ML19305D701

Proposed Revisions to Preoperational Environ Surveillance Program.

ML19305D701
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/11/1980
From:	LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19305D698	List: ML19305D697 ML19305D701
References
NUDOCS 8004150424
Download: ML19305D701 (78)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _.

O' LOUISIANA POWER 4 LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES - UNIT NO. 3 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PREOPERATIONAL l ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM I

l I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this analysis is to review the results of the existing monitoring program and to present the ratienale for proposed revisions which improve the preoperational field program. This program is ,

monitoring baseline biological conditions in the Mississippi River for the Louisiana Power & Light Company's(LP&L) - Wate: ford SES-Unit No 3 .

The present program is operated in. accordance with the provisions of the Construction Permit (Docket No 50-382) and Supplement No. 6 of the l

Waterford 3 - Construction Phase Environmental Report (CPER). These revisions are based on the results and the experience obtained from previous monitoring surveys , as well as the overall goals .of the forthcoming environmental baseline monitoring program. The l preoperational field monitoring programs discussed in this proposal include the Biological Field Program and the Water Quality Field Program portions of the Biological and Chemical Surveillance Program.  ;

In Supplement No. 6 of the Waterford 3 CPER, a detailed listing of preoperational environmental monitoring specifications is presented.

According to these specifications, LP&L is required to perform an intensive monthly aquatic ecology monitoring program for the year immediately preceding the unit fuel load date. These revisions apply to  !

this monthly program which is presently anticipated to commence in the i

spring of 1980.

l In light of the knowledge and expertence gained from previous monthly and  !

i l seasonal sampling surveys of the Mississippt conducted by LP&L in the  ;

vicinity of Waterford 3 from 1973 to 1979, it is appropriate, prior to the initiation of the intensive program, to review these technical l LJ2 Y '

8 00415 0 I .jp ,  ;

1

specifications for the purpose of optimizing the utility of the data which can be obtained from the forthcoming program. Since it is the objective of this program to obtain data which will most accurately define the baseline conditions of the aquatic ecology of the river at Waterford 3, the proposed program described herein, and detailed in Attachment A, emphasizes those areas of the Mississippi River aquatic ecology which the analyses of the previous program have identified as being significant and reduces the emphasis on those portions of the program concerned with monitoring minor constituents of the river aquatic ecology.

The discussion which follows presents (1) a summary of the aquatic ecology of the river in the vicinity of Waterford 3, (2) the experience gained from sampling the Mississippi River, and (3) proposed program t improvements based on (1) and (2). This summary provides the basis for LP&L's recommendations to improve the sampling procedures and thereby maximize the ef fectiveness of the effort.

f II DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM l

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The aquatic ecology portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program was initiated in 1973 and has basically paralleled the survey schedule outlined in the CPER. However, since there was a change in the fuel load date for Waterford 3, the final year of preoperational monitoring is now Attachment B presents the scheduled for 1980-1981 rather than 1977-1978.

portion of Supplement No. 6 of the CPER which outlines the schedule and scope of these programs. It should be noted that the nomenclature used to describe the program has changed with the publication of the Waterford ,

3 - Operating License Stage Environmental Report (OLER)(1)In order 1

to distinguish between the aquatic ecology and the terrestrial ecology l f

portions of the Biological and Chemical Surveillance Program (as noted in t

the CPER), these programs are now designated as the aquatic ecology monitoring program and the terrestrial ecology monitoring program portions of the Environmental Surveillance Program.

l i

l i

l

2. RATIONALE FOR REVISING THE MONTHLY SAMPLING PROGRAM 1

.The purpose of the Waterford 3 aquatic ecology monitoring program is to obtain data to characterize the aquatic ecology of the Mississippi River '

in the vicinity of Waterford, in order to develop predictions of the potential environmental impacts associated with the operation of Waterford 3. A quantitative discussion of this data and these potential  ;

impacts is presented in the OLER, the 316(a)( } and the 316(b)( }

Demons tra tions. Sampling surveys to obtain this information have been conducted since 1973.' The survey frequency has basically been seasonal with the exception of one year of monthly surveys (October 1975 to September 1976).

Prior to the initiation of this intensive monthly sampling program, it is appropriate to evaluate the present program to determine the effectiveness of each sampling procedure in acquiring the desired information and if indicated, to propose certain revisions. The rationale for proposing these revisions is the improvement of the program ,

by obtaining more representative and. meaningful data. The basis for these revisions is the experience gained from sampling in the Mississippi ;

River and the analysis of impact potentials on the aquatic communities i monitored. The revisions result in the following improvements to the  !

pro gram: ,

a) Modify sampling techniques and replications to reduce the large  !

variabilities and/or redundancy in measurements presently being made; i b) More effectively observe natural seasonal trends; c) Adjust sampling frequencies to be commensurate with the probable level of impact expected; and d) Incorporate improved sampling techniques which are more suitable for the physical conditions of the Mississippi River.

I l

l l

l

( _

l l

l l

3. SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND IDCATIONS The sampling frequency is to be monthly with the exception of ichthyoplankton and benthos. Ichthyoplankton will be measured on a bi-monthly basis during their peak density period (April through June) and monthly thereaf ter (July to September) while benthos will be sampled '

seasonally (see Section 4.c). l Figure 1 presents the locations of the present sampling stations. As shown on this figure, there are three upstream stations and two downstream stations, relative to the location of Waterford 3. The three upstream stations are Ac, At and Sc. Stations At and Ac are both located in a relatively low current, shallow and soft-bottom habitat. Station Ac is located upstream of Waterford 1 and 2 in a backwater area and it is not expected to be directly affected by thermal discharges of Waterford 1 and 2 or Waterford 3. Therefore, this station is designated as a control for this habitat type. Station At is located immediately upstream of Waterford 1 and 2 in a low velocity back eddy current. The purpose of monitoring at this station is to determine the effects of the heated discharge on aquatic biota. Station Be is located upstream of the Little Gypsy SES in a habitat characterized by deep, fast-current water. This station is intended to be a control station for this habitat type.

! The analysis of the data obtained from these three stations has failed to ,

identify significant differences in the kinds and numbers of organisms l i

l sampled at these stations. In fact, the discussion which follows i des cribes the distribution of aquatic communities measured in the vicinity of Waterford as homogeneous. That is, it can be concluded that j there are essentially no differences in the kinds and amounts of organisms which have been measured at all the upstream stations.

l Therefore, monitoring at stations Ac, At and Be yields basically the same data from three separate trials. Thus, the proposed program deletes ,

l future monitoring at stations Ac and At and maintains sampling at station ,

Be for reasons which are presented below.

i The proposed program incorporates six additional sampling stations.

These six stations are oriented with the three former stations (Bc, j

Bc, Bel) so that three transects across the width of the river are formed (i.e. upstream transect, near field transect and a far field transect).  ;

Figure 2 shows the approximate location of each monitoring station {

relative to Waterford 3. Furthermore, the proposed program simplifies ,

the nomenclature by designating stations along each transect by the same  ;

ciphabetical not-2 tion. Stations located on the same transect are  ;

differentiated by assigning sequential numerical subscripts (e.g. Io, X1, X2 and Yo, Yl, Y2). As indicated on Figure 2, the new stations i designated as Xo, Yo and Zo correspond to old stations Bc, Bt and Bel, respectively. Figure 2 also shows the relative locations of deleted stations At and Ac. i Monitoring river transacts improves the program by obtaining information l which allows for more meaningful statistical analysis of intake and  !

discharge effects relative to the aquatic communities studied. Although j the former station locations are representative of the habitats available within the river, they fail to provide data on the cross-sectional  !

distributions along a single transect. Therefore, the proposed station alignment improves the program by enabling analysis of aquatic habitat distributions across a discrete river transect. Furthermore, since it l has been concluded that equivalent data can be obtained from stations Ac.

At and Bc, (CPER designations) and since station Be (new designation is l Ko) has the advantage of being located on a river transect, the proposed  !

program deletes monitoring at stations Ac and At and continues monitoring i at Bc.

i i

4.

PROPOSED REVISIONS i

1 This section presents on a community basis, the proposed revisions to the sampling program for each aquatic ecology community sampled. Included j cre highlights of the data analysis performed and a description of the relative importance of the particular community along with a brief summary l l of the present sampling technique. A more complete description of the river aquatic ecology and water quality is presented in the OLER, the 316 (a) and the 316 (b) Demonstrations. The discussion which follows is l divided into the principal aquatic ecology categories which have been studied in this program. These categories are: ]

l l

~5- l l

I

. t l

l Algae {

Zooplankton I

Benthos 1 Fish l Water Quality i

, s. Algae

i. Conununity Description i t

i i

In the lower Mississippi River, turbidity, turbulence and suspended l solids limit the productivity of the primary producers (e.g. ,  !

I phytoplankton). High river suspended solids concentrations (100 mg/l is j exceeded over 90% of the time) and turbidity limit light penetration to i very shallow depths. Also, shallow areas of suitable substrate for benthic (attached) algae production are unconunon. Therefore, production j of "tychoplankton", or algae which find their way into the plankton  !

community by sloughing of f of various substrates on which they grow, is limited. The system may be considered a detrical-based one, typical of }

1arge, commercially-traveled rivers such as the Mississippi. Recent {

es tier tes of primary productivity suggest that the Missitsippi River in j the vicinity of Waterford is less productive than other rivers which have l been studied and substantially less productive than most lakes ( ).

l During the period 1973 through 1976, phytoplankton densities measured in l the Environmental Surveillance Program ranged from 24.6 to 1,446.8 cells /cm3 in the Mississippi River. The mean (average) and median 3

(50th percentile) densities were 260 and 150 c.11,/em ,

respectively(1) These densities can be compared to those found in

. j lakes, where phytoplankton usually occur in much higher densities and i consequently are a more significant contribution to the food web than in rivers. For example, phytoplankton densities typically range from 500-8000 cells /cm3 in some lakes which have been studied (4,5) ,

Furthermore , the densities of blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) as measured in the aquatic monitoring program, have never exceeded eight percent of )

l the total phytoplankton community. Cyanophyta comprise many of the algal nuisance species.

It is estimated that an organism entrained into the Waterford 1 and 2 plume and then traveling through the Waterford 3 plume to the 2 C AT I

isotherm would be subject to excess temperatures above 2 C (3.6 F) for approximately one hour, on the average. The duration of this exposure at these temperatures is not expected to cause any change to the phytoplankton community, nor is it expected to cause a shif t in the i abundance of nuisance species.

In summary, the algal community should be considered one of low potential impact with respect to the operation of Waterford 3 because:

1. There is little likelihood that the discharge will alter the indigenous community from a detrital to an algal based system;

2. Appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous population is not  !

likely to occur as a result of phytoplankton community changes

. t caused by the heated discharge; and l t

I

3. A shift towards nuisance species of phytoplankton is not likely ;

to occur; .

ii. Present Monitoring Program Methods and Materials {

The present program for monitoring the algal community consists of l analyzing whole water grab samples for determining algal densities in the water column; analyzing whole water grab samples for algal productivity (using both iln vivo and in vitro incubations); and analyzing shallow water sediments for benthic and attached algae densities. Each parameter is sampled at all five stations. .

The present procedures, which measure phytoplankton densities and i

productivity via whole water grab samples, do not yield precise j i'nformation which could realistically be used to monitor spatial and l temporal trends of the algal community. In order to monitor these I 1

trends, it is necessary to sample a larger volume of river water.

l l

l l

l l l l

t

1 1

i The benthic and attached algae sampling techniques have yielded data l l

which could not be analyzed quantitatively due to the lack of standardization in sample types. Part of this standardization problem  ;

results from an inability to obtain samples from comparable substrate  ;

types among stations and surveys. Therefore, as impact assessment tools, l measuring benthic organism densities via benthic sediment analysis and scraping of natural substrates proved to be unsuccessful.

