.61 12.50 13.11 3.34 14.22 17.56 1.32 60.43 61.74 0.10 5.67 5.77 0.05 12.57 12.62 0.07 5.29 5.30 2.47 70.15 70.69 34.93 134.54 145.20 3.04 9.20 9.14 1.05 34.33 34.56 4.64 19.29 22.89 1.29 117.51 117.41 0.39 14.04 14.01 0.20 5.78 5.98 0.79 141.73 142.52 2.61 30.35 32.96 0.49 7.77 8.26 0.23 1.86 2.09 1.80 8.17 9.96 0.67 15.52 16.20 0.00 6.63 6.63 0.47 4.37 4.31 1.30 70.52 71.36 1.51 14.89 14.78 0.85 10.01 10.40 0.50 2.28 2.43 1.89 4.31 4.83 0.61 16.10 16.11 0.00 5.97 5.97 0.15 8.73 8.70 1.22 1.85 2.77 0.04 12.45 12.49 0.09 9.56 9.55 7/17-18/75 0.59 2.38 2.97 0.28 0.37 2.04 2.32 1.12 1.14 APPENDIX 3 (Page 2 of 2)Bar Rack Date Mean S.D.Recirculation Canal Mean S.D.Skimmer Wall Mean S.D.7/24-25/75 7/31-8/1/75 8/7-8/75 8/14-15/75 8/21-22/75 Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total.Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total Eggs Young Total 0.01 7.06 7.07 0.00 6.78 6.78 0.00 1.80 1.80 0.00 2.79 2.79 0.00 2.44 2.44 0.13 0.15 0.28 0.05 4.91 4.90 0.00 5.27 5.27 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 4.56 4.56 0.00 3.28 3.28 0.42 0.44 0.57 0.06 6.65 6.71 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 2.04 2.04 0.00 3.36 3.36 0.00 4.42 4.42 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.21 11.01 10.99 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 1.82 1.82 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 9.34 9.34 0.00 0.11 0.11 9/4-5/75 I APPENDIX-4 RESULTS OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF FISH IMPINGEMENT, PLANT OPERATING AND WATER TEMPERATURE DATA AT PINGP, 1975; Results of correlation analysls of fish .Lp$ngawmnt. plant operatini a"d water tampe.artuae data at Prairie Ialand Plant during 1975.blkbtll chanoat whtbae. crappie frhwdra rwit: rutrat sow date.Wlnter r.it a--0.09 r -0.79 r -0.22 r -0.52 r- 0.44 p- 0.77 p- 0.003 p -0.51 p -0.08 p 0.15 N.B. #& N.S. N.S. M.S.rcwtrt r -0.37 r -0.02 r -0.29 r --0.03 * -0.06 p -0.24 p -0.95 p -0.64 p -0.43 p -0.65 H.S. H.S. U.S. U.S. M.S, ACV K- 0.44 r -0.10 r -0.33 a- 0.22 r -0.05 p -0.15 p- 0.76 p -0.30 p- 0.50 p -0.91 H.S. U.S. M.G. H.a. N.M.ma w --0.11 * -0.16 * -0.15 * -0.25 r -0.93 p -0.73 p -0.62 p -0.64 p -0.56 p -<0.01 M.A .S U.S M.S of.-o-.22 p -0.51 N.B.r --0.28 r- 0.42 r -0.65 p- 0.63 p- 0.17 p -0.02 N.M. aM.. A r -0.70 1 -0.00 r --0.20-p -0.01 p -0.99 p -0.53 N.M.S. W.B..... a -0 .00 --0 .3 9..... p -0.99 p -0.20.... 1.M. N .M.r- 0.73...... p- 0.01 3/20-6119 rwit: r --0.28 r --0.24 --0.04 r --0.01 *- -0.10 p -0.65 p -0.57 p- 0.90 p -0.96 p- 0.74 M.M. N.M. S.M. M.a. M.B.r --0.21 r --0.28 a -0.22 p -0.51 p -0.65 p -0.52 U.S. U.S. M.S.-0.91 p -<0.01 rcwtrt a --0.25 r -0.26 v -0.18 a -0.25 a -0.47 p -0.50 p -0.61 p -0.56 p -0.58 p- 0.11 N.S. H.M. N.M. H.S. M.G.acy * --0.61 r --0.17 r --0.16 * --0.10 * -0.36 p -0.02 p -0.58 p -0.60 p -0.74 p -0.23 H N.S. N.M. U.S. N.M.a- 0.49 -0.33 r --0.37 p- 0.08 p- 0.33 p -0.21 U.S. U.S. N.M.a -0.54 r --0.41 p -0.09 p -0.10 N.8. U.M.Kwa a -0.47 r --0.3S p -0.14 p -0.30 N.S. H.S.a -0.43 x -0.67 a -0.63 p -0.18 p -0.02 p -0.04 H.S. & 6 a -0.04 p- 0.90 N.M. blkbull. chancat vhtbccc crappie r~ttcvdt rcwtrt acw date Sumer 6/20-9/IB 3v1 t r -0.07 r --0.22 r -0.28 r --0.05 r --0.30 p -0.81 p -0.53 p -0.65 p- 0.87' p- 0.33 U.S. W.S. N.B. U.S. U.S.--- -0.19

• 0. 3 *- 0.55 *--0.78 p" 0.53 p 0.19 p. 0.06 p -<0.0 1 U.S. U.S. U.S. t.-- --- -0.63 r- 0.80 r -0.07-. -p. 0.02 p -(0.01 p -0.82*a U.S.rcwtrt v --0.16 r , -0.22 r -0.39 r -0.41 r -0.10 p -0.60 p -0.53 p -0.18 p -0.16 p -0.75 U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. M.S.acv r -0.17 r -0.16 r -0.31 r -0.51 r- 0.36 p -0.59 p. 0.62 p.- 0.30 p -0.07 p -0.22 U.S. M.S. U.S. U.S. U.S.r -0.09 r --0.35 v -0.51 r -0.37 r --0.11 p -0.76 p .- 0.24 p -0.07 p -0.21 p -0.73 M.S. U.S. M.S. M.S. U.G.r -0.46 r -0.51 p -0.11 p -0.07 U.S. U.S.-- 0.38 p -0.20 U.S.rall 9/19--12/31 xvi I.- 0.27 p.- 0.65 U.S.r 0 0.57 r --0.09 r.- 0.79 p .- 0.03 p -0.75 p -<0.01 4 U.S. S.r -0.64 p -0.02" --0.88 p -<0.01 66-0.55 r -0.67 r --0.94 p -0.04 p -<0.01 p -<0.01 o 66 rowtrt r --0.41 --0.17 r -0.22 r --0. 60 r --0.67 p -0.14 p -0.19 p -0.55 p -0.02 p -<0.0 1 M.S. M.S. U.8. S a&-r --0.40--p -0.16 U.S.r --0.59 r -0.86 p -0.03 p -<0.01 acc r -0.40 p -O.1S U.Sa.wwsa r -0.26 p -0.62 H.a.v -0.20 p -0.50 r -0.79 p < <0..01 06 v -0.16 p '- 0.60 M.S.*- -0.04 p.- 0.89 M.S.K 0.45 p.- 0.10* -0.89 p -<0.01 a*v -0.39 p.- 0.11 r 0.60 p -'0.01 r -0.23 p -0.56 U.B.r --0.64 p -0.02--0.56 p -0.04 1.

All Seasoam Cogabined rwit blkbull chanoat whtbaes crappie g--0.07 e 0.10 e 0.37 T -0.53 r -0.08 p.- 0.61 p- 0.50 p- 0.Ol p -<0.01 p -0.56 U.S. US. a t U.S.EAt rcwtrt.acV date r--0.70 x --0.07 r -0.63 V -0.28 p-<0.01 p -0.60 p- <0.01 p -0.04 U.S.--0.04 r- -0.35 *- -0.07 p -0.77 p -0.02 p -0.61 M.S.

• U.S.rcwtrt r -0.01 r --0.16 r --0.23 r --0.44 p -0.95 p -0.26 p -0.10 p. <0.0 1 U.S. H.S. U.S. so*e -0.30 p -0.03 acw r --0.41 r -0.18 r -0.19 * -0.22 r -0.29 p -<0.01 p -0.20 p- 0.18 p -0.11 p -0.04 66 U.S. 11.8. M.8. *WWII w 0.32 r --0.31 *- 0.41 r- 0.57 r .-0.08 p -0.02 p -0.62 p -<0.0 1 p- <0.01 p -0.59& H.S. t a*U M.S.r -0.20 rg 0.03 p -0.16 p., 0.83 U.S. U.S.---0.08-- p.- 0.57--- " 1 .8.blkbull -black bullhead chancat -channel catfish whtbasa -white base orappLe -crappie opp.frhwdru -frebhwater drum rwit -river water Inlet temperature rcwgrt -xeCyol.-oanal vater temperature mcc -average circulatling water mwe -- makeup-water appropriation U.S. -not significent 0 -eigntfloant at 0.05 level*a -significant at 0.01 level r .oorrelatlion coefficient p -level of significance 4.j~~1 IL C-'- r& WEBE, R ENGINEERING CORPORATION P. 0. BOX 5456, DENVER. COLORADO 80217 DATE 4/1/83 ILTR. NO. S-N-REF. T2.2 VIA.fMrf. L.A.. Winter Project Manager TO Northern States Power Company Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Route 2 Welch, Minnesota 55089.DEAR SIRS: THE FOLLOWING ARE ATTACHED:

0 SENT SEPARATELY: MICROFILM COPIES -PRINTS -REPRODUCIBLES.-- APERTURE CARDS EACH OF n DRAWINGS 0 SPeCIFICATIONS E DOCUMENTS 0 NOTES OP CONFERENCE L--J STATUS PLEASE NOTE SENT FOR YOUR FINAL A APPROVED 0 REVISIONS 0 OMISSIONS 0 APPROVAL 0 COMMENT 0 PRELIMINARY 0 APPROVED AS REVISED AISD 0DEFINED ADDITIONS C IONS 1 USE 1 INFORMATION IN SPECIFICATION CORECTON US C.0 SUGGESTIONS AS NOTED 1 .YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE FOLLOWING: RELEASED FOR: 0 FABRICATION [ PURCHASE OF NECESSARY MATERIALS 0 PLEASE REVISE AND SUBMIT -PRINTS REPRODUCIBLS -MICROFILM APERTURE CARDS.03 PLEASE SUBMIT- PRINTS -- APRODUCIBLES " MICROFILM APERTURE CARDS OP 0 DOCUMENTS Q DRAWINGS E- SHOP DETAIL O PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY EACH OF THIS MATERIAL BEARING YOUR APPROVAL OR COMMENTS.0 PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS MATERIAL BY SIGNING AND RETURNING THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THIS FORM.OWE TRUST THAT THESE NOTES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING: IF NOT. PLEASE ADVISE US.SHOULD ANY REVISION TO DOCUMENTS OR HEREWITH INVOLVE A PRICE INCREASE. THE SUPPLIER MUST NOTIFY STONE ti IMPORTANT WEBSTER PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN 101 DAYS EVEN THOUGH A DEFINITE ESTIMATE CANNOT BE GIVEN AT THE TIME. OTHERWISE. THI.PURCHASER WILL CONSIDER THE REVISIONS MADE WITHOUTCOST. F/SAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION MODIFY CIRCnLATING WATER-INTAKE AND DISCHARGE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Transmitted herewith for your use and files are six (6) copies of version of the project system description. the final If you have any questions please call me.Project Engineer Copy to: D.R. Brown1/4 CLM: CMS VXX<FilIe copy PI Lab i.i .. / "'I I)-i-ffi-SWEC J.O. No. 12911.09 March 1983 NSP J.O. No. E-78Y073 MODIFY CIRCULATING WATER INTAKE AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CRITERIA PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT a 0648B CONTEN"TS 1.0 Summary 1.1 Design Criteria 1.1.1 General 1.1.2 Hydraulic 1.1.3 Environmental

1.1.4 Geotechnical

1.1.5 Structural

1.1.6 Electrical

1.1.7 Mechanical

2.1 Hydraulic

2.2 Environmental

2.3 Geotechnical

2.4 Structural

2.5 Electrical

2.6 Mechanical

2.7 Quality

Assurance 2.8 Codes & Standards 3.0 System Operation 3.1 System Arrangement

3.2 Description

of Intake and Discharge Flows 3.3 Two Unit Winter Startup 4.0 System Limitations & Setpoints 0 0648B

5.0 Safety

Features 6.0 System Maintenance

6.1 Maintenance

Approach 6.2 Preventive Maintenance

6.3 Testing

and Surveillance

6.4 Inservice

Inspection Appendix A -Electrical Design Criteria Al Electrical conduit notes STD-ME-1-3-5 A2 Electrical conduit, tray and lighting notes STD-ME-l-l-4 A3 Electrical grounding notes STD-ME-2-1-6 A4 Electrical grounding notes STD-ME-2-2-7 A5 Induction motor data sheet-sample, Appendix B -Logic Description B1.0 Logic System Design B1.1 System Arrangement B1.2 Control and Instrumentation B1.3 Annunciators B1.4 Indicators B1.5 Instrumentation I/O for screenhouse programmable controller 0648B Page I of 29.1.0 SUMMlARY The intake and discharge modifications are required to reduce the impact of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant on aquatic organisms in the Mississippi River.The .i nt.ake moId ifica t Iions .prevent fis.h, larvae. .and eggs, from entering the plant cooling water intake canal by removing, and. trsporting ,them downstream, where. they are returned, to the river at a location which is outside'. of the inifluence of intake f low.The discharge modifications provide a submerged jet discharge to promote rapid mixing, exclude fish from the system, minimize fish cold shock potential and prevent recirculation of warm water back to the intake (outside the system). By removing this heat source, the potential for attracting fish to the area of the intake screenhouse is minimized. The reduced intake temperatures also result in greater plant efficiency. Increased water appropriation and changes in operating modes prevent excessive circulating water temperature variations to the operating plant.1.1 DESIGN CRITERIA 1..1 General The modifications to the intake and discharge systems are designed to exclude aquatic organisms from the circulating water system and eliminate cold shock to fish. This has been accomplished with construction of an intake screenhouse with traveling water screens,ý.a fish. return system, a deicing pumphouse, an environmental monitoring laboratory, a screen storage building, and a discharge structure with submerged jet discharge for rapid thermal mixing.The intake screenhouse is located on the north side of the intake channel. The structure contains equipment to remove aquatic organisms and debris from the intake flow. Traveling water screens are equipped with fish lift buckets. Bypass gates have been provided to maintain a continuous flow in the event that flow through the screens is reduced because of extraordinary clogging. A deicing system is available to distribute warm water across the inside face of the structure to prevent formation of ice on the exposed surfaces. Aquatic organisms, washed off the traveling water.. screens, are collected in a trough which feeds into the fish return line for return to the river.0648B Page 2 of 29 The discharge structure is located approximately 500 ft. downstream of Barney's. Point, 2150 ft. downstream of the former discharge, and provides a submerged jet discharge at an angle of 45 degrees to the main channel flow of the Mississippi River. Dikes convey discharge flow from the distribution basin to the discharge structure through an extension of the discharge canal. 'The former dike, downstream of the former discharge has been removed.A flood and drain gate has been installed in the west dike to provide flooding and draining capability for an area, west of the dike, to be used by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a water fowl sanctuary. The design. bases, system ..idesigný and .operating considerations -.of the'circulating water system are given in Section 10.2.9 of the 'Prairie I sland Final Safety Analysis Report (subsequently referred to as the..SAR)1.1.2 Hydraulic 1.1.2.1 Water Levels -Mississippi River *Maximum Operating Water Level. (Pool 3) EL. 678.0 ft.Normal Operating Water Level (Pool 3) EL. 673.5 ft.Extreme Low Water Level (Pool 3) EL. 672.5 ft.Flat Pool (Pool 3) EL. 674.5 ft.10 yr. flood EL. 682.5 ft.100 yr. flood EL. 687.4 ft.150 yr. flood EL. 688.1 ft.*M.S.L. 1929 adjustment The 150 year flood level was used as a basis for determining deck elevations such that motors and electrical equipment will not be inundated. 1.1.2.2 Velocities and Flow Rates In accordance with permit requirements, the average face velocity through the gross area of the 0.5 millimeter mesh screen material should not exceed 0.5 fps based on low water level and corresponding to a discharge flow rate of 800 cfs.0648B

• Page 3 of 29 The average face velocity through the gross area of the 3/8 inch screen material should not exceed 0.88 fps corresponding to a maximum intake flow rate of 1410 cfs.For exclusion of fish from the discharge system and for rapid thermal mixing, velocity in the discharge pipes is a minimum of 8 fps and a maximum'of 10 fps. Minimum pipe length is 80 ft.The combination of the 8 ,fps velocity and the 80 ft. pipe length forms a barrier through which the local fish cannot swim. A maximum velocity of 10 fps was established in order to limit head loss across t'fie structure to a maximum of 3 ft.The velocity limit at the edge of the navigation channel is 4 ft/sec.for barge traffic. This is the maximum limit of the average velocity component normal to river flow.1.1.2.3 Deicing Warm deicing water is provided during cold weather to prevent the formation of ice on trash racks, traveling water screens and bypass gates. Warm water is pumped from the discharge channel, immediately downstream of the distribution basin. Minimum water temperature at the intake after deicing is 32.5'F. For design purposes, the given plant discharge water temperatures are 571F for one unit operation and 82 0 F for two unit operation.

Two unit operation normally entails partial recirculation. One unit operation will be open cycle with no recirculation.

1.1.3 Environmental

1. 1. 3. 1 Traveling Water Screens Traveling water screens are of the through flow type of sufficient area to screen the desired intake flow. The screens are equipped with buckets to transport aquatic organisms to the return system.1.1.3.2 Mesh Size During the period April 16 to August 31, the screen mesh size is 0.5 mm or as fine as practicable.

