ML14147A029

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:45, 1 July 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Beaver Valley, Units 1 and 2, 2013 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-Radiological
ML14147A029
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 02/25/2014
From: Cress W M, Lange C L
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-14-147, RTL# A9.630F
Download: ML14147A029 (81)
v • d • e


Text

Enclosure BL-14-1472013 Annual Environmental Operating Report (Non-Radiological)

(Report follows)

-4 *RTL# A9.63OFFIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANYBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION2013 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORTNON-RADIOLOGICAL UNITS NO. 1 AND 2LICENSES DPR-66 AND NPF-73 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATIONENVIRONMENTAL

& CHEMISTRY SECTIONTechnical Report Approval2013 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT(Non-Radiological)

UNITS NO. 1 AND 2LICENSES DPR-66 AND NPF-73Prepared by: Cameron L. Lange (Via E-mail) Date: 2-24-2014 Prepared by: William Cress Date: --11Reviewed byro2ýCo v0 Va " bate: q//1(01Approved b ald J. Sn aite: 4 Vo- A<9j TABLE OF CONTENTSPage1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................1..

1.1 IN TRO D U CTION ..........................................................................................

11.2 SUM M ARY & CONCLUSION S .........................................................................

11.3 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ................

21.4 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........

22.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN NON-COMPLIANCES

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

43.0 CHANGES INVOLVING UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

.. .44.0 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ................................................

45.0 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM ...............................................................

55.1 SIT E D E SC IPT IO N ..............................................................................................

55.2 STU D Y A R EA .................................................................................................

65.3 M E T H O D S ..................................................................................................

65.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

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

65.3.2 Fish M onitoring

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

75.3.3 Corbicula/Zebra Mussel Density Determinations

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

85.3.4 Corbicula Juvenile M onitoring

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

95.3.5 Zebra M ussel M onitoring

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

105.3.6 R eports .............................................................................................

..115.4 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM AND RESULTS ...........................

115.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program ....................................

115.4.2 Fish Sampling Program ......................................................................

145.4.3 Corbicula M onitoring Program ..........................................................

165.4.4 Corbicula Juvenile M onitoring

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

175.2.4 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program ....................................................

176.0 ZEBRA MUSSEL AND CORBICULA CONTROL ACTIVITIES

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

207.0 R E FE RE N C E S ........................................................................................................

218.0 TABLES9.0 FIGURES10.0 PERMITSAPPENDIX A. SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME OF FISH COLLECTED IN THENEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970 THROUGH 2013 BVPS2013 Annual Environmental ReportFENOC (BVPS)

LIST OF TABLES5.1 Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Sampling Dates For 20135.2 Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 through 2013 in theOhio River near BVPS (6 sheets)5.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Counts for Triplicate Samples Taken at Each SampleStation by Sample for May and September 20135.4 Mean Number of Macroinvertebrates (Number/m

2) and Percent Composition ofOligochaeta, Chironomidae, Mollusca and Other Organisms, 2013, BVPS5.5 Mean Number of Macroinvertebrates (Number/m
2) and Percent Composition ofOligochaeta, Chironomidae, Mollusca and Other Organisms for the ControlStation (1) and the Average for Non-control Stations (2B1, 2B2, and 2B3), 2013,BVPS5.6 Shannon-Weiner Diversity, Evenness and Richness Indices for BenthicMacroinvertebrates Collected in the Ohio River, 20135.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities (Number/mi
2) for Station 1 (Control) andStation 2B (Non-Control)

During Preoperational and Operational Years through2013 BVPS5.8 Total Fish Catch, Electrofishing and Seine Net Combined During the BVPS 2013Fisheries Survey5.9 Comparison of Control vs. Non-Control Electrofishing

Catches, During the BVPS2013 Fisheries Survey5.10 Comparison of Control vs. Non-Control Seine Catches, During the BVPS 2013Fisheries Survey5.11 Fish Species Collected During the May 2013 Sampling of the Ohio River in theVicinity of BVPS5.12 Fish Species Collected During the July 2013 Sampling of the Ohio River in theVicinity of BVPS5.13 Fish Species Collected During the September 2013 Sampling of the Ohio River inthe Vicinity of BVPS5.14 Fish Species Collected During the November 2013 Sampling of the Ohio River inthe Vicinity of BVPS5.15 Estimated Number of Fish Observed During Electrofishing Operations 2013 Annual Environmental Report iiFENOC (BVPS) 5.165.175.185.195.205.21LIST OF TABLESCatch per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season Duringthe BVPS 2010 Fisheries SurveyCatch per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season Duringthe BVPS 2011 Fisheries SurveyCatch per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season Duringthe BVPS 2012 Fisheries SurveyCatch per Unit of Effort (CPUE as Fish/Electrofishing Minute) by Season Duringthe BVPS 2013 Fisheries SurveyUnit 1 Cooling Reservoir Monthly Sampling Corbicula Density Data for 2013from BVPSUnit 2 Cooling Reservoir Monthly Sampling Corbicula Density Data for 2013from BVPS2013 Annual Environmental ReportFENOC (BVPS)iii LIST OF FIGURES5.1 Location Map for the 2013 Beaver Valley Power Station Aquatic Monitoring Program Sampling Control and Non-Control Sampling Stations5.2 Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Benthic Organism SurveySampling Sites for the 2013 Study5.3 Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Fish Population Survey FishSampling Sites for the 2013 Study5.4 Location of Study Area, Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, Pennsylvania BVPS5.5 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among BVPS Unit ICooling Tower Reservoir Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups,2013.5.6 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among Unit 2 CoolingTower Reservoir Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups, 2013.5.7 Comparison of Live Corbicula Clam Density Estimates Among Intake Structure Sample Events for Various Clam Shell Size Groups, 2013.5.8 Water Temperature and River Elevation Recorded on the Ohio River at the BVPSIntake Structure, During Monthly Sampling Dates, 2013.5.9 Density of Zebra Mussel Veligers