?

iii. Proposed Monitoring Program Methods and Materials {

l I

In order to obtain information on the spatial and temporal trends of algal organisms present in the river in the vicinity of Waterford, it is necessary to use a sampling technique which will monitor the river in a j more representative manner than was previously possible from analysis of [

grab whole water samples or benthic samples from natural substrates.

Therefore in order to accomplish this, it is proposed to use diatometers to monitor the algal consnunity. f i

i A diatometer is a sampling instrument used to monitor periphyton, f particularly attached algae. The diatometer contains known substrates f' which allows for attachment to and subsequent growth of representative algal organisms. By comparing the changes in numbers of these indicator organisms between surveys, seasonal trends can be developed. An  !

I cdvantage of diatometers over the previous technique is that diatometers l can sample for extended periods of time and thereby increase the f representativeness of the sample obtained.  !

I t

Diatometers will be positioned appron=mtely one half meter below the l surface at stations X,, Ya and Z o. This shallow depth positioning l

is required to insure that representative samples are obtained from  !

i within the limits of light penetration. The diatometers will be j m

incubated in the river at the specified stations and depths for a period l r

of two weeks. Samples will then be retrieved, preserved and analyzed in l the laboratory. l i

I I

The diatometers will provide useful information on the seasonal trends of the algal community. As related to the area of influence of the Waterford 3 plume, it is felt tha t this relatively long incubation period and constant substrate will result in more representative sampling than [

f was possible from grab sampling. This sampling method is more reproducible than the previous method and the data should be more accurate and precise because standard substrates, substrate sizes and depths of exposure are included in the design. Thus, sampling this community with diatometers will Laprove the program by providing a more l effective sampling technique and a sampling effort which is commensurate ,

with the level of impact expected.  ;

i In light of the variability in measurements made on the sparse benthic l community and the generally low river productivity, measuring benthic l algae densities via sediment samples has yielded a data base with low i information value. For this reason and due to the small potential l l

impacts on the benthic community from Waterford 3 operation, sufficient  ;

benefits are not being obtained to warrant continuation of this sampling l effort. Therefore, the proposed program does not include sampling benthic sediments for algae or measuring productivity. i i

b. Zooplankton .

i

i. Comununity Description None of the species of zooplankton collected in the Mississippi River j near Waterford (Table 1) are commercially important, threatened or i endangered (6) . It is alsa believed that zooplankton in the vicinity of f I

this sita are of limited importance in the food web. l i

Average dsnsities of the dominant taxa sampled from 1973 through 1976 are shown in Table 2. Rotifers, usually numerically dominant in river {

systems, were poorly represented in samples of zooplankton taken nest the Waterford site. In view of the large number of rocifers sampled l

elsewhere in the lower Mississippi River (7} , and the small mesh-sized net normally required to sample members of this phylum ( } , it is

suspected that the densities found during the Environmental Surveillance Prograr were biased downwards because of the relatively large mesh-size  ;

~

(0.243 mm) utilized.

Nevertheless, the 0.243 nun mesh size is well suited for sampling zooplankton large enough to serve as prey for many juvenile and adult fish. Several reseachers(9,10,11,12) have reported that fish prefer feeding on zooplankton larger than 0.5 nun, and that some fish are most  ;

interested in zooplankton even larger than 1.3 nun. Thus, these findings suggest that estimates of zooplankton abundance presented in Table 2 provide a measure of the potential contribution of zooplankton as forage for the fish community near Waterford. The significance of this contribution can be assessed by comparing the densities of large zooplankton in the Mississippi River to densities reported for other ecosystems. Zooplankton are generally regarded to be an important I component of quiet water systems. Crustacean zoopisnkton were reported I to range between 2000 and 200,000/m3 (13) . In a survey of 340 lakes l and ponds in the Canadian Rockies, Anderson (14) found that the mean  ;

density of crustacean zooplankton in " sparsely populated" water bodies to  ;

be 28,000/m3 and the mean of " densely populated" water bodies to be  !

170,500/m3 . The densities of cladocerans and calanoid copepods sampled i from lakes ranged from 6,000 to 26,000/m3 . In contrase to these f reported values, average annual zooplankton densities at Waterford 3 3

never exceeded 2500/m , and, the average monthly density over all l stations never exceeded 3500/m3 . [

{ t i

Considering the low zooplanktou densities, the small cross-sectional area  !

of the river affected by thermal discharges and the therarl tolerance information presented in the OIZR, the impact on the zooplankton j i community appears negligible. The travel time through the 10 F AT ,

isotherm and the entire zone of passage available from the combined ,

thermal plumes of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy for the j worst case extreme low river flow condition are 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 83 percent of I l

the river cross-section, respectively.

l

?

Comparing the average densities of zooplankton measured in the Environmental Surveillance Program by s tations and depths suggests that .t their distribution can be considered fairly homogeneous (Tables 3 and i 4). Non parametric statistical analysis of zooplankton density spatial j data (sampling station averages by date) and zooplankton density f bathymetric data (sampling depths averages by date) revealed that there

• were no statistically significant differences in zooplankton densities [l among stations. Tables 5 and 6 present the results of this analysis.

Therefore, the impact on the zooplankton community due to intake [

withdrawal and subsequent entrainment in the Circulating Water Sys tem is  ;

proportional to the percentage of the river flow withdrawn. The low ~  !

percentage of removal of zooplankton (maximum average river volume f' withdrawal is approximately 1.1 percent), results in the expectation of low potential for the zooplankton population to be adversely impacted by l Lhe operation of Waterford 3.

I In summary, the zooplankton community should be considered one of low potential impact with respect to the operation of Waterford 3 because:  !

i I

1. The small percentage of the river affected by the thermal discharges and the intake withdrawals of Waterford 3 and the homogeneity of the zooplankton community suggest that this l community has a low potential for impact from Waterford 3 operation; and

2. The heated discharge is not likely to alter the abundance and i

composition of zooplankton community in the Mississippi River from those found prior to plant operation. l J

l ii. Present Monitoring Program Methods and Materials

! r The present program for monitoring the zooplankton community consists of l using plankton tows to estimate zooplankton densities. All five stations are monitored. The shoal stations sample both surface and bottom while  !

the channel stations sample at the surface, mid-depth and bottom. 4 1

I i

l 1

The tows are conducted using a metered No. 6 mesh net having a mesh size f of 243 u. In addition, at one of the channel stations, duplicate samples are obtained using a metered No. 20 mesh net (mesh size = 76 u) for the  ;

purpose of sampling the rotifer population. The smaller mesh net is not l utilized at all stations for all samples due to the high river suspended ,

solids content which tends to clog the net.  ;

L iii. Proposed Monitoring Program Methods and Materials [

l Since no differences could be shown in the densities of zooplankton from the surface to the bottom and among the various sampling stations, a reduced number of samples from this community is sufficient to continue obtaining information on the potential use of this community as forage for fish. The proposed program samples zooplankton densities at Stations ,

Xo, Yo, and Zo at the surface only. The same size mesh net (243 u) will i be used, and a replicate, small mesh (76 u) tow will also be performed at Station Yo. I i

i

c. Benthos f i

t

i. Community Description  ;

I None of the shellfish and macroinvertebrates found in samples from the I I

Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford are considered threatened i or endangered and only two taxa, blue crab (Callinectes sapious) and l

river shrimp (Machrobrachium ohione) have the potential for being  !

commercially important. ,

However, the occurrence of blue crab is marginal near Waterford, because the Waterford area is distant from water with a salinity high enough for ,

spawning of this species (15) ,

l River shrimp is found in higher numbers. Spawning of river shrimp takes

! place near the Waterford site. Both females "in berry" and decapod larvae, probably river shrimp, were observed during the 1973-1976 sampling program (l). l l

However , the occurrence of river shrimp near the Waterford site is not unique . The species occurs as far upstream as St Louis, Missouri (10} .

Another study of the lower Mississippi River at a location 400 miles away also found evidence of reproductive activity (I ) . River shrimp does not appear to require any specialized spawning habitat, but seems to be capable of spawning in any and all habitats in which it occurs.

Commercial landings of river shrimp are largely restricted to the Mississippi and Atchafalya Rivers (10) . In 1971, 900 pounds of river i shrimp (worth $297) were taken in commercial catches from the lower Mississippi River between the river mouth and Baton Rouge. By 1975, 4200 i pounds valued at $2940, were taken 19) . As these statistics represent the total catch along 230 river miles, the commercial fishing effort is {

low, and it sould seem that the market for this species is not l substantial. ,

The Mississippi River near the Waterford site is not unique in terms of macroinvertebrate habitat. Because the Waterford 3 intake will withdrav l only a small portion of the river volume and the discharge will affect only a small portion of the habitat for river shrimp, no ef fect on this commercial she11 fishery is expected. I An indication of the potential importance of the benthic community to the -

j ecosystem can be provided by determining its standing crop. A measure of l standing crop is ash-free dry weight - i.e., that weight which represents living biomass, exclusive of such material as shell and water. The  ;

Environmental Protection Agency (20) suggests a value of 1 ga ash-free dry weight per square meter of benthic substrate as one decision criteria for a low impact potential to the benthic connounity. At Waterford,

(

recent data (Tables 7 through 10) indicate that this value was exceeded in five instances due to Corbicula and Tubficid abundance. These i exceedences are not considered to be of ecological significance because of the types of organisms present and the general instability of their habitat. Thus it can be concluded that the benthic community in the vicinity of Waterford is quite sparse and that some of these exceedences are due to the patchy distribution of this community.

i

Corbicula is often considered a nuisance species (21,22,23) , but it does serve as food for fish. Corbicula is frequently found in the stomachs of blue catfish, freshwater drum, sturgeon, and redear sunfish (21) ,

Several of these fish species are commonly found in the Mississippi River. However, there is little potential that the benthic community including the Corbicula population, will be affected significantly by the  ;

Waterford 3 plume, especially since Corbicula is very resistant to high temperatures . When acclimated to 30 C (86 F), the incipient lethal limit (i.e., temperature at which 50 percent of the population can live ,

for an indefinite period) was found to be 34 C (93.2 F) for long-term exposures, while 43*C (109.4 F) was required to kill 50 percent of the test organisms in 30 minutes (22) . On the basis of this  !

information, little or no impact to the benthic community and no impact to the dominant organism, Corbicula, is foreseen.

i Tubificids or aquatic oligochaetes (earthworms) are very tolerant  !

organisms common to silt and mud bottom rivers. They often occur in high abundance in organically enriched water bodies; they can tolerate low or  !

no oxygen; they can endure summer and winter stagnation periods in lakes; ,

and they have considerable regenerative capacity. Due to its high tolerance, no significant impacts to the Tubificid population is expe cted.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that Waterford 3 is designed with a surface discharge which has minimum contact with the river bottom. It is estimated that the maximum total bottom area contacted on the Waterford shore by all generating units (i.e., Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy) is only 2.6 acres.

t In summary, the benthic community may be considered one of low potential  ;

impact due to the operation of Waterford 3 because:

1) Threatened or endangered benthic organisms are not known to occur at the sites;

2) Although river shrimp is known to occur at the site and have potential commercial value, its distribution is wide and there j is no evidence to predict that the Waterford discharge will harm the population; and l

3) Corbicula may serve s food for finfish. However, these organisms are not expected to be affected by the Waterford 3 i thermal dischs+ because they are resistant to heat and little  !

of the plume will impinge on the river bottom.

ii. Present Monitoring Program Methods and Materials The present program for monitoring benthos consists of determining the taxon and ash-free dry weight (by taxon) of benthic organisms obtained with both a sled dredge and a Smith-McIntyre grab sampler.

b The sled dredge used for sampling benthor is fitted with a 2 mm mesh bag. Therefore, sieving the samples obtained with the dredge is not ,

required. As a result of the high velocity and bottom irregularities (such as snags, etc. ) the sled dredge has proven to be quite unsuccessful  ;

in this area of the Mississippi River.