During the remainder of the year, a screen mesh size of up to 3/8' inch may be used. Screen panels are replaceable and interchangeable. 1.1.3.3 Screen SpeedsýThe traveling speeds of the screens have been designed to resist clogging. and to minimize the impact on aquatic organisms. The drives provide flexibility to vary speeds,. as required, during various periods of the year.0648B Page 4 of 29:i1..3.4 Fish Return System Aquatic organisms impinged on the traveling water screens and in the attached buckets are lifted to the level of the fish sprays and washed off within 4 minutes into a fish collection trough. Removal of the fish and organisms is accomplished on the ýiupward: travel side withý a.low pressure .(0. psi insi i:spray when fine mesh is used' and with a low pressure (20 psi) outside spray when coarse mesh screen is used.Debris is removed by a backside interior high pressure (50 psi for fine mesh and 100 psi for coarse mesh) spray system. The pump supplying the 50 psi fine mesh spray can be run at a higher speed to provide a 125 psi spray to supplement the 100 psi coarse mesh spray during periods of high trash loads. Separate f ishand debris troughs combine to form a.pipeline which transports the effluent to a point .;near the downstream. end. of:.th~e existing discharge, channel.ýDiverting tr~oughs or ýtaps have. been provided for sampling capability .at the. intake. screenhouse and near the discharge. Debris can" be collected in a. trash: basket: during sampling periods and during:. high river flow periods.The fish return, line has ýbeen designed. for velocities between 3 and 5 fps with higher velocities (less than 10 fps) being encountered for a short duration to dissipate energy prior to discharge to the river.Ail"l ý.internal surfaces are ..smooth, to preclude abrasion. damage.Organisms. are discharged., from:. the pipeline below the mean low water elevation at a depth (below Elev. 670) which ensures submergence below.the ice cover.1.1.3.5 Thermal Limitations Effective on the date the discharge structure becomes operational and lasting until June 30, 1985, the following thermal limitations, as set forth in the final NPDES Permit #MN0004006, shallbe in effect:* From April 1 through November 30, the temperature of the receiving water, as measured immediately below Lock and Dam No. 3, shall not be raised by more than 5VF above natural, based on the monthly averages of the maximum daily temperatures, except in no case shall it exceed a daily average temperature of 86 0 F.* From December 1 through March 31, the mixed river temperature immediately below Lock and Dam No. 3 shall not be raised above 430F for an extended period of time. Should the mixed river temperature equals or exceeds 430F for two consecutive days the Director and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shall be notified.0068 0648B Page 5 of 29 1.1.4 Geotechnical 1.1.4.1 Design The design criteria are based upon information contained in the Prairie Island FSAR Volume 5 supplemented by "Report on Test Borings", dated June 13, 1980 by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (Subsequently referred to as SWEC) and by Geotechnical calculations 1.A.4.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity Allowable bearing pressure for structures founded on the sandy soils at Prairie Island vary with the size and shape of footing and the depth of embedment. Net maximum bearing capacity for the de-icing pumphouse is-4000 psf. Net maximum bearing capacity for the discharge structure was 25C0 psf allowing for a settlement of less than 1.5 in., 3000 psf for less than 1.8 in. The screenhouse was designed for a net bearing capacity of 8000 psf.1.1.4.3 Soil Properties Intake Screenhouse and Pumphouse Areas In situ soil above El. 640 TSAT = 126 pcf, TMoist = 116 pcf, 0=330 In situ soil below El. 640 ISAT = 133 pcf, 0 = 350 Discharge Structure Sand fill above El. 671 ISAT = 127 pcf, TMoist = 119 pcf, =3 Clay El. 671 -665 ISAT = 113 pcf, for C = 0 psf. 0 = 27 *before Ist stage dike Construction for 0 = 00, C = 400 psf after 1st stage dike Construction for 0 = 0', C =.750 psf Sand below El. 671 TSAT= 124 pcf Other soil properties were determined by the Lead Geotechnical Engineer, as required, from the above soils information and boring logs.1.1.4.4 Permeability Permeabilities determined from a well pump test as referenced in Volume 5, Section 3.14 of the Prairie Island FSAR range from 0.093 -0.37 feet per minute.1.1.4.5 Earth Pressure Coefficients Active and passive earth pressures are a function of wall deformation. The relationships between the active and passive earth pressure coefficients, Ka and Kp, versus wall deformation are presented in Figure 1, page 28. It is important to note that these relationships were developed for the conditions of insitu soils, vertical wall, nonsloping backfill, and no wall friction. The Lead Geotechnical Engineer established values for Ka and Kp for conditions differing from those assumed above on an individual basis., 0648B Page 6 of 29 1.1.4.6 Emergency Cooling Water Intake Piping No sheetpile was driven within a 20 foot radius of the emergency cooling water pipe.1 1.1.4.7 Cut Slopes Side slopes of the intake and discharge canals and dikes are one vertical to three horizontal except as noted on the drawings. The slope of the approach canal to the intake screenhouse are one vertical to five horizontal. On the exit side of the screenhouse the channel slope is one vertical to four horizontal. 1.1.4.8 Intake Canal Cutoff The intake canal cutoff was designed for overtopping as well as a differential head of 5 ft.1.1.4.9 Erosion Protection The discharge dike overflow section and the intake cutoff dike has been protected with rockfill to prevent erosion when overtopped. The discharge structure, approach and discharge basin has been protected by riprap with an average diameter of 1Z inches.Riprap has also been provided immediately upstream and downstream of the intake scrjenhouse on the north bank of the intake canal.Discharge dike slopes were covered with topsoil and'seeded as shown on drawings.1.1.5 Structural The purpose of these criteria is to provide the structural information used to design the intake screenhouse, discharge structure, and de-icing pumphouse. In general, the structural design criteria and the component design criteria from Appendix B, Section B.6 and B.7, respectively, of the FSAR for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant were used.The intake screenhouse, discharge structure and de-icing pump house and components were designed as QA Type III structures. 1.1.5.1 Codes As a minimum, structures were designed in accordance with the applicable codes as listed.A. American Concrete Institute Codes; ACI 318-77, ACI 301-(R75), and other sections of the ACI Codes as applicable. 6648B Page 7 of 29 B. American Institute of Steel Construction "Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel Buildings," 1980 Edition.C. International Conference of Building Officials "Uniform Building Code," 1979 Edition.D. Current versions of applicable codes except for piping and valves are listed in paragraph B.3 Appendix B of the FSAR.E. Project Analysis report.1.1.5.2 Loads All structures and components were designed to withstand various kinds-and combinations of loads.The different kinds of loads treated in the design are described in the subsequent paragraphs. A. Environmental Loads These consist of snow and wind loads: Snow load (SL) of 50 lbs. per sq. ft. of horizontal projected area was used in the design of structures and components exposed to snow.Normal wind loads (WL) applied to the structure were as described herein. Wind loads are based on ANSI Standard A58.1-1972 which formalizes the recommendations of the American Society of Civil Engineer's paper ASCE 3269 "Wind Forces on Structures." A 100 mph design wind speed was used per the FSAR.B. Live Loads (LL) consist of loadings not permanently on the structure. The following live loads were used.The screenhouse deck was designed for a live load of not less than 250 psf or an HIO truck loading plus 10 percent impact, whichever governs.The decks of the discharge structure and de-icing pumphouse were designed for a live load of at least 100 psf. The storage building floor slab and the floor of the environmental lab were designed for a live load of not less than 200 psf. The floor of the office in the environmental lab was designed for a live load of not less than 80 psf.0648B Page 8 of 29 C. Dead Loads Dead loads consist of the weight of structural steel, concrete, and equipment. The weight of the equipment was as specified on the manufacturer's drawings. Soil loads were considered to be a.Dead Load.D. Load Allowances Load allowances are provided to account for concentrations of minor unknown loads from pipe hangers, cable supports, lighting fixtures, etc. Steel beams and girders were 'designed to support the following concentrated loads applied to the midspan of the members: Roof Beams or Joists 3.0 Kips Roof Girders 6.0 Kips All Other Beams 5.,0 Kips All Other Girders. 8.0 Kips Reactions of beam load allowances were not accumulated into girders and only girder load allowances. were carried to the columns.E. Seismic Loads The seismic loads used were in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. This code specifies the location of the plant site to be in "Zero" earthquake area. However, for conservatism earthquake loads applicable to Zone 1 areas were used in the design.1.1.5.3 Load Combinations The following combinations of loads were used to design the structures: A. Normal Operating: Dead and Live loads together with Environmental loads (wind and snow, separately). DL + LL DL + LL 4- WL DL + LL + SL B. Other: Dead and Live loads together with Uniform Building Code Earthquake. DL + LL + UBC Zone 1 Earthquake. 1.1.5.4 Stress Design Criteria Concrete allowable stresses were from ACI 318-77 with no increase in stresses for earthquake, wind, or snow conditions. Structural steel allowable stresses were from AISC-1980 with no increase in stresses for earthquake, wind or snow conditions. 0648B Page 9 of 29 1.1.5.5 Materials A. Structural Steel and Bolts: All structural steel conforms to ASTMI-A36. ll primary bolted connections were made with ASTM A325 bolts. Secondary bolted connections considered to be girt, purlin, stair, ladder and handrail -connections were bolted with either ASTM A307 or A325 bolts. Anchor bolts conform to ASTM A36.B. Concrete and Reinforcing Steel: Concrete has a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days. Reinforcing steel conforms to ASTM Standard Specification for Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM-A615, Grade 60.1.1.5.6 Stability The intake screenhouse and discharge structure were analyzed for stability using the following Factors of Safety: Normal Conditions Extreme Conditions FS Against Overturning 1.5 1.3 FS Against Sliding 1.5 1.3 FS Against Flotation 1.1 1.1 Extreme conditions consist of earthquake or flood (150 yr.).A. Stability of Intake Screenhouse When analyzing for stability of the intake screenhouse, 2 adjacent bays were considered dewatered. The following cases were considered: Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Water Level 678.0 678.0 678.0 678.0 Equipment in Place No No Yes Yes Vertical EQ. No No Yes No Horiz. EQ. No No No Yes Wind Load on Superst. No Yes No No B. Stability of Discharge Structure When analyzing for stability of the discharge structure, one bay was considered dewatered. The following Cases were considered: Case 1 Case Z Case 3 Case 4 Water Level 678.0 678.0 678.0 685.0 Equipment in Place Yes Yes Yes Yes Vertical EQ. No No Yes No Horiz. EQ No Yes No No 0648B Page 10 of 29 1.1.6 Electrical The purpose of these criteria is to provide the electrical bases required to support the intake and discharge modifications to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. The electrical design w~s based on a combination of design criteria from the Prairie Island FSAR, Prairie Island Project Design Manual and on SWEC design standards. 1.1.6.1 NSP Furnished Criteria A. General Electrical Design Bases Design bases for the plant electrical systems are given in Section 8.1 of the FSAR.B. 480-volt Auxiliary System 480-volt system design is given in Section 8.3.6 of the FSAR.C. 120 VAC Instrument Bus System 120 VAC Instrument Bus System design is given in Section 8.3.8 of the FSAR.D. Circulating water system The design bases, system design and operation considerations for the circulating water system are given in Section 10.2.9 of the FSAR.E. General Instrumentation and control The design bases for instrumentation and control are given in Section 7 of the FSAR.F. Main Control Board The design and layout of the Main Control Board is given in Section 7.7.3 of the FSAR.G. Raceway Raceway conforms to Section 4, Index 324.52 and 324.53 of the Prairie Island Project Design Manual. This section includes, but is not limited to, the design criteria, material requirements, separation criteria, cable spacing and tie down requirements in trays, normal voltage restrictions for cables entering the control room and grounding requirements used for the original raceway design. Raceway coding and identification conform to Section 4 Index 3.24.54 of the Prairie Island project Design Manual. NSP has assigned identification numbers to raceway. NSP provided routing for cable in the turbine building cable tray system as required.0648B Page 11 of 29 H. Wire and Cable Cable derating, routing, fire protection, separation, tray and other considerations are given in Section 8.3.11 of the FSAR.Electrical wire and cable was used from the Northern States Power Company's existing plant surplus when possible. Wire and cable coding and identification conforms to Section 4, Index 324.54 of the Prairie Island Project Design Manual. NSP has assigned identification numbers to wire and cable.I. Classifications Design classifications and QA classifications are consistent with those used for the original plant. These definitions are provided in Appendix C of the FSAR.J. Fire Stops NSP provided up to date cable seal and fire stop requirements for insertion into the installation specification. 1.1.6.2 SWEC Modified Criteria A. Raceway Conduit is rigid steel or electrical metallic tubing. Conduit size and fill are based on National Electric Code recommendations (1981 revision). Conduit is in accordance with SWEC standard design drawings STD-ME-l-1-4 and *1-3-5 (copies provided in Appendix A), unless otherwise specified in the drawings. The existing cable tray system was used when possible.B. Wire and Cable Wire and cable were specified and purchased as QA Type III and met the intent of IEEE 383-1974. All power cable was provided with an overall interlocked aluminum or galvanized steel armor. All new cable had copper conductors. Power cable was selected and sized in accordance with IEEE S-135, IPCEA P-46-426 power cable ampacity tables.C. Grounding Grounding is in accordance with SWEC standard design drawings STD-ME-2-1-6 and 2-2-7 (copies provided in Appendix A) unless otherwise specified. 0648B Page 12 of 29 D. Motors All motors were provided with the driven equipment. Induction motor data sheets SWEC form SM-34-9, 74 (copy provided in Appendix A), were prepared for all motors.E. Instrumentation and Control Instrumentation and control requirements and operation for the specific system are given in logic descriptions in Appendix B.Instrument data sheets were completed for all instruments. F. Power Sources All electrical power sources required to support the modification were selected on the basis of the following:

1. QA Classification

2. Maintaining equipment required to support other equipment on the same bus as the supported equipment 3. Maintaining redundant or backup equipment on different buses where possible.4. Not exceeding the capacity of any power source 5. Load balancing between buses when possible.G. Modification to Turbine Building Equipment All modifications to the turbine building cable tray system or main control board were accomplished without impairing the original integrity or violating the original design classification of the modified equipment.

All modifications to said equipment were approved by NSP prior to modification. Cable tray systems and main control board were visually inspected prior to preparation of the modification drawings to verify the accuracy of the existing drawings.H. Additional Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Equipment All modifications to the main control board used equipment that was consistent with that presently in use at Prairie Island and was approved by NSP.1.1.7 Mechanical Heating, ventilating and fire protection equipment was provided as agreed upon by SWEC and by NSP. Ambient design air temperatures at the plant will be -14* F in the winter and 89* F in the summer.0648B \ Page 13 of 29 W 2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1 HYDRAULIC

2.1.1 Intake

Screenhouse Equipment Plant intake flow from the Mississippi River enters the intake screenhouse through eight 18.5 ft. by 11.2 ft. bay openings. The bottom of the inlet skimmer wall is at Elev. 667.0. Each bay is equipped with a raked trash rack and a traveling water screen with low pressure fish wash sprays and high pressure trash wash sprays.The intake screenhouse also contains the following:

a. High and low pressure screenwash pumps and piping.b. Traveling rake to clean trash racks.S gates which.will.

enable dewatering of 2 screen bays.d. Bypass gates which will automatically open when the head loss across the traveling water screens exceeds 18 in.This could occur when trash loading is so high that clogging of the screens results.e. Screenwash system pipeline strainers.

f. Overhead traveling crane to service all equipment within the structure and to handle screen storage racks.g. Air compressors for service air and instrument air.h. Fish and trash troughs to collect screenwash water.2.1.1.1 Traveling Water Screens Eight through flow traveling water screens equipped with fish buckets, high and low pressure sprays have been provided to remove debris and organisms from the intake water from the Mississippi River. Each screen is 10 ft. wide and extends from the operating deck (El. 685')to the floor (El. 648.5'). Screen panels are easily replaceable.

A 0.5 mm mesh will be used during the period extending from April 16 through August 31, and a 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) mesh will be used the remainder of the year. The screens are capable of operation at several different speeds, as necessitated by trash loading. The screens are designed to withstand an 8 ft. head differential and to operate continuously at a 3.5 ft. differential. Screen panels will be stored in a building close to the screenhouse. 0648B[ Page 14 of 29 There are larval and fish screenwash systems on the front or ascending side with a fish trough, and a high pressure two header spray system on the back with a debris trough. The drive for each screen is provided by a 5 hp variable speed motor.The traveling screen specification H-109A. discusses the screens in detail.2.1.1.2 Trash Racks and Rake One inclined trash rack, consisting of mounted 3/8" by 3" steel bars with 1-1/2" clear spacing, has been installed in each bay. One conventional trash rake with hopper traverses all eight bays on rails embedded in the deck. Space. has been1 provided. for the future einstallaion"of eight stationary bar screens if the need arises.An alarm system will sound in the screen 'house and in the plant control room if a water level differential of 6 inches across the trash rack occurs. The racks have been structurally designed to withstand 5 feet of differential head.The trash rake can traverse the intake screenhouse at a speed of 30-feet per minute.The trash rake specification H-IIOM discusses the rake in detail.2.1.1.3. Screenwash Pumps A total of eight screenwash pumps have been provided as follows!No. of PumpsDuty Capacity4A Pressure 2 Fish Spray 150 GPM 20 psi 2 Larvae Spray 190 GPM 10 psi 2 Trash-Fine Mesh 120 GPM 50 psi 2 Trash-Coarse.Mesh 250 GPM 100 psi*Flows as listed are per screen One pump for each spray duty has been provided for each of two banks of four .,screens. The feine screen trash removal spray pumps are two speed machines.1buring periods of extremely high trash loading,:. these pumps '.can be o 6perated. at the higher speed and the discharge will be used to..supplement the coarse screen spray through the fine mesh trash spray header.0648B Page 15 of 29 The pumps are of the vertical wet-pit type and draw water from behind the stop gates at the downstream side of the intake screenhouse. Pump discharges are equipped with 1/8 in. mesh manual blowdown y-type strainers. Distribution piping for the two screenwash systems was designed for maximum flexibility. The fish spray pumps and the coarse mesh screenwash pumps start automatically on a preset differential across the screens. The larvae spray pumps and the fine mesh screenwash pumps will be started manually and will operate continuously from April 16 to August 31.The screenwash pump Specification P-226L discusses the pumps in detail.2.1.1.4 Bypass Gates The bypass gates are of the vertical lift gate type with rollers.The gates open automatically when the head differential across the traveling water screens reaches 18" or when the head differential across the intake screenhouse reaches 2 4". Either of these could occur if the screens experience severe clogging that cannot be cleaned by the screenwash sprays. After cleaning the clogged screens, the bypass gates close by manually activated controls located in the intake screenhouse. The gate operators are designed to lift the gates at a speed of 5 feet per minute. The gates, when fully open, have a total of 500 sq. ft. of clear area to pass the full flow of 1400 c.f.s. with a head loss not exceeding 4 inches. Unscreened water will flow on downstream to the screenhouse where debris will be removed.The top of the gates are below low water elevation to ensure complete submergence for ice protection. The bottom of the gates rest on a 2.75 foot high sill to allow for silt accumulation. Differential water level sensors are installed in each of the screen bays to measure head loss across the traveling water screens.The bypass gates Specification H-107S discusses the gate in detail.2.1.1.5 Stop Gates The stop gates are steel-bulkhead type. There are four gates, to enable dewatering of two bays concurrently. Each gate consists of four sections provided with dogging devices to enable removal of these gates in sections. Gate sections will be placed and removed by the traveling crane. To remove a gate, head difference across the gate must be less than 6 inches. Gates are designed to withstand a differential head of 30 feet.The stop log gates Specification H-106A discusses the gates in detail.0648B Page 16 of 29 2.1.1.6 Traveling Crane A traveling crane has been provided in the screenhouse to service all equipment contained therein. The crane is a 15 ton capacity overhead bridge traveling crane. Crane capacity is based upon the maximum anticipated equipment load. The crane is operated from the deck of the intake screenhouse by means of a suspended pendant.2.1.1.7 Siltation A program of sediment monitoring and dredging will be prepared to assure that sediment accumulation does not affect the traveling screen operation. The sediment monitoring program will be designed to measure the sediment build-up as frequently as required.2.1.2 Discharge Structure Flow enters the discharge structure through four 10 ft. by 11 ft.openings and proceeds through separate bays to four motor operated sluice gates (5 ft., 6 ft., 7 ft., and 8 ft. square), then to the river through four submerged pipes. Flow through the four submerged pipes ranges from 150. cfs to 1390 cfs. Discharge velocities in each pipe is in the approximate range of 8 fps to 10 fps. Differential head losses across the structure are approximately 2.0 ft. and 3.0 ft.respectively. The discharge pipe arrangement consists of four concrete pipes, one each of 5 ft., 6 ft., 7 ft., and 8 ft. diameters. They are installed parallel to each other in order of ascending diameters with the 5 ft.pipe at the. southerly or downstream end of the structure and the 8 ft.pipe at the northerly or upstream end.The following table shows the discharge capacity of all the various pipe combinations in the discharge structure. PIPES USED (Diam. in Feet)5 6 7 5&6 8 5&7 6&7 5&8 6&8 5,6&7 7&8 5,6&8 5,7&8 6,7&8 5,6,7&8 DISCHARGE (C.F.S) AT VELOCITY SHOWN V=8 f.p.s. V=10 f.p.s.157 196 226 150 283 308 3 385 383 479 402 40o 503 465 581 534 668 559 699 628 785 691 864 710 888 785 982 867 1084 936 1170 1093 1390*At a discharge of 1390 c.f.s. the velocity is 10.17 fps.0648B Page 17 of 29 Outfall pipes are placed on flat grade with inverts at Elev, 659.8.Downstream of the pipe, a discharge basin slopes down at one vertical to four horizontal to Elev. 652.Slope erosion protection consisting of 12 in. (D50) rip-rap has been provided on the westerly and southerly sides of the outfall basin between Elev. 652 and Elev. 658.The sluice gates are designed to withstand 20 ft. of unseating head.The gates can be operated locally or remotely either fully opened or fully closed.The details of the sluice gates are specified in Specification H-107S.Stop gates are provided for gate maintenance. They are the same stop gates that are used and stored in the intake structure. Removal of the gates will require equal water levels on both upstream and downstream surfaces. Use of the stop gates will not allow dewatering of the bays but will cut off flow through a bay.The details of the gates are specified in Specification H-106A.A parking area has been provided at the south end of the dike, with two boat ramps, one for access to the area inside the dike, the other for access outside the dike.Space has been provided in the parking area near the discharge structure to allow for future installation of dechlorination equipment. A channel was cut through the island approximately 400 ft. downstream of the discharge structure to allow circulation of river water into the slough and to provide boat access to the main channel. An 8 inch discharge pipe through the south end of the dike was provided to deliver warm water from the discharge canal to the slough in the event that the dissolved oxygen level in the slough becomes undesirably low. The pipe is placed on flat grade with invert at Elev. 675.0. It is capped at both ends with no control valve provided.In accordance with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) criteria, a control gate located at the west dike was provided to flood and drain the backwater area, which will be used as a sanctuary for water fowl. Operation will be as directed by MFDNR.The same control gate will also be used to drain the backwater area back into the discharge canal. It will be necessary to lower the water level in the discharge canal to accomplish this. Operation guidelines will be developed later.0648B Page 18 of 29 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL 2.2.12I Fish Return System The organisms and debris washed off the traveling water screens is collected in a common trough and returned to the river through a buried pipe approximately 2200 feet long. The pipe discharges into the Mississippi River at a point approximately 1500 feet south of the intake screenhouse. Because of potential icing problems, a partial flow of warm water, taken from the deicing line, is maintained in the system when the screenwash pumps are not in operation.'

2.2.2 Environmental

Monitoring Laboratory A sampling laboratory is located northwest of the intake screenhouse. The laboratory contains a sampling tank .to collect organisms and debris from the screens. It houses a larval table and adult fish sampling tanks and also contains a water quality lab and new office space to replace the present facilities. Two full size pumps, each rated at 300 gpm, are located in the sampling laboratory. These pumps provide ambient river water to the lab for use in the collection and storing of samples. The design of the environmental monitoring laboratory is covered in specification 12911.09-SOOLB.

2.2.3 Deicing

System The de-icing pumphouse is located north of the discharge canal, immediately downstream of the distribution basin. A buried 3 ft.diameter concrete intake pipe supplies warm water to the pumphouse. Two 50 percent capacity pumps supply the de-icing water to the intake screenhouse. The pumps are vertical, wet pit propeller type units rated to deliver about 6550 gpm each, against a total dynamic head of 16 feet. Pump motors are each rated at 40 horsepower. Each pump has a motor operated discharge butterfly valve. The discharge from the two pumps manifold into a 30 inch diameter line which carries the de-icing water to the intake screenhouse. Removable roof panels provide access to the pumps in case they need to be removed for servicing. The 30 inch pipeline delivering de-icing water to the intake screenhouse is buried below the frostline. The pipeline is installed at a slope which provides for drainage of the line when not in use.Where low points in the pipeline could not be avoided, drains were provided at the low points. At the intake screenhouse, the deicing water pipeline expands from 30 in. to 42 in. and is routed to the bottom of the intake channel directly in front of the screenhouse base mat. Vertical risers, connected to the 42 in. diameter header pipe, are attached to the upstream face of the screenbay piers. The risers terminate at Elev. 667.5, which is 0.5 ft. above the bottom elevation of the upstream curtain wall.0648B Page 19 of 29 The risers located between adjacent screenbays are 18 in. in diameter with 3 in. diameter horizontal pipes acting as discharge ports. The discharge ports are 3 ft. on centers, extending from Elev. 650.5 to Elev. 665.5. Each riser has 12 discharge ports, 6 directed toward each of the two adjacent bays.The risers which are located on the outermost screen bay piers are 12 in. in diameter with six 3 in. horizontal discharge ports located at the same elevations as discussed above.The total deicing flow to each screenbay is approximately 3.2 cfs.Deicing water for the by-pass gates is routed to the downstream side of the gates by two 4 in. diameter pipes. The pipes deliver approximately 0.5 cfs per gate. All guides and rollers for the gates are on the downstream side and are subject.ed to the deicing water flow.2.3 GEOTECHNICAL