(#/m3) Collected at Beaver Valley PowerStation; Intake Structure, Unit I Cooling Tower Reservoir and Unit 2 CoolingTower Reservoir, 2013.5.10 Density of Zebra Mussel Veligers

(#/m3) Collected at Beaver Valley PowerStation; Barge Slip, Splash Pool and Emergency Outfall Basin, 2013.5.11 Density (#/m2) of Settled Zebra Mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station; IntakeStructure, Unit 1 Cooling Tower Reservoir and Unit 2 Cooling Tower Reservoir, 2013.5.12 Density (#/m2) of Settled Zebra Mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station; Barge ISlip, Splash Pool and Emergency Outfall Basin, 2013.II2013 Annual Environmental Report ivFENOC (BVPS) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This report is submitted in accordance with Section 5.4.1 of Appendix B: To Facility Operating License No. NPF-73, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological).

Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is operated by FirstEnergy NuclearOperating Company (FENOC).

The Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) areto:* Verify that the facility is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement-Operating License Stage (FES-OL) and other NRCenvironmental impact assessments,

" Keep plant operations personnel appraised of changes in environmental conditions that mayaffect the facility,

" Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State, and localrequirements for environmental protection, and" Keep the NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effects.To achieve the objectives of the EPP, both FENOC and BVPS have written programs andprocedures to comply with the EPP, protect the environment, and comply with governmental requirements primarily including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) requirements.

Water qualitymatters identified in the Final Environmental Statements-Operating License Stage (FES-OL) areregulated under the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.PA0025615.

Waste is regulated under EPA Identification No. PAR000040485.

Attachment 10.1 contains a listing of permits and certificates for environmental compliance.

The BVPS programs and procedures include pre-work and pre-project environmental evaluations, operating procedures, pollution prevention and response programs procedures andplans, process improvement and corrective action programs, and human performance programs.

Technical and managerial monitoring of tasks, operations, and other activities are performed.

Any identified challenges,

concerns, or questions are captured in the FENOC ProblemIdentification and Resolution Program with a Condition Report. Condition Reports includeinvestigations, cause determinations, and corrective actions.During 2013 BVPS continued an Aquatic Monitoring Program to evaluate its potential impact onthe New Cumberland Pool of the Ohio River, and to provide information on potential impacts toBVPS operation from macrofoulers such as Asian clams and zebra mussels.2013 Annual Environmental Report 1FENOC (BVPS) 1.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There were no significant environmental events during 2013. During 2013 no significant changes to operations that could affect the environment were made at Beaver Valley PowerStation.

As in previous years, results of the BVPS environmental programs did not indicateany adverse environmental impacts from station operation.

1.3 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGEDuring 2013, no significant changes were made at BVPS to cause significant negative affect on Ithe environment.

1.4 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM IThe 2013 Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Units 1 and 2 Non-Radiological Monitoring Program consisted of an Aquatic Program that included surveillance and field sampling of theOhio River's aquatic life in the vicinity of the station.

The Aquatic Program is an annualprogram conducted to provide baseline aquatic resources data, to assess the impact of theoperation of BVPS on the aquatic ecosystem of the Ohio River, and to monitor for potential impacts of biofouling organisms (Corbicula and zebra mussels) on BVPS operations.

This is the38F year of operational environmental monitoring for Unit 1 and the 27th year for Unit 2. As inprevious years, the results of the program did not indicate any adverse environmental impact tothe aquatic life in the Ohio River associated with the operation of BVPS.The results of the 2013 benthic macroinvertebrate survey conducted in May and September Iindicated a normal community structure exists in the Ohio River both upstream and downstream of the BVPS. These benthic surveys are a continuation of a Fate and Effects Study conducted from 1990 through 1992 for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)to assess the ecosystem impacts of the molluscicides Betz Clamtrol CT-1, CT-2, and NalcoH150M that have been used to control biofouling organisms at BVPS. To date the results of thebenthic studies have not indicated any impacts of operation at the BVPS including the use thesebiocides on the benthic community below the BVPS discharge.

Substrate was probably the most important factor influencing the distribution and abundance of Ithe benthic macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River near BVPS. The generally soft muck-type substrate along the shoreline found in 2013 and previous years was conducive to segmented worm (oligochaete) and midge fly larvae (chironomid) proliferation.

Sixty (60)macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 2013 monitoring program.

In 2013 no newtaxa were added to the cumulative list of macroinvertebrates collected near BVPS. No state orFederal threatened or endangered macroinvertebrate species were collected during 2013.In May and in September oligochaetes were the most frequently collected group ofmacroinvertebrates.

