ML071440377

Wolf Creek, Response 12 to Environmental Report - References of NRC Request for Additional Information Re License Renewal Application

ML071440377
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Garrett T J Wolf Creek
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ET 07-0015
Download: ML071440377 (9)

Text

Copyrighted Material Protect accordingly 12 Haines, D. E. 2000. "Biological control of gizzard shad impingement at a nuclear power plant." Environmental Science & Policy 3: $275-$281.

A 03 E 2 0 Environmental Science & Policy ELSEVIER Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S275-S281 www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Biological control of gizzard shad impingement at a nuclear power plant Dan E. Haines*Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, 1550 Oxen Lane, Burlington, KS 66839, USA Abstract Biological control of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) using predator fish species was managed to reduce impingement on cooling water intake screens at Coffey County Lake (CCL), Kansas. Long term shad and predator proportional stock densities (PSD) and body conditions (Wr) were used to characterize this fishery. Comparisons were completed between the lake's primary productivity (mg/m 3 chlorophyll-a), catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of young-of-year (YOY) and adult gizzard shad, and body conditions of predator species. No relationships were found between the lake's productivity and gizzard shad densities indicating that other mechanisms control shad numbers, likely predation.

Body conditions of the prevalent predator species in CCL were positively compared with the previous year's production during a short-lived increase in shad densities.

It is well documented that shad are an important food source for most predator species present in the lake. It is believed that the predator species present played a significant role in reducing YOY shad densities each year. Body conditions of predators did not indicate a surplus of a primary prey species. High shad growth rates and PSD indices promote survival of sufficient shad to adults, thus making this fishery nearly self-sustaining, and beneficial for plant operation.

© 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords:

Gizzard shad; Cooling lake; Impingement; Fishery; Predation; Biological control 1. Introduction Excessive fish impingement on intake screens can cause costly equipment damage and power production delays. In the mid-west, gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepe-dianum) can produce large numbers of young and typically reach high densities in impoundments (Pflie-ger, 1975; Willis and Jones, 1986; Dettmers and Stein, 1991). Gizzard shad, especially the young-of-year (YOY), are susceptible to winter mortality, usually as water temperatures fall below approximately 4VC (38'F) (Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), 1985;Willis, 1987; Jester and Jensen, 1972). Impingement problems on power plant intake screens develop because these shad cannot avoid intake flows during* Tel.: + 1-316-364-8831, ext. 4672; fax: + 1-316-364-4154.

E-mail address: dahaine@wcnoc.com (D.E. Haines).such natural winter die-offs (Olmstead and Clugston, 1986; White et al., 1986).Gizzard shad is also an important forage species in most reservoirs (Pflieger, 1975; Carlander, 1969; Stein and Johnson, 1987; Colvin, 1993). Some predator in-fluences have been documented (Dettmers and Stein, 1991), but typically shad have not been controlled by predation (Putman and DeVries, 1994). It would be an obvious advantage in a power plant cooling lake to have predator species reduce gizzard shad YOY abun-dance to densities low enough to prevent excessive impingement on intake screens, on an annual basis. In addition, adverse environmental, public relation, and regulatory impacts associated with large impingement events could also be avoided.In 1977, early during the construction of CCL, it was expected that gizzard shad could not be excluded from, and would flourish in the lake. Consequently, an aggressive stocking program was completed, with the goal of limiting winter survival of YOY gizzard shad.1462-9011/00/$

-see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.P11: S1462-901 1(00)00067-8 S276 D.E. Haines / Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S275-S281 Using management techniques not uncommon for lakes managed for sport fishing, a fishery was estab-lished with a diversity of predators.

Angler harvest was not a factor initially as no fishing was allowed.The fishery's ability to eliminate gizzard shad impin-gement events depends to a large degree on the inter-actions between the array of predator and prey species. Typical prey species tend to produce a large number of young each year. Characteristics of an annually cropped prey population, such as in CCL, would be a high relative percentage of larger, older in-dividuals, fast growth of YOY, and good health of in-dividuals.