2.3.1 Discharge

Dike On the island, the dikes are founded on silty clay at Elev. 671. All materials above Elev. 671 (typically muck) were excavated and spoiled. The dike which crosses the slough west of the discharge structure and the dike across the former discharge canal is founded on sand. All soils containing less than 50% sand beneath the dikes were excavated and spoiled. Soil beneath the west dike was excavated to a minimum depth of one foot and stockpiled for use as topsoil. In the vicinity of the backwater drain, soil beneath the dike was excavated to stable subgrade.Excavation of soil to founding depth and placement of fill took place simultaneously to minimize swell and/or disturbance with consequent loss of strength of the island foundation soils.Dike fill consists of material excavated from the intake and from spoil banks which were stockpiled southwest of the cooling towers.Dike fill consist of sands and gravel containing less than 12% fines when placed underwater and less than 20% fines when placed above water.0648B Page 20 of 29 2.4 STRUCTURAL The intake screenhouse is a box type structure founded mostly below grade and water surface. The foundation is a concrete mat founded on cut. The substructure is reinforced concrete.The superstructure consists of structural steel framing with metal clad siding. Front and rear walls of the intake screenhouse substructure extend down into the water, acting as a seal 'against floating debris and outside air. Elevations of the bottoms of the front and rear skimmer walls are 667.0 and 670.50 respectively. Deck elevation of the intake screenhouse is 685.0 with motors and electrical equipment placed above the floor so as to minimize damage due to flooding.The discharge structure consists of a remotely controlled gate structure and four buried discharge pipes. 'The gate structure is a reinforced concrete box structure founded on cut. The discharge pipes consist of interlocking reinforced concrete pipe founded on cut and buried with earthfill. Sheet piling is used to retain slopes upstream of the gate structure. The de-icing pumphouse consists of an ungated concrete pumpwell with a metal superstructure. The pumphouse is founded on cut and backfill placed against the four sides of the pumpwell to existing grade. The intake pipe for the pumphouse consists of interlocking reinforced concrete pipe. The discharge pipe is welded steel. Both pipes are founded on cut and buried. See Deicing System, section 2.2.3.2.5 ELECTRICAL 2.5.1 13.8 KV Power Two 13.8 KV Power feeders provide power to the intake structure. One feed originates at the #10 Bank Transformer and the other at the CTI Transformer in the switchyard. The loads are divided equally between these two sources.. Disconnect devices are provided by NSP on each feeder at the switchyard end.2.5.2 480 VAC Power Each 13.8 KV Power feed energizes a 1000/1333 KVA (AA/FA), 13.8 KV-480V transformer which in turn powers a double ended 480 V switchgear section. A bus tie breaker has been provided so that either source can supply the entire screenhouse. -Main breakers on each switchgear source are interlocked with the tie breaker to allow only two out of three breakers closed at any one time. Each switchgear section then feeds a motor control center. One 480 V feed from the intake screenhouse powers motor control centers at the de-icing pumphouse and at the discharge structure. 0648B 4.Page 21 of 29 The motor control center horizontal bus is rated 600A and vertical bus rated 300A. The bus work is braced for 22,000 Amps symmetrical. A 2" x 1/4". copper ground bus is supplied in each MCC. The MCC requirements are detailed in Specification E-015Q. The switchgear and transformer requirements are given in Specification E-015N.2.5.3 120 VAC Power 480/277-240/120V transformers and corresponding distribution panels are provided for lighting, control panel power, and other miscellaneous 120 VAC loads at the intake, discharge, and de-icing pumphouse. Lighting circuits are 277V single phase. Transformers and distribution panels are divided between buses.2.5.4 Grounding All mechanical equipment, cable tray, conduit, motors, and building steel is tied to the existing plant grounding system. Ground rods were added as required at the remote structures to maintain a resistance to ground of less than 1 ohm per IEEE Standard 142.2.5.5 Instrumentation and Control Instrumentation, control requirements, and operation for the specific system is given in the logic descriptions (Appendix B) and logic diagrams.2.5.6 Lighting, 120 VAC Receptacles, and Welding Receptacles The area lighting level in the intake structure and de-icing pumphouse is designed to be between 10 and 30 foot candles. Additional lighting is provided as required. Emergency egress lighting is provided in buildings. The lighting level at the discharge structure' is designed to be between 2-5 foot candles.Convenience and welding receptacles are provided and located as required.A bill of material for the lighting system, 120 VAC receptacles, and welding receptacles was prepared by SWEC for purchase by the Electrical Contractor. 0648B Page 22 of 29 2.5.7 Security Security system requirements were determined by NSP.2.5.8 Raceway Power, control, and instrument cable installed from the turbine building to the intake structure and from the intake structure to the de-icing pumphouse and discharge structure is direct burial rated cable.Cable tray installed in the intake screenhouse is aluminum. The cable tray in the plant itself is used for routing new cables when possible.Cables installed in the turbine building use the existing cable tray system.Raceway was specified by SWEC in the installation specification for purchase by the Electrical Contractor. 2.5.9 Wire and Cable Specification E-024A details'600V control cable requirements. Specification E-023A details 600V and 13.8KV power cable requirements. Specification E-024Pdetails 300V instrument cable requirements. 2.5.10 Miscellaneous All electrical equipment at the intake screenhouse, deicing pumphouse and discharge structure is located above the 150 year flood elevation. All indoor electrical equipment enclosures are NEMA 1A or better. Outdoor enclosures are NEMA 4 or better. Indoor motors are open drip-proof. Outdoor motors are totally enclosed.2.5.11 Cathodic Protection Cathodic Protection is provided at the intake screenhouse and for direct buried conduit as required.2.6 MECHANICAL

2.6.1 Ventilation

A ventilation system was provided for the intake screnhouse in order to provide an indoor air temperature of 104*F when the outdoor air temperature is 89gF. The required air movement is 15,200 cfm. Air exhaust is provided by two power operated roof top ventilators. Air intake is provided by louvered openings in the west wall. All ventilation openings are provided with bird screens and are designed to prevent weather penetration. 0648B Page 23 of 29 2.6.2 Heating A heating system in the intake screenhouse, is designed to maintain an operating temperature of 50'F when the outdoor air temperature is-14OF and the river temperature is 324F. The system consists of eleven electric unit heaters rated at 30 KW each for a total installed capacity of 330 Mi. Each unit heater has an individual adjustable thermostat located on an adjacent wall.2.6.3 Fire Protection Portable fire extinguishers are provided as necessary. The traveling water screen spray wash header has two fire hose connections with Elkhart model L-E, 95 gpm nozzles.2.6.4 Service Air A service air compresor system has been provided in the intake screenhouse. The compressor system is designed to provide 225 scfm at 110 psig. Compressed air is routed to 15 quick disconnect type air stations throughout the screenhouse for maintenance as required. The compressor system is skid mounted with a self contained liquid cooling system and air drying system.2.6.5 Instrument Air A duplex instrument air compressor system has been provided in the intake screenhouse to provide instrument air to the bubble tube instrument racks and to the eight screenwash three way air operated plug valves. The instrument air compressor system consists of two 18.5 acfm air cooled non lubricated compressors mounted on one skid.The compressor system is designed to provide 100 psig oil free air at-40'F dew point. Only one compressor is required for the instrument air load with the second compressor provided as backup.2.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE The screenhouse and all associated equipment are QA Type III. The discharge structure and all associated equipment are QA Type III. All equipment has the same design and quality assurance classifications unless otherwise rated.0648B Page 24 of 29 2.8 CODES AND STANDARDS The screenhouse and associated equipment was designed in accordance with the following codes and standards as indicated by the Project Analysis Report: Screen Pumps Manufacturers Standard Traveling Water Screens Manufacturers Standard Trash Rack & Rake Manufacturers Standard Strainers Manufacturers Standard Bypass Gates Manufacturers Standard, Stop Gates Manufacturers Standard Valves USAS-B31.1-1967 USAS-B16.5-1968 MSS SP-61 Piping (Steel) USAS B31.1-1967 Piping (Fiberglass) ANSI B31-1980 Motors NEMA MG-1-1972 Steel Structure AISC -1980 Concrete Structures ACI 318-77 Electric Cable IEEE 383-1974 Sluice Gates Manufacturers Standard 3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION 3.1 System Arrangement The system arrangement is as indicated on drawing number NF-92703 for the intake and NF-92704 for the discharge. 90648B Page 25 of 29 3.2 Description of Intake and Discharge Flows 3.2. 1 Normal Operation Discharge flow rates are limited during specified periods by provisions in the NPDES permit as listed below: April 150 cfs May 300 cfs June 1-15 400 cfs June 16-30 800 cfs During these periods the intake flow rates cannot exceed the allowable discharge rates plus an allowance for evaporative and drift losses from the cooling towers.During other periods of the year the intake flow rate may vary to provide maximum plant efficiency provided the thermal criteria listed in Section 1.1.3.5 is not exceeded.3.2.2 Infrequent Operation Higher intake flow rates than those permitted by the discharge provisions listed in Section 3.2.1 will be allowed in order to prevent condenser inlet temperatures from exceeding 85 0 F. The NPDES permit allows for these higher flow rates provided they are minimized to the extent practical. During these periods the discharge thermal criteria must still be met.3.3 Two Unit Winter Startup In the event that both plants must be shut down during winter months, the warm water source for de-icing will be lost. Both bypass gates in the intake screenhouse should be manually opened if not already open and it should be verified that at least one sluice gate is open. The bypass gates and sluice gate should be verified open at the onset of the outage and remain open for the duration of the outage to allow plant startup.4.0 SYSTEM LIMITATIONS AND SETPOINTS Maximum Operating Water Level 678 ft.Normal Operating Water Level 673.5 ft Minimum Operating Water Level 672.5 ft.Average Net Screen Face Velocity 0.5 fps at 800 cfs.0.88 fps at 1410 cfs.0648B Page 26 of 29 4.1 EQUIPMENT 4.1.1 Screen Size Larval Season April 16 to Aug. 31 0.5 mm mesh Remainder of Year Sept. 1 to April 15 9.5 mm mesh Speed Differential Pressure In W.G. Across Screens 0" 4" 8" 10""18" 9.5 mm 0 fpm 3 fpm 20 fpm Alarm Bypass Gate Open Design Maximum Differential Pressure 8 ft. WG Design Operating Differential Pressure 3.5 ft. WG 4.1.2 Trash Rack and Rake Design Maximum Differential 5 ft. WG Traversing Speed 30 fpm 4.1.3 Screen Wash Pumps 4.1.3.1 Coarse Screen Trash Removal Pumps Number of pumps HP RPM Capacity (gpm per pump)4.1.3.2 Two Speed Fine Screen Trash Removal Pumps Number of pumps HP RPM Capacity (gpm per pump)4.1.3.3 Coarse Screen Fish Removal Pumps Number of pumps HP RPM Capacity (gpm per pump)0.5 mm 3 fpm 3 fpm 20 fpm Alarm Bypass Gate Open 2 100 1800 1000 2 33/75 1200/1800 480/760 2 15 1800 600 0 0648B{ Page 27 of 29 4.1.3.4 Fine Screen Larvae Removal Pumps Number of pumps 2 HP 20 RPM 1800 Capacity (gpm per pump) 760 4.1.4 Bypass Gates Number of Gates 2 Head Loss at Max Flow 4 in. W.G.Net Free Area 500 sq. Ft.Maximum Flow 1410 cfs 4.1.5 De-Icing Water Supply Pumps Number of pumps 2 HP 40 RPM 1200 Capacity (gpm per pump) 6550 5.0 SAFETY FEATURES Safety features for the intake screenhouse, discharge structure and de-icing pumphouse were provided. These include, but are not limited to, handrails, fire extinguishers, non slip tread, and other equipment necessary to provide a safe working environment.

6.0 SYSTEM

MAINTENANCE

6.1 MAINTENANCE

APPROACH Normal access to equipment for inspection and maintenance is provided by system design. Special features provided for maintenance are discussed in the following sections.6.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Preventive maintenance of all components and controls for the intake structure is conducted following normal> nuclear power plant practice and manufacturer' s recommendations.

6.3 TESTING

AND SURVEILLANCE

6.3.1 Screen

Wash Pumps and De-icing Pumps The screenwash pumps are. tested monthly to verify operability. The de-icing pumps are tested monthly during winter months when not in use to verify operability. The test is performed during normal operation. The following parameters are recorded during the test: 1. Suction water elevation.

2. Discharge pressure.0648B Page 28 of 29 3. Vibration amplitude.

6.3.2 Valves

A. All valves except vent, drain, instrument, test valves and maintenance isolation valves are partially stroked once every three months, and fully stroked annually.B. All check valves are tested annually.6.4 INSERVICE INSPECTION All components are visually examined while in operation every three months.0648B Page 2Z of 2?.& .I A I I) --.ILI 13 A d u).-w'-i -I V.AI .I;-..I T -1 UA .I 1 1.F ".1 1 aI I .J7 I I .f 7-14 I.Th77-I-i T_ i -,i --- EL> EL)11;I .I :..a-6"j- t ~ V~ ' t, w c r ii C NO " N IN I N RA-Pace f UOTES: ri 1. ALL CONDUIT IS SHOWN DIAGRAMMATIC ALLY EXCEPT WHERE SPACE ALLOCATIC;il HAS BEEN DESIGNIATED. WHERE SPACE ALLOCATION HAS BEEII SHOWN THE CO;NDUIT SHALL BE RUN WITHIN THE DIMENSIONED LIMITS. CONDUIT, WHEN DIMENSIONED, SHALL BE i11STALLED AS INDICATED. 2i B n a 2. WHERE EXPOSED CONDUIT CROSSES A VIBRATION JOINT OR WHERE CONDUIT EXPANSION C2 dc .PROVISION IS RECUIRED, A SHORT LENGTH OF FLEXIBLE CONDUIT SHALL BE INSTALLED. X 61 CL 3. CONCEALED OR BURIED CONDUIT SUBJECT TO FLOODING SHALL BE SLOPED TOWARD w 0o BOXES, HANDHOLES OR MANHOLES FOR DRAINAGE.4. ALL CONDUIT LOCATED IN SCREENWELLS, UNDERGROUND TUNNELS, PITS AND OUTDOORS ON EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE MOUNTED SO THERE IS AT LEAST-< La ONE-QUARTER INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN THE CONDUIT AND THE SUPPORTI LG SURFACE.-0 5. WHERE UNGROUNDED CONDUCTORS ENTER A CONDUIT IN A CABINET, PULL BOX, ,. JUNCTION BOX, OR AUXILIARY GUTTER, THE CONDUCTORS SHALL BE PROTECTED in 'BY A SUBSTANTIAL BUSHING O-Z ELECTRICAL MFG CO TYPE "B" OR APPROVEDEQUIVALENT, PROVIDING A SMOOTHLY ROUNDED INSULATING SURFACE, UNLESS w THE CONDUCTORS ARE SEPARATED FROM THE CONDUIT FITTING BY SUESTAN'TIAL INSULAING MATERIAL SECURELY FASTENED IN PLACE. WHERE CONDUIT: = BUSHINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED WHOLLY OF INSULATING MATERIA.L, A LOCKNUT SHALL BE INSTALLED BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE ENCLOSURE TO WHICH THE CONDUIT IS ATTACHED."6. ALL CONDUIT CONNECTIONS TO ALL MOTORS VIBRATING EZUIPMENT, BELT< = DRIVEN EQUIPMENT, PRESSURE AND LEVEL SWITCHES, THERMOCOUPLES, c 62 ETC, TO BE MADE WITH FLEXIBLE CONDUIT.0I-o u 7. RIGID STEEL CONDUIT RUN IN EARTH AND NOT ENCASED IN CON;CRETE SHALL HAVE .A PVC JACKEr., OR BE COATED WITH ASPHALTUM. 06 8. ALUMINUM CONDUIT SHALL NOT BE EMBEDDED W CONCRETE.c 9L. WHERE CONDUIT CROSSES V'BRATION JOINTS IN SLAB, USE 18e LENGTH OF FLEXIBLE STEEL CON"UIT WRAPPED WITH " OF OAY;iM AND THREE ThICKNESSES OF BURLAP, o = THOROUGHLY PAIffT-ED WITH ASPHALTUM.

3. 0 ;- )0. CONDUIT ENTERING SHEET STEEL OR ALUMINUM BOXES, WITHOUT HUBS, EXPOSED TO WATER OR RAIN, SHALL BE TERMINATED WITH A CONDUIT FITTING APPLETON ELECTRIC CO= = TYPE "HUB"ITHOMAS a BETTS CO BULLET HUB SERIES 370 OR APPROVED EQUAL.,.-R C -T- Isu -5~ P :,-,.- ,7D..-POwERLOSR RU ELECTRICAL

REVISED NOTE ".K76G CONDUIT NOTES t 0- o : 7-7-601 STANOD-=.

DSIGN O.RA\ING. I _-- ..-- ,-- ---______ F-Aj .-1 roti ST £ EtpS Eý,!1 El4 Ez -I- I Z,,,, .-pac 2 f 57 N Ja.@00-4C ozu go in.060C in 01 to ILZ w1~oy NOTES: 1. ALL CONDUIT, WIRE AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED It?ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF THE 4NATIONAL ELECTRICALV CODE" AS ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, UNLESS OThERWISE NOTED IN THESE STANDARDS.

• Z. MARK NUMBERS REFER TO ITEMS IN BILL OF ELECTRICAL MATERIAL OR COMPUTER PRINTOUTS.

3. FOR CABLE NUMBERS REFER TO CABLE SCHEDULES OR COMPUTER PRINTOUTS.

• 4. FOR ABBREVIATIONS REFER TO STONE & WEBSTER ENGRG 'CORP STD-MG-1000 SERIES.*5. FOR LOCATION AND DATA FOR INSTRUMENT TRANSMITTERS, THERMOCOUPLES, PRESSURE SWITCHES, ETC , REFER TO EQUIPMENT LIST.6. CENTER LINE OF ALL POWER RECEPTACLES AND PUSH BUTTON STATIONS TO BE 4!0" ABOVE FLOOR ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. THE TOP OF ALL CONTACTOR AND STARTER GROUPS SHALL BE 6' 0" ABOVE FLOOR ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE EXACT DETAILS OF ARRANGEMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR; HOWEVER, THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHALL FOLLOW IN SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE THE-ARRANGEMENT AS SHOWN ON WIRING DIAGRAMS.8. CLEARANCE, IF REQUIRED FOR ALL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, CONDUIT, TRAYS AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE ISOLATED PHASE BUS SHALL BE INDICATED ON THE DRAWING. CONDUIT FOR SECONDARIES OF GENERATOR CURRENT TRANSFORMER LEADS, BOTH PHASE AND NEUTRAL SIDES, SHALL BE INSULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S DRAWINGS.*Notes 2, 4, 5 are lot applicable to Job 12911.09 (NS? E-781073)I I pcPOWER INDUSTRY GROUPI CMECXED I E S.K 7/G/601 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, TRAY A LIGHTING NOTES GENERAL REDRAWN ADCE0 PROPRIETARY, DELETE D , REVISE0 NOTES CORRECT H.AT7.7/7/650 A.P"RoED I cWA 7/7/6o1[Iiic CESCRIPTION STANDARD DESIGN DRAWING I__ i :U _ 17 STO- ME-I 1- -4 I -.-q L: F."

3Nr- r, WERS7R EtJGINCERMS ~O )NAzendc"x A- Pace -1 of 3"C a hi 0 IL 00 00g.21 1-0h at NOTES: I. ALL GROUNDING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF THE "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE" AS ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, UNLESS OTHERWISEE NOTED IN THESE STANDARDS.

2. THE GRCUNDING SYSTEM IS SHOWN DIAGRAMMATIC=LLY.

EXACT LOCATION OF CABLE, GROUND RODS AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED.3. CABLE SHALL BE SOFT DRAWN, STRANDED, BARE COPPER OF SIZE SPECIFIED ON DRAWING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4. IN SWITCHYARD CONTROL HOUSES WHICH ARE IN SWITCHYARDS OF 230KV OR ABOVE, ALL REINFORCING STEEL AND BUILDING STEEL SHOULD BE BONDED TOGETHER AND TIED INTO THE GROUND GRID.5. WHERE GROUND CABLE IS TO BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE, COIL 5'-0 AND BURY SO THAT IT IS ACCESSIBLE.

• 6. BUILDING STEEL SHALL BE GROUNDED AT BASEMENT ELEVATION BY CADWELDING OR THERMOWELDING ALTERNATE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS OF THE OUTSIDE BUILDING WALLS TO A COPPER GROUNDING LOOP.7. GROUND CONNECTORS FOR ATTACHING THE GROUND CABLE TO MASONRY, ABSESTOS, METAL SURFACES OR EOUIPMENT SHALL BE BURNDY TYPE "GB OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.

8. ALL BOLTED JOINTS SHALL BE MADE UP FIRMLY. BOLTS, NUTS, AND WASHERS SHALL BE SILICON-BRONZE ALLOY FOR COPPER-TO COPPER CONNECTIONS.

FOR ALUMINUM TO ALUMINUM CONNECTIONS USE HIGH STRENGTH ALUMINUM OR STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE. USE STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE WHEN COIN;ECTING DISSIMILAR MATERIALS.

9. A GROUND SYSTEM SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONN;ECTED TO A CONTINUOUS METALLIC UNDERGROUND WATER PIPING SYSTEM, METAL WELL CASINGS OR SHEET STEEL PILING WHERE AVALABLE, IN ADDITION TO DRIVING GRCUNO RODS INTO THE EARTH TO SUCH DEPTH AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO REACH PERMANENTLY MOIST SOIL. THIS ASSUMES THAT THE PILING OR PIPING SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE CATHODIC PROTECTION.

10. WHERE GROUND CABLE IN CONCRETE CROSSES EXPANSION JOINTS, THE CASLE SHALL BE WRAPPED WITH BURLAP AND PAINTED WITH ASPHALTUM, OR WRAPP-ED WITH POLYETHYLENE.

THE GROUND CABLE SHALL EE WRAPPED A DISTANCE OF 18 INCHES EITHER SIDE OF THE EXPANSION JOIANT.It AT LEAST TWO TIES TO GROUND SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE GENERATOR, DISCONNECTING SWITCH STRUCTURES, CIRCUIT BSEAKERS, MAIN ANU STATION SERVICE TRANSFORMERS, AND SWITCHGEAR.

12. IN OUTDOOR INSTALLATIONS, STRANDED GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED EITHER ENTIRELY EXPOSED ON THE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION MECHANICALLY PROTECTED, OR ENTIRELY WITHIN THE FOUn;DATION USING A COPPER BAR OR GROUNDING INSERT TO MAKE THE TRANSITION THROUGH THE CONCRETE.

THE STRANDED CONDUCTOR SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED SO THAT IT LEAVES THE CONCRETE -AT AN EXPOSED OUTDOOR LOCATION.* Note 6 not applicable to Job 12911.09 (NSP E-78Y073). connections will be compression type.Underground POWER INCUSTRYGROUP ELECTRICAL NP.1:,--:) CHECCED LSK.7/6/60 G UREVISDG NOOTES CORRECT IHA.T.7/7'60 GROUNDING NOTES OESCRPTCU PROV~ ~CWM 7/7/40 I STANJDARD DESIGN DRA,'ING I A PPROV!:0 1'r-',YM 7/7/60 1 (A a Ov"ý' In7 I --); ýV'%1 STD- ME-2-1-6 I etl fo WESSTE ENI N Coppoq Ioj0,Appen*4iX A-Pace 4 oO 5 I CL U hC a.a -4 ha0 Zit z 2~V1.- >00 hw 1'-h 3K2 2o Oi =2I NOTES (CONT ):* 13. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE GROUND CABLE AND CONNECTOR MAY BE MADE BY COMPRESSION, BOLTS OR , CONNECTIONS BETWEEIN, THE CONNECTOR AND THE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BY MEANS OF BOLTS. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE GROUND CABLE AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE MAY BE A'41TH BOLTS IF A IS USED OR EXOTHERM!C PROCESS IF THERE IS NO CONNECTOR. A TYPICAL BOLTED CONNECTOR WOULD BE BURNOY TYPE "MA" OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.

14. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, TRAYS, AND CONDUIT SHALL BE BONDED TOGETHER TO INSURE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY.