There were no major differences in the community structure betweencontrol and non-control stations that could be attributed to operation of BVPS. The overallcommunity structure has changed little since pre-operational years, and program results did2013 Annual Environmental Report 2FENOC (BVPS) not indicate that B VPS operations were affecting the benthic community of the Ohio River.The fish community of the Ohio River near the BVPS was sampled in May (spring),

July(summer),

September (fall) and November (winter) of 2013 with electrofishing and seining.Since monitoring began in the early 1970's, the number of identified fish taxa has increased from43 to 78 for the New Cumberland Pool.In 2013, 124 fish representing 23 taxa were collected (i.e., handled) during BVPS surveys byelectrofishing and seining.

This was the same number of taxa and one fewer fish than collected in 2012. All taxa collected in 2013 were previously encountered at BVPS. A total of 85 fish,representing 19 taxa, was collected by electrofishing in 2013 compared to 88 fish representing 18species in 2012. In each of these years there were both fewer fish and taxa than in 2011, whenelectrofishing was conducted at night. The relatively fewer fish collected in 2012 and 2013 mayhave been caused by the need to electrofish during the day, because of damage to the BVPSonsite launch. A total of 39 fish representing seven (7) taxa was collected by seines in 2013(Table 5.10) compared to 37 fish representing seven (7) taxa in 2012.Benthivores (bottom feeders including suckers and buffalo) and forage species (e.g. spotfinshiners and emerald shiners) were generally collected in the highest numbers in 2013. The totalnumber of forage species collected in 2013 was comparable to 2012, but less than in 2011.Variations in annual catch were probably attributable to normal fluctuations in the population size of the forage species and the predator populations that rely on them. Forage species, such asgizzard shad and emerald shiner with high reproductive potentials, frequently respond to changesin natural environmental factors (competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) withlarge fluctuations in population size. This, in turn, influences their appearance in the samplepopulations during annual surveys.

Spawning/rearing success due to abiotic factors is usually thedetermining factor of the size and composition of a fish community.

In 2013, the annual catch rate using electrofishing was 0.53 fish per minute. The greatest catchrate in 2013 occurred in spring (May) when the catch rate was 0.97 fish per minute. Goldenredhorse sucker and shorthead redhorse sucker contributed to the majority of this total. Thelowest catch rate occurred in summer (July) with a rate of 0.28 fish per electrofishing minute.The annual catch rate in 2013 (0.53 fish per minute) was comparable to 2012 (0.59) but lowerthan the prior two years (1.09 in 2010 and 0.93 in 2011). This is probably caused by the need toelectrofish during the day in 2013 and in May, July and November 2012 rather than at night as inall previous years.Little difference in the species composition of the catch was observed between the control(Station

1) and non-control (Stations 2A, 2B and 3) stations.

Habitat preference and availability were probably the most important factors affecting where and when fish were collected.

Resultsfrom the 2013 fish surveys indicated that a normal community structure for the Ohio Riverexists near BVPS based on species composition and relative abundance.

In 2013, there wasno indication of negative impact to the fish community in the Ohio River from the operation ofB VPS.The monthly reservoir Ponar samples collected in Units 1 and 2 cooling towers and the four2013 Annual Environmental Report 3FENOC (BVPS)

Isamples collected at the intake during 2013 indicated that Corbicula were present in the OhioRiver and entering the station.

In 2013, eight (8) settled live Corbicula were collected from theUnit 1 cooling tower basin during monthly reservoir sampling.

In 2013, four (4) live settledCorbicula was collected from the Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir; one during March and three inApril. Overall, the numbers of Corbicula collected in the samples were comparatively low,which continued the trend over the past few years of fewer Corbicula and reflected a water-body-wide trend observed in the Ohio River.In 1995, live zebra mussels were collected for the first time by divers in the BVPS main intake Iand auxiliary intake structures during scheduled cleanings.

They have been found in the BVPSevery year since. Overall, both the number of observations and densities of settled mussels in2013 were consistent to those recorded in 2008-2012, and much higher than the preceding fiveyears. Although densities of settled mussels are low compared to other populations such as theLower Great Lakes, densities comparable to those in the Ohio River are more than sufficient tocause problems in the operation of untreated cooling water intake systems.

Whether thepopulation of zebra mussels in this reach of the Ohio River will remain the same or increasecannot be determined.

In any case, the densities of mussels that presently exist are more titansufficient to impact the B VPS, if continued prudent monitoring and control activities are notconducted.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN NON-COMPLIANCES There were no Environmental Protection Plan non-compliances identified in 2013.3.0 CHANGES INVOLVING UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS No Un-reviewed Environmental Questions were identified in 2013. Therefore, there were nochanges involving an Un-reviewed Environmental Question.

4.0 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTThere were no non-routine environmental reports in 2013. III2013 Annual Environmental Report 4FENOC (BVPS) 5.0 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAMThis section of the report summarizes the Non-Radiological Environmental Program conducted for the BVPS Units 1 and 2; Operating License Numbers DPR-66 and NPF-73. This is a non-mandatory

program, because on February 26, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)granted BVPS's request to delete all of the Aquatic Monitoring
Program, with the exception ofthe fish impingement program (Amendment No. 25), from the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS). In 1983, BVPS was permitted to also delete the fish impingement studiesfrom the ETS program of required sampling along with non-radiological water qualityrequirements.
However, in the interest of providing an uninterrupted
database, BVPS hascontinued the Aquatic Monitoring Program.The objectives of the 2013 environmental program were:* To monitor for any possible environmental impact of BVPS operation on the benthicmacroinvertebrate and fish communities in the Ohio River;" To evaluate the presence, growth, and reproduction of macrofouling Corbicula (Asiatic clam) and zebra mussels (Dreissena spp.) at BVPS.* To provide a low level sampling program to continue an uninterrupted environmental database for the Ohio River near BVPS, pre-operational to present; and* Keep plant operations appraised of any of changes in environmental conditions thatmay affect the facility.