Recruitment would also be low, which would limit the ability of the population to produce the number of YOY needed to support the predators (Eichner and Ellison, 1983). Characteristics of predator populations in a low-prey fishery would include low recruitment due to predation or cannibalism, large per-centages of older individuals, and poor health of adults.2. Study area Coffey County Lake was constructed to provide once-through cooling water for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), an 1150 Mw, single unit nuclear power plant in east-central Kansas (Fig. 1). The lake first reached full pool in 1982, is 2060 ha (5090 acres), and has an average depth of 6.5 m (21.5 ft). It impounds an intermittent stream with a small drainage of 5050 ha (19.5 square miles). The lake was initially filled, and subsequently maintained, via makeup water pumping from the nearby Neosho River. Two rip-rapped dikes totaling 3.6 km (2.25 miles) in length serve to disperse water flows to maximize cooling effi-ciency. WCGS cooling water is pumped at a rate of approximately 2006 m 3 (530,000 gpm) through self-cleaning rotating screens.2.1. Fishery establishment The fishery was initially established with a stocking program funded and completed by the utility, with technical advice from the Kansas Department of Wild-life and Parks (KDWP). The goal was to establish a predator population with as much species diversity as possible.

Prior to lake filling, basin preparation included comprehensive removal, of undesirable fish species from ponds and. pool areas of Wolf Creek. Fol-lowing renovation, and prior to inundation, selected ponds within the basin were stocked with fathead min-nows (Pimephales promelas) for initial forage, then with predator species selected for shad control benefits.These primarily included largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), walleye (Stizoste-dion viireum), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and hybrid striped bass (wipers, M. saxatilis x M. chry-sops). The objectives of the basin stockings were to provide adults capable of spawning as the lake filled.Presence of adult predators in the young fishery also would reduce the production of initial large year classes of undesirable, rough-fish species. Predator stockings during and shortly after lake fill were com-pleted to bolster year class strength and maintain pre-dator species diversity.

Gizzard shad larvae were unavoidably introduced to the lake from the Neosho River when water was pumped to fill the lake. White bass (M. chrysops) and white crappie (P. annularis) were likely introduced in this way. These two species added to the diversity of the predator populations.

3. Methods The methods employed from 1983 to 1998 allowed for continued analyses of important long term trends.Trap (Fyke) netting, electrofishing, and gill netting were used at long-term sites on CCL (Fig. 1). Four I Fig. I. Coffey County Lake, Kansas with fishery sampling areas identified.

G E 0 G3 0 0 5 D.E. Haines/ Environmental Science primary lake locations were consistent from year to year and chosen to sample the upstream, main-body, plant cooling water intake, and the plant discharge areas. Important species to the fishery were targeted when they were expected to be most efficiently sampled.Two Fyke nets were set at each location during two nights for a total of four net-nights per location per year. Locations included the upper and main body during 1983, with the intake area being added during 1984, and the discharge area in 1986. These nets were set near shore in 4-6 ft of water as spring-time water temperatures approached 12'C (55°F), usually during early April of each year. Fyke nets targeted primarily crappie and walleye. Important information was also provided about the winter survival and recruitment of the previous year's gizzard shad production.

The CPUE was calculated as the number of fish of a tar-geted species per trap net-night.

A Smith-Root boat mounted shocker with circular electrode arrays, operated at approximately 10 A and 220 V of pulsed DC current, was used for electrofish-ing samples. Four efforts each year, two in the spring (May-June), and two in the autumn (September-Octo-ber) were completed.

Locations included the upper and main body during 1983, with the intake area added during 1984, and the discharge area in 1986. Two 15 min (energized time) subsamples at each location were shocked each time. This gear type targeted large-mouth bass and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) in the spring. Fall shocking targeted smallmouth bass, and provided indications on shad YOY production.

Elec-trofishing efforts were also completed during other months at the same locations during some years to provide YOY gizzard shad data. Electrofishing CPUE was calculated as the number of fish per hour shocked.Gill netting was an extensive, two night effort in October of each year. Locations included the upper, main body, and intake areas during 1983, with the dis-charge area being added during 1986. The gill nets were used to sample white bass, wiper, walleye, and gizzard shad. One gill net complement was set at lo-cations consistent over the years during two consecu-tive nights for a total of eight complement net-nights each year. A standard gill-net complement included four nets, one each of 25.4, 38.1, 63.5, and 101.6 mm mesh (bar measure).

Each was a 30.5 x 2.4 m uniform mesh monofilament net. The CPUE was calculated as the number of a species sampled per standard comp-lement night.Seine hauls were completed monthly (June-August) from 1983 to 1993. From 1994 to 1997, only June and July samples were taken. Effort consisted of two hauls per location per month from 1983 to 1984. Five hauls per location per month were completed from 1985 to 1997 (Fig. 1). The upper and main body locations& Policy 3 (2000) S27S-S281 S277 were sampled since 1983, while the intake area was included since 1984. The discharge area was sampled beginning in 1985 and ending in 1996. Seine dimen-sions were 15.2 x 1.8 m, with a 1.8 x 1.8 m bag. A seine haul consisted of one 90' arc along the shoreline.