CABLE TRAYS SHALL BE GROUNDED VIA COPPER TO BUILDING STEEL ON EACH END AND NOT MORE THAN EVERY 100 FT. ALL CONLDUIT FROM CABLE TRAYS TO ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BON'DED TO THE TRAY.AT ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WHERE CONDUIT DROPS ARE NOT USED AND CABLE IS RUN FROM THE CABLE TRAYS INTO THE EQUIPMENT, THE CABLE TRAY SHALL BE BONDED TO THE EQUIPMENT. AT METAL-CLAD SWITCHGEAR, LOAD CENTERS AND MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS, THE BONDING JUNIPER SHALL BE Z/O CABLE.15.ALL METALLIC STRUCTURES, MOTORS AT 2300V AND ABOVE, SWITCHGEAR, MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS, CONTROL AND RELAY BOARDS, LIGHTING CABINETS, CONTACTOR., CABLE TRAYS, AND CON;UIT SHALL BE PERMANENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY GROUNDED BY A GROUND CABLE CONNECTED TO THE GROUID GRID. OTHER EQUIPMENT MAY BE BOLTED TO SUPPORTING STRUCTURE OR CONNECTED TO THE STRUCTURE WITH A GROUND CABLE. ALL MOTORS LESS THAN 25 HP AT 575V OR LESS MAY BE GROUNDED THROUGH THE CONDUIT SYSTEM. EXPANSION JOINTS IN CONDUIT SHALL BE MADE ELECTRICALLY CONTI'NUOUS BY A BONDING JUMPER.16. BURIED OR SUBMERGED EQUIPMENT SUCH AS TRAVELING SCREENS AND THEIR FOUNDATION BOLTS OR PIPING TO WHICH CATHOOIC PROTECTION MAY BE APPLIED MUST NOT BE IN METALLIC CONTACT WITH REINFORCING RODS, METALLIC CONDUIT, GROUNDING CABLE OR OTHER PIPING. THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATED AS FAR APART AS CONDITIONS WILL PERMIT. INSULATING FLANGES, UNIONS OR COUPLINGS MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE PIPE RISERS JUST ABOVE GROUND ELEVATION.

17. ALL GROUNDING CABLE IN CATHODIC PROTECTION AREA SHALL HAVE INSULATION SUITABLE FOR DIRECT BURIAL IN EARTH.18. FOR ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY OF METAL RACEWAY CONTAINING WIRES OPERATING ABOVE 25OV, PROVIDE TWO LOCKNUTS, ONE INSIDE AND ONE OUTSIDE OF BOXES AND CABINETS.19. ALL SHIELDED CABLE SHALL BE TERMINATED AND GROUNDED ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATION AND INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE ENGINEER, UNLESS OTHERWVISE SHOWN ON DRAWINGS.20. ARMORED CABLES SHALL HA,'E THE CABLE ARMOR GROUNDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY 1HE ENGINEER.* No procesg connections shall be made on Job 12911.09 (NSP E-78Y073)POWERINDUSTRYGROUP ELECTRICAL REDRAWN &Ec.K I..7/6'/sO

-GROUNDING NOTES ISSUE DEScRiPTIC S APPROVED ICWM.1-.7/7/60 1 issuJe I%.j'A;.- STANDARD DES0;C3N DRAWING ST D -M E-2-2-7 t0i'I@1 ..........., Appendix A-Page 5 of 5 I i S k STONE 5 WEBSTER ENGItEERING CORPORATION INDUCTION MOTOR DATA PROJECT PAGE NO J.O. NO.I CLIENT t i 2 FURN;SHED BY ODATE B 3 MARK OR ITEM NO.PURCHASER'S RE-"GUIREMENTS DATA FURNISHE-D By SELLER 5 SERVICE I

• TYPE ( FRAIAE NO.7 NO OF UNITS I MORSEPOWER I MOUNTING I SERvICE FACTOR I ELEC. C),ARACTERISTICS.

V PH HZ I FULL LOAD RPM so SYNCH. SPE... RPM FULL LOAD AM;P Is HORSEPOWER LOCKED ROTOR AMP a2 SERVICE FACTOR j STARTING TORCUE. % F.L.13 ENCLOSURE j PULL-OUT TOROUE. % FL.14 INSULATION CLASS I EFF. FULL LOAD. %15 INSULATIO,4 TREATMENT I EFF. 3/4 LOA0D. %36 AMBIENT TEMP-C I EFF.- I/Z LOA0. %I7 STATOR TEMP RISE -C I PF-FULL LOAD,.%Q0 BEARING TYPE I PF- 3/4 LOAD. %is BEARING TEMP RELAY i P.F.-/Z LOAD. *" 20 BEARING THERMOCOUPLE I PF. AT STARTING. %21 HALF COUPLOR SHEAVE MTD SBY -SHORT R.IR-JIT A-C TIME CON4STANT. SEC.22 ROTATION

• i X/R RATIO 23 WKZ OF ORIVEN EOUIR. (L-"TZ) I SPACE HTRS.. TOTAL WATTS 24 BRKWY. TORG. OPVN. EOUIP. 1 RAcI-L BEARIi.NG-TYPE 25 OVERSIZE COND. BOX 1 THRUST SEARING-TYFP:

26 COND. BOX LCCA-lON

• j BE-ARING SERVICE-HR 2? SPACE HEATERS. VOLTAGZ. P-4AS- I NORMAL BRG. OPER. TEMR-C 23 SPLIT END SELLS INET WEIGHT-LB 29 TERMINAL LUGS. TYPE I OIL COOL. SYS. REQ'D 30 STATOR t4IGm TEMP DEVICer I aRG, OIL PRESS. RANGE. PSI 3t" ADJUSTABLE SL!CE RAILS i BRG OIL RE')'D EA.. BRG. GPM 32 SOLEPLATES I NA;ME PLATE CODE LETTER 33 PROJECT ELEV..FT PERMISSIBLE STARTS PER H.-RWITH: 34 SHAFT (HOLLOW. SOLIDI T MOTOR AT AMB:ENT TEMP.35 COUPLING (SELF-RELEASE.

I MOTOR AT RATED TOTAL TEV.36 SOLID. NONREVERSING. I TYPE 57ALED INSUL. SYS.37 AOJUSTA3LE.FLEXIeLE) IOESCRI,-lION OF INSUL. SYS.3, DOWuTHRUST-CCNTINUO'.'S I MAX. STALL TIME WITH L.R. AMPS, SEC.39 UPTHRUST-C-CNT;NUOIJS I ACCEL. TIME. FULLY LOADED 40 UPTHRLJST-MOMENTARY __WITH 100% V. SEC.41 DOWNTI.RLST-kMGME4TARY I WITH 80% V. SEC.42 I

• WITH % V. SEC.43 SiDE THRUST _44 MIA* REVERSE SPEED i 45 DRAIN PLUG --43 VENT 46 AIR INTAKE AN.O OISC-ARGE SCREENS _47 CT. RATIO 1WKZ OF ROTOR,LS-FTZ 46 SURGE CAPA,.TCRST dn ANTI-FRICT.

BRG. SERVICE-HR I SoMINI MUM STARTIN11G VOLT AGE %52 REMARKS: REMARKS: 53 ALL PERFO-R.MANCE DATA a_-SED ON NOPMAL RATED I ALL PERFORMANCE DATA BASEDGON RTr,%54 VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCT I VOLTAGE AND FREOUENCY 55 ITEMS 34-44 APPLr TO MCTCRS ONLY _st9 f£aii'VIE'Aco rFzvG ENO CPPOcZITC CC'..I!NG ENO APPENDIX B LOGIC DESCRIPTION B 1.0 LOGIC SYSTEM DESIGN B 1.1 System Arrangement B 1.1.1 Intake Screenhouse The intake screenhouse is served by eight traveling water screens, one traveling trash rake, two 50 percent-capacity coarse screen trash removal pumps, two (two-speed) 50 percent-capacity fine or coarse screen trash removal pumps, two 50 percent-capacity coarse screen fish removal pumps, two 50 percent-capacity larvae removal pumps, twelve differential level sensing points, one fish return line temperature sensor, two bypass gates, one overhead bridge crane, and one jib crane.All pumps will have motor-driven butterfly valves on the discharge. The screenhouse load will be supplied by two 13.8 KV feeders from the switchyard. (Transformers CTM and 10 Bank.)B 1.1.2 Deicing Pumphouse The deicing system is comprised of two 50 percent-capacity deicing pumps, each with a motor-driven butterfly valve. These valves are interlocked to the pumps to prevent the pump from starting against a closed valve. One 480 volt feeder from the intake screenhouse will supply power to a local motor control center for the deice system.B 1.1.3 Discharge Structure The discharge structure is served by four motor-operated discharge gates, one discharge canal level sensor, and four temperature sensors. The control signal for the gates will originate from the plant "Main Control Board". One, 480 volt feeder from the deicing pumphouse will supply power to a local motor control center for the gate drive motors.'B 1.2 Control and Instrumentation ...B 1.2.1 Description of Operation B 1.2.1.1 New Screenhouse A. Traveling Screens Each traveling water screen is driven by a variable speed A.C. motor giving a speed range from 3 to 20 fpm. Each traveling screen has two types of screen panels. The fine mesh screen panels are used from April 16 to August 31, and the coarse mesh screen panels are used during the rest of the year.379BF Page 2 of 24 WLocally mounted at each screen is a JOG-REMOTE selector switch and a JOG pushbutton. The REMOTE position will enable the OFF-INVERTER selector switch mounted on the screenhouse control board to function. The JOG position will enable a pushbutton to jog a screen for maintenance purposes. The jog speed is the 60 cycle speed of approximately 20 fpm. The OFF position will disable the respective screen. The INVERTER position will run the screen at the speed determined by the inverter frequency. .. The mode of operation for each bank of four screens is controlled by a MANUAL-AUTO selector switch on the screenhouse control board. When the switch is in the MANUAL position, the four corresponding screens will run off the inverter at a speed manually selected on a potentiometer mounted on the control board. A START and STOP pushbutton for each bank of four screens will initiate the manual run sequence. Ip the AUTO position the bank of four screens will run at a speed required by the control system.A signal from any one of four screen differential level sensors associated with a group of four traveling screens will start the operation of that group. If one or more of the traveling screens is not in the INVERTER position, the control input from the level sensor for that traveling screen will be disabled and the rest of the traveling screens will continue to operate as normal.A two position switch (fine-coarse) for each set 'of four traveling screens is used to select the type of screen panels currently in service, either fine mesh screen panels or coarse mesh screen panels. In the FINE position, the screens will continually run at 3 fpm when the differential is 4 inches or less. In the COARSE position, the traveling screens and the fish and trash spray wash systems will not run as long as the differential is less than 4 inches. When any 1 screen within a group of 4 exceeds 4 inches differential for a period of two minutes, a signal will be initiated to start all four screens in that group at 3 fpm.Operation at differentials 4 inches and above is the same for both fine and coarse mesh screens. If the differential increases above 4 inches for either type of screen the speed will automatically increase proportionally until reaching the maximum speed of 20 fpm at 8 inches of head differential. The coarse screens will remain in this load follow mode until the differential drops below 3 inches for 20 minutes, then they will shut off. The fine screens will continue to run at 3 fpm below 4 inches of differential'. The screens will. automatically rotate ,(with wash sprays) 1-1/3 revolutions if they have not operated in the last 8 hours. The speed will be the same &s used during jogging.*G 379 8F Page 3 of 24 At 10 inches differential of water, an alarm will be sounded on the annunciators at the plant "Main Control Board" and in the intake screenhouse. In the event of an inverter failure the screens will be transferred to a 60 hertz backup power source that will run the screens at about 20 fpm.B. Screen Wash Pumps There are two identical screen wash pump systems, one system each for a group of four screens.During the time period of April 16 to August 31 when the-fine mesh screen% panels are.% being us ed, j ne: low pressure larv.ae removal spray pump. and one, low pressure: trash remoVal spray, puI wil run continuous ly for eac bank of .four screens. '.The. ': trash .removal pumps are two speed. pumps .:.that should be in the slow speed position during this' time.A RUN-STOP/RESET and SLOW-FAST control switch is provided for each of these pumps at the screenhouse control board. In the RUN position the pumps will start and run. In the STOP/RESET position.he pumps will stop.During the balance of the year, when the coarse screen panels are used, separate high pressure fish and trash removal spray pumps will be used. Each of the coarse screen pumps are controlled by a MANUAL-OFF/RESET-AUTO control switch mounted in the control board. The MANUAL position will start and run the corresponding pump and the OFF/RESET position will stop the pump. In the AUTO position both the trash and fish removal spray wash systems will start once any of the screens in that bank of four are signaled to start. Prior to. starting :the screens, the coarse screen pumpsýwill start and :run for. 2 minutes to fill the.,return lines, %and will- ontinue to. run for 10 minutes after the screens stop to flush the return lines.A motor-operated valve on the discharge of each pump will open as soon as the pumps are started. If the valve does not fully open within 15 seconds, an alarm will sound and the pump will stop.The RESET function of the STOP or OFF position allows the pumps to be restarted after a valve open failure. Each motor-operated discharge valve can also be opened or closed manually using a CLOSE-AUTO-OPEN control switch on the control board.3798F Page 4 of 24 The fine screen larvae pump and coarse screen fish pump use a common pipe header to the screens for each system. The coarse screen fish pump is interlocked to the fine screen larvae discharge valve to prevent the pump from starting if the opposite discharge valve is open.During heavy trash. loading in the coarse screen mode of ope ration, a :seconda. trash spray header on each screen be placed in operation... .This may be done by opening, the manual valve,:ýon: the secondary trash removal header and %manually starting the fine scree~n .trash removal pumps in the fast speed..C. Bypass Gates Each of the two hydraulic bypass gates will be controlled by a AUTO-LOCAL control switch on each units control box. The LOCAL position enables the UP and DOWN pushbuttons to function on the hydraulic units.In the AUTO position both gates will open in unison whenever the differential level across any one screen in the INVERTER mode within both groups of four screens exceeds 18 inches, the differential level across the entire screenhouse exceeds 24 inches, total deicing system failure, or all power to the new intake structure is lost.Once open, the gates will latch in place. The gates must first release the automatic "dogging device" before they can be closed.In the event of a power failure, each gate accumulator will have sufficient capacity to automatically open the gate after a time delay of two minutes to eliminate spurious trips. If one of the two hydraulic pump units should fail, manual cross-tie valving can'be opened to allow any one pump to be used singly on either gate.D. Trash Rake The intake screenhouse will be provided with one traveling trash rake which will run along a rail in the deck of the structure. The trash rake is, manually controlled. A differential level sensor across the trash rack in each bay will alarm at 6 inches indicating that trash needs to be removed.E. Overhead Crane A 15 ton capacity traveling overhead bridge crane is available for servicing equipment in the intake screenhouse. It is manually controlled from a suspended pendant control box above the screenhouse deck.3 379 8F Page 5 of 24 F. Jib Crane A jib crane is located and manually controlled on the north side of the intake screenhouse building to aid in the removal and emptying of the trash baskets.B 1.2.1.2 Deicing System Two manually started deicing pumps are available to keep the traveling screens from icing up during the winter months. Water will be supplied from the discharge of the plant and pumped to the screenhouse to submerged diffusers in front of each bay. Motor driven butterfly valves on the discharge of each pump will open before its associated pump can start. The pumps and valves can be started or opened at the screenhouse control board or locally at the pump.B 1.2.1.3 Discharge Structure The required flowrate and discharge velocity will be maintained by the control room operator opening an appropriate combination of the four sluice gates. Each gate will have a REMOTE-LOCAL and OPEN-CLOSE switch locally and an OPEN-CLOSE control switch in the"Main Control Room" that will enable the operator to either fully open or fully close the respective gate.A calculated discharge flowrate and open/close gate position will be displayed along with the average temperature of the open discharge pipes on the "Main Control Board Mimic Bus".B 1.2.2 Component Control Description B 1.2.2.1 Intake Screenhouse A. TRAVELING SCREENS -Typical of eight (Two groups of four)(CT-067-I1I through CT-067-118)(Ref drawings NF-92780-1, NF-92780-2)

1. Each individual traveling screen will manually start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The screen bank selector switch (CS-91800-48, 49) is in the MANUAL position.(Speed range of 3 fpm to 20 fpm may be selected manually on a potentiometer mounted on the control board.)b. The individual screen selector switch (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-10) is in the INVERTER position.I 3798F Page 6 of 24 c. The screen bank START pushbutton (PB-91800-59, 60) is depressed.

d. The individual local screen selector switch (CS-91900-02 through 91907-02) is in the REMOTE position.e. Motor circuit breaker closed.f. Motor thermal overload reset.2. Each individual traveling screen can be manually jogged from the screen location whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The individual local screen selector switch (CS-91900-02 through CS-91907-02) is in the JOG position. (Speed during jog will be approximately 20' fpm.)b. Jog button (PB-91900-01 through PB-91907-01) is depressed at the screen location.c. The individual screen selector switch (CS-91800-03 through 0S-91800-10) is in the INVERTER position.d. Motor circuit breaker closed.e. Motor thermal overload reset.3. Each bank of four traveling screens will automatically start with coarse screens whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The individual selector switch' for each of the four screens in the bank (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-l0) is in the INVERTER position.b. The screen bank selector switch (CS-91800-48, 49) is in the AUTOMATIC position.c. Differential level across any one screen in the bank exceeds 4 inches for more than 2 minutes.d. The screen selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the COARSE position. (September 1 to April 15.)e. 2 minutes has elapsed after the spraywash pump start.f. Header pressure of the screen fish removal system (PS-91602, PS-91603) must exceed 15 psig.3798F Page 7 of 24 g. Header pressure on the screen trash -removal system (PS-91600 or PS-91604, PS-91601 or PS-91605) must exceed 45 psig.h. The individual local screen selector switch (CS-91900-02 through CS-91907-02) is in the REMOTE position.i. Motor circuit breaker closed.j'. Motor thermal overload reset.4. Each bank of four traveling screens will continuously run at minimum speed with fine screens whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The individual selector switch for each of the four screens in the bank (CS-91800-03"through CS-91800-l0) is in the INVERTER position.b. The screen bank selector switch (CS-91800-48, 49) is in the AUTOMATIC position.c. The screen selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the FINE position. (April 16 to August 31.)d. Screen differential less than 4 inches.e. Header pressure of the screen larvae removal system (PS-91602, PS-91603) must exceed 15 psig.f. Header pressure on the screen trash removal system (PS-91604, PS-91605) must exceed 45 psig.g. The individual local screen selector switch (CS-91900-02 through CS-91907-02) is in the REMOTE position.h. Motor circuit breaker closed.i. Motor thermal overload reset.5. Each. traveling screen will automatically start and. run for 1-1/3 revolutions at approximately 20 fpm whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The screen bank selector switch (CS-91800-48, 49) is in the AUTOMATIC position.b. 8 hours has passed since the screen has been run.3798F Page .8 of 24 c. The individual selector switch for each of the four screens in the bank (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-I0) is in the INVERTER position.d. The individual local screen selector switch (CS-91900-02 through CS-91907-02) is in the REMOTE position.e. The screen mesh selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the COARSE position.f. 2 minutes has elapsed after the spraywash pump start.g. Header pressure of the screen fish (PS-91602, PS-91603)removal system must exceed 15 psig.h. Header pressure on the screen trash removal system (PS-91600, PS-91601) must exceed 45 psig.i. Motor circuit breaker closed.j. Motor thermal overload reset.6. Each individual traveling screen will stop whenever any of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The individual selector switch (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-I0) is in the OFF position.b. The screen bank STOP pushbutton (PB-91800-61, 62) is depressed.

c. The screen selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the COARSE position, the individual screen selector switch (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-I0) is in the INVERTER position, the screen bank selector switch (CS-91800-48, 49) is in the AUTOMATIC position, and the differential level (DPT-91700 through DPT-91707) across all the screens within a bank of 4 that are in the INVERTER position, drop below 3 inches for more than 20 minutes.d. Header pressure on the screen fish removal system (PS-91602, PS-91603) drops below 10 psig.e. Header pressure on the screen trash removal system (PS-91600 and PS-91604, PS-91601 and PS-91605) drops below 40 psig.f. Motor circuit breaker open.g. Motor thermal overload.3798F Page 9 of 24 B. Coarse Screen Fish Removal Pump -Typical for two (Ref. drawing NF-92780-4)

1. The coarse screen fish removal pump (CS-045-1033, 1034) will manually start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-12, 14) is in the MANUAL position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The coarse screen fish removal pump will automatically start whenever all the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-12, 14) is in the AUTOMATIC position.b. The fine screen larvae removal pump discharge valve (MV-91208, 9) is closed.c. Differential level (DP-91704

'through DP-91707, DP-91713 through DP-91716) across any of 4 traveling screens in the corresponding bank exceeds 4 inches for 2 minutes, or the screens have not been run for 8 hours. (Note: The individual screen selector switch (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-l0) must be in the INVERTER position before differential level can be considered for that screen.)d. Screen mode selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the COARSE position.e. Motor circuit breaker closed.f. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The coarse screen fish removal pump will sto whenever any of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-12, 14) is in the OFF/RESET position.b. Ten (10) minutes has elapsed since the corresponding bank of screens automatically stopped.c. The screen operation mode selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the FINE position.3798F Page 10 of 24 d. 15 seconds has elapsed since the pump has started and the discharge valve has not opened. (Note: The pump can now only be restarted in the AUTOMATIC position by first manually placing the appropriate selector switch in the OFF/RESET position and then returning it to the AUTOMATIC position.)

e. Motor circuit breaker open.f. Motor thermal overload.C. Coarse Screen Trash Removal Pump -Typical for two (Ref. drawing NF-92780-3)

1. The coarse screen trash removal pump (CT-045-1023, 1024) will manually, start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-II, 13) is in the MANUAL position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The coarse screen trash removal pump will automatically start whenever all the follcwing conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch is in the AUTOMATIC position.b. Differential level (DP-91704 through DP-91707, DP-91713 through DP-91716) across any of 4 traveling screens in the corresponding bank exceeds 4 inches for 2 minutes, or the screens have not been run for 8 hours. (Note: The individual screen selector switch (CS-91800-03 through CS-91800-l0) must be in the INVERTER position before differential level can be considered for that screen.)c. Screen mode selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the COARSE position.d. Motor circuit breaker closed.e. Motor thermal overload reset.3798F Page 11 of 24 3. The coarse screen trash removal pump will stop whenever any of the following conditions are.satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-ll, 13) is in the OFF/RESET position.b. Ten (10) minutes has elapsed since the corresponding bank of screens automatically stopped.c. Screen operation mode selector switch (CS-91800-23, 24) is in the FINE position.d. 15 seconds has elapsed since the pump started and the discharge valve has not opened. (Note: The pump can now only be restarted in the AUTOMATIC position by first manually placing the appropriate selector switch in the OFF/RESET position and then returhing it to the AUTOMATIC position.)