These objectives have assisted facility personnel in the past. For instance, in the facility's Significant Operating Experience Report (SOER 07-2, October 2008) relative to "Intake CoolingWater Blockage" this Aquatic Monitoring Program was credited as a means of addressing "Changing Environmental Conditions" by looking "for changes in quantity of clam and musselactivity by monitoring the veliger (aka larval) density in the river and mussel settlement density."

5.1 SITE DESCRIPTION BVPS is located on an approximately 453-acre tract of land on the south bank of the Ohio Riverin the Borough of Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

The Shippingport Atomic PowerStation once shared the site with BVPS before being decommissioned.

Figure 5.1 is a plan viewof BVPS. The site is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kin) from Midland, Pennsylvania; 5 miles (8 kin)from East Liverpool, Ohio; and 25 miles (40 kin) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The population within a 5-mile (8 kin) radius of the plant is approximately 18,000. The Borough of Midland,Pennsylvania has a population of approximately 3,500.The station is situated at Ohio River Mile 34.8 (Latitude:

400 36' 18"; Longitude:

80' 26' 02") ata location on the New Cumberland Pool that is 3.1 river miles (5.3 kin) downstream fromMontgomery Lock and Dam and 19.6 miles (31.2 kin) upstream from New Cumberland Lock2013 Annual Environmental Report 5FENOC (BVPS)

Iand Dam. The Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia border is 5.2 river miles (8.4 km) downstream from the site. The river flow is regulated by a series of dams and reservoirs on the Beaver,Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries.

The study site lies along the Ohio River in a valley, which has a gradual slope that extends fromthe river at an elevation of 665 ft (203 m) above mean sea level; to an elevation of 1,160 ft (354m) along a ridge south of BVPS. The plant entrance elevation at the station is approximately 735ft (224 m) above mean sea level.BVPS Units 1 and 2 have a thermal rating of 2,900 megawatts (MW). Units 1 & 2 have a designelectrical rating of 974 MW and 1,009 MW, respectively.

The circulating water systems for eachunit are considered a closed cycle system with continuous

overflow, using a cooling tower tominimize heat released to the Ohio River. Commercial operation of BVPS Unit 1 began in 1976and Unit 2 began operation in 1987.5.2 STUDY AREAThe environmental study area was established to assess potential impacts and consists of foursampling
stations, each having a north and south shore (Figure 5.1). Station 1 is located at RiverMile (RM) 34.5, approximately 0.3 miles (0.5 km) upstream of BVPS and is the control station.

mStation 2A is located approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) downstream of the BVPS discharge structure in the main channel.

Station 2B is located in the back channel of Phillis Island; also 0.5miles downstream of the BVPS discharge structure.

Station 2B is the principal non-control Istation because the majority of discharges from BVPS Units 1 and 2 are released to this backchannel.

Station 3 is located approximately two miles (3.2 km) downstream of BVPS and onlyrarely is influenced by the BVPS discharge.

5.3 METHODSShaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), a CB&I, Incorporated

company, was contracted to performthe 2013 Aquatic Monitoring Program as specified in BVBP-ENV-001-Aquatic Monitoring (procedural guide). This procedural guide references and describes in detail the field andlaboratory procedures used in the various monitoring
programs, as well as the data analysis andreporting requirements.

These procedures are summarized according to task in the following Isubsections.

Sampling was conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 5.1.I5.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring The benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program consisted of river bottom sampling using aPonar grab sampler at four stations on the Ohio River. Prior to 1996, duplicate samplingoccurred at Stations 1, 2A, and 3, while triplicate sampling occurred at Station 2B (i.e., onesample at each shoreline and mid-channel)

(Figures 5.1 and 5.2). In 1996, a review of thesampling design indicated that sampling should be performed in triplicate at each station to2013 Annual Environmental Report 6FENOC (BVPS) conform to standardized U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) procedures.

Therefore, starting in 1996, triplicate samples were taken at Stations 1, 2A, and 3, as in 1995,with triplicate samples also collected at each shore and mid-channel location at Station 2B. Apetite Ponar dredge was used to collect these samples, replacing the standard Ponar dredge usedin prior studies.In 2013, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted as scheduled in May andSeptember.

For each 2013 field effort, 18 benthic samples were collected and processed in thelaboratory.

All field procedures and data analyses were conducted in accordance with theprocedural guide. The contents of each Ponar grab sample were gently washed through a U.S.Standard No. 30 sieve and the retained contents were placed in a labeled bottle and preserved inethanol.

In the laboratory, rose bengal stain was added to aid in sorting and identifying thebenthic organisms.

Macroinvertebrates were sorted from each sample, identified to the lowesttaxon practical and counted.

Mean density (number/m

2) for each taxon was calculated for eachreplicate.