The Smith-McIntyre is a grab sampler which is also employed for this I

program. Samples obtained with the Smith-McIntyre are sieved and then  !

j dried and muffled at 425 C. The present program takes four grab l samples at each sampling station, and sieves two of these samples (at  !

random) with a No.100 mesh screen and sieves the remaining samples with (

a No. 30 mesh screen. , Due to the high velocities and flows encountered in the river in the vicinity of Waterford, even the Smith-McIntyre can be an unwieldy sampler. For this reason, samplers have been lost and survey samples have not been obtained. Also, sampling in the high velocity, deep water channel stations is felt to not necessarily be comparable between surveys because the river current and depth are such that it is not possible to determine where the sampler is contacting the river bottom.

i

l iii. Proposed Monitoring Program Methods and Materials t The proposed monitoring program maintains sampling of the benthic conununity with a Smith-McIntyre sampler in the vicinity of Stations Ko, f Yo and Zo. The procedures for analysis of samples obtained also remains  ;

I the same. However, in order to insure that comparable data is obtained among the sampling stations and surveys, all samples will be obtained along the 5 m depth concour. This will improve the benthic sampling (

program by providing uniform samples among both stations and surveys, by  ;

insuring better control of the sampler location than would be possible at f the extreme depths of the present channel stations and by reducing the risk of losing the sampler. In addition, due to the relative stability of the benthic community in comparison to other consnunities (i.e. [

variations in the benthic consnunity characteristics occur on a seasonal, not monthly time frame), this proposed program samples benthos on a  ;

seasonal basis. However, in order to adequately monitor this community j and to insure that the samples are representative, a total of six samples j from each station will be obtained. Three of these samples from esch J station will be sieved with a No. 30 mesh screen, sorced and enumerated f f

to the lowest possible taxon while the remaining three will be sieved j with a No. 100 mesh screen and analyzed for ash-free dry weight (by taxon).

r l

The sled dredge proved to be a very difficult sampling gear to use in l this river. Also, since the Smith-McIntyre can obtain sanparable and  ;

repeatable information on the kinds of benthic organisms present and their distributions, it is considered unnecessary duplication of effort l co sample with the unproductive sled dredge. Therefore, since much of the data obtained from this gear was either meaningless or not possible j to retrieve, the proposed program has not included benthic sampling via sled dredges.

i These revisions to ac2icoring the benthic community improve the program by sampling the benthic community at a frequency and with a sufficient number of replicates which will allow for determination of annual trends in the community and which will remove some of the uncertainty associated t

I with obtaining representative samples due to the sparseness and patchiness of the community. In addition, the deletion of the sled .

dredge gear Laproves the program by eliminating sampling with a gear which has proven to be unsuccess ful in the Mississippi River.

e. Fish

1. Conmuunity Description b None of the species of fish collected in the vicinity of the Waterford  ;

site are listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (6) as threatened or l endangered. Table 11 presents a listing of fish caught in the aquatic monitoring program.

t Some of the species found in the vicinity of Waterford 3 have some  !

commercial value. A commercial fishery exists between Baton Rouge and the river mouth for freshwater drum, blue and channel catfish and carp.

Those fish of commercial importance found at the Waterford site are not likely to be significantly affected by the surface thermal discharge from Waterford 3 since the commercial species are primarily bottom fee ders( 24,25) . Furthermore, the two major commercial taxa, catfish j and freshwater drum, have high thermal tolerances.

Sport fishing in the lower Mississippi River is not common. This is l probably a result of the industrial development of the river bach -nd heavy commercial river traffic, which tend to make small boating operations hazardous. Also, the relatively low productivity of the  !

Mississippi River probably makes sport fishing somewhat unattractive from f the viewpoint of catch per unit effort. ,

t Tha Mississippi River at Waterford does not provide habitat suitable for spawning of many fish species. It lacks the riffle areas preferred for spawning by many catfish (ictalurids) and most suckers (catastomids); the  ;

shallow backwaters and flooded areas preferred by pikes (esocids) some of the shads (clupeids) and sunfishes (centrarchids); and the vegetated l areas preferred by other sunfishes and perch (percids)(24,25,26,27) ,

1

To the extent that sheltered locations are available (including cans, snags, etc), a limited number of catfish may spawn near Waterford. Other specie s that may be capable of spawning in this portion of the river include freshwater drum, giz:ard shad, threadfin shad , river carpsucker and skipjack herring (24,26,28) . However, the spawning habitat appears not to be optimal even for these species. This is supported by the low densities of ichthyoplankton taken during the Environmental Surveillance ,

Program (Tables 12 and 13).

i Some fish larvae sampled during the Environmental Surveillance Program must have been produced upstream of Waterford 3, since the habitat at (

Waterford does not meet their spawning requirements (e.g. sunfishes and ,

pikes). Most of these washed out eggs and larvae are not adapted to the turbid, turbulent, high volocity river conditions and few would be expected to survive. With the exception cf freshwater drum, the eggs of i those species expected to spawn near the Waterford site are demersal i

and/or adhesive.

Juvenile stages of certain species do occur at Waterford 3. In the Environmental Surveillance Program, about 44 specie: of small fish were taken during 1973-1976. The proportion of these fish which were juveniles is dependent upon the individual species growth rate and their size at time of maturation. For exampic, the majority of bay anchovy taken were probably mature, as the maximum length reported for this species is 100 mm(29) . On the other hand, the channel catfish that were less than 100 mm were probably young-of-the-year because the average total length of this species at the beginning of its second year of life has been reported to be 102 mm(26) ,

The dominant small fish were the blue catfish, gizzard shad, threadfin shad and freshwater drum. Some reported lengths at Age I for those i species are, respectively, 119-150 mm(26), 130 mm (average)(26) ,

102-130 mm(26) and 130 mm(24) ,

Based on these values, it would appear that many of the small fish of l these species found in the river near Waterford 3 were 1

young-o f-the-year. These same species dominate the fish community l l throughout their life cycles.

Predictions of low potential impact to the adult fish community resulting l from the Waterford 3 intake withdrawal and the exposure to the thermal plume are based on the fecundity, breeding habits, thermal tolerances of dominant species, the generally nonunique character of the Mississippi River near Waterford, and the relatively small percentage of the river volume affected.

The Waterford 3 monitoring program identified no important differences in  !

species distribution and abundance among stations, and no dif ferences which could be ascribed to the operation of Waterford 1 and 2. It is expected, however, that most fish would avoid the area of higher temperatures in the thermal plume during the summer and fall, and may be attracted to it in winter. l i

The rate of impingement at Waterford 1 and 2 (about 1000 fish and crustaceans per day) is considered to be at a moderate level for a generating station of this size. The addition of the Waterford 3 intake  !

is expected to increase the impingement rate by about 300,000 to 700,000 l organisms per year (approximately 820 to 1900 organisms per day). It is expected that approximately 50 percent of these organisms should be shad and/or river shrimp, species with short life cycles and high reproductive i rates. j Ichthyoplankton were found in low abundance at Waterford (Tables 12 and I

13) and they were distributed fairly homogeneously according to the j monitoring data collected from 1973 - 1976 (Tables 14 and 15). In fact, recent analysis of this data indicated that the sampling stations are not significantly different with respect to ichthyoplankton densities (Table  !

16). Thus, entrainment of ichthyoplankton should be proportional to the amount of water withdrawn from the river (as is discussed in the above ,

section on zooplankton). Under average monthly flows during the months  !

when ichthyoplankton are mos t abundant (i.e. April through September) l l

l

L the Waterford 3 entrainment rate will be less daan 0.5 percent of the r river flow.

l l

l In summary the fish and ichthyoplankton community are considered to be one of low potential impact from the operation of Waterford 3 because:

1) Although some commercial and sport fish occur in the area, their r presence is not unique to the area and their importance as a resource is not significant,

2) No special fish spawning habitat is available in the Mississippi  ;

River near Waterford 3. Therefore, the Waterford 3 intake i l

withdrawal and thermal discharge should not significantly affect t i

the overall resident fish populations of the Mississippi River; j and j i

3) Threatened or endangered species were not found to be present in i the vicinity of Waterford 3.

t ii. Present Monitoring Program Methods and Materials j i

6 The present monitoring program for fish consists of measuring (

ichthyoplankton densities by use of tows and L.sh abundance with three different sampling gears: electrofishing, gill netting and trawling. All j sampling procedures are performed at each station. i Ichthyoplankton are sampled at the surface and near-bottom depths at the shoal stations and at the surface, mid-depth and near-bottom at the channel stations. The data obtained from the tows has proven useful in determining ichthyoplankton densities. However, use of nets in the high velocity, high turbidity Mississippi River is quite troublesome due to the difficulties associated with: (1) placement of nets at the same depths for the different surveys as a result of the high currents which can displace the nets an undeterminable horizontal distance downstream and (2) interference in the nets caused by debris which can cause clogging, and ripping the net mesh and even complete loss of these nets.

The overall results of the sampling program for adult fish have been [

successful in determining fish abundance. The multi-gear approach is ,f intended to be useful in obtaining representative samples of the fish f community for the purpose of developing a comprehensive inventory of species which are present in the river. The experience gained in monitoring with trawls in this section of the river has indicated that trawling techniques are quite inefficient for most species due to the physical conditions of the Mississippi River such as high flows, fast

! current, uneven bottom topography and frequent snags, etc. Howevie, on a  !

cesparative basis, the results obtained from electrofishing and gill netting have consistently been more successful in this part of the l river. Table 17 presents a comparison of the catch per effort results ,

l for each fish sampling gear used.

l 1

i Similar to tows, use of gill nets is somewhat unwieldy in the river.

These nets are placed in the vicinity of each station for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> {'

period, retrieved and the fish caught are identified and enumerated.

Gill netting on the river has proven to be somewhat difficult due to the disruption of sampling (e.g. clogging of the nets by debris, ripping i and/or dislodging the nets caused by river traffic, etc). Therefore, accurate estimates of catch per effort are hard to determine.

iii. Proposed Monitoring Program Methods and Materials j i

In order to obtain better information on the spatial distribution of ichthyoplankton, the proposed program samples along a discrete upstream i

river transect (x,, I , xg ) and 2 at a near field and a downstream i station (Y,, Z,). Samples will be obtained at the surface, the five j meter depth and the bottom. The proposed program will also obtain better information on ichthyoplankton densities by increasing the sampling j frequency to once every two weeks when their density is at its peak  ;

(April to June) and by maintaining the monthly frequency when their ,

densities are lower (July to September).  ;

i r

l l

l

t In light of the problems associated with both the ability to stabilize the positioning of the ichthyoplankton sampling device among surveys and clogging of nets, the proposed program investigates the feasibility of ,

sampling with a high volume pumping system in the Mississippi River. l This system allows for sampling at more discrete spatial and bathymetric locations than nets would, thereby improving the ability to standarize sample location among surveys. Other advantages of this technique are f the increased ease in unclogging sampling equipment during a sampling  ;

event and the ability to accurately estimate water volumes sampled and therefore ichthyoplankton densities. Replicate samples will also be j taken at ene station using a net for comparison with the data obtained j from previous surveys. The feasibility of sampling with this system in the lower Mississippi River is a function (considering the volume of .

river traffic) of sampling safety at the mid-river station (Xy ) for the j amount of time required to adequately sample at three depths. If this technique is not feasible, the program will continue to utilize nets.  ;

i The original monitoring program for adult fish incorporated a multigear l sampling approach for the fisheries portion to identify the most efficient gear and to obtain independent duplicate results. It is  !

I considered appropriate to evaluate the results obtained from the various  ;

gears and to determine which gears have been success:!ul. Based on the l results shown in Table 17 and the difficulties cited ia using them, it is f proposed to delete further use of trawls. In addition, since j electrofishing can obtain results which are comparable to gill netting i and since river physical conditions are more suitable for electrofishing, I

the proposed program utilizes electrofishing as the fish sampling technique.

In addition, the proposed program continues impingement monitoring at the Waterford 1 and 2 intake. Impingement collections will complement electrofishing data by providing indices of abundance for sizes and/or species not necessarily sampled efficiently by electrofishing.