e. Motor circuit breaker open.f. Motor thermal overload.D. Fine Screen Larvae Removal Pump -Typical for Two (Ref. drawing NF-92780-4)

1. The fine screen larvae removal pump (CT-045-1031, 1032) will manually start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-27, 32) is in the RUN position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The fine screen larvae removal pump will manually stop whenever any of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch is in the STOP/RESET position.b. 15 seconds has elapsed since the pump started and the discharge valve has not opened. (Note: The pump can only be restarted by first manually placing the appropriate selector switch in the STOP/RESET position and then returning it to the RUN position.)

c. Motor circuit breaker open.d. Motor thermal overload.3798F Page 12 of 24 E. Fine Screen Trash Removal Pump -Typical for Two (Re. drawing NF-92780-3)

1. The fine screen trash removal pump (CT-045-1021, 1022) will manually start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-25, 30) is in the RUN position.b. The speed selector switch (CS-91800-26, 31) is either in the FAS' or SLOW position.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The fine screen trash removal pump will stop whenever any of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The pump selector switch (CS-91800-25, 30) is in the STOP/RESET position.b. 15 seconds has elapsed since the pump has started and the discharge valve has not opened. (Note: The pump can only be restarted by first manually placing the appropriate selector switch in the STOP/RESET position and then returning it to the RUN position.)

c. Motor circuit breaker open.d. Motor thermal overload.F. Coarse Screen Fish and Trash Removal Pump Discharge Valves -Typical of four (MV-91202 through bIV-91205).(Ref. drawings NF-92780-3 and NF-92780-4)

1. The discharge valves for the coarse screen trash and fish removal pumps will manually open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-16, 17, 21, 22) is in the OPEN position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3798F Page 13 of 24 2. The coarse screen trash and fish removal pumps discharge valves will manually close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-16, 17, 21, 22) is in the CLOSE position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The coarse screen trash and fish removal pump discharge valves will automatically open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-16, 17, 21, 22) is in the AUTO position.b. The corresponding trash or fish removal pump starts.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. The motor thermal overload reset.4. The coarse screen trash and fish removal pumps discharge valves will Automatically close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-16, 17, 21, 22) is in the AUTO position.b. The corresponding trash or fish removal pump stops.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.G. Fine Screen Trash Removal Pump Discharge Valve -Typical of two (MV-91200, MV-91201)(Ref. drawing NF-92780-3)

1. The fine screen trash removal pump discharge valve will manually open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-15, 20) is in the OPEN position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3798F Page 14 of 24 2. The fine screen trash removal pump discharge valve will manually close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-15, 20) is in the CLOSE position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The fine screen trash removal pump discharge valve will automatically open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-918Y0-15, 20) is in the AUTO position.b. The fine screen trash removal pump has started.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.4. The fine screen trash removal pump discharge valve will automatically close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-15, 20) is in the AUTO postion.b. The fine screen trash removal pump stops.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.H. Fine Screen Larvae Removal Pump Discharge Valve -Typical of two (MV-91208, MV-91209)(Ref. drawing NF-92780-4)

1. The fine screen larvae removal pump discharge valve will manually open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-57, 58) is in the OPEN position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3798F Page 15 of 24 2. The fine screen larvae removal pump discharge valve will manually close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are.satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-57, 58) is in the CLOSE position.b. Motor circuit breaker closed.c. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The fine screen larvae removal pump discharge valve will automatically open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-57, 58) is in the AUTO position.b. The fine screen larvae removal pump has started.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.4. The fine screen larvae removal pump discharge valve will automatically close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The valve selector switch (CS-91800-57, 58) is in the AUTO position.b. The fine screen larvae removal pump has stopped.c. Motor circuit breaker closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.I. Bypass Gates -Typical for two (CT-062-301, 302)(Ref. drawing NF-92780-5)

1. Either bypass gate will manually open from the local control box in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Local control box selector switch is in the LOCAL position.b. UP pushbutton is depressed on the local control box.c. Hydraulic accumulator is charged.3798F Page 16 of 24 2. Either bypass gate will manually close from the local control box in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The local control box selector switch is in the LOCAL position.b. The local DOWN pushbutton is depressed (this will also release the "dogging device").c. Hydraulic accumulator is charged.3. Both bypass gates (2) will automatically open and lock in place in unison whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Local control box selector switch in the AUTO position.b. Hydraulic accumulator is charged.c. And any one of the following conditions exist.i) differential level across the screenhouse exceeds.24", or ii) differential level across at least one screen within both groups of 4 screens exceeds 18", or (Note: The individual screenselector switch (CS-91800-03 through 10) must be in the INVERTER position before differential level can be measured across that screen.)iii) total deicing system failure iv) Loss of control power to either hydraulic system will cause the individual bypass gate to lock open.4. If an auto open signal is initiated and after a time delay of 3 minutes both gates have not opened, the accumulators will automatically be used to open the gates.3798F Page 17 of 24 B 1.2.2.2 Deicing System A. Deicing Pu&ip -Typical for two (CT-045-1041, 1042)(Ref. drawing NF-92781)1. The deicing pump will manually start from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following* conditions are satisfied:

/a. Control board pump selector switch (CS-91800-28, 29) is momentarily in the RUN position.b. Deice pump discharge valve MV-91206 or MV-92107 have previously been manually opened.c. Motor circuit breaker is closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The deicing pump will manually start from the deicing pumphouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The local pump selector switch (CS-91908, CS-91909) is momentarily in the RUN position.b. Deice pump discharge valve MV-91206 or MV-92107 have previously been manually opened.c. Motor circuit breaker is closed.d. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The deicing pump will stop whenever any of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Control board pump selector switch (CS-91800-28, 29) is momentarily in the STOP position.b. Local pump selector switch (CS-91908, CS-91909) is momentarily in the STOP position.c. Deice pump discharge valves (MV-91206, MV-91207) is closed.d. Motor circuit breaker is open.e. Motor thermal overload.3798F Page 18 of 24 B. Deicing Pump Discharge Valves -Typical for two (MV-91206, MV-91207)(Ref. drawing NF-92781)1. The deicing pump discharge valve will manually open from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. Control board valve selector switch (CS-91800-18, 19) in the OPEN position.b. Motor circuit breaker is closed.c. Motor thermal overload is reset.2. The deicing pump discharge valve will manually close from the control board in the intake screenhouse whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. Control board valve selector switch (CS-91800-18, 19) is in the CLOSE position.b. Motor circuit breaker is closed.c. Motor thermal overload is reset.3. The deicing pump discharge valve will manually open from the deice building whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied.

a. The local valve selector switch (CS-91910, 11) is in the OPEN position.b. Motor circuit breaker is closed.c. Motor thermal overload is reset.4. The deicing pump discharge valve will manually close from the deice building whenever all of the, following conditions are satisfied.

a. The local valve selector switch (CD-91910, 11) is in the CLOSE position.c. Motor circuit breaker is closed'.d. Motor thermal overload is reset.3798F h.Page i9 of 24 B 1.2.2.3 Discharge Structure A. Sluice Gate -Typical for four (CT-062-391 thru 394)(Ref. drawing NF-92782)1. The sluice gate will manually open from the plant "Main Control Board" whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Control room selector switch (49060 thru 49063) is in the OPEN position.b. Local selector switch (91924, 91926, 91928, 19130) is in the REMOTE position.c. Motor electrical fault reset.d. Motor thermal overload reset.2. The sluice gate will manually close from the plant "Main Control Board" whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Control room selector switch (49060 thru 49063) is in the CLOSE position.b. Local selector switch (91924, 91926, 91928, 91930) is in the REMOTE position.c. Motor electrical fault reset.d. Motor thermal overload reset.3. The sluice gate will manually open at the discharge structure whenever all of the following conditions are satisified:

a. Local selector switch (91924, 91926, 91928, 91930) is in the LOCAL position.b. Local selector switch (91925, 91927, 91929, 91931) is in the OPEN position.c. Motor electrical fault reset.d. Motor thermal overload reset.4. The sluice gate will manually close at the discharge structure whenever all of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Local selector switch (91924, 91926, 91928, 91930) is in the LOCAL position.3798F Page 20 of 24 b. Local selector switch (91925, 91927, 91929, 91931) is in the CLOSE position.c. Motor electrical fault reset.d. Motor thermal overload reset.B 1.3 Annunciators B 1.3.1 Intake Screenhouse Annunciators are provided on the intake screenhouse control board as follows: A. 8 each -Screen 121 thru 128 differential greater than or equal to 10 inches.B. 8 each -Trash rack, Bay 1 thru 8 differential greater than or equal to 6 inches.C. 1 each -Screenhouse building differential greater than or equal to 24 inches (either of two sensors).D. 3 each -Lo instrument air pressure (instrument transmitter rack 001, instrument transmitter rack 002, compressor receiver.)

E. 1 each -Hi DP -Instrument air dryer.F. 1 each -Screen fish-larvae wash system failure (any one of four pumps).G. 1 each -Screen trash wash system failure (any one of four pumps).H. 1 each -Deice system failure I. 1 each -Lo fish return line temperature (one sensor near fish return discharge). J. 1 each -Bypass gates open.K. I each -Bypass gate trouble.L. 2 each -Air receiver -Hi water level (instrument air, service air) -Future.M. 1 each -Programmable controller failure. (Primary CPU.)N. 2 each -INVERTER 91801-A or B fault.3798F Page 21 of 24 0. 1 each -Screenhouse load center trouble.P. I each -Envir Lab Basement Q. 1 each -Lock and Dam #3 Equipment Problem B 1.3.2 Main Control Room Annunciators using existing spare windows are provided on the plant "Main Control Board" as follows: A. Screen differential greater than or equal to 10 inches.B. Screenhouse differential greater than or equal to 24 inches.C. Bypass gates. open.D. General alarm -screenhouse. E. Bypass gate trouble.B 1.4 Indicators B 1.4.1 Screenhouse Control Board Indication The following variables will be displayed on the intake screenhouse control board.A. 2 -Building differential level (one from each of two sensors).B. 8 -Screen differential level (one from each of eight sensors).C. 8 -Trash rack differential level (one from each of eight sensors). /D. 1 -Fish return line discharge temperature. E. 2 -Screen speed (one for each bank of 4 screens).B 1.4.2 "Mimic Bus Insert" Indication The following variables will be added to the display in the plant control room.A. Intake river temperature. B. Traveling water screen RUN/STOP.C. Bypass gate OPEN/CLOSE. D. Deice pumps RUN/STOP.03798F r- .4 4 f Page 22 of 24 E. Deice pump discharge valve OPEN/CLOSE. F. Average -discharge temperature. G. Discharge flow rate.H. Discharge canal level.Note: These signals are in addition to signals already included in the control room.Instrumentation I/O for screenhouse programmable controller (PC)B 1.5 B 1.5.1 Analog Input A. Trash Rack Differential Pressure Instrument: 8 each -Foxboro Model 823, 2-wire, pressure transmitter, span set at 0-25 inches water made output to PC.differential equals 4-20 B. Travelinx Screen Differential Pressure Instrument: 8 each -Foxboro Model 823, 2-wire, pressure transmitter, span set at 0-25 inches water madc output to PC.differential equals 4-20 C. Screenhouse Differentail Pressure Instrument: 2 each -Foxboro Model 823, 2-wire, differential pressure transmitter, span set at 0-25 inches water equals 4-20 made output to PC.D. Screenhouse Intake Level Instrument: 1 each -Drexelbrook admittance level probe and transmitter, 2 wire, span set at 0-13 feet equals 4-20 madc output to PC.E. Discharge Canal Level Instrument: 1 each -Drexelbrook admittance level probe and transmitter, 2 wire, span set at 0-13 feet equals 4-20 madc output to PC.F. Discharge Temperature Instrument: 4 each -Action Pak model TP621N 052 -Type T Thermocouple transmitter, span set at 0-180 degree F equals 4-20 made output to PC.3798F Page 23 of.24 G. Fish Return Line Temperature Instrument: 1 each -Action Pak model TP621N 052 -Type T Thermocouple transmitter, span set at 0-180 degree F equals 4-20 made output to PC.B 1.5.2 Digital Input (120 Volt)A. Discharge Gate (Open or Close)4 each -1 open limit switch (normally open) per discharge gate, 4 discharge gates total, contact closure indicates gate not closed.B. Screen Drive Inverter Fault 2 each -I normally closed contact per each inverter drive, 2 inverter drives total, contact closure indicator inverter fault.B 1.5.3 Analog Output (4-20 madc)A. Screen Drive Inverter Signal 2 each -4 to 8 inches water differential pressure across any one of four screens in the INVERTER mode will cause a corresponding output of 4-20 madc to the appropriate screen drive inverter.B. Screenhouse Intake Level -Mimic 1 each -PC input change of 4-20 madc (0-13 ft. span) will cause a corresponding output of 4-20 madc to the main plant Mimic Bus Insert.C. Discharge Canal Level -Mimic 1 each -PC input change of 4-20 madc (0-13 ft. span) will cause a corresponding output of 4-20 madc to the main plant Mimic Bus Insert.D. Plant Discharge Flow -Mimic 1 each -PC output of 4 to 20 made to correspond to 0-1500 cfs by using the following calculation: -(Ks Is + Ks Is + K 7 I, + Ka I,) [1Isi-hI]379BF PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared for Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy Minneapolis, Minnesota By Environmental Services Water Quality Department .3/4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Water Temperature and Flow ............................. Section I Summary of the Fish Population Study ................... Section II