Four indices used to describe the benthic community were calculated:

Shannon-Weiner diversity index, evenness (Pielou, 1969), species richness, and the number of taxa.These estimates provide an indication of the relative quality of the macroinvertebrate community.

5.3.2 Fish Monitoring Fish sampling was conducted in 2013 to provide a continuous baseline of data and to detectpossible changes that may have occurred in the fish populations in the Ohio River near BVPS.Fish population surveys have been conducted in the Ohio River near BVPS annually from 1970through 2013. These surveys have resulted in the collection of 73 fish species and five different hybrids.Adult fish surveys were successfully conducted as scheduled in May, July, September, andNovember 2013. During each survey, fish were scheduled to be sampled at four stations(Stations 1, 2A, 2B and 3) (Figure 5.3). Prior to 2011, all electrofishing was conducted at night.In 2013 and at times during 2012, due to damage to the onsite boat launch, the crew was requiredto launch the boat from the Lock 57 Community Park Boat Launch located near GlasgowPennsylvania.

The launch was only open until one hour after dark, so it was necessary toconduct electrofishing efforts during the day. Electrofishing was completed at all stations andmonths. Seining was scheduled to be performed at Station 1 (north shore) and Station 2B (southshore of Phillis Island) to sample species that are generally under-represented in electrofishing catches (e.g., young-of-the-year fish and small cyprinids).

All seining efforts were successfully completed.

Electrofishing was conducted using a boat-mounted electroshocker with floodlights attached tothe bow. A Smith-Root Type VI A variable

voltage, pulsed-DC electrofishing unit powered by a5-kW generator was used. The voltage selected depended on water conductivity and wasadjusted to provide constant amperage (4-6 amps) of the current through the water. The northand south shoreline areas at each station were shocked for at least 10 minutes of unit "on" time2013 Annual Environmental Report 7FENOC (BVPS)

I(approximately five minutes along each shore) during each survey.When large schools of fish of a single non-game species such as gizzard shad and shiners were mencountered during electrofishing

efforts, all of the stunned fish were not netted and retrieved onboard the boat. A few fish were netted for verification of identity, and the number of observedstunned fish remaining in the water was estimated.

The size range of the individual fish in theschool was also estimated and recorded.

This was done in an effort to expedite sampleprocessing and cover a larger area during the timed electrofishing run. Regardless of the numberof individuals, all game fish were boated when observed.

Fish seining was performed during the day at Station 1 (control) and Station 2B (non-control)

(Figure 5.3) during each of the four 2013 BVPS fishery surveys.

A 30-ft long bag seine made of1/4-inch nylon mesh netting was used to collect fish located close to shore in 1 to 4 ft of water.Three seine hauls were performed at both Station 1 (north shore) and Station 2B (south shore ofPhillis Island) during each survey.Fish collected during electrofishing and seining efforts were processed according to standardized procedures.

All captured game fishes were identified to species,

counted, measured for totallength (nearest 1 mm), and weighed (nearest 1 g for fish less than or equal to 1000 g and thenearest 5 g for all other fish). Non-game fishes were counted, and a random subsample oflengths was taken. Live fish were returned to the river immediately after processing wascompleted.

All fish that were unidentifiable or of questionable identification and were obviously not on the endangered or threatened species list were placed in plastic sample bottles, preserved, labeled and returned to the laboratory for identification.

Any species of fish that had notpreviously been collected at BVPS was retained for the voucher collection.

Any threatened orendangered species (if collected) would be photographed and released.

5.3.3 Corbicula Density Determinations for Cooling Tower Reservoirs IThe Corbicula Monitoring Program at BVPS includes sampling the circulating river water andthe service water systems of the BVPS (intake structure and cooling towers).

The objectives ofthe ongoing Monitoring Program are to evaluate the presence of Corbicula at BVPS, and toevaluate the potential for and timing of infestation of the BVPS. This program is conducted inconjunction with a program to monitor for the presence of macrofouling zebra mussels (seeSection 5.3.5).Corbicula enter the BVPS from the Ohio River by passing through the water intakes, and Ieventually settle in low flow areas including the lower reservoirs of the Units 1 and 2 coolingtowers. The density and growth of these Corbicula were monitored by collecting monthlysamples from the lower reservoir sidewalls and sediments.

The sampler used on the sidewalls consisted of a D-frame net attached behind a 24-inch long metal scraping edge. This device wasconnected to a pole long enough to allow the sampler to extend down into the reservoir area fromthe outside wall of the cooling tower. Sediments were sampled with a petite Ponar dredge.Cooling tower reservoir sampling was historically conducted once per month. Beginning in2013 Annual Environmental Report 8FENOC (BVPS)

December 1997, it was decided to forego sampling in cold water months since buildup ofCorbicula does not occur then. Monthly sampling has been maintained throughout the warmerwater months of the year. In 2013 sampling began in March and ended in mid-November.

In 2013, once each month (March through November),

a single petite Ponar grab sample wasscheduled to be taken in the reservoir of each cooling tower to obtain density and growthinformation on Corbicula present in the bottom sediment.

The samples collected from eachcooling tower were returned to the laboratory and processed.

Samples were individually washed,and any Corbicula removed and rinsed through a series of stacked U.S. Standard sieves thatranged in mesh size from 1.00 mm to 9.49 mm. Live and dead clams retained in each sieve werecounted and the numbers were recorded.