The CPUE was reported as the number of fish per seine haul.Fish sampled were weighed to the nearest gram, and measured (total length (TL)) to the nearest millimeter.

Secchi depth measurements were taken concurrent with most fishery sampling efforts. Proportional stock density (PSD, Anderson, 1976) was calculated for all species. PSD is the proportion of a sample that are lar-ger than a predetermined length. Fish smaller than a minimum size are excluded.

Relative weight (Wr, Anderson, 1980) indices were calculated for each species and used to assess the health of a species rela-tive to its capability in this region. Length-weight equations for Wr adopted by the KDWP were used.Gill net efficiency adjustments to the PSD indices were completed for gizzard shad, white bass, and walleye (Willis et al., 1985).Primary productivity expressed as chlorophyll a con-centrations (mg/im 3) were determined for upper, main body, and intake areas of CCL roughly corresponding to fishery sampling locations (Fig. 1). Chlorophyll a values were corrected for phaeophytin, and determined using flourometric methods per American Public Health Association et al. (1981). Secchi depth measure-ments were taken concurrent with most chlorophyll a samples. Pearson correlation coefficients were calcu-lated to determine relationships between chlorophyll a, CPUE, and Wr. Paired student's t-tests were used to test significance at p < 0.05.4. Results and discussion

4.1. Influence

on and control of gizzard shad YO Y densities Gizzard shad production of YOY were measured using mid-summer seine efforts throughout 1997 (Fig. 2). Results from these efforts were highly vari-able, which is inherent to this gear type (Ploskey et al., 1990). This variability from CCL in itself indicates low densities because sampling the sparse schools of shad created a 'hit or miss' result. Despite the variability, the results provide an approximation of YOY shad production trends and were of value in some of the comparisons.

To ensure that the survival of YOY shad was not limited by lake productivity, shad densities were compared with secchi depth measurements.

Secchi depths were used as indices of primary productivity of CCL. To confirm this relationship for CCL, sec-S278 D.E. Haines/ Environmenial Science & Policy 3 (2000) S275-S281 chi depth measurements taken concurrent with chlorophyll a (mg/mr 3) monitoring were compared.This relationship was significant (r = -0.71, n = 24, p<0.05). Therefore, secchi depths were reflective of CCL primary productivity, and could be used in place of chlorophyll a measurements.

A similar relationship was identified for some Missouri reservoirs (Michaletz, 1999).To determine if YOY shad densities were influ-enced by CCL productivity, secchi depths measured concurrent with seine efforts were compared with YOY shad catches per seine haul. These compari-sons were segregated by lake location and month.No significant relationships were found between any of the comparisons.

This indicates that gizzard shad in CCL have not been limited by lake productivity, and have been limited by other limiting factors, likely by predation.

Predation influences on shad YOY densities were tested by comparing the predator Wr indices (Table 1)with the previous year's YOY CPUE from seine efforts. Only data from 1993 to 1997 were used to bracket the largest rise and fall of YOY shad densities (Fig. 2). Largemouth bass data were not analyzed because too few specimens were collected to obtain a confident Wr average. Significant relationships (p<0.05) were identified for white bass (r=0.92), wiper hybrid (r = 0.83), smallmouth bass (r = 0.72), white crappie (r = 0.97), and walleye (r = 0.79). This is evidence demonstrating that predator species respond to larger increases and subsequent decreases in shad.YOY densities.

Such relationships were not as evident for the other years sampled. It is possible that other prey species, or cannibalism were relied upon during periods of low shad production, and predator Wr may reflect variations in those prey sources.4.2. Long term maintenance via recruitment The long term maintenance of the predator-prey balance of this fishery depends on the continued recruitment of sufficient gizzard shad, as stated above.In CCL, shad survival to reproducing adults may have depended on how quickly they were able to grow too large to be eaten. Typically, gizzard shad grow quickly to sizes large enough to escape significant predation, and this has been considered a detriment to sport fish management (Putman and DeVries, 1994). However, this was not considered detrimental in CCL, but rather beneficial to maintaining low shad densities vulnerable to impingement.