SECTION I PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM'2006 ANNUAL REPORT WATER TEMPERATURE AND FLOW Report by'B. D. Giese Environmental Services Water Quality Department WATER TEMPERATURE AND FLOW INTRODUCTION AND METHODS The Mississippi River is the source-water body for circulating and cooling water systems at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP). This report presents daily plant operating hours, river inlet temperatures, site discharge temperatures and flows (blowdown). Site discharge temperatures are determined by thermocouples located downstream at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock and Dam 3. Plant inlet (ambient river) temperatures are determined by remote sensors located in Sturgeon Lake, and the main channel at Diamond Bluff. Inlet temperatures are also recorded from thermocouples located in front of the intake screenhouse, which are maintained for back-up. Data presented in this report are for environmental studies comparison, and are not intended as NPDES temperature compliance reporting. Also presented in this report are daily and monthly average Mississippi River flows, as provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Lock and Dam 3. Other monthly averages reported include PINGP intake flows, and the percentage of Mississippi River water entering the plant.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Daily average river inlet and site discharge temperature data are presented by month in Table 1.Daily Mississippi River flows recorded at Lock and Dam 3 ranged from 2,400 to 65,100 cfs in 2006 (Table 2). Daily mean site discharge flow (blowdown) from the PINGP external circulating water log ranged from 141 to 1,208 cfs (Table 1).PINGP withdrew an annual average of 4.5 percent of the Mississippi River flow during 2006 (Table 3). Table 4 shows the monthly average Mississippi River flows for the years 1985 through 2006. The average river flow in 2006 was 17,800 cfs, which was lower than the average river flow of 22,100 cfs for years 1985-2005. The range of annual average river flows is 8,709 cfs in 1988 to 37,772 cfs in 1986. 4 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units 1 and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS JANUARY UNIT I UNIT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 RIVER INLET TEMP.(OF)33.5 34.4 34.7 35.2 34.6 34.5 33.9 34.5 34.0 32.6 32.6 33.5 34.1 32.9 33.4 33.9 32.7 32.3 33.1 33.4 32.6 32.7 32.1 33.8 32.7 32.3 34.5 32.7 35.6 34.9 35.6 SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(OF)34.7 35.0 35.4 34.8 35.4 34.7 34.9 35.3 35.4 34.2 34.1 34.6 34.5 34.4 34.2 34.9 33.7 33.2 33.4 33.9 33.8 33.9 34.1 34.6 34.2 34.2 35.2 35.9 35.9 36.0 36.1 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 802 802 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 815 815 616 528 488 488 488 624 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 32.1 35.6 33.7 33.2 36.1 34.7 488 815 758 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS FEBRUARY UNIT 1 UNIT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 RIVER INLET TEMP.(CF)35.9 35.0 35.1 33.0 32.2 32.1 32.6 32.2 32.1 31.9 32.5 32.5 31.9 32.7 32.5 32.4 32.3 31.5 31.3 31.7 31.8 32.3 32.5 32.2 31.9 31.8 33.1 32.5 SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(CF)36.2 35.6 35.8 33.9 33.6 32.7 33.0 33.1 33.0 33.1 33.1 33.0 33.1 33.0 33.0 32.9 32.8 33.3 32.8 32.8 33.0 33.7 33.9 34.0 34.4 34.8 35.0 35.0 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 815 828 815 815 828 413 413 413 413 413 392 392 360 413 413 423 402 402 540 475 500 855 869 869 869 869 869 869 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 31.3 35.9 32.6 32.7 36.2 33.7 360 869 605 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP In 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS MARCH UNIT 1 UNIT2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 RIVER INLET TEMP.(CF)31.3 34.6 34.3 33.7 35.5 34.8 35.6 36.4 36.6 36.2 38.7 38.4 35.3 34.0 34.0 34.7 33.6 34.8 35.1 36.7 35.9 36.0 38.3 38.3 38.7 38.4 39.6 38.8 40.7 42.6 41.8 SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(OF)35.4 36.0 35.9 36.6 36.6 35.9 36.4 37.2" 37.8 38.3 40.2 39.2 36.4 35.2 35.0 35.0 34.8 35.8 36.4 37.3 37.1 36.7 38.3 38.6 39.2 39.5 40.4 40.2 41.9 43.9 43.8 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 869 869 889 855 855 855 855 855 869 815 815 882 882 838 815 822 822 822 855 842 849 849 849 849 849 846 869 869 875 875 875 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 31.3 42.6 36.6 34.8 43.9 37.8 815 889 853 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flowsl with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE MEAN SITE APRIL UNIT 1 UNIT 2 TEMP. TEMP. DISCHARGE FLOW (OF) (OF) (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1 24 24 41.4 42.5 875 2 *23 *23 41.6 42.6 869 3 24 24 39.9 41.7 862 4 24 24 39.6 42.0 882 5 24 24 39.7 42.7 862 6 24 24 41.7 43.4 862 7 24 24 42.5 44.6 862 8 24 24 42.3 44.5 862 9 24 24 43.6 46.1 869 10 24 24 45.5 47.8 869 11 24 24 47.5 50.0 869 12 24 24 49.2 52.2 869 13 24 24 49.9 52.6 822 14 24 24 51.6 54.8 684 15 24 24 52.4 54.7 291 16 24 24 53.5 55.5 291 17 24 24 53.8 55.6 291 9 18 24 24 54.5 56.5 267 19 24 24 56.0 57.4 144 20 24 24 55.3 56.8 141 21 24 24 54.9 56.8 291 22 24 24 54.5 56.2 283 23 24 24 55.7 56.7 267 24 24 24 57.2 62.1 299 25 24 24 55.0 56.6 283 26 24 24 56.4 57.4 291 27 24 24 56.7 58.1 291 28 24 24 58.2 58.8 275 29 3.6 24 56.8 57.3 283 30 0 24 56.1 56.6 275* Daylight savings MONTHLY MINIMUM 39.6 42.0 141 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 58.2 58.8 882 MONTHLY MEAN 50.1 52.0 539 F-ri Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units 1 and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE MAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 UNIT I UNIT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 TEMP.(OF)55.7 56.2 57.8 56.8 55.6 55.7 56.6 57.9 58.9 59.5 59.1 56.1 55.5 54.7 56.3 56.6 58.2 58.1 59.0 59.5 59.6 60.1 60.6 62.8 64.7 66.5 68.2 68.9 72.5 72.4 73.5 TEMP.(OF)56.3 56.4 57.8 57.5 55.8 56.4 57.9 58.2 59.6 59.4 59.2 56.7 55.6 55.7 55.9 57.9 59.1 60.1 60.3 61.8 60.7 60.9 62.9 64.6 66.2 67.4 70.0 71.2 72.4 74.0 74.4 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 291 291 ,291 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 299 299 299 299 299 291 291 299 275 283 291 291 291 275 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 54.7 73.5 60.4 55.7 74.4 61.4 275 299 288 .Table 1. Monthly ambient river Inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP In 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE JUNE UNIT 1 UNIT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 15.9 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 TEMP.(OF)74.9 74.7 75.2 75.2 73.7 74.1 75.1 75.8 74.6 70.5 67.1 68.9 69.8 71.6 71.2, 71.6 73.3 74.2 73.3 73.3 73.7 74.0 74.0 74.3 73.3 73.3 74.0 73.0 74.5 75.0 TEMP.(OF)75.6 75.8 75.9 74.9 74.6 74.4 76.1 76.6 74.4 71.1 69.4 68.5 71.1 72.3 72.0 72.8 74.4 75.4 74.9 74.0 74.1 74.3 73.9 74.4 73.7 73.5 74.3 74.3 74.7 75.9 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 384 396 396 384 396 396 396 434 423 392 392 392 392 392 392 760 760 760 768 760 760 760 760 760 760 768 776 768 760 760 0)MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 67.1 75.8 73.2 69.4 76.6 73.9 384 776 580 9) Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS JULY UNIT 1 UNIT2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 RIVER INLET TEMP.C 0 F)76.0 77.0 77.3 77.6 76.2 75.9 77.1 77.4 77.2 77.0 78.2 77.6 78.7 78.6 80.2 81.6 80.7 79.8 79.6 77.3 78.0 77.7 77.4 78.9 78.9 80.1 80.8 81.3 83.2 83.5 82.7 SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(OF)77.4 77.9 79.3 78.4 77.9 78.2 78.6 78.7 78.9 78.6 79.6 79.2 81.0 82.1 81.7 83.0 82.7 81.6 81.4 79.8 80.0 78.9 79.8 81.3 81.4 81.9 82.8 83.8 85.8 85.2 83.6 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 869 1180 1180 1180 1180 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 75.9 83.5 78.8 78.2 85.2 80.7 869 1194 1182 L, Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units 1 and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE AUGUST UNIT 1 UNIT 2 TEMP.(OF)TEMP.(OF)1 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 84.0 78.3 81.6 80.3 80.1 79.5 79.1 78.6 77.9 78.1 78.1 77.2 77.4 75.8 75.9 76.2 75.9 75.3 75.2 74.9 74.9 75.3 75.3 75.5 73.5 72.6 73.4 73.8 72.2 73.5 73.4 72.2 84.0 76.5 85.1 82.4 81.8 82.6 81.8 81.1 80.6 80.2 80.3 79.7 80.1 79.7 79.1 77.5 77.5 78.4 78.6 77.5 77.4 76.7 78.0 78.3 77.9 77.3 74.9 74.1 75.1 76.2 74.8 75.7 75.8 74.8 85.1 78.6 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1208 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1208 1194 0)r MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN F Table 1.Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP In 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS SEPTEMBER UNIT 1 UNIT 2 RIVER INLET TEMP.(OF)SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(OF)MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 72.9 72.4 73.2 71.4 72.0 72.8 72.7 73.4 70.8 68.7 66.7 65.1 64.8 65.2 65.7 66.3 67.6 66.4 64.1 61.5 61.5 60.1 59.5 60.1 60.3 60.6 61.3 60.3 59.6 58.9 76.1 75.3 75.3 73.7 74.5 75.1 75.4 75.4 72.4 71.4 69.3 67.3 66.8 68.3 69.2 69.6 70.4 67.9 64.4 64.2 65.1 62.9 60.9 60.6 63.2 63.4 63.0 61.3 61.7 60.6 60.6 75.4 68.2 1194 1180 1180 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1194 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 (1152 1138 1138 1138 1152 1152 1152 1152 1152 1152 1152 1152 1012 1012 1194 1166 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 58.9 73.4 65.9 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units 1 and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE MEAN SITE OCTOBER UNIT I UNIT 2 TEMP. TEMP. DISCHARGE FLOW (OF) (OF) (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1 24 24 59.1 60.9 1012 2 24 24 61.1 63.3 1166 3 24 24 62.2 64.5 1180 4 24 24 62.2 65.1 1180 5 24 24 61.2 64.0 1180 6 24 24 60.6 63.4 1180 7 24 24 60.0 61.9 1180 8 24 24 60.4 62.2 1180 9 24 24 59.3 60.8 1194 10 24 24 57.8 59.4 1194 11 24 24 56.9 57.9 1194 12 24 24 52.2 53.7 1194 13 24 24 49.8 50.9 1194 14 24 24 47.4 48.5 1082 15 24 24 46.7 49.1 1082 16 24 24 49.2 51.7 1110 17. 24 24 48.8 52.2 1110 *18 24 24 49.8 50.6 1110 19 24 24 49.0 50.7 1110 20 24 24 49.4 51.6 124 21 24 24 49.0 51.8 1082 22 24 24 46.7 49.3 1082 23 24 24 46.9 49.2 1068 24 24 24 45.2 48.8 1124 25 24 24 45.3 49.5 1124 26 24 24 46.1 49.1 1124 27 24 24 45.6 49.1 1124 28 24 24 45.8 49.6 1124 29 *25 *25 46.2 49.4 1124 30 24 24 46.5 50.1 1124 31 24 24 45.0 48.7 1124* Daylight savings MONTHLY MINIMUM 45.0 48.7 1012 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 62.2 65.1 1194 MONTHLY MEAN 52.0 54.4 1135 I Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS NOVEMBER UNIT 1 UNIT2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 20.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVER INLET TEMP.(OF)43.5 42.1 39.8 41.7 41.8 42.2 44.0 45.6 46.3 45.1 43.8 42.6 42.3 39.8 40.9 41.7 39.0 41.3 39.5 39.2 40.4 40.5 40.3 41.5 40.7 40.4 41.9 42.2 41.4 37.3 SITE DISCHARGE TEMP.(CF)47.4 45.4 43.8 44.5 45.4 46.6 47.5 49.4 50.8 47.7 47.2 47.5 45.3 44.7 42.4 42.1 42.3 41.7 41.3 40.5 41.5 41.9 41.8 42.6 42.7 41.8 42.4 43.7 42.3 38.1 MEAN SITE DISCHARGE FLOW (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1110 1110 1082 967 967 973 967 973 973 973 973 973 973 973 955 880 880 392 392 392 392 392 392 381 381 381 392 392 392 381 MONTHLY MINIMUM MONTHLY MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 37.3 46.3 41.6 38.1 50.8 44.1 381 1110 725 Table 1. Monthly ambient river inlet temperatures, and site discharge temperatures and flows, with recorded operating hours for Units I and 2 at PINGP in 2006 DATE OPERATING HOURS RIVER INLET SITE DISCHARGE MEAN SITE DECEMBER UNIT 1 UNIT 2 TEMP. TEMP. DISCHARGE FLOW (OF) (OF) (BLOWDOWN-CFS) 1 24 0 36.3 37.0 373 2 24 0 35.0 36.1 373 3 24 0 33.2 35.2 361 4 24 0 33.4 36.1 338 5 24 0 32.9 35.1 350 6 24 0 32.4 34.7 361 7 24 0 32.8 35.0 361 8 24 0 32.4 34.8 361 9 24 0 33.2 34.7 361 10 24 0 34.3 34.9 361 11 24 0 34.6 36.0 361 12 24 0 35.7 35.8 525 13 24 0 34.9 36.3 660 14 24 21 35.0 36.6 660 15 24 24 36.0 36.3 660 16 24 24 35.4 37.6 660 17 24 24 34.8 38.1 684 18 24 24 34.6 36.6 684 19 24 24 34.4 36.8 684 20 24 24 35.2 39.1 684 21 24 24 35.7 38.8 708 22 24 24 36.0 37.9 720 23 24 24 36.2 38.3 760 24 24 24 35.1 38.1 760 25 24 24 35.6 36.9 768 26 24 24 35.2 37.2 768 27 24 24 34.9 38.0 768 28 24 24 35.6 39.4 768 29 24 24 36.3 39.1 768 30 24 24 36.7 38.2 768 31 24 24 37.6 38.7 760 MONTHLY MINIMUM 32.4 34.7 338 MONTHLY MAXIMUM 37.6 38.7 768 MONTHLY MEAN 34.9 36.9 586 0, Table 2 Daily 2006 Mississippi River Discharge Flow rate (cfs) at Lock Dam 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25-26 27 28 29 30 31 MIN JAN FEB 18100 19300 18500 22800 18500 22600 18400 24300 19300 23400 19800 22300 19000 21400 18800 21400 18900 21100 18600 20200 18500 20100 17600 20300 18100 19600 19000 18000 17800 18300 18100 18300 19200 17600 18400 11600 17500 12300 17400 13600 17300 13800 16600 14300 16600 15800 15800 15700 15900 16500 15400 15900 15200 14800 15600 13900 17100 18000 18500 15200 11600 MAR 13800 13700 14000 13800 13200 13600 14100 14200 16000 15800 15600 17100 21001 24100 22800 22500 22800 23500 23500 23300 23200 23400 24000 24100 24100 23500 23700 24700 27700 31700 35500 APR 38500 36200 36900 42200 48200 54600 59700 63100 64300 64700 65100 65100 64500 63600 62500 61800 60600 58900 56900 54400 51500 49200 46900 44500 42600 40700 38600 36900 35200 34500 34500 65100 51400 MAY JUN JUL 33900 28300 14800 34300 26400 13700 35000 25500 12500 36400 24200 11500 38000 23100 11500 39900 21800 9600 41800 23000 9000 43500 21300 9100 45300 18800 10500 47200 18800 8900 48400 18500 7600 49000 20300 7700 48800 20000 8300 48700 20100 3200 48400 20700 7000 48300 19100 7000 48200 18600 7000 48000 22200 6200 47300 21900 5400 46400 23700 7000 45000 25000 6900 43500 24900 6200 41900 23800 6200 38000 23300 5500 36100 22300 6900 33400 20700 6900 32600 19300 6900 32100 17700 6200 31200 16500 3900 31000 15500 2400 29300 6300 29300 15500 2400 49000 28300 14800 41000 21500 7800 AUG 6300 15000 17400 11900 6700 5300 9700 10300 6900 7000 6900 3900 9000 6900 6900 5400 4700 5500 5500 6100 6100 5400 5400 6900 10200 11500 7400 7500 6200 7000 6200 SEP 4700 5500 6300 10000 8300 5400 5500 7100 7500 4600 4700 5500 5500 5400 4700 4600 6100 7600 7000 3100 3200 6100 11300 8300 6900 7800 9300 8400 6900 6300 OCT 8400 8300 8200 6900 6800 6800 5400 7000 9200 6900 5500 7100 6900 6400 6300 5500 7000 9400 9800 6100 8400'9000 6800 6900 6200 7000 7800 7800 6900 6900 7200 NOV DEC 6300 8400 7900 8400 7700 4700 6900 3200 6900 3700 6900 4600 6900 4500 6200 4500 7100 6900 8500 7800 8400 7100 4600 7300 6200 8100 6900 7900 7000 7200 7700 7000 7700 7200 7000 7300 7000 7700 7800 7500 6900 6800 6800 8100-6900 8900 6900 7400 7000 7200 7000 7100 7000 6500 7500 6400 7800 6600 8600 6800 7100 4600 3200 MAX 19800 24300 MEAN 17800 18200 13200 35500 20800 3900 3100 5400 17400 .11300 9800 8600 8900 7600 6500 7300 7100 6800 YEAR MAX YEAR MIN 65100 2400.1 11 Table 3 2006 Percentage of mean monthly Mississippi River flow entering the Xcel Energy Prairie Island Generating Plant intake Mean Plant Flow Mean River Flow Percentage of Mean River Flow Month (cfs) (cfs) Entering the Plant Intake January 758 1:7800 4.3%February 605 18200 3.3%March 853 20800 4.1%April 539 51400 1.0%May 288 41000 0.7%June 580 21500 2.7%1182 7800 15.2%August 1194 7600 15.7%September 1166 6500 17.9%October 1135 7300 15.5%November 725 7100 10.2%December 586 6800 8.6%Averages 801 17800 4.5%0 9 Table 3sectionl 2006.doc I Table 4. Mean Monthly Mississippi River Flow for 1985 -2006, in cubic feet per second (cfs).Month 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 January 1780 9,900 6,700 929 10,932 11271 8,7 1079 9,806 14831,2 February 1820 1160 6,700 7,87 1010 1047 9,548 12,589 14,911 13,95 15,041 March 20,800 1470 15,000 13,210 11,497 10,948 22,219 17,897 2657 24,177 2,7 April 51,400 4470 24,700 25,613 40,657 1273 15,570 4201 51,477 106,073 57,517 Ma 4100 3,0 19,400 4219 33,974 8261 18,839 4742 2268 39,316 46,535 June 21,500 39,200 46,000 27,413 26,323 53,177 22,070 34,423 25,690 1948 33790 July 7,800 21,900 19,500 32,739 34,597 23,981 21,052 2754 2647 36,119 2,3 August 7,0 9,800 10,600 1008 2906 12,16 10,026 24,432 10,742 2807 3,0 Septemi-ber 6,500 15,200 19,200 7,07 24,51 9,9 6,687 18,013 7,060 1666 930 October 7,300 3590 19,500 6,771 28,600 9,577 6,9 14,200 12,597 14,155 1140 November 7,0 1920 21,900 8,167 18,467 11,040 17,463 13,24 19,773 23,353 December 6,800 19,10 12,300 8,31 12,135 13,813 9,558 9,671 15,645 12,694 1,1 Averages 17,800 1 22,700 18,500 16,557 23,405 30,083 14,066 22,687 20,286 28;308 1 24,333 Mouth 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 January 11,365 13,090 9,326 15,658 5,542 4,965 6,294 7,303 13,758 13,1710 12,526 February 9,371 12,61-1 8,936 13,978 5,879 4,889 6,529 7,634 12,586 12,804 10,239 March 29,061 28,542 12,513 43,661 15,081 17,484 11,300 14,810 17,287 24,790 32,265 April 48,507 40,830 55,473 32,668 34,268 12,842 33,264 21,463 20,267 84,870 45,317 May 45,135 47,548 48,571 25,474 44,753 22,310 24,287 13,119 13,655 817242 43,518 June 30,667 26,913 65,377 17,920 44,960 31,610 13,237 4,667 14,573 37,043 30,105 July 27,323 29,403 84,123 28,985 33,856 20,323 7,'690 2,903 11,674 34,684 25,676 August 29;129 19,971 41,135 14,532 21,535 16,322 4,658 5,103 10,477 301,813 18,226 September-19,860'- 21,203 30,717 15,686 25,182 9,923 8,307 6,080 7,183 41,957 29,665 October 31,061 25,581 19,516 15,374 15,458 11,135 6,358 7,019 7,771 49P319 39,590 INovember 30,703 1 20,173 18,773 19,076 1 22,467 1 9,903 1 6,793 1 7,919 8,693 1 24,260 121,337 Decemnber 17,494 14,432 16,490 12,126 20,503 6,184 4,961 6,487 9,016 17 ,774 16,094 Avrgs 27,473 f 25,025 34,246 21,262 24,124 13,991 11,140 8,709 12,245 37-,772 27,047 Note: Mean monthly river flow data for the years 1985, 1990, Table 2 of the corresponding annual report for each year.1991 and 1992 have been adjusted to reflect the averages found in SECTION II PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 2006 ANNUAL REPORT

SUMMARY

OF THE 2006 FISH POPULATION STUDY Report by B. D. Giese Environmental Services Water Quality Department 0"T

SUMMARY

OF THE 2006 FISH POPULATION STUDY INTRODUCTION To fulfill part of the continuing environmental monitoring requirements of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, (PINGP), the Mississippi River fisheries population was sampled near Red Wing, Minnesota, May through October, 2006. The study area extends from 3.6 miles upstream of the plant (River mile 802) to 10.8 miles downstream of the plant (River mile 787.5), (Figure 1). The original objective of the study was to "determine existing ecological characteristics before plant operation and to assess any significant changes to the aquatic environment after operation" (NSP 1972). The objective was changed slightly after the plant became operational in 1973; to "determine environmental effects of the PINGP on the fish community in the Mississippi River and it's backwaters" (Hawkinson 1973). Presently, the objective is to monitor and assess the status of the fishery in the vicinity of the PINGP (Mueller 1994). Parameters analyzed and compared to previous years include species composition, length-weight regressions, percent contribution (fish/hr), length-frequency distributions, and catch per unit effort (CPUE) for selected species.METHODS AND MATERIALS Fish were collected using a Smith-Root SR-18 Electrofishing boat equipped with a 5.0 GPP electrofishing unit (Figure 6). The power source was a 5.0 GPP generator. The 5000 watt generator has a maximum output of 16 amps, and a range of 0-1000 volts. The generator has the capability to be either pulsed AC or DC with a pulse frequency of 7.5, 15, 30, 60, and 120 Hz.The annode consists of two umbrella arrays, each with six dropper cables. The 18 foot boat and dropper cables hung from the front of the boat serve as the cathode. Collection occurred during daylight hours with a pulsed direct current. Due to the constantly changing river conditions, Electrofisher output was varied to enhance the effectiveness. Sampling was done monthly, May through October, within four established sectors of the study area (Figures 1-5). The runs within each sector are similar to previous years sampling to ensure a similar set of relative data indices for yearly comparison. At the end of each "run", the elapsed shocking time was recorded from a digital timer, which only tallied the seconds that the electrical field was energized. A run was terminated after approximately 450 seconds shocking time or when the end of the prescribed run was reached.Stunned fish were captured with one-inch stretch mesh landing nets equipped with eight-foot insulated handles. Fish were placed in live-wells, supplied with river water constantly, until the end of each run. At the end of each run fish were identified, measured to the nearest millimeter (total length), weighed to the nearest 10 grams, and released. Parameters used to describe the fisheries include species composition, length-weight regressions, percent contribution, length-frequency distributions, and catch per unit effort (CPUE). It is assumed that population dynamics and spatial distribution is represented by CPUE.Electro fishing CPUE was computed as numbers of fish per hour for each sector. Length frequencies in 20 millimeter intervals were calculated for all fish species. Length-weight relationships were calculated using the length-weight formula: logW= log a+b logL, where W is the weight in grams, a is the y axis intercept, b is the slope of the regression line, and L is the total length in millimeters. RESULTS Initial PINGP preoperational annual environmental reports simply listed all data collected without discussion or analysis (NSP 1972). Individual species were not discussed, due to the amount of data collected during initial sampling efforts. Representative species were selected in 1975 for abundance comparisons based on electrofishing data (Gustafson et. al. 1975), modified in 1986 after seining was eliminated (Donkers 1986), and in 1989 smallmouth and largemouth bass were added as they "have been seen more frequently in the electrofishing catch during recent years in the PINGP study area" (Mueller 1989).Electrofishing collection methods changed before the 1982 sampling season. The mesh size of the dip nets was increased to one inch stretch mesh. The larger mesh size enabled small adult fish and some young of the'year fish of certain species to avoid collection. Currently, individual gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and white bass less than 160 mm are not collected. Also, logperch and cyprinids (other than carp) are no longer collected, due to their small size (Donkers 1987). Therefore, a direct comparison of electrofishing CPUE prior to 1982 is inappropriate to later years.Species collected in 2006 are compared to previous years in Table 1. A total of 7,124 fish, comprising 38 species, was collected in the, 2006 survey (Table 2).All species collected in 2006 are ranked according to electrofishing CPUE and listed in Table 2.Summaries for selected species (Tables 3-9) are based on electrofishing and trapnetting data for years 1977 through 1987, and on electrofishing data only for years 1988 through 2006, since trapnetting was discontinued after 1987 (Orr 1988). Annual CPUE for selected species is compared to previous years (Figures 15-22), by sector (Figures 23-30), and by date (Figures 31-38).The top three abundant species, based on CPUE, was determined for each sector. Sector One; shorthead redhorse, carp, freshwater drum Sector Two; carp, bluegill, freshwater drum Sector Three; white bass, smallmouth bass, carp Sector Four; white bass, freshwater drum, gizzard shad Overall CPUE Average; carp, white bass, freshwater drum Table 10 summarizes the percent contribution of historically predominant species in the annual catch. Length frequency distributions for selected species are illustrated by sector in Figures 7 through 14.DISCUSSION When dealing with a large river environment, a high degree of natural variability exists in habitat conditions and therefore, in fish distribution. Palmquist (1982) proposed the wide range in species abundance between study sectors was largely due to habitat preferences of a species rather than PINGP induced. A high degree of variability in species abundance exists within sectors from year to year. Differences in collection efficiency and year class strengths may explain this variability. A qualitative and quantitative discussion for selected species, with respect to other years, includes:

1) CPUE, 2) rank, 3) percent composition of catch, 4) population condition as depicted by length-weight regression analysis, and 5) mean length.Average mean length was calculated by splitting the length data for each species into 20 mm intervals and multiplying the number of fish in each interval by the median length of that interval (Example:

The number of fish in the 260-279 mm interval was multiplied by 270 mm). Interval totals were summed, divided by the total number of fish, and rounded to the nearest 10 mam.GIZZARD SHAD Electrofishing CPUE for gizzard shad decreased from 17.60 fish/hr in 2004 to 14.06 fish/hr in 2005 to 7.91 in 2006 (Figure 15). CPUE decreased in all sectors from 2005 to 2006 (Figure 23).CPUE was also examined for each sampling month for 2006, with the highest occurring in Sector 4 in May (Figure 31).Shad ranked eighth in 2006 (Table 2), and presently comprise five percent of the catch (Table 10). The general condition of gizzard shad, 2.854, falls into the range of previous years, 2.388 to 3.934' from 1982-2005 (Table 3). Carlander (1969) sites a population in Canton Lake, Oklahoma with a range in total fish length of 173 to 335 mm and a regression slope of 3.066 which compares well to the fish in this study. The mean length for gizzard shad (340 mm) decreased from 2005 (Table 3). The length frequency data indicates a range of approximately 170-470 mm, with peaks occurring at approximately 240 and 350 mm (Figure 7).FRESHWATER DRUM Freshwater Drum CPUE for 2006, (16.61 fish/hour) decreased from 32.02 fish/hr in 2005, and was the lowest CPUE since 1996 (Figure 16). CPUE was lower in all sectors when comparing 2006 to 2005 (Figure 24). The highest CPUE in a sector for any month occurred in Sector 4 in May (Figure 32).Freshwater drum CPUE ranked third in 2006 (Table 2). Presently, adult freshwater drum comprise 11 percent of the catch (Table 4).The general condition of freshwater drum has remained relatively stable, as depicted by a regression slope of 3.258 in 2006, in comparison to a range of slopes of 2.598 to 3.276 from previous years of the study (Table 4). The mean length for freshwater drum was approximately 320 mm in 2006 (Table 4). The length frequency data for freshwater drum suggest that a peak occurs at approximately 310 mm (Figure 8).SHORTHEAD REDHORSE Electrofishing CPUE for shorthead redhorse has ranged from 7.07 to 25.94 fish/hour (Figure 17).CPUE for 2006 (14.38 fish/hr) is slightly higher than 2005, but is still low compared to values from the last 10 years (Table 5). Historically, the CPUE within each sector is highly variable (Figure 25). The 2006 CPUE is also variable between sectors, ranging from 23.00 fish/hour in Sector 3, to 7.71 fish/hour in Sector 4 (Table 2). CPUE for each sector is highly variable during the collection year, with the highest CPUE occurring in Sector 3 in September (Figure 33).Shorthead redhorse ranked fourth in 2006 (Table 2), comprising ten percent of the catch (Table 5).The general condition of shorthead redhorse has remained relatively stable, as depicted by a regression slope of 2.772 in 2006, in comparison to a range of slopes of 2.571 to 3.041 from previous years of the study (Table 5). The length-weight regression slope of shorthead redhorse in the vicinity of Prairie Island is about the same as that of another population of Upper Mississippi River shorthead redhorse as reported by Carlander (1969) as having a slope of 2.83.The mean length for shorthead redhorse at Prairie Island was approximately 370 mm in 2006 (Table 5). The length frequency data show that the main peaks occur at approximately

230, 320 and 400 mm (Figure 9).