The size distribution data obtained using the sievesreflected clam width, rather than length. Samples containing a small number of Corbicula werenot sieved; individuals were measured and placed in their respective size categories.

A scrapingsample of about 12 square feet was also collected at each cooling tower during each monthlysampling effort. This sample was processed in a manner consistent with the petit Ponar samples.Population surveys of both BVPS cooling tower reservoirs have been conducted duringscheduled outages (1986 to present) to estimate the number of Corbicula present in thesestructures.

During the scheduled shutdown period for each unit, each cooling tower reservoir bottom is sampled by petite Ponar at standardized locations within the reservoir.

Counts of liveand dead clams and determination of density were made. There were no scheduled outagesduring 2013 when samples were collected.

5.3.4 Corbicula Juvenile Monitoring The Corbicula juvenile study was designed to collect data on Corbicula spawning activities andgrowth of individuals entering the intake from the Ohio River. From 1988 through 1998, clamcages were deployed in the intake forebay to monitor for Corbicula that entered the BVPS.Observational-based concerns that the clam cages would quickly clog with sediment during highsediment periods and, as a result, would not effectively sample for Corbicula, led to anevaluation of an alternate sampling technique.

From April through June 1997, a study wasconducted to compare the results of the clam cage samplers to a petite Ponar dredge technique todetermine Corbicula presence and density in the BVPS intake bays. It was hypothesized thatusing a Ponar sampler to collect bottom sediments and analysis of those sediments wouldprovide a more representative sample of Corbicula settlement and growth rates, and had theadded benefit of not requiring confined space entry to conduct the sampling.

Results of the studyconfirmed this hypothesis.

During the 1998 sampling season, at the request of BVPS personnel, all clam cages wereremoved after the May collection.

Monthly petite Ponar grabs from the forebay in the intakebuilding continued thereafter.

Samples were processed in the same manner as Cooling TowerSamples (Section 5.3.3).From 2002 to present, because of site access restrictions, sampling with the petite Ponar has been2013 Annual Environmental Report 9FENOC (BVPS)

Imoved to the Ohio River directly in front of the Intake Structure Building.

Collections arepresently scheduled to be made in conjunction with the fisheries sampling (May, July,September, and November).

During each sampling month two Ponar grabs are takenapproximately 20 feet offshore of the intake building.

These grab samples are processed in thesame manner as when they were collected from within the Intake Structure Building.

5.3.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoringy The Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program includes sampling the Ohio River and the circulating river water system of the BVPS.The objectives of the Monitoring Program were:(1) To identify if zebra mussels were in the Ohio River adjacent to BVPS and provide early Iwarning to operations personnel as to their possible infestation; (2) To provide data as to when the larvae were mobile in the Ohio River and insights as to theirvulnerability to potential treatments; and(3) To provide data on their overall density and growth rates under different water temperatures and provide estimates on the time it requires these mussels to reach the size and density thatcould impact the plant.The zebra mussel sampling for settled adults was historically conducted once per month,yearlong.

Beginning in December 1997, it was decided to forego sampling in the colder watermonths of each year, since buildup of zebra mussels and growth of the individuals that arepresent, does not occur then. Monthly sampling has been maintained throughout the balance ofthe year. In 2013 sampling occurred from March through November.

A pump sample for zebra mussel veligers was collected at the barge slip location monthly fromApril through October in 1996 and 1997. The scope of the sampling was expanded in 1998 toalso include the intake structure.

In June 1998, the Emergency Outfall and Emergency OutfallImpact Basin locations were also added. Additional pump samples were collected from thecooling towers of Unit 1 and Unit 2 in October 1998. In 2013 veliger sampling began in Apriland was conducted monthly through October.At the Intake Structure and Barge Slip the following surveillance techniques were used:" Wall scraper sample collections on a monthly basis (March through November) from thebarge slip and the riprap near the intake structure to detect attached adults; and* Pump sample collections from the barge slip and outside the intake structure, to detect theplanktonic early life forms (April through October).

I2013 Annual Environmental Report 10FENOC (BVPS)

At each of the cooling towers the following techniques were used:* Monthly reservoir scraper sample collections in each cooling tower (March throughNovember);

and* Pump samples in April through October to detect planktonic life forms.At the Emergency Outfall and the Splash Pool the following techniques were used:* Monthly scraper sample collections in each (March through November);

and* Pump samples in each from April through October to detect planktonic life forms.5.3.6 ReportsEach month, activity reports that summarized the activities that took place the previous monthwere prepared and submitted.

These reports included the results of the monthly Corbicula/zebra mussel monitoring including any trends observed and any preliminary results available from thebenthic and fisheries programs.

The reports addressed progress made on each task, and reportedany observed biological activity of interest.

5.4 RESULTS OF THE AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAMThe following sections summarize the findings for each of the program elements.

Samplingdates for each of the program elements are presented in Table 5.1.5.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring ProgramBenthic surveys were performed in May and in September 2013. Benthic samples weresuccessfully collected using a petite Ponar grab sampler at Stations 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 (Figure 5.2).Triplicate samples were taken off the south shore at Stations 1, 2A, and 3. Sampling at Station2B, in the back channel of Phillis Island, consisted of triplicate petite Ponar grabs at the southside, middle, and north side of the channel (i.e., Sample Stations 2B11, 2132, and 2B3,respectively).

Substrate type is an important factor in determining the composition of the benthic community.