The proposed revisions to the fisheries program offer improvements over the past program by aliminating those sampling techniques which did not prove effective and by improving the representativeness of the data obtained. ,

f. Water Quality Program l

i. Mississippi River Water Quality l

The results of sampling selected river water quality parameters since 1973 have indicated _ that concentrations of potential toxins (e.g. ,

pesticides) have decreesed. The pesticides measured have been below  ;

detection levels for sevsral years and heavy metals concentrations also appear, on the average, to be below acute lethal levels. ,

ii. Present Monitoring Program Methods and Materials The present program consists of monitoring selected physical and chemical [

water quality parameters at all five sampling stations.

The physical characteristics consist of current speed, current direction, pH, conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen. The chemical ,

1 characteristics measured from grab samples include pesticides, metals, i chlorine and other typical parameters. These constituents and j characteristics are important to define environmental conditions when used in conjunction with the aquatic monitoring data.

I iii. Proposed Monitoring Program Methods and Materi:Is I

t l

l The proposed monitoring program continues to monitor all of the physical I characteristics of the past program and many of the chemical characteristics.

1 1

i

l For the proposed program, both physical and chemical water characteristic profiles are obtained from each of the three river trar. sects. This increases the number of sampling stations from five to nine. In addition, sampling the transects Laproves the program iy providing more  :

accurate information on both the zone of passage and the definition of I the thermal plume from the existing generating stations.

t The proposed program includes measuring all of the physical  !

characteristic parameters of the past program. The chemical characteristic parameters to be monitored in the proposed program include the basic constituents such as nitrogen and phosphorous compounds, solids, total bacteria and' oil and grease. Sampling of potential toxins which could be found in the lower Mississippi _ River (including chlorine) will also be continued. Those pesticides which were measured in the previous program and have been consistently below detectable limits have been omitted from the proposed program. Chlorophyll and ATP measurements have been omitted because the river primary productivity is relatively I low and it will not be affected by the operation of Waterford 3. The list of water quality parameters included in the proposed program is presented in Table 3 of Attachment A. i l

l S.

SUMMARY

A comparison of the past monitoring program sampling techniques and the proposed revised sampling techniques is shown in Table 18. The proposed 1 program continues sampling with the same sampling techniques of the past program with the exception of: sampling water quality and t

ichthyoplankton along river transects; measuring algal emununity seasonal trends via diatometers; eliminating the inefficient dredging and trawling techniques for sampling benthos and fish; and sampling ichthyoplankton with a pumping system. All of these exceptions impreve the program for

, the following reasons:

l i

. i o Sampling along discrete river transects allows for improving the {

statistical accuracy of analyses of the spatial distribution of (

ichthyoplankton and the expected areas of plume impact; l

o Utilizing diatometers to sample algae monitors this low density j consnunity as an indicator of overall trends in the aquatic l ecology and it also monitors algae at a level which is commensurste with the expected impacts from Waterford 3 on this l community; i

o Eliminating the inefficient dredging technique for sampling ,

benthos and utilizing the Smith-McIntyre sampler monitors the ,

benthic community with the gear which experience has proven to be most successful for the physical conditions in the  ;

Mississippi River; I

l l

o Sampling ichthyoplankton densities with a pumping system allows for obtaining samples at more discrete locations, improves the .

accuracies for determination of bathymetric densities and it eliminates the problems associated with nets in the Mississippi River; and j o Eliminating the inefficient trawling techniques for sampling l fish and maintaining electrofishing, which previous experience l l has indicated is very effective for sampling fish in the l l

Mississippt River. l In addition to these sampling technique revisions, the proposed program modifies the water quality parameters analyzed and the frequency of l sampling ichthyoplankton and benthos. Mcre representative information on special distributions of water quality data will be obtained by sampling along three river transects and by deleting those constituents which the previous analyses have consistently shown to be below the levels of detection. The proposed revisions also improve the sampling of ichthyoplankton by increasing the frequency of measurement during their 4

peak density period. Similarly, sampling the benthic community on a seasonal frequency but with greater replication and station standardization is sufficient to observe the seasonal trends in this i sparse benthic community which will be only marginally affected by the operation of Waterford 3.

These program revisions, which were developed as a part of an overall assessment of the Environmental Surveillance Program, will increase the program's effectiveness by incorporating the knowledge gained from several years of sampling experience on the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford. This experience will be reflected through i sampling each community commensurate with both the expected level of impact from the operation of Waterford 3 and the importance of each l community in the lower Mississippi river ecosystem, and sampling with  ;

3 ear that previous experience has shown to be most efficient for the  ;

physical conditions of the river. ,

i i

I l

l i

l l

l l

5 I

l

REFERENCES ,

1. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Environmental Report - Operating f License Stage, Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3.1978.

2. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Demonstration Under Section 316 (a) of the Clean Water Act, April 1979.

3. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Demonstration Under Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act, April 1979. l l

t

4. Geo-Marine, Inc. , Dallas, Texas, Personal Communication.1978.  ;

5. Hutchinson, G.E., A Treatise on Limnology, Volume II: Introduction l l

co Lake Biology and Limnoplankton, J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 1115pp. 1967 l l

t

6. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and l Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Federal Register 41 (191):  !

43340-43358. 1979.

7. Bryan, C. F., J. V. Conner and D. J. DeMont, "An Ecological Study of the Lower Mississippi River and Alligator Bayou near St Francisville, Louisiana". In: Environmental Report, River Bend Station Units 1 ,

and 2, Construction Permit Stage Volume III', Gulf States Utilities Compan' y , Appendix E. 1973.

8. Likens, G. E. and J. J. Gilbert, " Notes on Quantitative Sampling of i Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers", Limnol and Oceanogr 15 j (5): 816-820. 1970.

~ l

9. Galbraith, M. G., " Size-Selective Predation on Daphnia by Rainbow  !

Trout and Yellow Perch", Trans Amer Fish Soc 96 (1): 1-10. 1967.

i b

. L

10. Lyakhnovich, V. P. , G. A. Galkovskala and G. V. Karyuchits, "The Age, Composition and Fertility of Daphnia Populations in Fish Rearing _

Ponds", Tr. Beloruss. Navchno-Issled Inst. Rybn. Khoz.

6:33-38 (Cited by Archibold, C. P. 1975) " Experimental observa-tions on the Effects of Predation by Goldfish (C Auratus) on the Zooplankton of a Small Saline Lake", J Fish. Res. Bd. Can. j 32:1589-1594. .. l

11. Vineyard, G. L. and J. O'Brien, " Dorsal Light Response as an Index of Prey Preference in Bluegill (Leposis macrochirus)", J. Fish Res. -6 Board can 32 (10): 1860-1863. 1975.  !

12. Allan, J. D., " Balancing Predation and Competition in Cladocerans",

Ecology 55: 622-629. 1974.

13. Watson, N. H. F., " Zooplankton of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes -

I Species Composition, Distribution, and Abundance", J Fish Res Bd Can i

31 (5): 783-794. 1974, f

14. Anderson, R. S. , " Crustacean Plankton Communities of 340 Lakes and  ;

Ponds in and near the National Parks of the Canadian Rocky Mountains", J. Pish Res Board can 31 (5): 855-869. 1974. l l

l

15. Pearse, A. S. and G. Gunter, " Salinity". In: Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology Volume 1, Ecology. The Geological Society l

of America, Memoir 67: 129-157. 1957. l

16. Williams, A. B.

'9 Marine Decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas",

Fishery Bulletin, 65 (1). 1965. i

17. United States Atomic Energy Comunission, gt1 Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, l Docket No. 50-416 and 417. 1973.  !

18. Viosca, Jr. P. , "The Louisiana Shrimp S tory", Louisiana ,

conservationist 9 (7). 1957.

i 5

l 19. Plaisance, O. A. Persons 1 Communication. National Oceanic and l Atmospheric Administration, (Louisiana). 1978. -

20. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Interagenev 316(a)

Technical Guidance Manual and Guide For Thermal Effects Sectione of t Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. USEPA Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, D.C. 1977.

21. Sinclair, R. M. and B. G. Ison, "Further Studies on the Introduced Asiatic Clam (Corbicula) in Tennessee", Tennessee Stream Pollution ,

i control Board, Tennessee Department of Public Health 1963. '

22. Mattice, J.S. and L. L. Dye, " Thermal Tolerance of the Adult Asiatic Clam". In: Thermal Ecology II, Technical Information Center, Energy j l

Research and Development Administration. 130-135 pp. 1976. ,

t l

l

23. Gross, L. B. and C. Cain, Jr., " Power Plant Condenser and Service Water System Fouling by Corbicula, the Asiatic Clam". In:

Biofouling Control Procedures, Pollution Engineering on Technology Series, volume 5. 130 pp. 1977.

24. Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman, Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp. 1973.

25. Eddy, S. and J.C. Underhill, Northern Fishes, 3rd Edition, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. 1974.

26. Carlander, K. D., Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, 3rd Edition, The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 751 pp. 1969. l l

l l

l l

! i t

e.s- l 1

l

I

27. Scarola, J. F. , Freshwater Fishes of New Hampshire, N. H. Fish and Game Department, Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries, Concord.

131 pp. 1973.

28. Cross, F. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. Musetna of Natural History, ;

University of Kansas, Lawrence. 357.pp. 1967. ,

29. Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder, Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, TFH Publications, Neptune, New Jersey. 388 pp. 1972.

i i

i f

\

I I

i t

l l l

l l

i

t 8

• i P

TABLE 1 - >

ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF f WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 l (Sheet 1 of 3)

Hydrozoa .

l Rotifera l

Class Monogononta  ;

Order Ploima ,

Asnianchna sp.

Brachionus sp. ,

Kerstella sp.

Platyias quadricornis Platyias sp. j t

Nematoda f

Artaropoda Class - Crustacea {

i Subclass - Brachiopoda i

Order - Anostraca  !

l Order - Cladocera l Sub Order - Calyptomera l t

Daphnia longiremis  !

l Daphnia magna l

Daphnia sp. I l

Cariodaphnia recticulata - I l

Cariodaphnia sp.

l Moina brachiata i i

i Moins sp. j l

i TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976

. (Sheet 2 of 3)

Bosmina longirostris .

l

- Bossina coregoni  :

Bosmina sp.

A,lona sp.  !

Alonella rostrata l Alonopsis sp.

Camptocercus rectirostris  ;

Chydorus sp. .

Diaphanosoma branchvurum Diaphanosoma sp. i Subclass - Ostracoda l l

Subclass - Copepoda ,

l Order - Eucopepoda +

l Suborder - Calanoida l Eurytemora affinis l Diaptomus pallidus t i

Diaptonus siciloides l l \

Diapcomus stagnalis Disptomus sicilis  :

Diapcomus sp.

Suborder - Cyclopoida j Cyclops bicuspidatus Cyclops vernalis j

. Order - Harpacticoida i I

l i

i l

9 t TABLE 1 (Cont'd)

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

Subclass - Maletestraca Order - Decapoda  ;

Larvae Order - Amphipoda Family - Gannaridae Class - Arachnida  !

Order - Acarina Family - Pionidae i Order - Hydracarina Class - Insecta (Larvae) [

Order - Ephemeroptera j Order - Coleoptera Order - Odonata l I

m Order - Plecoptera  !

Order - Diptera Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program,  ;

explained in Section 6.1.1.2.  ;

t i

1 l  !

l l

TABLE 2 1

~

• 3  !

AVIRAGI NUMSIR OF DOMINANT ZOOPLANKTON (PIE M )

FOR ALL DI?!ES AI ALL STA!!ONS (

FOR SAMPLING YIAAS INDICATID" l Density (Numbers ser =3)

Taxa 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 Cladocera ,

Da:hnia sp 88 31 10 Bos=ina longiroseris 121 59 65  !

l Moina brachiata 0 0 65 Carindachnia 32 35 2 (

i Dia:hannse a 0 7 2 l

l l

Copepoda  :

Calanoida 305 362 25.5 Cyclopoida 369 579 14 .3 1 Decapoda 4 3 0 All Zooplank:nn 975 1,034 317 i 1

l l

l I

l l

l l

l

• Dominant was defined as 102 or more of the zooplankton cocaunity on any sampling date.