There were inferences that many of the reproducing sized shad were recruited from the fas-ter growing YOY identified in scale age analyses.Many of the larger fish sampled in 1998 had back-cal-culated first-year growth from 200 to 230 mm (Table 2). Because of the heated water discharge, past monitoring has shown that these larger, first-year shad were likely spawned earlier in the year, and their growth was enhanced by a longer growing season (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982). The first year-growth shown in Table 2 also implies that few of the smaller (90-150 mm TL) YOY shad survived to recruit to reproducing size, and heavy predation was a likely cause. Once the larger YOY grew large enough to escape the majority of CCL predators, consumption of the smaller shad should have intensified from late summer to early autumn. Apparently, the faster grow-ing shad were the ones that successfully recruited, and comprised the majority of the reproducing sized adults that support the predator.

populations.

Without the thermal discharge influences, length frequency distri-butions of YOY shad would likely be more com-pressed, similar to other area lakes (Willis 1987).Gizzard Shad Catch-Per-Unit-Effort for Coffey County Lake 2 50 a, z 45 E040 E 0 35 Adult shad YOYshed -* ~h4 I I/-I 70 50 S 40 20 10 0 3 Owl-N C') U)8~ 8i 8~ a, a, Fig. 2. Gizzard shad catch-per-unit-effort for adults from standard gill net complements and young-of-year from seine efforts at Coffey County Lake, Kansas.

Table I Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), proportional stock density (PSD), and condition indices (Wr) for gizzard shad and predator fishes sampled from 1983 to 1998 at Coffey County Lake Species 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Gizzard shad'CPUE PSD Wr White bass'CPUE PSD Wr Wiper hybrid*CPUE PSD Wr Largemouth bassb CPUE PSD Wr Smallmouth bass'CPUE PSD Wr White crappied CPUE PSD Wr Walleye'CPUE PSD Wr 10.5 24.8 9 24 85 87 3.0 32.1 9.7 12.3 20.5 10.1 16.6 21.3 11.5 9.5 25.5 10.4 20.1 18.9 31 84 92 96 97 100 92 93 98 51 75 96 94 99 88 85 89 90 104 100 93 93 93 93 88 89 89 81 23 18 6 25 18 28 17 34 45 17 52 61 29 19 60 45 '100 94 100 34 92 74 82 35 63 82 43 85 76 58 46 61 78 94 89 86 93 94 95 99 93 92 94 90 97 106 97 90 15 II 22 14 21 26 23 12 22 9 8 11 II 3 8 6 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 96 100 100 100 100 85 30 88 89 90 86 78 84 89 85 80 82 78 88 88 75 88 100 89 83 32.0 42.3 45.3 35.4 18.8 22.0 32.3 14.0 5.5 8.3 5.0 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.3 1.5 " 41 76 92 91 93 92 99 97 100 82 85 88 100 100 60 50 97 98 97 93 88 92 87 84 79 84 80 75 89 57 90 91 6.5 5.0 5.3 1.3 8.5 10.5 14.8 12.0 20.5 10.8 15.0 12.5 6.3 10.8 5.5 10.5 ': 50 67 33 80 55 29 37 40 61 40 44 40 52 58 50 52 96 99 95 93 97 92 92 104 91 91 91 86 90 100 81 86 0 6 5 5 12 9 4 5 4 6 5 4 5 9 4 3-94 20 52 68 85 60 70 87 63 75 41 87 72 71 74-93 94 93 89 102 88 98 99 95 87 97 105 104 99 95 CI 4 29 26 9 16 19 22 13 19 22 12 13 16 20 28 16 29 75 75 74 100 95 94 96 77 93 90 52 83 73 31 55 78 82 83 81 80 81 88 85 86 86 85 85 85 94 88 76' Data from fall gill netting, CPUE=-/gill net complement net night.b Data from spring electrofishing, CPUE = //h.o Data from fall electrofishing, CPUE I-/h.d Data from spring Fyke netting, CPUE- I/trap net night.rd~-J'.0 S280 D.E. Haines / Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S275-S281 Table 2 Gizzard shad back-calculated lengths from scale samples collected during October, 1998 at Coffey County Lake. Final entries for each year class represents total length at capture. Size at scale formation assumed at 30 mm Year class Total length at annulus formation 1 2 3 4 5 6 1993 (n = 5)Average 257 346 378 400 430 450 Range 234-297 317-371 352-398 386-421 414-445 428-463 1994 (n = 10)Average 226 337 385 416 437 Range 151-317 279-374 351-407 394-407 415-455 1995 (n = 14)Average 222 353 390 414 Range 120-329 274-397 302-424 310-448 1996 (n = 16)Average 196 297 327 Range 82-275 246-337 296-358 1997 (n = 2)Average 132 189 Range 115-148 184-194 Consequently, the power plant discharges contribute to both the recruitment of the faster growing YOY, and the annual consumption of YOY shad vulnerable to impingement.