The habitats in the vicinity of BVPS are the result of damming, channelization, and river traffic.Shoreline habitats at the majority of sampling locations were generally in depositional areas thatconsisted of soft muck substrates composed of mixes of sand, silt, and detritus.

One exception 2013 Annual Environmental Report 11FENOC (BVPS)

Iwas along the north shoreline of Phillis Island at Station 2A where hard-pan clay overlain with athin layer of fine sand dominated.

The other distinct

habitat, hard substrate (gravel and cobble),was located in mid-channel of the back channel of Phillis Island. The hard substrate wasprobably the result of channelization and ongoing scouring by river currents.

In general, thesubstrates found at each sampling location have been consistent from year to year.Sixty (60) macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 2013 monitoring program (Tables5.2 and 5.3), which was seven more than identified in 2012. A mean density of 1,457macroinvertebrates/m 2 was collected in May and 2,004/m2 in September (Table 5.4). As inprevious years, the macroinvertebrate assemblage during 2013 was dominated by burrowing organisms typical of soft unconsolidated substrates.

Oligochaetes (segmented worms), mollusks(clams and snails) and chironomid (midge fly) larvae were abundant (Table 5.4). Sixteen (16)taxa of chironomids and 21 taxa of oligochaetes were collected.

This is the same number ofchironomid taxa and nine (9) more oligocheate taxa than collected in 2012. Ten (10) taxa ofmollusks were also collected in 2013. Unlike 2012, but as in 2010 and 2011, the total meandensity of organism was higher in September than in May.Thirty-four (34) taxa were present in the May 2013 samples.

Forty-eight (48) taxa were present Uin the September samples (Table 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). Twenty-two (22) of the 60 taxa were presentin both May and September.

Immature tubificid worms were numerically the most abundantorganism in both May and September 2013. In 2012, immature tubificid worms were also themost abundant species in May; however, the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha was the mostabundant taxa in September.

The macrofouling Asiatic clam (Corbicula) has been observed in the Ohio River near BVPSfrom 1974 to present.

Macrofouling zebra mussels were first collected in the BVPS benthicsamples in 1998. Adult zebra mussels,

however, were detected in 1995 and 1996 by divers in theBVPS main and auxiliary intake structures during scheduled cleaning operations.

Zebra musselveligers, adults and juveniles were collected during the 1997-2013 sampling programs (seeSections 5.4.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program).

Both live adult Corbicula and adult zebramussels were collected in benthic macroinvertebrate samples in 2013. Corbicula were the thirdmost abundant and zebra mussels the seventh most abundant species collected in benthic samplescollected in 2013.In 2013 no new taxa were added to the cumulative list of macroinvertebrates collected nearBVPS (Table 5.2). No state or Federal threatened or endangered macroinvertebrate specieswere collected during 2013.In the May 2013 samples, oligochaetes accounted for the highest mean density ofmacroinvertebrates and chironomids had the second highest (1,149/mi 2 or 79 percent of the totaldensity and 162/M2 or 11 percent, respectively)

(Table 5.4). These two groups were alsodominant in May 2012. Mollusks were present at a density of 48/mr2.Organisms other thanoligochaetes, chironomids and mollusks were present at a density of 98/mr2 in May.In September 2013 samples, oligochaetes also accounted for the highest mean density ofmacroinvertebrates and mollusks had the second highest (958/mr2 or 48 percent of the total2013 Annual Environmental Report 12FENOC (BVPS) density and 535/M2 or 27 percent, respectively)

(Table 5.4). Chironomids had the third highestmean density in September 2013 (289/rn2 or 14 percent) while the "others" category had thefourth highest mean density (222/m or 11 percent).

In May 2013, the highest density of macroinvertebrates (3,268/mr

2) occurred at Station 3. InSeptember, the highest density of macroinvertebrates also occurred at Station 2B3 (4,458/M2). InMay the lowest mean density of organisms was 660/mr2 that occurred at Station 2A and Station2B3. In September, the lowest mean density of organisms also occurred at Station 1 (373/mr2).For a comparison of the control to non-control
stations, Station 1 was designated the controlstation, because it is always out of the influence of the BVPS discharge and Station 2B (meandensity of Station 2B 1, 2B2, and 2B3) was designated as the non-control
station, since it is thestation most regularly subjected to BVPS's discharge.

Stations 3 and 2A may be under theinfluence of the plume under certain conditions, but it is unlikely that they are regularly influenced by BVPS.The mean density of macroinvertebrates in the control station was more than two times higher(2,107/M2) than that of the non-control station (903/M2) in May (Table 5.5). The relatively higher densities of oligochaetes, at the control station contributed to the majority of thisdifference.

Overall the differences probably reflect the natural differences in substrate andnatural heterogeneous distributions of these organisms between the stations rather than project-related impacts.In September, the density of macroinvertebrates present at the non-control station (2,427/mr

2) wasover six times greater than at the control station (373/M2). This was the reverse of the previousyear, when the density of macroinvertebrates was 15 percent greater at the control station.Differences were within the expected range of variation for natural populations ofmacroinvertebrates.

Indices that describe the relative diversity,

evenness, and richness of the macroinvertebrate population structure among stations and between control and non-control sites were calculated.

A higher Shannon-Weiner diversity index indicates a relatively better structured assemblage oforganisms, while a lower index generally indicates a low quality or stressed community.