• Computed with data from Louisiana Power & Light Company (1978)( ).

_ _ . _ _ _- - - - - - - - . - e --t--e --- - -

--r--*w

t TABLE 3  ;

AVERAGE 200 PLANKTON DENS 2 TIES *. NUMBER PER M 3Y STATION SY CATE IN SAMPLES ~ fi

~ '

COLLECTE3 IN THE VICI;iITY Of WAIEAIORO 3 STATION Average  !

Ac A: 3: 3: Sc1 Densi:y-

~'

YEAR DATI ...l I 73 JUN 08-* 2151.734 1580.130 1803.907 2005.236 2679.522 1044.106 73 JUL 17 126.231 140.528 97.4a1 214.526 158.607 147.677 l 73 AUG 22== 62.817 99.730 73.826 295.303 272.353 160.906  ;

73 SEP 23 647.594 1385.887 1964.685 2037.479 1901.605 1593.a10~

73 OCT 25** 210.468 77.352 460.079 336.389 223.060 261.a69  !

73 NOV 30 201.474 31a.51a 239.250 221.261 248.;'a 2aa.949  !

31a.981 225.257 252.153 25a . 515 j 73 DEC 19 250.*41 229.720 '

7a FE3 13 980.525 744.519 701.260 873.192 459.1SC 751.735 74 MA2 27 1675.952 1528.51a 138a. 779 1806.556 IL'3.072 1523.77a 7a APR 20 a73.675 227.956 319.40a 391.012 488.19a 381.068 >

7a APR 23 1131.360 1234.395 1576 . 604~ 121a.239 1115.599 1275.199  !

74 MAY 17 3890.018 1991.789 743.245 3291.852 2133.2Ba 1410.035 j 963.623 Averags Year I 971.487 800.420 804.96 1030.196 22 76 JUN 04 232.064 229.3a5 223.501 225.015 150.570 222.13e  !

74 JUN 24 95.196 100.219 148.189 79.112 77.409 100.025 '

74 AUG 22 1727.880 4398.961 2395.663 7689.520 923.038 3423.012 74 NOV 13 483.673 1189.501 508.609 7873.902 2776.520 2566.041 l 75 FE3 26 756.809 247.172 399.953 416.015 825.76c 529.la3 l 75 APR 23** 100.409 263.693 160.395 '439.766 214.347 235.722 l 75 AUG 08 268.163 168.986 297.409 443.718 380.032 311.662 l Average Year II 530.596 942.582 590.531 2452.a36 766.353 III 75 ccT 30 123.350 52.613 a36.986 314.616 38.785 193.270 75 NOV 20 62.821 33.003 44.854 20.066 75.966 57.342 75 DEC 22 32.400 108.214 59.537 28.711 208.136 87.400 76 JAN 30 5.173 18.819 5.151 9.339 3.593 8.a15 l 76 FI3 26 .000 5.505 1.033 3.156 1.746 2.288 76 .4AA 25 327.820 233.666 402.086 407.337 7.238 275.629 76 APR 29== 19.055 132.969 109.459 83.841 141.732 97.all 76 HAY 27 113.404 225.532 197.259 153.344 IS2.504 174.408 76 JUN 2a 68.690 150.226 157.960 103.963 150.243 125.217 76 JUL 29 225.149 69.174 632.122 925.233 504.507 471.237 76 SEP 10 1434.406 527.145 1985.596 1571.616 1297.066 '363.166 76 SI? 26 522.113 528.958 792.617 706.768 951.573 720.406 Averagu Year III 252.865 177.985 402.055 360.666 296.921

• Densi:les do not include exoskelecons or fish larvae

• • Sampled on more :han one sampling day Sour = of data: '.*acurford 3 Environmental Serveillancu Program.

I

i l TABLE 4 l

- AVIRAGI 200PLANITCN DENSITIES *, NUMBER PER M , 3Y DE?TH 3Y DATI IN SAMPLIS j COLLICTID IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 i

l DE?TH YEAR DA3 30TTW MIDDLI SURFACI _

j I

I 73 JUN 08** 1873.647 1912.684 2610.325  :

73 JUL 17 208.676 *** . 86.277 i 73 AUG 22** 114.624 *** 142.384 73 SE7 28 1859.862 1533.778 1386.583

• 73 OCT 25** 236.113 213.706 334.590 I 73 NOV 30 289.258 226.485 219.102  !

73 DEC 19 237.823 246.508 279.222 i 74 FIS 13 581.117 805.472 868.617 l 74 M AR 27 1297.430 1460.969 1827.916  !

l 74 A?R 20 379.086 461.601 302.458 i 74 A?R 23 909.869 1279.451 1636.270 l 74 MAY 17 2623.901 2066.302 2539.9,09 Average for Year ! 884.283 1020.694 1019.512 . i I

II 74 JUN 04 135.468 221.683 309.236 i 74 JUN 24 108.332 76.722 115.021  !

74 AUG 22 4795.270 1886.575 3131.446 74 NOV 13 -

3989.266 1032.594 2754.666 l 75 FE3 26 '95.934

. 401.913 849.549 l 75 APR 23** 423.632 126.678 134.706 1 75 AUG 08 307.107 426.168 201.709 l Average for Year II 1436.428 596.047 1070.906 III 75 OCT 30 100.819 35.262 422.64' l 75 NOV 20 81.333 35.082 40.479 75 DEC 22 130.086 48.887 74.657 '

76 JAN 30 5.000 6.462 12.126 76 FEB 26 .979 .914 4.236 76 MAR 25 310.475 181.519 295.204 76 APR 29** 110.553 117.070 81.034 76 MAY 27 189.538 192.468 150.419

/ 76 JUN 24 136.841 212.820 55.137 76 JUL 29 468.616 958.820 310.938 76 SEP 10 2000.256 1496.035 799.306 76 SEP 26 794.923 1076.422 490.228 Average for Year III 360.785 363.480 228.034 l

l

• Densi:ies do not include exoskels: ens or fish larvae

• • Samples on more chan one sampling da:e

• • • No sample taken Sourco of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program.

I TABLE 5 RANK OF~ AVERAGE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES, BY STATION BY DATE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 Station Rank -

Year /Date Ac At Be Bc Btl  ;

--I June 8, 1973 4 1 2 3 5 i

~

- July 17, 1973- 2 3 1 5 4  !

August 22, 1973 1 3 2 5 4 l September 28, 1973 1 2 4 5 3  !

October 25, 1973 2 1 5 4 3 {

November 30, 1973 1 5 3 2 4 i December 19, 1973 3 2 5 1 4 l

February 13, 1974 5 3 2 4 1 l March 27, 1974 3 4 1 5 2 l

April 20, 1974 4 1 2 3 5 April 23, 1974 2 4 5 3 1 i May 17, 1974 5 2 1 4 3 II June 4, 1974 5 4 2 3 1  !

June 24, 1974 3 4 5 2 1  !

. August 22, 1974 2 4 3 5 1  ;

November 13, 1974 1 3 2 5 4 February 26, 1975 4 1 2 3 5 April 23, 1975 1 4 2 5 3 l August 8, 1975 2 1 3 5 4 l III October 30, 1975 3 2 5 4 1 l November 20, 1975 3 5 2 1 4 i December 22, 1975 2 4 3 January 30, 1976 3 5 2 1

4 5 )

1  !

Februa y 26, 1976 1 5 2 4 3 l March 25, 1976 3 2 4 5 1 <

, April 29, 1976 1 4 3 2 5 j May 27, 1976 1 5 4 2 3 June 24, 1976 1 3 5 2 4 July 29, 1976 2 1 4 5 3 September 10, 1976 3 1 5 4 2 September 26, 1976 2 1 4 3 5 Sum of Ranks 76 90 95 109 95 Sum of Ranks Squared 5776 8100 9025 11881 9025 X2,7 r

Fail to Reject H : 1.e., stations were not significantly different with O

respect to the number of zooplankters per cubic meter.

Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number of zoo-plankton per cubic meter.

l Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.

l McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1956.

l TABLE 6 RANK OF AVERACE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES, BY DEPTH BY DATE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3  ;

DEPTH

- Year /Date~~ Bottom Middle Surface - -

I June 8, 1973 1 2 3 September 28, 1973 3 2 1 October 25, 1973 2 1 3 November 30, 1973 3 2 1 December 19, 1973 1 2 3  :

February 13, 1974 1 2 3 l March 27, 1974 1 2 3  :

April 20, 1974 2 3 1 April 23, 1974 1 2 3 May 17, 1974 3 1 2

{

II June 4, 1974 1 2 3 June 24, 1974 2 1 3 i

August 22, 1974 3 1 2 l November 13, 1974 3 1 2 1

i February 26, 1975 1 2 3 s April 23, 1975 3 1 2  ;

August 8, 1975 3 2 1

~

III October 30, 1975 2 1 3 November 20, 1975 3 1 2 December 22, 1975 3 1 2 January 30, 1976 1 2 3  !

February 26, 1976 2 1 3  :

l March 25, 1976 3 1 2 April 29, 1976 2 3 1 May 27, 1976 2 3 1  !

June 24, 1976 2 3 1 l July 29, 1976 2 3 1 i September 10, 1976 3 2 1 '

September 26, 1976 2 3 1 l

Sum of Ranks 61 53 60 Sum of Ranks Squared 3721 2809 3600 X2 ,1,49 l

Fail to Reject H : 1.e., depths were not significantly different with O

respect to the number of zooplankton per cubic meter.

• Depe.hs were ranked by date, according to the average number of zooplankton per cubic meter (ties were averaged).

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

McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1956.

o S

TABLE 7 -

ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3*

Date: August, 1977 Replicate No.

Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac Corbicula 0 2.48 0.67- 0.50 0.91 .

Chironomids 0.01 0 0. 04 0 0.01 Coleoptera- 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.92 At Corbicula 0.11 0 0 0 0.03 Tubificids 0 0.02 0 0 0 Gyraulis 0.01 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.03 Be Corbicula 0 0 0 0 0  ;

Tubificids 0. 01 0. 02 0.15 0 0.05 Nematodes 0 0.01 0 0 0 Sum 0.05 i Bt Corbicula 21.08 0.01 5.95 12.01 9.76 Chironomids 0 0 0 0.01 0 i Gyraulis 0 0 0 0.01 0 '

Sun 9.76 Bt g No Specimens t

i

. l l

l l

l

• Collected with a Smith-McIntire Grab Sampler.

Source: Geo-Marine, Inc. Dallas, Texas. 1978(4) l l

l

?

TABLE 8 ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 Date: September, 1977 Replicate No.

Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac Corbicula 0.29 0.39 0 0 0.17 Odonata 0 2.60 0 0 0.65 Sua M ,

At Chironomids 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 Ephemeroptera 0. 04 2.22 0.06 1.20 0.88 Tubificids 0.06 0 0.07 0 0.03 Odonata 0 0.15 0 0 0.04 Sum 0.96 .

Be Chironomids 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.01 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0.01 Bt Corbicula 16.90 13.95 2.67 4.89 9.60 ,

Sun 37I6 Bt No Specimens 3

f i

t i

i l Source: Geo-Marine, Inc. Dallas, Texas 1978

TABLE 9 ,

ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3  ;

Date: February, 1978 Replicate No. l Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average Ac Corbicula 1.02 4.08 0 4.74 2.46 Sum 2.46 ,

At Tubificids 0 0.18 0.54 0 0.18 Odonata 0 0 0.11 0 .03 Sum 0.21 Be Tubificids 0 0 0.18 0.26 0.11 Sum 0.11 Bt River Shrimp 0 0 0 0.81 0.20 Sum G Bt Odonata 0 0 0 0.09 0.02 Sum M b

I f

i Source: Geo-Marine Inc. Dallas, Texas 1978 1

i l

l TABLE 10 l

ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (g/m ) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES AT WATERFORD 3 6

- Date: April, 1978 Replicate No.