WHITE BASS Electrofishing CPUE for white bass in 2006 (16.71 fish/hr) is the lowest recorded since 1994 (Table 6 and Figure 18). CPUE decreased in all four sectors when comparing 2006 to 2005 (Figure 26). A large difference is evident when comparing CPUE upstream of Lock and Dam 3 to downstream of Lock and Dam 3 (Table 2). Overall CPUE appears cyclic (Figure 18) with year to year variability within each sector (Figure 26). Highest CPUE for any month sampled, occurred in Sector 3 in May with 80+ fish/hr (Figure 34).White bass ranked second in 2006 (Table 2). Presently, white bass comprise 12 percent of the catch (Table 10).The general condition of white bass has remained relatively stable, as depicted by a regression slope of 2.886 in 2006, in comparison to a range of slopes of 2.441 to 3.085 from previous years of the study (Table 6). The mean length for white bass is similar to the last ten years (Table 6).The length frequency data shows that peaks occur for white bass at approximately 330 and 380 mm, with a smaller peak at approximately 250 mm (Figure 10).WALLEYE Electrofishing CPUE for walleye in 2006 (2.77 fish/hour), although slightly higher than 2005, is still low compared to the last 10 years (Figure 19). CPUE increased in all sectors, except Sector 2, when comparing 2006 to 2005 (Figure 27). The highest CPUE for any sector in any month was Sector 3 in October (Figure 35).Walleye ranked 13th in 2006 in overall catch abundance (Table 2). Presently, adult walleye comprise two percent of the catch (Table 7).The general condition of walleye has remained relatively stable, as depicted by a regression slope of 3.352 in 2006, in comparison to a range of slopes of 2.852 to 3.318 from previous years of the study (Table 7). The mean length for v~alleye is the same as 2005, which was the highest recorded since the study began (Table 7). The length-frequency relationship indicates a main peak occurring at approximately 500 mm (Figure 11).SAUGER Electrofishing CPUE for sauger was the lowest recorded since 1990 (Table 8 and Figure 20).Sauger CPUE decreased in all sectors in 2006, compared to 2005 (Figure 28). Sector 3 had the highest CPUE in September of any sector in any month (Figure 36). Sauger ranked twelfth in 2006 (Table 2), comprising two percent of the catch (Table 8).The general condition of sauger has remained relatively stable, as depicted by a regression slope of 3.042 in 2006, in comparison to a range of slopes of 2.648 to 3.356, in previous years of the study (Table 8). The mean length for sauger was approximately 280 mm in 2006 (Table 8). The length frequency data exhibit a range from 150-510 mm, with peaks occurring at approximately 200, 300, 360 and 400 mm (Figure 12).SMALLMOUTH BASS Electrofishing CPUE for smallmouth bass appears cyclic with the .peak CPUE (17.02 fish/hour) occurring in 2000, while 2006 CPUE was 13.39 fish/hr (Figure 21). CPUE in Sectors 1-4, appear cyclic (Figure 29) with curves appearing similar in shape to the curve for all sectors combined shown in Figure 21. The highest CPUE occurred in Sector 3, in September (Figure 37).Smallmouth bass ranked fifth in 2006 (Table 9), comprising nine percent of the catch.Smallmouth bass have a length frequency range of approximately 80-450 mm, with peaks occurring at approximately 200 and 300 mm (Figure 13).LARGEMOUTH BASS Largemouth.bass CPUE for 2006, (8.57 fish/hour), is the highest recorded Since the study began (Figure 22). This was probably due to the extreme low flows and low water levels in pool 4 during August, September and October, which may have forced largemouth out of the backwater areas. The CPUE for Sector 1 was virtually zero for all sampling dates, while Sectors 2-4 have a little more variability (Figure 30). The highest CPUE occurred in Sector 3 in September (Figure 38).Largemouth bass ranked seventh in 2006,. which is the highest ranking since the study began (Table 9), comprising six percent of the catch. Historically, largemouth bass rank has varied greatly, ranging from 9th to 20th (Table 9).The length frequency data indicates a range of 1340-460 mm, with peaks occurring at 220, and 320 mm (Figure 14). GENERAL The ten most abundant species collected during 2006 in descending order, based on average CPUE for all sectors combined were: 1) carp, 2) white bass, 3) freshwater drum, 4) shorthead redhorse, 5) smallmouth bass, 6) bluegill, 7) largemouth bass, 8) gizzard shad, 9) black crappie, and 10) silver redhorse (Table 2).Total average CPUE for all species and sectors combined decreased from 193.89 fish/hr in 2003, to 174.73 fish/hr in 2004 to 148.66 in 2005 to 145.06 in 2006 (Table 2). LITERATURE CITED Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fisheries Biology. Volume One. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fisheries Biology. Volume Two. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Donkers, C. A. 1986. Summary of the 1986 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1985 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Donkers, C. A. 1987. Summary of the 1987 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1987 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Giese, B. D. and Mueller, K. N. 2005. Summary of the 2005 fish population study. IN:r Prairie Island Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 20051 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Gustafson, S. P., J. L. Geise, and P. J. Diedrich. 1975. 1975 Progress Report on the Prairie Island Fish Population Study. IN: Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 1975 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Hawkinson, B. W. 1973. 1973 Fish Population Study Progress Report of the Mississippi River Near Prairie Island July 1973-February-1974. IN: Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 1973 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Mueller, K. N. 1989. Summary of the 1989 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1989 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Mueller, K. N. 1994. Summary of the 1994 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1994 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.NSP. 1972. Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Near Red Wing, Minnesota. Prepared by: engineering Vice Presidential Staff Department, Northern States Power Company. February 1, 1970, revised May 1, 1972. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Orr, D. J. 1988. Summary of the 1988 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1981 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN.Palmquist, P. R. 1982. Summary of the 1982 fish population study. IN: Prairie Island Nuclear OF G6nerating Plant Environmental Monitoring Program 1982 Annual Report. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN. Fluum I...... I -PRAIRIE ISLAND FISHERIES POPULATION -STUDY AREA 0 1 2 3 4 5 Scale In Male$PRAIRIE ISLAND PLANT SITE LOOK A *Am a " INI PRAIRIE ISLAND FISHERIES POPULATION STUDY Sampling Locations Upstream Sea I Runs 1-20 Electrofishing Runs Pt4 PRAIRIE ISLAND9 NUCLEAR* " GENERATIN r Figure 3. PRAIRIE ISLAND FISHERIES POPULATION STUDY Sampling Locations Plant Area (Sec 2 Runs 1-10)PRAIRIE ISLAND-NUCLEAR LOCK & DAM 3 Electrof-shing Runs = Figure 4. PRAIRIE ISLAND FISHERIES POPULATION STUDY Sampling Locations Downstream (Sec 3 Runs 1-10)Lock & Dam 3)4, 34 Electrofishing Runs kpvw4 HWY 63 CA 340 Figure 5. PRAIRIE ISLAND FISHERIES POPULATION STUDY Sampling Locations Downstream (Sec 4 Runs 1-20)Electrofishing Runs -=-- 0.4* Figure 6 Eectrofishlng Boat q-1) PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 90 80--LENGTH FREQUENCY GIZZARD SHAD 70-60-50.40-30-20-10-U fl~i~ Pi d I.J]fl Jh 1 i 1 Legend m SECTOR 1 CM SECTOR 2 MI SECTOR 3 1- SECTOR 4-f AnJ]TiI fl.-* -. ___________________ ________________________________________ 150 200 250 .300 350 LENGTH mm 400 450 500 Figure 7 7-7 7777 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 -LENGTH FREQUENCY FRESHWATER DRUM U I:z1 Legend-SECTOR 1 M~ SECTOR 2 WASECTOR 3 ED SECTOR 4 LENGTH mm Figure 8 S PRAIRIE ISLAND 2.006 -LENGTH FREQUENCY SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 60 50'40"~30 Legend M SECTOR 1 IMI SECTOR 2 SECTOR 3 ED SECTOR 4 100 150 200 250 300 ' 350 400 450 500 550 LENGTH mm Figure 9 .4 1 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 -LENGTH FREQUENCY WHITE BASS 70-1 60-50-so.-U40.-.30-20-10-I f fl Ii Legend M SECTOR 1=I] SECTOR 2 M SECTOR 3 F1 SECTOR 4 J 0 100 150 200 250 300.- ...LENGTH mm 350 400 450 Figure 10 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006-LENGTH FREQUENCY WALLEYE 12" 10-8-4 Legend-SECTOR .1=li SECTOR 2 In M SECTOR3 F-M SECTOR 4.100 200 300 400 500, 600 700 800 LENGTH mm Figure 11.. ...... , ....I PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 16]14-LENGTH FREQUENCY SAUGER U 10-8-6-4-B 11 I IH TI I[II Im I I*I i Legend M SECTOR 1=- SECTOR 2 M SECTOR 3SECTOR 4 I 0-I ..I -l --l L.JL , ,.u.5ll.............. m .... .-150 200 2 250 300 1I I I I 350 400 450 500 550 LENGTH mm Figure 12 4o PRAIRIE XSLA.ATD 2006-LENGTH FREQUENCY SMALLMOUTH BASS 45-40-35-30" 25-C9 20-15-51 All at IF I 1 1 11 I1 1i JI lii 111KA Legend m SECTOR 1 I=- SECTOR 2 FM SECTOR 3 M- SECTOR 4 F'm 1:I I m LI I n~j -.-- --50 1I00 150 200 250 300.350 400 450 LENGTH min Figure 13--U, PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 -LENGTH FREQUENCY LARGEMOUTH BASS 30-25-20-15'10-5-fl I B Legend-SECTOR 1 F-SECTOR 2 MSECTOR 3 F- SECTOR 4 I H1 r I r n -A- -I.-Ka -I .a ~id. ~-a S m .. ..iA -S i 1;00 150 200 FEgTHe 14 350 400 450 Figure 14 Figure 15. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Gizzard shad for years 1982ý2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.i'Gizzard shad 45-40-35 25-.20-a O 0 15-f 104 5-0-~, r4J M~ LOl M t'- WD M 0 'Ts C), tfl W0 r-. W W 0 N M' V~ LO a* C WD MD MD MD WD W M M M M 0) 0)C) 0) 0) 0) M 0M 0 0 0 0 0D C 0) ) ) ) 0 0 a a)0)0)C) ) ) ) 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Year D Figure 16. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Freshwater drum for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Freshwater drum 50 45 -40 35 S30 0 25-E 20 * *15

• S *10 5 *1 5 S 0 N (0) V LO to r- CO 0) 0 M to~ 0C sC 0 ~ DC (o Co CD CD CD CD CD Co a) a) a) 0% a)a0% ) ) 0%00%% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0M C) 0 W 0) 0) 0W 0M 0M 0M 0) CD 0) 0) a) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year Figure 17. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Shorthead redhorse for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Shorthead redhorse 30 25 -20 S *0 15 cL 10
• S
• 0 5 *N -41 LO 10 D P,~ CO 0O 0 s ~ 0 C D M.TLnt -CO a) 0CD N M~ V LO to CO Co. CO CO CO CO CO CO 0n m1 a) 01 m1 CD 0 D 01 m1 C 0 0 0 0) 0 01 Om 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) m m m 0 0 0T m T1 C0 m 0 3 0 0 0 0 Year Figure 18. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for White bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.White bass 45-40 0 35 *301 025 *m20 S S 15 *10 5 5 5-0 0o 01 0o 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 1 0% 1 01 01 013 01 0 01 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01"01 01 0 01 01 01 01) 01 01 01 013 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0D Year)

Figure 19. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Walleye for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Walleye 12 10 0 a 8-* *0 Co MA 6-4-0 S S a 0 2 0 S S S 0 O 0 ,a 0 0 S 0 1 1 1 1 .I I .N m~ It O (D I.- M) m) 03 0) 0 0" 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O 0) 0 0) ) 0) 0) 0 0) ) 0 0)~ m) 0m0 ) 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)~~~~ 0m0 ) 0 0 ) 0 0 m 0ý 0 Year LO N to CD 0 0 a Figure 20. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Sauger for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sauger, 20 18 S 16 14 12 0 S10 0* S E 86 4- *0 0 0 N M' V C') (D t- CO 0) 0 -N ") V 0L CD r. M 0) 0 S N M~ toL) C ooCO w) w) w) w) w) 0) 0) m) 0D 0) 0 ) 0) 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0) 0 0) 0 0)0) 0) 0) 0D 0) CD0 ) 0) 0 0 T 9!-T-9!----T-------

---

NT N N Year Figure 21. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Smallmouth bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Smallmouth bass 18 16 S 0.0 14 *12 10 -6 * *4 *2 'S* *N o C' LO It 0 1- Co C o to 'J It) CD Co 0 0 '- N o C to CD a ear) m m m m C 0 0 0 0 0-~~~ -- -- --r ,- r .- r N4 N1 N N N N (N Year Figure 22. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for Largemouth bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Largemouth bass 9.8 0 !71 6 S S *aS.e4 U..5 3 2 0 CV CO S S 0 0 S a a S S S S 0 0 0 00 CO tO C.D CO CO C3 C) C) C) C) C) c) c)C)3 C) C)3 C) C) C C)m C) C) mC m m C) C) 0 0a 0 0-a N N N N N Year LO 0 C, C0 CD 0 Figure 23. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Gizzard shad for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector I Sector 2 35 30-25 20 15 S 10-5 0 +0-U~~~a) 0)~~ U U U U O Q O a ) 0 00 0 a) ]) C) a) a ) Yea) a) a) aa 0-) T a) a) a) 00 0 0 0 00 rrr rr r. rr -r NN N N1 0N C4 Year 25 20-o 15.9 10 U.5.n, 9 S S * *S -.1 S-@5, m .....0)0)0)0 o mC mm)))00 mm OMMa)M0)00 0C 00 0)~~~ a) a) 0) a) a) 0) 0)0 )0 )0 ))))a 0 0 0~-rrrrr rN C4.CM C-r4 N N NN Year Sector 3 Sector 4 90 80 S 70 60* 50-40 R: 30. S 20 10 SAS 0 0 G MOO)a) 0)a)0) 0Yar a)M00000-- -- -- -- -- -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrN NN N N N N Year 60 50 .40-0 30 5 U)E: 20 S .0 10 *S, .* Sar r~N N N N N NN Year Figure 24. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Freshwater drum for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector 1 Sector 2 ________U)45 4.0-35 30 0 *25 *20 * @. .0.01 20 -0 15 0 0O0 0 0 0) 0 0 10 00O 00 5, *oo C O O CO Y) 0 ) 0 a)0) 0)M)0 0 0) 0) 0 r. 2r r, rr .- rrT- No (J ,4 c, Nl c No Year 0 70 60-50 40-30 20 10 0 0 lee@000. 0.0 I. .No It LW r- W0) ) r C 1(0)0 0 W )0)0 0 ) )) )0)0 00 0)- 0)' 0 0 00 00 0)00))0))00)00))0))00)T0))M 0 0 0S8aC,100 Year Sector 3 Sector 4 60 50 40- 0 40 30 0 U.20 00O 0-10 S0 0 C4 M 0 LO toI- 0) 0CD N (~ 0 O0 D 0) t0)0 N~ (0) 8 0 to0 11090 00000 Year 0 U.40 35 30 25-20 151 10-5-0 0 0*0 .0 0 0~0 000 0 osooS 0 0 I-rr ---- -,- -.- ---'- -- r N N N IN N N N Year Figure 25. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Shorthead redhorse for the years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector 1 40 35 g *30 @*25-0 20 -a if 15 *10 0. .5 0 N M) V t)C Co W ) 0- W -C N M~ '-T L) CoP- cO 0D 0 (N4 M) 'q U (D 0)M 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) a) 0)n )0 )0 0 0 0 0 YeN " (N 4 N Year Sector 2 0 E--25 20- 0 15 0 10 0 04 m) 't to (O .Co 0) 0 N04 't) U) Co I-- Co 0) 0 N4 -q 0 0)C Co CO CO CO CO Co 'Co 0) 0) 0) 0m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m)0)0 0) m) m) 03 0) 0) C) a) a) a))0)0 0 0 0 Ya r2 o! -0 !! N N CN N N N oo Year Sector 3 Sector 4 0 rz U.40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5.0 0 0 00 0 I 0 LL 25 20 *15 S 0 10 5 *.* o 101 0 -1 1 l 1 1 1 ...I I l J G~o C Go COD CO w0)00Year Year 04UmV ) 0 r- w m0 ,0! mV 00 w0) o -C,4 0 §0 (CO OD00CO WOCD) 9MM MM 000O--r --,- ----.- .- r- i- N NCN 040N404 NN Year...... ...... ...... ..---- ...

Figure 26. Electrofishing CPUE (fishihour) by sector for White bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector 1 Sector 2 ___________ _____ ___25-20 6 w10-5 .00 NCli mJ It CD 1- m m C) N m' It to WD r- m) U 0 C1 ')t W ) w0 00 w) w) 00 0 W) CO CO 0) (n (n U) 0) 0) a) U) 0)0 ) 0 0 0 000 U) ) m) m) U)U ) U) U U) 0) 0) U) C) U) g! 0) 0 ,000 0 )00 Year 0 Ui 30 25 20 15, 10 5-0-00 p N M ') LO U) CO- W) U 0 N 0' r U) WN t" MU) 0.- N M' 8 m) C U))) UU'0000 00.a4 N N 4 N N Year Sector 3 Sector 4 0 I.C 100 90-80-70-60-501 40-30-20-10-0S 0 0 0 0 00 0 ,T 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 00 00 0 o00Goo 000 i ..... ,--F n N C) ~ U C N U)U)0- C) U)CDN- ) )N N N' U) Cm Year Year 4 Figure 27. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Walleye for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.10 01, Sector 1 Sector 2 ___ ___14 13S 12 11 4-3 0oo T 2 a 0 1 so. ...I14 0V0) 4)0 C 000 )0) 4 ' ) 00)0)0000000

0) 0) 0) C O OG 0) 0) 0) 0 ) 0) 0) m) a)0 )0 ) m) 0 0) 00 a00000C rrrrrrrrrrrrrN (N N 04 N 4 Year 1.!2 0.10 9 8 7 6 5.4 3'2 1-0 S S S 0 0 o 0.0 0S.0 0 O0m00.6 N M~ '- LO W0 r- W 0) 0 N (1) V tO WD C- W 0) a E N M~ 't to W0 0) u' c.2 0) T) 0 m) T) 0) 0) c2 0) 0 T C3co 0) 0) 0 00 0 0 r.- rrr-r rrn .-r. N CN CVC14C14N Year Sector 3 I Ui 18 16 14 12 10.8.6-41 2-0 S S S S 6 S.**e. *sggg S 0 Sector 4 1o 9-o 8-s 7-*10 f .10 L3-00 a 0 00 0 1 -0 Mar 0 ) ) 0 0 Year I r.- ~-.-.-r -N NI N N N N CN Year Figure 28. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Sauger for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP Sector 1I______ __________

Sector 2 0 U.14 12 10 8 65 4.2-0 S S 0O 0 0* 0* 0@0 0 0 S esso 0 LL 8-7-6 -51 0 4- *3

• 00 0 20 01 0 1 0 ., ...0 v 0)00)00)0G)00)O)0)0)000000

0) 0m 0a 00)00)00 0)00)00)00))0) 0 0 000 C Year N M-lr 0)w0) 0) ) 0 N MIL 0) D N0) )0) ww ww mm 0)0 ) )0 ) )0 ) )0 ) M0)0) ) o0 Year 04 M CV* LO~ CD 00C>000)0 0)C 00 000 CN CN 0N NI N CM Sector 3 Sector 4 0 40 35 30-25 20 15-5 100 00 0 *0000 000.0 * * ,00....S ,,, .....21 *18 15-=012- 0o 91 U-6 goSg 0.0 0. 00 000 6- *0-0' J J ,' ~ l , , .N) 0) in 0 D 0) 0) J 0) 0) 0) l 0) ý 0)0 ) 0) 1- O) 0) Q0)00 M0000 COOD w w wo 0 rear- ------ N N N N N N N Year v NCl) 'OW N0)0)0NC0)

C N )Vt N0 ,CC) 0 0N 0) 1 n40)0 I00)0 00)0)0 )C0)00))m0)C)0a)

0) 0)0)0 00 Q 00C 0) 0)D 0) ! CD 0) Q)0 )0 )0 )0 0 )0 0 0 0 rr.-.-q-r

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .-r-r, -NNNN N N N1 Year O 0O Figure 29. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Smallmouth bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector 1 Sector 2 24 20-16 -0 4 12-4 00 0,60 0 wwww www MMM)0NC") C) aCD marmmT 0) 0 0 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr04 (ONN N N N N N-Year 20 16 .* 0 0 12-U.T 4 0 0 0) a) 0 ) mm a) m 0) m 0m 0m m m 8Yar 0 Co 0------ ---r--r r-N N N N N N~ N4 Year Sector 3 Sector 4 I)Li 45 40-35-30 20-15-10 50 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 S S S *ge S. S I 5- *4-0.I)U. 2 *1 *S 0

• s o 0Yea 00 00 Year 0- T) T) T) a T) Co M 0) 0) 0)Ya a a a) 0 000 Year A----.-.-.-.-----..-

~......-..--.----------- .-----~--.-----.-------.--- Figure 30. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) by sector for Largemouth bass for years 1982-2006 in the vicinity of PINGP.Sector 1 Sector 2 0 U..12 9.6.3 0 LL 9 8 *6 0 4-3 -. *2-(N to Iq CtO wo r- w 0 a N m) V to w r.- W 0 a (N M 0 0oC 1 w w www 0 a* 000 arN N N N 4 N N Year-a 0== U* = 1* M -. = =, U = = =U -=-,===v NCV) m VUt (0 N tO 0) 0 ~-N CO to CO r- 00 a) 0 r N V) ,T LO tD tO to CO CO 00 CO CO 00 6) 6) a) a) a) m) 0) (D 6) 6) 0Z;000 0080 6)6 )6 6 )6 ) )6 )6 01 )n T) M) 6) 6 ) 000 0 00.-r r r r r r r rr N (N N N. (N N1 (N Year Sector 3 Sector 4 0 U.25.20 15 -10 0 0 0 9 *I C14 0 0 0w0aNC0 00