5. Conclusions The dynamics of the CCL fishery demonstrate that impingement can be biologically controlled in certain instances.

Impacts from the intake of cooling water, both to impinged fish and to plant operating efficiency can be reduced. Fishery management techniques can be used to promote predator prey balances that enhance the compatibility of cooling lakes for power plants and a sustainable fishery.References American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, 1981. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th ed.APHA, Washington.

Anderson, R.O., 1976. Management of small warm water impound-ments. Fisheries 1(6), 5-7, 26-28.Anderson, R.O., 1980. Proportional Stock Density (PSD) and Relative Weight (Wr): Interpretive Indices for Fish Populations and Communities.

In: Gloss, S., Shupp, B. (Eds.) Practical Fisheries Management:

More With Less in the 1980's. New York Chap., American Fisheries Society, Workshop Proceedings, pp.27-33.Carlander, K.D., 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fisheries Biology, vol. I. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Colvin, M., 1993. Ecology and Management of White Bass: a Literature Review. Missouri Department of Conservation, Dingell-Johnson Project F-I-R-42, Study 1-31, Job I, Final Report.Dettmers, J.M., Stein, R.A., 1991. Controlling Gizzard Shad Populations via Introduced Predators.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Project F-57 and F-69, Study 19, 185 pp.Eichner, D., Ellison, D.G., 1983. Lake McConaughy Fishery Investigations.

Study VI. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Fisheries Division.

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Dingell-Johnson Project F-51-R-5, 66 pp.Jester, D.B., Jensen, B.L., 1972. Life History and Ecology of the Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma cepedianun (LeSueur)

With Reference to Elephant Butte Lake. New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 218.Michaletz, P.H., 1999. Influence of reservoir productivity and juven-ile density on first-year growth of gizzard shad. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19, 842-847.Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), 1985. Gerald Gentleman Station Impact Assessment of the 1984 Year-class, Sutherland Reservoir.

Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. EA Report NPP52G.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG-0878.

Washington, DC.Olmstead, L.L., Clugston, J.P., 1986. Fishery management in cooling impoundments.

In: Hall, G., Van Den Avyle, M. (Eds.), Reservoir Fisheries Management, Strategies for the 80's.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, p. 327.Pflieger, W.L., 1975. The Fishes of Missouri.

Missouri Department of Conservation.

Ploskey, G.R., Stephen, J.L., Gablehouse Jr, D.W., 1990. Evaluation of Summer Seining in Kansas Reservoirs.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44, 76-88.Putman, J.H., DeVries, D.R., 1994. The Influences of Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) on Survival and Growth of Largemouth Bass (Micropierus solmoides), Bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus), and White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis).

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Investigation of Management Techniques for Public Waters, Study XIV. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-40-R, Study XIV.I

'.4.E 0 0 3'I 0 0 S D.E. Haines / Environmental Science Stein, R.A., Johnson, B.M., 1987. Predicting Carrying Capacities and Yields of Top Predators in Ohio Impoundments.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-57-R-5 through R-9, Study 12, 144 pp.White, A.M., Moore, F.D., Alldridge, N.A., Loucks, D.M., 1986.The Effects of Natural Winter Stresses on the Mortality of the Eastern Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, in Lake Erie. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Environmental Resource Associates, Inc. and John Carrol University.

Report 78. 208 pp.Willis, D.W., 1987. Reproduction and recruitment of gizzard shad in.Kansas reservoirs.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7, 71-80.Willis, D.W., Jones, L.D., 1986. Fish standing crops in wooded and& Policy 3 (2000) S275-S281 S281 nonwooded coves of Kansas reservoirs.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6, 393-425.Willis, D.W., McCloskey, K.D., Gablehouse Jr, D.W., 1985.Calculation of stock density indices based on adjustments for gill net mesh size efficiency.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5, 126-137.Dan E. Haines received a BSc degree from Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas and a MSc degree from Emporia State University in Environmental Biology. He has been employed as an Environmen-tal Biologist at Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation since 1983. Responsibilities include natural resource and fishery manage-ment of the cooling lake to support operation of the electric generat-ing plant.b