Station Organism 1 2 3 4 Average i Ac No Specimens At Corbicula 0.14 0 0 0.63 0.19 Tubifields 1.03 1.11 1.37 0.68 1.05 Sun 1.24 Se Tubificids 2.68 3.26 0.43 3.39 2.44 l Chironneids 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 .

Sum 2.44 Bt Tubificids 0.13 0 0.43 0 0.14 Chironomids 0.01 0 0 0 0  !

River Shrimp 2.04 0 0 0 0.51 j

Sua 0.65 Bt Tubificid s 0 3 1.35 0 0.49

• 0.46 I Sum 0.46  ;

i i

t l

i i

r 1

i l

l l

l l

1

! Source: Geo-Marine Inc. Dallas, Texas 1978

TABLE 11 i SPECIES OF FISH COLL?CTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATER 50RD 3 APRIL 197.' THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 i (She(t 1 of 4)

Osteichtyes . .;

\

Acipenseriforme s Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus albus (Pallid Sturgeon)

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Shovenlose Sturgeon)

Polyodonitidae Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish)

Semionotiforme s Lepisosteidae i Lepisosteus oculatus (Spotted Gar) i Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar) l Lepisosteus platostomus (Shortnose Gar) i I

Lepisosteus spatula (Alligator Gar)

Amiiforme s i Amiidae j Amia calva (Bowfin) i Elopiformes ,

Elopidae [

t Elops saurus (Lady Fish) i Anguilliformes Anguillidae ,

Anguilla rostrata (American Eel)  !

i Clupeiformes l

Clupeidae l

t l

Alosa chysochloris (Skipjack Herring) {

' Brevoortia patronus (Gulf Menhaden)

Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad)

Dorosoma potenense (Threadfin Shad) l __ .' 1

TABLE 11  ;

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 4)

Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy)

Osteoglossiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon'alosoides (Goldeye)

Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye)  ;

Cypriniformes ,

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio (Carp)  !

Hybognachus nuchalis (Silvery Minnow)

• Hybonsis aestivalis (Speckled Chub)

Hybopsis amblops (Bigeye Chub)

Hybopsis storeriana (Silver Chub)

Notemigonus crysoleucas (Golden Shiner)

Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner)

Notropis blennius (River Shiner)

Notropis emiliae (Pugnose Minnow) ,

Notropis fumeus (Ribbon Shiner) }'

Notropis shumardi (Silverband Shiner) '

Notropis venustus (Blacktail Shiner)

Pimephales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow)

Catostomidae I

Carpiodes carpio (River Carpsucker) i Carpiodes cyprinus (Quillback)

Ictiobus bubalus (Smallmouth Buffalo)

Ictiobus cyprinellus (Bigmouth Buffalo)  :

{

Siluriformes l

Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus (Blue Catfish)

Ictalurus melas (Black Bullhead)

Ictalurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead)

Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead)

Ictalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish)

Pylodictis olivaris (Flathead Catfish)

Atheriniforme s

+

i TABLE 11  ;

SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF '

WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of *)

Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis (Mosquito Fish)

Atherinidae Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside)

Perciforme s P

Percichthyidae Morone chrysops (White Bass) l Morone mississiepiensis Prellow Bass)

Morone saxatilis (Scriped Bass) l Centrarchidae Elassoms zonatum (Banded Pygmy Sunfish)

Lepomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish)

Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth)

Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) [

Lepomis megalotis (Longear Sunfish) j Lepomis microlophus (Redear Sunfish)  !

Micropterus punctulatus (Spotted Bass) .

Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass)  !

Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie)

Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie)

Percidae f Percina seiera (Dusky Darter)

Stizostedian canadense (Sauger)

! Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater Drum)

Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet)

Pleuronectiformes I t

Bochidae  ;

- - -- c - -- - ---- ,

9 h

TABLE 21 i SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED 14 m_ VICINITY OF l WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sbset 4 of 4) i

. Par,alichthys lechostigma (Southern Flounder) i Soleidae Trinactes maculatus r

1

[

t l

1 i

l I

i I

I l

.I -

i i . . . . . . i i "8 . i 2 8 -

3_; . e. a.

• { . . i g. .

i e . . j i . i . . i i 2

1 e i i e i i i i  : j i e i e i i e i 5 I E!5 0 I!;

2j. -

a ul:t 3 i 5 -.;r. .. . . .

~

. 8 . . . .

. . _~ . . . . . .

> a. s o e-i o o . i

t\u,=~;g C- - - - -

5 -r-

',5C s'd:::

- mi = t.- .s. .I

. 8:n 4 . ~

g gg  ;  ; e i g i e i e i g i i g i gi i i i .

a 2

. . . I g T.l'a;;t. u E hl .

4

['.

C14l u .m. .i ,.

.ed. .'

r _r g;;;;j i "t;:

t

lR"l".!

g i  !..I. . . - 12

,,,g . i i i

i i i i e i g g "g g

~

i e i e i r =

tit:8 I* 2:i

!. t iu w

> e emi l lu 3 5 5  :! .

J,

5. ,Si.t,

. .t.

3 I' -

g. i

w. 1 a

s.';: 12 l

, _4 g i i i e i i e i e i gg.

g i e

g i i a

3. .g 14 'l :i3 3

t l 5 .. 4 bdB j

.f

.k. d., .

2:L <

( LT

-o= l 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

- . . 2 . -.

. 2 .. .. 2 ~ . . . ~

D A g . = > e g A . g h e a = = . & & a i 2 . 4 4 i 2 , 2 4 . i 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 1

I

a 2 I. ~ : 1. 3. I. 2: I. s

- ~ -

=

< - 8 2 2 - - 8 - t 8 3. I. .

E I. I. I. i. I. I. I. I. I. I. i. i. i. I. i. I. i. I. I. i r

i E -

f 5'

E E-

- s E t l 24  ;

C v

I. !. I. i. I. I. I. I. I. i. s. i. !. 1. 5. I. i. I. I. y is '

a

= m i I M

'd h' I3

'~

I

a. i I[.3 i

3 = - 21 l!

3 '. Y. i 2 a

'!: l II . . . . . . . . . 5. I. . . . . . . .

e

-l j

: I i I '

• d

• g, E

Q Ia >

v I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 5. 1. 1. I. I. I. I. 3 51_

i k *a

=

5.F 5

l i

3 1 :)

.30 S  ;

2 2 8 2 2 i 2 i 8 2 3 : * =

q j E ** *

2 * = "

g i = .E < .d . I W ,5 3 . 1" 4t 2 ,I 4 4 ,i <E = h= h I  :;

g 2  : : : : : : 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 * * *

• 3 l

l l

I l __ _ __ ,_

?

g ~ ~ ~

=

g

. 8..I. 8 ~.3 ~. I. I. I. I. I.8. 3. 3 . 8 3 8 8 I. I.

O

=

b Q

. ~ . .~. . ~ -

• I. $. 5 3 8 I. I. I. I. I. 3 8 t

G E. 8 5 I. 8 . I. I.

w

=

t=

E O

w U

5 s

u 2

ggg2e8* e R

{. }. g e eg-e8 eeg8sg es 5

i a

= 5 u

a

=o <

w C .

'8 8 I. I. 8 8 8 g I. 8 8 8 8 6 4 C O C e ~ *

• = C g m . C s-E

.. .. E. I. 8 8 I.

=

0=

5 I

o '

M E

C N u N C O O O O C

- 4 ~ o e . 8 8 -O .

8 -o 8 O =

=

* * *

• 8 8 ee8 ~

- * * * - o 8 .

.=.

l @ >

h.

.$. 8 tn I

• W *W =

g

= E

! = 8 8 8 eeg8sg8eee8 ga e: eegg8 ee8 8

• 8 s e . . . . .

8 .} i

2. . 8

. T

t. 2 O

"W .

I 3

8. . **

m 5 . .

3 2

- ~ .~ .a . o an ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ e ~ a~ ~. a- ~~ -. ~

5

.a.

~

~ 3. .. ~

o > u a . = <

, [=f =

a g g <, .= . ,f <,. ,== = a a o

,m ,3 ,= ,= .= .=

a. a.

. : ~a.

.g o

8 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2

• 2 2 2 2 2 2  ! :. 8,

TABLE IS DENSITIES

• BY DEPTH OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON IN SA4PLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 DEPTH DATE BOTTQ4 MIDDLE SURFACE 74 NOV 13 .049 .000 .000 P 75 FEB 26 .000 .000 .000 75 APR 24 .000 .010 .000 75 AUG 08 .024 .047 .011 75 OCT 30 .000 .000 .000 75 NOV 20 .000 .000 .000 75 Dic 22 .000 .000 .000 76 JAN 30 .000 .000 .000 76 FEB 26 .000 .000 .000 76 M AR 25 .005 .027 .004 ,

76 APR 30 .044 .000 .017

• 76 M AY 27 .014 .015 .034 76 JUN 08 .119 .054 .106 76 JUN 24 .000 .008 .000 76 JUL 07 .025 .013 .010 76 JUL 29 .007 .000 .000 76 AUG 12 .000 .013 .000 ,

76 SEP 10 .000 .000 .000 76 SEP 27 .000 .000 .000

• Densities expressed in number /m 3 Source of data: Waterford 3 Enviconmental Surveillance Program.

l i

IABLE 16 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H,) 0F EQUALITY OF

'ICHTHYOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS MJMBER PER CUBIC METER)

AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS DURING YEAR III NUMBER PER CUBIC METER STATION Date Ac At Be Bt Bt g March 25, 1976 .000 .010 .009 .023 .004 April 30,1976 .000 .0 81 .007 .026 .015 May 27, 1976 .020 .009 .069 .000 .007 l June 8,1976 .127 .176 .030 .139 .058 '

June 24, 1976 .000 .000 .000 .000 .008 July 7, 1976 .003 .034 .013 .0 17 .107 i July 29, 1976 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000 l August 12, 1976 .000 .000 .006 .0 00 .007 RANKS

• March 25, 1976 1 4 3 5 2 April 30,176 1 5 2 4 3 May 27, 1976 4 3 5 1 2 June 8, 1976 3 5 1 4 2 June 24, 1976 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 5  ;

July 7, 1976 1 5 2 3.5 3.5 July 29, 1976 2.5 2.5 2. 5 5 2.5 August 12, 1976 2 2 4 2 5 -

~

Sum of Ranks 17 29 22 27 25 ,

overall Rank 1 5 2 4 3 '

2 X = 4.40 r

l Fail to Reject H I '*' '"* "" **#* "

• I" *" I O

different with respect to ichthyoplankton '

l

! densities.

I

• Stations ranked according to ichthyoplankton densities l (ties were averaged)

Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Pehavioral Sciences McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.1956.

l 1

l i

l l

I l

l i

TA3LI 17 l . _ .

COMPARISON OF FISHING METHOD SUCCESS FOR DOMINANT FISH SPECIES IN 1977-78

^ ~ ~

(Individuals Caught Per Unit Effort)

Ilectro- Gill Midwater Surface Bottom  ;

fishing Netting Trawl Trawl Trawl Blue Ca: fish 99 73 3 46 144 l l

Freshwater Drum 27 14 0 0 64 4

[

t 1 Gi :ard Shad 157 415 6 14 0 i Threadfin Shad 240 244 0 9 0 Striped Mullet 183 84 0 0 0 I

l Source of Data: Waterford 3 Invironmental Surve11ance Program t

1 l

l I

\ <

l t

l l

l

n

• TABI.E 18 0)HPARISON THE PREVIOUS AND THE ISOIOSED AQUATIC HONITORING FROGRANS AT WATERFORD Past (From CPER

_ Proaram and AJditions) Proposed Commente Algae -

Phytoplankton K -

Benthic algae I -

Not necessary for impact assessment Primary Productivity X -

Not necessary for impact assessment Distamaters -

Not necesesry for impact assessment I Monitor basic composition of algal community vis-a-vis veter quality Zooplankton 243 e net X X n ree statione rather then five 76 m met (start 1978) I Station B.