• V) to Year 14 12 10-0 o a0-L- .. Yea0-T-rr.-.N

-.- r N .- LO r 1- W- N (N( CO N N-.Year IMF PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) GIZZARD SHAD 40 N,<30" 20" A Legend"0 N- SECTOR 1 o SECTOR 2[" SECTOR 3 o SECTOR '4 MAY 22-25 JUNE 12-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 14-17 SEPT 11-14 OCT 16-19 DATE Figure 31.-, -. ?T~i PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/BR) FRESHWATER DRUM.i00 40 20 0 MAY Legend X SECTOR I[j SECTOR 2 0 SECTOR 3 0 SECTOR 4 DATE.Figure 32 0 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) SHORTHEAD REDHORSE D4)Legend* SECTOR 1 0 SECTOR 2 0 SECTOR 3 0 SECTOR 4 MAY 22-25 JUNE 12-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 14-17 SEPT 11-14 OCT 16-19 DATE Figure 33____-ffi PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) WHITE BASS P4)IN 30 Legend M SECTOR I o SECTOR 2) SECTOR 3 0 SECTOR 4 10 MAY 22-25 JUNE 12-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 14-17 SEPT 11-14 OCT 16-19 DATE Figure 34 .PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) WALLEYE 10'N H Legend* SECTOR 1 o SECTOR 2 O SECTOR 3 0 SECTOR 4 0 1 " I MAY 22-25 JUNE 12-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 14-17 SEPT 11-14 OCT 16-19 DATE Figure 35---~ ~ 771 ý i PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) SAUGER 16-14-12" 10.6-P41 Legend* SECTOR 1 o SECTOR 2 0 SECTOR 3 m 0 SECTOR 4 SEPT 11-14 MAY 22-25 JUNE 22-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 14-F7 DATE Figure 36 0 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) SMALLMOUTH BASS CA)H I~Z.4 Legend A SECTOR 1 o SECTOR 2 0 SECTOR 3 0 SECTOR 4 MAY 22-25 JUNE 12-15 JULY 10-13 AUG 24-27 SEPT 22-24 DATE OCT 16-19 Figure 37 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2006 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH/HR) LARGEMOUTH BASS 45-40 35-/N 30-~25-10, Legend M SECTOR 2 5 SECTOR 3___, _____ ~,0 SECTOR 4 DATE Figure 38 Table 1.Species Species of fish captured In the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1983-2006. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomvzon castaneus Silver lamprey lcthvomyzon unicuspus Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Longnose gar.Leoisosteus osseus Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Bowfin Amia calva American eel Anguilla rostrata Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Mooneye Hiodon teraisus Brown trout Salmo trutta Northern pike Esox lucius Musky Esox masauinonqy Carp Cyorinus carpo Carpsucker Species Carpiodes species River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Quillback Carpiodes cyorinus Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer White sucker Catostomus commersoni x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x x x x x x x x x X, x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x xx xx x x x x x x .x x xx x xx x xx xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x xx x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x J Table 1 (cont.)Species Blue sucker Cycleptus elonqatus Northern hogsucker Hyeentelium niaricans Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus.Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyorinellus Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Black bullhead Ictalurus melas Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Channel catfish Ictalurus bunctatus Flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris Burbot Lota :Iota---White bass Marone chrysops Rock bass Ambloolites rupestris Green sunfish Lepommis cyanellus Species of fish captured In the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1983-2006. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 !1 02 03 04 05 06 x x x x x xxx xxx xxx x xx x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxx x xx xxx x x x x x x x xx x xx x xx x xx x xx x xx x xx xx x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x-X x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x xx x x xx x x xx x x xx x x x x x Ak I-m-mv 0)Table I (cont.)Species Pumpkinseed Lepomis .ibbosus Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis Bluegill LePomis macrochirus Smallmouth bass Microoterus dolomieul Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides White crappie Pomoxis annularis Black crappie Pomoxis nicqromaculatus Yellow perch Perca flavens Sauger Sander canadense Walleye Sander vitreum Saugeye S. vitreum x S. canadense Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Species of fish captured In the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Praide Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1983-2006. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x X x x xx x xx x xx xx x x x x x x x x x x X x x xx x xx x xx xx x x x x x x x x x x x X. x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ,,( x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 2. Electrofishing CPUE (fish/hour) for each sector in the vicinity of PINGP and total number of each species collected during 2006.Species are listed in descending order according to average CPUE.Number Sector I Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Average collected Rank Species 1 Carp 2 White bass 3 Freshwater drum 4 Shorthead redhorse 5 Smallmouth bass 6 Bluegill 7 Largemouth bass 8 Gizzard shad 9 Black crappie 10 Silver redhorse 11 Quillback carpsucker 12 Sauger 13 Walleye 14 Flathead catfish 15 Channel catfish 16 Smallmouth buffalo 17 Green sunfish 18 White crappie 19 Bowfin 20 Mooneye 21 Bigmouth buffalo 22 Blue sucker 23 Longnose gar 24 Shortnose gar 25 Northern pike 26 Silver lamprey 27 River carpsucker 28 Rock bass 29 Golden redhorse 30 Burbot 31 Yellow perch 32 White sucker 33 River redhorse 34 Pumpkinseed 35 Orange spotted sunfish 36 Brown trout 37 Chestnut lamprey 38 Spotted sucker 17.50 9.09 13.92 18.13 8.58 0.91 0.11 2.22 0.74 4.32 1.99 2.73 3.24 1.36 1.31 1.71 0.17 0.06 0.06 1.42 0.28 0.51 0.57 0.00 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 31.71 5.08 14.12 8.67 10.03 15.85 1.98 6.32 2.48 3.59 5.20 0.87 1.24 2.73 6.81 2.73.4.58 2.35 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.37 0.62 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.08 32.51 18.36 23.00 32.18 20.02 19.35 6.52 2.99 2.88 2.43 4.42 4.20 5.31 1.11 1.99 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.11 0.77 0.55 0.33 0.89 0.22 0.44 0.33 0.22 0.33 0.55 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 15.20 20.15 20.03 7.71 2.76 13.13 12.84 16.58 11.86 4.03 3.86 3.92 2.42 1.44 0.52 1.38 0.17 1.79 2.36 0.23 0.58 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.92 0.00 0.23 0.40 0.29 0.00 0.12 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.37 16.71 16.61 14.38 13.39 12.48 8.57 7.91 4.52 3.70 3.37 2.98 2.77 2.71 2.44 1.95 1.48 1.05 0.71 0.50 0.47 0.40 0.38 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 1091 845 873 731 571 553 416 437 266 201 166 163 147 119 97 94 52 51 46 32 24 20 18 13 20 14 11 11 11 5 5 6 6 4 2 1 I 1 7124 Totals 92.27 129.06 213.32 145.59 145.06 Table 3. Fisheries summary for Gizzard shad 1977-2006. ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH CPUE CPUE COMP MEAN YEAR Fish/hr Fish/hr (%) N LENGTH LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 7.92 0.61 4 135 NA LOG W=3.101 LOG L-5.163 1978 10.20 0.20 5 73 NA LOG W=3.068 LOG L-5.078 1979 1.81 0.06 1 NA NA NA 1980 10.83 0.14 7 NA NA NA 1981 23.03 0.38 9 917 216 LOG W=2.748 LOG L-4.348 1982 7.39 0.09 3 276 329 LOG W-2.917 LOG L-4.741 1983 3.57 0.26 2 155 355 LOG W=3.029 LOG L-5.049 1984 0.84 0.08 1 48 281 LOG W=2.684 LOG L-4.171 1985 0.81 0.01 1 31 325 LOG W=2.388 LOG L-3.431 1986 0.14 0.06 <1 13 274 LOG W=3.248 LOG L-5.634 1987 1.08 0.05 1 55 256 LOG W=3.030 LOG L-5.046 1988 3.25 NA 3 139 288 LOG W=2.629 LOG L-4.015 1989 1.07 NA <1 47 323 LOG W=3.025 LOG L-5.021 1990 3.99 NA 3 170 326 LOG W=2.956,LOG L-4.857 1991 2.39 NA 4 198 338 LOG W=2.601 LOG L-3.940 1992 1.82 NA 1.8 9i 357 LOG W=3.459 LOG L-6.127 1993 1.99 NA 1.9 62 375 LOG W=2.920 LOG L-4.728 1994 0.28 NA( <1 14 394 LOG W=3.371 LOG L-5.955 1995 5.10 NA 4 204 272 LOG W=2.625 LOG L-4.073 1996 0.76 NA <1 27 330 LOG W=3.275 LOG L-5.666 1997 0.66 NA <1 23 400 LOG W=3.934 LOG L-7,373 1998 4.07 NA 2 176 260 LOG W=3.104 LOG L-5.218 1999 27.12 NA 12 1222 290 LOG W=2.981 LOG L-4.988 2000 40.85 NA 17 1634 290 LOG W=3.274 LOG L-5.697 2001 10.43 NA 6 455 340 LOG W=3.767 LOG L-6.967 2002 14.02 NA 7 612 350 LOG W=3.200 LOG L-5.518 2003 9.51 NA 5 373 380 LOG W=3.469 LOG L-6.198 2004 17.60 NA 10 859 290 LOG W=2.863 LOG L-4.607 2005 14.06 NA 9 682 350 LOG W=3.072 LOG L-5.147 2006 7.91 NA 5 437 340 LOG W=2.854 LOG L-4.585 Table 4. Fisheries summary for Freshwater drum 1977-2006. ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH CPUE CPUE COMP MEAN YEAR Fish/hr Fish/hr (%) N LENGTH LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 7.49 5.27 13 569 NA LOG W=2.947 LOG L-4.756 1978 11.97 6.28 17 422 NA LOG W=2.911 LOG L-4.710 1979 7.47 5.22 21 360 NA LOG W=3.068 LOG L-5.100 1980 5.89 3.83 18 520 NA LOG W=3.052 LOG L-5.026 1981 30.88 4.76 12 1146 267 LOG W=2.891 LOG L-4.625 1982 9.30 11.00 24 2225 293 LOG W=2.888 LOG L-4.625 1983 8.80 8.18 22 1626 287 LOG W=3.001 LOG L-4.927 1984 7.07 6.21 20 1212 288 LOG W=2.598 LOG L-3.919"!1985 10.15 7.92 31 1712 293 LOG W=2.846 LOG L-4.452'1986 8.33 0.39 22 856 310 LOG W=3.089 LOG L-5.139" 1987 10.29 3.75 16 940 312 LOG W=2.874 LOG L-4.603 1988 9.85 NA 8 419 280 LOG W=2.722 LOG L-4.205 1989 13.17 NA 11 570 294 LOG W=2.908 LOG L-4.707'1990 17.70 NA 13 724 297 LOG W=3.008 LOG L-4.957 1991 15.68 NA 12 596 305 LOG W=2.955 LOG L-4.824 1992 14.23 NA 11 539 320 LOG W=2.967 LOG L-4.829 1993 20.83 NA 18 584 334 LOG W=3.063 LOG L-5.053 1994 15.92 NA 14 495 332 LOG W=3.072 LOG L-5.086 1995 14.96 NA 12 605 317 LOG W=3.124 LOG L-5.243.1996 9.33 NA 8 374 300 LOG W=3.061 LOG L-5.093 1997 18.18 NA 10 812 300 LOG W=3.090 LOG L-5.159 1998 23.47 NA 11 983 320 LOG W=3.171 LOG L-5.344 1999 45.53 NA 17 1745 320 LOG W=3.138 LOG L-5.289 2000 19.88 NA 8 776 310 LOG W=3.077 LOG L-5.161 2001 28.17 NA 15 1279 330 LOG W=3.212 LOG L-5.480 2002 24.45 NA 12 1062 320 LOG W=3.155 LOG L-5.346 2003 37.51 NA 19 1595 350 LOG W=3.276 LOG L-5.637 2004 21.12 NA 12 928 310 LOG W=3.080 LOG L-5.131 2005 32.02 NA 22 1342 c330 LOG W=3.129 LOG L-5.238i 2006 16.61 NA 11 873 320 LOG W=3.258 LOG L-5.546 Table 5. Fisheries summary for Shorthead redhorse 1977-2006. ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH CPUE CPUE COMP MEAN YEAR Fish/hr Fish/hr (%) N LENGTH LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 5.39 1.58 5 259 NA LOG W=2.902 LOG L-4.691 1978 2.96 1.09 4 125 NA LOG W=2.978 LOG L-4.917 1979 2.08 0.45 3 67 NA LOG W=3.041 LOG L-5.090 1980 6.08 0.70 7 137 NA LOG W=2.894 LOG L-4.678 1981 11.67 1.34 7 686 376 LOG W=2.791 LOG L-4.428 1982 13.56 0.92 7 675 392 LOG W=2.814 LOG L-4.496 1983 8.96 0.79 6 454 387 LOG W=2.849 LOG L-4.590 1984 9.74 0.51 7 435 386 LOG W=2.571 LOG L-3.840 1985 7.36 0.51 7 374 389 LOG W=2.787 LOG L-4.415 1986 7.07 0.19 8 319 398 LOG W=2.911 LOG L-4.730 1987 13.80 1.24 12 722 403 LOG W=2.860 LOG L-4.608 1988 17.48 NA 13 667 381 LOG W=2.696 LOG L-4.176 1989 24.52 NA 17 902 370 LOG W=2.792 LOG L-4.448 1990 22.60 NA 14 838 361 LOG W=2.825 LOG L-4.544 1991 13.58 NA 11 538 355 LOG W=2.784 LOG L-4.443 1992 19.35 NA 14 721 403 LOG W=2.841 LOG L-4.587 1993 10.86 NA 10 332 382 LOG W=3.011 LOG L-4.991 1994 13.51 NA 14 505 389 LOG W=2.872 LOG L-4.655 1995 9.67 NA 8 450 364 LOG W=2.925 LOG L-4.808 1996 13.42 NA 11 551 380 LOG W=2.897 LOG L-4.719 1997 19.21 NA 10 833 350 LOG W=2.982 LOG L-4.960 1998 23.94 NA 12 1047 360 LOG W=2.982 LOG L-4.960 1999 21.17 NA 9 931 350 LOG W=3.016 LOG L-5.050 2000 25.94 NA 11 1099 360 LOG W=2.905 LOG L-4.760 2001 17.43 NA 9 777 370 LOG W=3.039 LOG L-5.101 2002 17.23 NA 9 781 370 LOG W=2.954 LOG L-4.892 2003 20.92 NA 11 878 390 LOG W=3.033 LOG L-5.071 2004 25.63 NA 15 1141 360 LOG W=2.948 LOG L-4.855 2005 12.85 NA 9 562 350 LOG W=2.833 LOG L-4.544 2006 14.38 NA 10 731 370 LOG W=2.772 LOG L-4.375 0t Table 6. Fisheries summary for White bass 1977-2006. ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH CPUE CPUE COMP MEAN YEAR Fish/hr Fish/hr (%) N LENGTH LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 7.76 6.73 19 565 NA LOG W=2.441 LOG L-3.529 1978 7.11 5.67 17 369 NA LOG W=2.956 LOG L-4.813 1979 3.49 3.02 13 217 NA LOG W=3.055 LOG L-5.057 1980 2.48 1.97 9 183 NA LOG W=3.064 LOG L-5.022 1981 30.88 5.39 20 1996 240 LOG W=2.842 LOG L-4.498 1982 28.11 0.07 18 1722 286 LOG W=2.909 LOG L-4.677 1983 17.50 4.52 17 1277 300 LOG W=3.041 LOG L-5.021 1984 13.53 2.89 15 435 304 LOG W=2.571 LOG L-3.840 1985 16.75 1.39 14 768 308 LOG W=2.773 LOG L-4.337 1986 14.23 1.63 18 732 325 LOG W=2.926 LOG L-4.716 1987 9.70 1.44 10 589 321 LOG W=3.027 LOG L-4.958 1988 22.90 NA 20 1009 242 LOG W=2.855 LOG L-4.525 1989 20.00 NA 15 819 266 LOG W=2.945 LOG L-4.765 1990 25.49 NA 16 941 295 LOG W=2.913 LOG L-4.697 1991 24.15 NA 18 886 310 LOG W=2.911 LOG L-4.696 1992 17.36 NA 11 577 338 LOG W=2.967 LOG L-4.829.1993 14.42 NA 12 390 328 LOG W=2.939 LOG L-4.750 1994 10.20 NA 10 360 339 LOG W=2.911 LOG L-4.671 1995 20.16 NA 16 809 267 LOG W=3.026 LOG L-4.975 1996 16.99 NA 14 660 320 LOG W=3.066 LOG L-5.068 1997 28.53 NA 15 1159 300 LOG W=3.054 LOG L-5.038 1998 32.90 NA 16 1314 320 LOG W=3.085 LOG L-5.106 1999 35.91 NA 14 1461 300 LOG W=3.011 LOG L-4.942 2000 39.90 NA 16 1602 320 LOG W=2.963 LOG L-4.830 2001 32.37 NA 17 1436 320 LOG W=2.967 LOG L-4.821 2002 41.69 NA 21 1656 320 LOG W=3.042 LOG L-5.013 2003 31.22 NA 16 1272 330 LOG W=2.977 LOG L-4.829 2004 24.29 NA 14 1011 310 LOG W=3.029 LOG L-4.960 2005 24.21 NA 16 982 330 LOG W=2.947 LOG L-4.742 2006 16.71 NA 12 845 330 LOG W=2.886 LOG L-4.594 Table 7. Fisheries summary for Walleye 1977-2006. YEAR 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ELECTRO TRAPNET CPUE CPUE Fish/hr Fish/hr 1.36 0.37 1.54 0.96 1.57 0.31 1.20 0.13 3.53 0.39 2.96 0.16 1.63 0.21 2.04 0.11 2.64 0.13 1.99 0.15 3.00 0.09 5.80 NA 4.19 NA 2.36 NA 1.44 NA 2.30 NA 2.00 NA 2.11 NA 2.63 NA 2.75 NA 5.63 NA 6.16 NA 7.63 NA 7.72 NA 8.93 NA 9.75 NA 7.18 NA 5.02 NA 2.11 NA 2.77 NA CATCH COMP (%)1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 1 2 N 20 28 34 22 189 135 90 93 119 101 132 234 173 95 52 82 60 74 107 118 248 272 308 325 399 415 304 232 86 147 MEAN LENGTH NA NA NA NA 335 415 432 378 413 404 386 450 408 420 477 403 465 439 333 360 400 420 440 460 400 390 450 440 510 510 LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION LOG W=3.137 LOG L-5.377 LOG W=3.056 LOG L-5.197 LOG W=3.225 LOG L-5.640 LOG W=3.250 LOG L-5.693 LOG W=3.082 LOG L-5.240 LOG W=3.097 LOG L-5.293 LOG W=3.095 LOG L-5.295 LOG W=2.852 LOG L-4.615 LOG W=3.159 LOG L-5.461 LOG W=3.085 LOG L-5.269 LOG W=3.151 LOG L-5.446 LOG W=3.103 LOG L-5.272 LOG W=3.140 LOG L-5.379 LOG W=3.214 LOG L-5.594 LOG W=3.318 LOG L-5.870 LOG W=3.257 LOG L-5.727 LOG W=3.001 LOG L-5.020 LOG W=3.261 LOG L-5.720 LOG W=3.208 LOG L-5.586 LOG W=3.159 LOG L-5.467 LOG W=3.215 LOG L-5.617 LOG W=3.148 LOG L-5.440 LOG W=3.238 LOG L-5.690 LOG W=3.250 LOG L-5.717 LOG W=3.296 LOG L-5.837 LOG W=3.257 LOG L-5.744 LOG W=3.253 LOG L-5.726 LOG W=3.175 LOG L-5.494 LOG W=3.225 LOG L-5.633 LOG W=3.352 LOG L-5.964 Table 8. Fisheries summary for Sauger 1977-2006. ELECTRO TRAPNET CATCH CPUE CPUE COMP MEAN YEAR Fish/hr Fish/hr (%) N LENGTH LENGTH WEIGHT REGRESSION 1977 0.77 0.40 1 20 NA LOG W=2.984 LOG L-4.9911 1978 2.43 0.38 2 38 NA LOG W=3.100 LOG L-5.354 1979 1.57 0.30 2 24 NA LOG W=3.009 LOG L-5.158!1980 1.79 0.17 2 16 NA LOG W=3.169 LOG L-5.509, 1981 7.28 0.29 4 NA NA NA 1982 7.50 0.17 4 329 256 LOG W=2.864 LOG L-4.773 1983 3.80 0.25 3 188 285 LOG W=3.013 LOG L-5.144 1984 4.07 0.19 3 182 262 LOG W=2.648 LOG L-4.202 1985 4.57 0.21 4 199 283 LOG W=2.996 LOG L-5.019 1986 3.29 0.24 4 178 294 LOG W=3.336 LOG L-5.936 1987 4.94 0.12 2 114 262 LOG W=3.177 LOG L-5.556'1988 2.10 NA 2 79 236 LOG W=2.683 LOG L-4.285'1989 2.70 NA 2 104 237 LOG W=3.208 LOG L-5.639;1990 2.29 NA 2 92 291 LOG W=3.070 LOG L-5.277 1991 3.07 *NA 2 117 308 LOG W=3.155 LOG L-5.507 1992 5.24 NA 4 196 297 LOG W=3.029 LOG L-5.191 1993 5.71 NA 5 168 262 LOG W=2.950 LOG L-4.976 1994 4.16 NA 4 145 280 LOG W=3.153 LOG L-5.484 1995 5.80 NA 5 233 243 LOG W=3.090 LOG L-5.369 1996 5.41 NA 5 228 270 LOG W=3.142 LOG L-5.475'1997 9.99 NA 5 437 270 LOG W=3.065 LOG L-5.294,1 1998 9.57 NA 5 386 250 LOG W=3.190 LOG L-5.596: 1999 18.26 NA 7 756 260 LOG W=3.262 LOG L-5.788 2000 9.81 NA 4 435 280 LOG W=3.306 LOG L-5.892 2001 6.47 NA 3 308 310 LOG W=3.356 LOG L-6.015 2002 7.50 NA 4 329 280 LOG W=3.350 LOG L-6.018 2003 5.86 NA 3 247 300 LOG W=3.281 LOG L-5.842 2004 7.75 NA 4 333 270, LOG W=3.232 LOG L-5.678 2005 5.20 NA 3 233 290 LOG W=3.163 LOG L-5.505 2006 2.98 NA 2 163 280 LOG W=3.042 LOG L-5.203 F Table 9. Smallmouth and largemouth bass electrofishing CPUE (fishfhr) and rank, 1981-2006. r Smallmouth Bass Year CPUE Rank Largemouth Bass CPUE Rank 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 4.65 3.72 2.17 2.19 1.56 0.85 2.94 5.72 13.52 16.44 11.03 9.61 5.80 3.83 5.81 7.31 13.23 15.01 13.51 17.02 13.01 15.91 15.59 16.15 9.77 13.39 9 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 4 5 5 5 6 7 5 5 5 5 7 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 0.58 0.41 0.80 1.16 0.54 0.21 0.61 4.06 3.40 2.39 1.87 2.50 1.10 0.65 1.93 2.08 2.10 2.75 3.71 4.67 5.21 6.14 5.09 4.73 1.22 8.57 20 18 11 11 15 20 16 9 10 9 11 11 14 15 12 10 15 14 13 11 11 11 11 10 17 7 Table 10. Species composition expressed as % of total annual catches for PINGP fisheries studies, electrofishing and trapnetting combined for 1981-1987, and electrofishing only for 1988 through 2006.Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988*1989*1990*1991 *1992*1993*1994*1995*1996*1997*1998*1999*2000*2001 *2002*2003*2004*2005*2006*Carp 17 23 18 26 20 21 27 23 20 20 24 26 28 34 30 34 29 23 17 16 15 14 13 14 14 16 White bass 20 18 17 15 14 18 10 20 15 16 18 12 12 10 16 14 15 16 14 16 17 21 16 14 16 12 Freshwater Drum 12 24 22 20 31 22 16 8 11 13 12 11 18 14 12 8 10 11 17 8 15 12 19 12 22 11 Sauger 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 7 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 Black Crappie 15 9 16 12 9 9-11 3 1<1 1 1<1<1 1 2 1 2.3 2 2 2 1 1<1 3 Shorthead Redhorse 7 7 6 7 7 8 12 13 17 14 11 14 10 14 8 11 10 12 9 11 9 9 11 15 9 10 Walleye 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 I 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 1"2" Gizzard Shad 9 3 2 1 1<1 1 3<1 3 4 2 2<1 4.<1<1 12 17 6 7 5 10 9 5 Total %86 89 85 86 87 84 81 77 70 69 73 72 76 78 78 76 73 74 82 77 72 74 72 73 74 61*Electrofishing only 4}}