Beethoe Smith-McIntyre E I Shrimp trape -

X D ree statione rather than five nree statione rather than five Fish surface traul I -

Inefficient Miduater traul I Bottoe traul 1 Inefficient cill not Inefficient I I Provides fish, but no more, or different them electrofishing. More coat 1y.

Electrofiehlag I I Ichthyoplenktoe I I nree statione rather than five Pumpe se a besle esopling method, i

instead of note Impingement (1976, 1978) I Conducted at the intake screene of Waterford I and 2

, Water Quality I X Reduction in some chemical parameters, as appropriateg more comprehenalve transects Support for theProgram X X Radiolostcal Surveillance Omlaelon of planktod in proposed

• Radiology prograag add shrimp trape

---__m ____a.- _ __ --_ _ . _ . +___________m. , _ . _ _ ____,._a-- -_ _ . - - . .,i-,,w e . .,._.e.,, ,.gg , , , , , , _ , _ , , , , . . _ _ , ., g _. _

FIGURE 1 SAMPLING STATIONS FOR THE WATERFORD 3 AQUATIC MONITOP!NG PROGRAM (CPER) i

^

Y _

G Ac 5

li:

t l

Sce LITTLE GYPSY j , POWER PLANT

Mile 130 Q -

e Al

]

l 4 s _

WATERFORD Bt STEAM g #/SSfg8/Ppj ELECTRIC S TATIO N 8 ' 8/yEg % Mile 126 I

'M -

' e.

+

O 1/4 1/2 3/4 I I  ;  ;

SCALE IN MILES k

.-e-- - - - - - , -,w.y. --wwww-e------,.,=w w.ne-, we-.-..w- ,.-yes.-,,-wv-eg.*,--,--='se%--wee.- ,-w--ws.g-e.,ee 3--w--wp--m-w-a, ,--.rie r.e w ,r= -----g '*

FIGURi 2 .

SAMPLING STATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED .

WATERFORD 3 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM Y -

S(Ac) z 1

/

(Sc)xd LITTLL GVPSV

, POWElt PLANT ilel30 Q 4(At)

. x.

SYa ~

x. . v, _

TERFORD yogg , f f s s ; 3 , ,. , OZs gag 4 ,

in?To"If . ~

.z M_' " * -

Mile l26 O 1/4 1/2 3/4 i Note: Letters in Brackets ( ) SCALE IN MILES Represent Former i Station Designations.

1

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

'O(

l TABl.E I

~

SAMPLING STATaoNS, takt"It!S AND FkLQUENClisS Fou mum 111sulm; PkocuAMS Total Replicates Facetuency Samplem Program St at iosas Iseptin

3. intervals 12/ year -

Water Clearactes istaen all (9)

Prolate 12/ yea r 24 Wates Chemistry X , Y. Su r isc e.

(Table 1) 12/ yea r 36 res spley tosi Xa, Yo, Zo Surlace 1, composited 12/ year 36 Zooplankton X o, Yo , 2 Surface into I Bottom Crabe 6 4/ year 72 Scutle ic Xo, Yo, Zo 3 12/ year 72 lievertebrates Io, Zo Saariep Traps Surface, Se, 3 lu/ year 450 Icle tle yo- I o, E t, X2, plankton Y , Z (pump) sottoe 10/ year 40 Yo, (not) Surf ace, See 2 Shoal water 12/ year -

F e s1. X ,, Y , Z.

12/ year -

ampingement Waterford I and -

2 Isitake

. . , , - r - . , _ . . _, - - - . s ., . ., _ - -_. _ . _ ,

i i

i TABLE 2 4

METHODS, AND MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS FOR WATER CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES j I

Parameter Detectable Level __

Method i

Current Speed 6 cm/sec Current meter i i

Current Direction N/A Current meter j pH 0.02 units pH meter l r

I Conductivity 0.5 nunhos/en Conductivity meter i

Temperature 0.2 C Thermistor Dissolved Oxygen 0.1 mg/l Polarigraphic  !

l i

I l

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

TABLE 3 ,

METHODS, AND MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS FOR WATER CHARACTERISTICS Minimum Parameter Detectable Level Method Copper 1 ug/l AA - furnace Lead 1 ug/l AA - furnace ,

Zine 0.05 ug/l AA - furnace '

Cadmium 0.005 mg/l AA - furnace ,

Mercury 0.02 ug/l Cold vapor AA -

i Arsenic 1 ug/l AA l Chromium (+6) 1 ug/l AA - Chelation extraction Magnesium 0.2 ug/l AA Ammonia - N 0.05 mg/l Colorimetric/ l I

titrimetric Nitrate - N 0.1 mg/l Brucine t Nitrite - N 0.01 mg/l Spectrophotometric (

Phosphorous - Total 0.01 mg/l Colorimetric '

Phosophorous - Ortho 0.01 mg/l Colorimetric l Iron 1 ug/l AA i Chloride 1 ag/l Colorimetric j Sulfate 10 mg/l Colorimetric TDS 0.1 ag/l Gravimetric i

TSS 0.1 mg/l Gravimetric Turbidity 25 Jackson units Candle turbidimeter COD 4 ag/l Titrimetric l Bacteria, Total 1 organies/100 ml Membrane filter 1 011 and Grease 5 mg/l Gravimetric ,

extraction Chlorine, Residual - Amperometric (combined and free)

TABLE 3 (Cont'd)

METHODS, AND MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS FOR WATER CHARACTERISTICS Minimum Parameter Detectable Level Method I Cyanide 0.01 mg/l Pyridine-Pyrazaline i i

Alkalinity 0.1 mg/l Potentiometric '

i titration Hardness 1 mg/l BOTA titrimetric {

Color 1 unit Platinum-Cobalt l TOC 1 mg/l Catalytic Combustion -

j Fecal Coliform Bacteria 1 organism /100 ml Membrane Filter f Phenols 0.005 mg/l Gas Liquid  :

Chromatography i

i s

i i

e

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

l l

- TABLE 4 METHODS, AND MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS FOR WATER CHARACTERISTICS Minimum Parameter De.tectable Level Method Lindane .025 ppb Gas-liquid chromatography '

with electron capture detector ,

Aldrin .025 ppb Heptachlor .025 ppb Heptachlor epoxide .025 ppb j DDE .025 ppb  !

DDD .025 ppn  ;

DDT .025 ppb <

i i

f l

i ATTACHMENT A i SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE WATERFORD 3 MONTHLY AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM i

I. SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND LOCATIONS The sampling frequency is monthly with the exception of benthos and ,

ichthyoplankton sampling as noted in Specifications II - C and D (below).

Sampling locations form three transects across the width of the river; approximate-locations are shown in Figure 1. These locations will be precisely described and recorded in relation to fixed references including distances from river dolphins or piers and sightings on towers and stacks. The specifications which follow, indicate the stations which i are to be sampled for each major aquatic ecology ca3:9 gory. Table 1 presents a summary of the stations to be monitored for each aquatic ecology category.

i II. SAMPLING METHODS AND MATERIALS A. Algae (Periphyton) f

1. Parameters: ,

P Relative abundance (%), taxonomy, density

2. Stations:

X,Y,Z o o g

3. Depth ,

1 l .5m below surface i l

l I

l l

l I

. t l

4. Frequency i

i Monthly

5. Methods l'

)

Floating diatometers(1,2) will be placed on station and j incubated for two (2) week periods. Upca retrieval, slides i will be scraped completely and samples preserved in Lugol's solution. .

l Organisms will be settled or otherwise concentrated, and identified to species level, and counted using Utermohl's inverted microscope technique I3)

. At least two settling f i

chamber transects will be counted; additional transects as j

necessary until at least 100 cells of each dominant species l l

( > 10%) are counted. [

I i

B. Zooplankton i

1. Parameters  !

j Density (#/m3 ), g,,,,,,y t

2. Stations ,

o' Yo ' I o I i

3. Depths Surface f l

4. Frequency Monthly

5. Methods:

, Metered Mo. 6 mesh (243 u) net with 0.5m south diameter at ,

all stations. At Station Y , additional sampling with a No. 20 mesh (76 u) net with 0.5m south diameter. For each station, two (2) tows of 20 minutes duration (including No.

20 mesh net) will be made and composited into one sample  ;

for laboratory analysis. Samples will be preserved with 10 percent buffered formalin.

I In the laboratory, samples will be split appropriately with a Folsom plankton splitter to ensure counts of at least 100 l individuals per each of the dominant species ( A 10%) . For the genus Diapcomus it will be sufficient to count 100 individuals of the genus because of uncertainty in identifications to the species level.

C. Benthic Invertebrates i

1. Parameters:

t 2 2 Density (#/m ), taxonomy, ash-free dry weight (g/m )

i

2. Stations: ,

i e' o' o j

3. Depth:

Depth to bottom will vary according to river height.

4. Frecuenev:

Seasonal for grab samp; s (i.e. April, July, September and January);

I

5. Methods:

a. Six (6) Smith-McIntyre grabs per station ,

i. Density r

Take 3 of the 6 grabs per station; sieve with No.

30 mesh screen; preserve with 10 percent buffered formalin; sort and entunerate according to lowest practical taxon. ,

ii. Ash-Free Drv Weight Taka 3 of the 6 grabs per station; sieve with No.

100 mesh screen; ship, sort by taxon and .

determine AFDW.

i I

AFDW to be determined by drying at 60* C until t constant weight is obtained; ashing in muffle furnace  ;

at 425* C; and weighing residual ash. (Remove f calcareous shells from molluses and crustacea as I

appropriate).

D. Ichthyoplankton  ;

1. Parameters:

l 3

Density (f/m ), taxonomy, stages t

2. Stations:

i l

l o' l' #2 ' o' o l

3. Depths l f

Surface, - 5m, bottom l

s

I l

l

4. Frequencv: i April through June - 1 per 2 weeks  :

July through September - 1 per month Total of 10 sampling periods) f l

i

5. Me thods- l I

Pump samples through a No. O mesh (540 u) net at all l stations from all depths according to a pumping desiga  ;

similar to those described in Appendix II or other suitable design. The volume of water which will be pumped and  ;

3

! filtered should be in the range of 150 - 200 m . Three f (3) samples will be collected from each depth at each j station. In addition, at Station Y,, two (2) 10 minute j tows at surf ace and - Sm using No. O mesh (540 u) net with l t

l 1.0m mouth diameter. l l

Alternatively, sample by net tow at the same locations and j frequencies as above.  !

l Samples to be preserved in 10 percent buffered formalin, f sorted and enumerated by taxon (at least genus level) and (

stage. l E. Fish {

1. Parameters: l l

Catch / effort, size, abundance, taxonomy, pathology I l

2. Stations: 1 I

o' o' o

3. Depth:

Shoal water, near shore

4. Frequency:

Monthly .

5. Methods:

Electrofishing to be performed with a boat-mounted pulsed  ;

DC shocker. The shocker should have an integral ciner which records actual fishing time. Two (2) hours of effort per station. Fish to be identified, weighed, measured (TL), ewamined for external parasites and/or disease, and !

counted. ,

F. Impingement

1. Parameters:

L Catch / effort, size-frequency, taxonomy, pathology t i

2. Station:  !

i Waterford 1 and 2 intake  !

3. Depth:  ;

N/A  :

4. Frequency:

Monthly, 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> .

l l

5. Methods:

Impingement monitoring will be performed by inserting a sampling box into the Waterford 1 and 2 return sluiceway.

Sampling technique will in part be determined at the time of sampling by an experienced biologist, such that representative samples are taken systematically over a 24-hour period to f acilitate extrapolation of sampling data to daily rates with minimum sampling bias. Two sets of impingement samples shall be taken at each sampling interval: (a) sampling during the initial rotation of screens (I revolution) which may follow a period of down-time; and (b) sampling over at least I revolution of continuous operation following the initial rotation.

Complete information regarding intake pumping will be recorded at the time of sampling, including volume and rate of water flow; pump capacity; number of pumps operating; number of screens being washed and screen washing schedule. Subsampling of basket collections is acceptable if impingement rates are unmanageable, but careful reporting of impingement time, and subsampling percentages is imperative for later calculation of daily rates.

G. Water Characteristic Profiles

1. Parameters:

Current speed Current direction PH Conductivity Temperature Dissolved oxygen

i 1-

2. Stations:  !

r k

Z,X,X o 1 2 Y,Y,Y o i 2 Z,, Zg , 22 [

3. Depth: j i

Three meter (3m) intervals to a maximum depth of 24m. l I

4. Frequency: t I

Monthly

5. Methods:

l '

l See Table 2. Also reference Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APEA, 1976) p H. Water Chemistry Program .

1. Parameters:

i l

See Tables 3 and 4  !

2. Stations:  !

I,T '

o o l

l 3. Depth:

l Surface 1

1 l I l

l

4. Frequency:

Monthly for Table 3 parameters.

Seasonal for Table 4 parameters.

5. Methods:

Whole water samples taken with a nonmetallic sampler.

Analysis as per Tables 3 and 4; also ref. APHA (1975)  !

III. PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL / QUALITY ASSURANCE A. A QC/QA manual consisting of field and laboratory procedures, procedures for detecting and correcting variances, and procedures for ,

assuring the validity of the dsta will be prepared and submitted at the end of the first quarter of the monitoring program.

i B. The subcor;.ractor will cooperate and participate in a program ,

quality audit to be conducted by the contractor.

i r

h i

i t

i l

l l l 1

REFERENCES  ;

1. Patrick, R., M.H. Hohn and J.H. Wallace; A New Method For Determining The Pattern Of Diatom Flora, Notulae Naturae Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa; No. 259; 12 pp,1954  ;

2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Vastewater, 14th Edition, American Public Health Associoation, Washington, D C. 1976.

l

3. Vollenweider, RA(ed); A Manual on Methods For Measuring Primary Production in Aouctic Environments; IBP Handbook No. 12; 213pp; F.A.

Davis Co. , Philadelphia, Pa.1969.  ;

[

t l

f I

l I

i i

l l

l l

i l

l l

l l

BSES ATTACHMENT B SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM SUPPLEMENT NO. 6 0F THE WATERFORD 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I. Biological and CPenical Surveillance Biological and chemical' surveillance will be performed over an extended period of time because the Waterford site will contain two fossil fueled units as well as the uselear generating facility. Because the three  ;

units at Waterford will become operational at different times, an  !

extended field survey will be necessary to separate the effects of Units I and 2 from Unit 3. In order to accomplish this , bjective the schedule i and frequency of sampling has been established as follows:  ;

1973-1974 - Monthly sampling to collect baseline data for fossil i fuel plants and nuclear plant.  ;

6 1974-1975 - Four seasonal samples to provide continuity in surveillance.

Fossil Fuel Plants Completed 1975-1976 - Monthly sampling to assess the effects of the fossil fuel  !

plants and to provide baseline data for the nuclear plant. i 1976-1977 - Four seasonal samples to provide continuity in surveillance. j i

l l 1977-1978 - Monthly sampling to assess the effects of fossil fuel plant operation and to provide baseline data for the

nuclear plant.

l I

l Nuclear Plant Completed 1978-1979 - Monthly sampling to assess the effects of fossil fuel and nuclear units.

December 1973 Supplement No. 6

. SSES 1979-1980 - Monthly sampling to assess the effects of fossil fuel and  ;

I nuclear units.

I I

1980-1981 - one full year devoted to complete analysis of data and preparation of a comprehensive report.

All stations will be sampled each month for a full year during the periods of intensive field investigation. During the periods of less

! intensive field work, four seasonal samples will be taken at each of the j

( I five stations.

{

t Five sampling stations have been established in the river near the l and are described as follows:  !

Waterford site (See Figure V-E)

1. The low-current, soft-bottom habitat typical of the upstream eddy is  ;

under investigation at two locations. 6 I i

a) Station A is 1 cated upstream of Waterford Units 1 and 2 in a C

shallow productive backwater area and represents the control point for this habitat.

b) Station , located insnediately upstream of the fossil units, is also a shallow water station. This station is placed upstream of the power units because there is a back eddy in the river at this point and the prevailing current is upstream.

Here, the effects of Units 1 and 2 on the Mississippi River will be measured. The backwater eddy which has been observed at the discharge of Waterford Units 1 and 2 are expected to transport the heated discharge from these fossil units upstream to Station A.T This station has been located in a rather shallow and productive area in order to determine the effects of heated water on aquatic biota. Station A is located further C

upstream in an area of similar substrate and current regime and serves as a control for Station A . Current studies performed T

in the vicinity of Station indicate that this area is suitable for sampling on a year-round basis.

_2_

December 1973 Supplement No. 6

. WSES

2. Three sampling stations have been established in that portion of the Mississippi River characterized by high current velocities and dense clay sediments.

a) Station BC, I cated across the river from Waterford and upstream of Little Gypsy, is the control station for this high current environment.

b) Station B Tis 1 cated immediately downstream from Waterford l Unit 3 discharge, in the area which will be most affected by the discharge plant.

c) Station B has been established just upstream of the Union T1 Carbide Thermal discharge. The ecological effects of small temperature increases on aquatic biota will be investigated at 6 this station in the thermal recovery zone.

A. Biological Field Progam The biological field program emphasizes the identification, enumeration and distribution of aquatic organisms, especially fish, benthos and plankton. In addition, benthic algae, reptiles, amphibians and terrestrial vertebrates will be surveyed to determine their general distribution and abundance. Final 17 terrestrial vegetation on the batture. lands in the vicinity of the plant will be mapped once each year.

Fish populations will be measured with a variety of techniques. The initial surveys established five sampling techniques which are to be t!.c most productive for this area of the Mississippi River. The five techniques are being used to properly sample the different components of the ichthyofauna. These five techniques are all being used on a regular monthly basis. Demersal fish and some of the larger invertebrates will be collected with a 16 ft semi-balloon otter trawl. Three trawls, five minutes in duration, will be made at each station each month. In deep areas, the midwater ichthyofauna will be sampled with a midwater trawl.

Three separate five-minute trawls will be made at each station. Three December 1973 Supplement No. 6

l WSES trawls will also be made using a circular five-foot surf ace trawl. Large  ;

and highly mobile fish which are often poorly sampled by these techniques -l will be collected with 125-foot experimental gill nets. These nets, with five different mesh sizes, are set in place for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> at each station. The fifth fish collection technique is the use of a high I voltage, pulsating, DC electric shocker. This unit has an integral timer which records the actual " shocker on" time. Each station is shocked for two hours each month. AL1 fish collected will be measured, weighed, i enumerated, and identified. Ichthyoplankton collections are discussed j below, under zooplankton. I l

Benthic fauna will be surveyed quantitatively with a Shipek sediment sampler. At least four samples will be taken each month at each of the j five stations. The sediment samples will be preserved and passed through 6 )

a No. 30 sieve; organisms separated from the sediment will be identified, weighed and counted. Randomly selected subsamples will be passed through a No.100 sieve in order to collect very small benthic organisms.  !

Benthic samples have been successively collected at all five stations for j a number of months. The Shipak sampler has proven to be an effective  :

tool for gathering samples of sediments and benthic organisms in the l Mississippi River in Waterford. In addition, a Smith-McIntyre or Ponar j t

sampler will be used to obtain benthic organisms. The sampler which j experience reveals produces the most reliable and quantitative results f will be employed for the duration of the study. A benthic dredge will j also be used to sample large benthic organisms. Organisms collected in  ;

this manner will be separated on site, preserved, and returned to the f laboratory for identification, enumeration and weighing. l Zooplankton will be collected with a metered number 6, 0.5 meter plankton i net. A 1 meter No. O plankton net will be used for fish larvae if it is found that the 1/2 meter No. 6 is less sfficient at capturing the j ichthyofaunal component of the zooplankton. Tows will be made at the  ;

r I

surface, at a mid-water depth and near the bottom at the three B stations. The A stations will only be sampled at the surface and ne'ar j

the bottom because they are much shallower than the B stations. (

Zooplankton sampling will normally be carried out on a monthly basis.

i I

December 1973 Supplement No. 6

. WSES However, the sampling will be increased to twice monthly during the  !

spring fish spawning period. Zooplankton so collected will be preserved and returned to the laboratory for enumeration and identification. The twice monthly samplings for fish eggs and larvae will begin when increased numbers of ichthyoplankton are observed during the normal monthly plankton tows, and will be continued until the number of fish eggs and/or larvae declines to lower levels.

Subsurface whole water samples will be taken monthly at each station for phytoplankton settled out for identification and enumeration. In addition, primary productivity will be determined by the Carbon-14 (I'C) technique. Surface water samples collected will be ca. ken to the laboratory, innoculated with Naf'CO3 , and incubated at constant (

l illumination at ambient river temperatures. Carbon uptake during the '

l incubation period will be measured by liquid scintillation counter. In  ;

i addition, some innoculated water samples may be incubated ,i_n n sicu at the 6 i collection site. l r

Benthic and attached algae will be surveyr d seasonally. Attached algae l r

(periphyton) will be collected from naturally occurring solid substrates l r

at each station, while benthic forms will be taken from shallow water s ed iments. Collec ting will be limited to the shallower shoreline areas  !

r because of the high turbidity of the river. The algae obtained from these collections will be preserved and identified.

During the course of these investigations, samples will be taken at the same time each month, but such variables as river flow and weather conditions may prevent absolute adherence to a specific sampling .

l s chedule. Samples will be taken during the third week of each month, j during a period of four to five consecutive days. Since the diurnal l range of the tide in the Mississippi River during low river stages averages 0.8 foot at New Orleans, and no periodic tide occurs at high river stages, the sampling program is not expected to be influenced by tidal fluctuations in water level at Waterford.

December 1973 Supplement No. 6

l WSES i

B. Water Quality Field Program Water quality of the Mississippi River will be investigated during the course of the Waterford environmentasi monitoring program. The following  ;

basic physical and chenical parameters will be measured monthly at each of the five stations:

i Water current profile Temperature profile Conductivity profile Dissolved oxygen profile

• pH profile In addition, a comprehensive list of quality parameters will be measured each month at Stations BC and BT. The parameters to be measured are i listed below:

Alkalinity Total Volatile Solids 6 Total Dissolved Solids  !

[

Totti Suspended Solids j Turbidity I dodium  ;

Calcium f Magnesima  !

i Iron Sulfate Chlorides Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphate Ortho-Phosphate Chlorophyll ATP Biological Oxygen Demand December 1973 Supplemant No. f

WSES Chemical Oxygen Demand .

Total Bacteria

, Fecal Coliform Bacteria Organochlorine Pesticides Lindane Aldrin Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide  !

DDE DDD DDT Dieldrin Endrin ,

Chlordane 6

Methoxychlor Texaphene Organophosphate Pesticides Parathion Methyl Parathion Malathion l Azodrin Bidrin Diazinon Imidrin Polychlorinated Biphenyls Lead Mercury Zinc Hexavalant Chromate Arsenic Cadmium i

i i

r f i I  !

l ~7- l i l l December 1973 Supplement No. 6 I _ _

l

• • > WSES Standard methods will be used to measure the various water quality ,

parameters. The techniques employed, minimum detectable limits and accuracy of these methods are given in Table V-E-1. r 6

/

River turbidity will be measured twice yearly at each station. Turbidity profiles will be made during periods of both low and high water flow. ,

i I

i l

l l

I

{

1 i

l l

l l

1

-s- l

\

Na. 1... 1071 Simniemer e No. 6