Evenness is an index that estimates the relative contribution of each taxon to the community assemblage, the closer to 1.00, the healthier the community.

The community richness is anotherestimate of the quality of the macroinvertebrate community with a higher richness numberindicating a healthier community.

The Shannon-Weiner diversity indices in May 2013 collections ranged from 0.32 at Station I to1.04 at Station 3 (Table 5.6). In May evenness ranged from 0.30 at Station 1 to 0.76 at Station 3.Richness was greatest at Station 3 (4.05) and lowest at Station 2B1 (1.97). The overall lowindices at all locations (control and non-control) except Station 3 are attributed to the relatively few species (8 to 12) collected at all locations except Station 3 where 23 species were collected.

The low numbers of organisms likely is due to natural variation in the Ohio River rather than dueto BVPS operations, since they were present at both control and non-control stations.

2013 Annual Environmental Report 13FENOC (BVPS)

IThe Shannon-Weiner diversity of the macroinvertebrate community (0.41 to 1.28), evenness(0.35 to 0.94) and richness (1.73 to 5.67) in September 2013 were higher than in May. Except atStaion 1, there was also generally an increase in the number of taxa present in September (sevento 29 taxa per station) compared to May (eight to 23 taxa per station).

Relatively high numbersof taxa are frequently present in early fall due to the increased numbers of aquatic stages ofinsects, especially chironomids, as well as the ability to identify many of the tubificids that arelumped together when immature to lower taxonomic levels. A comparable increase in indicesvalues in September compared to May was also observed in 2010, 2011 and 2012.In May 2013, the number of taxa was slightly higher in the control station (Station

1) than in thenon-control stations (2B1, 2B2, 2B3) (12 versus 10, 10 and 8). The diversity, evenness andrichness indices were similar among control and non-control (Table 5.6). In September 2013 theindices at the control stations were, in general, lower than in the non-control stations.

Similartrends were apparent in the previous five study years and were likely due to natural variations inthe local populations at these locations.

No impacts of the BVPS on the benthic community, asmeasured by differences between control and non-control zones, were evident in either May orSeptember.

Substrate was probably the most important factor controlling the distribution and abundance ofthe benthic macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River near BVPS. Soft, mucky substrates thatgenerally existed along the shoreline are conducive to oligochaete, chironomid, and molluskhabitation and limit species of macroinvertebrates that require a more stable bottom.The density of macroinvertebrates in May and September 2013 fell within the range of densities of macroinvertebrates collected at BVPS in previous years (Table 5.7). The community structure has changed little since pre-operational years, and the available evidence does not Iindicate that BVPS operations have affected the benthic community of the Ohio River.I5.4.2 Fish Sampling ProgramIn 2013, 124 fish representing 23 taxa were collected (i.e., handled) during BVPS surveys byelectrofishing and seining (Table 5.8). This was the same number of taxa and one fewer fishthan collected in 2012. All taxa collected in 2013 were previously encountered at BVPS. The Imost common species in the 2013 BVPS surveys that were collected by electrofishing andseining combined were emerald shiner (17.7% of the total catch), golden redhorse sucker(15.3%),

shorthead redhorse sucker (13.7%),

and smallmouth bass (10.5%).

None of the Iremaining 19 species contributed to more than 5 percent of the total handled catch. The mostfrequently observed but not handled fish in 2013 were unidentified suckers (Table 5.15). Gamefish collected in 2013 included black crappie, channel catfish,

bluegill, flathead
catfish, Ipumpkinseed
sunfish, rock bass, smallmouth bass, sauger, walleye, spotted bass, and yellowperch. Game fish represented 28.2% of the total handled catch. Gizzard shad that were collected and observed in large numbers in 2012 were only infrequently collected.

A total of 85 fish, representing 19 taxa, was collected by electrofishing in 2013 (Table 5.9)2013 Annual Enviromrnental Report 14FENOC (BVPS) compared to 88 fish representing 18 species in 2012. In each of these years there were bothfewer fish (151) and taxa (22) than in 2011, when electrofishing was conducted at night. Therelatively fewer fish collected in 2012 and 2013 may have been caused by the need to electrofish during the day, because of damage to the BVPS onsite launch. Nighttime electrofishing has beendemonstrated to be more productive than during the day in riverine systems.

Movements of fishinto shallower water at night to feed, makes them more susceptible to the electrofishing technique.

Golden redhorse sucker, shorthead redhorse

suckers, and smallmouth bass accounted for the greatest portion of the 2013 electrofishing catch (22.4%, 20.0% and 14.1%, respectively).

No other species collected contributed to greater than five percent of the total catch. Fishobserved and not collected in the 2013 electrofishing study are presented in Table 5.15.A total of 39 fish representing seven (7) taxa was collected by seines in 2013 (Table 5.10)compared to 37 fish representing seven (7) taxa in 2012. The most abundant taxa collected in2013 were emerald shiner and spotfin shiner (representing 56.4% and 18.0% of the total catch,respectively),

followed by mimic shiner (7.7%), and spottail shiner (7.7%). Game species(bluegill, spotted bass and smallmouth bass) were only collected as juveniles.

A total of 61 fish representing 16 species was captured during the May (spring) 2013 samplingevent (Table 5.11). A total of 39 fish representing thirteen (13) specieswere collected duringelectrofishing.

Shorthead redhorse sucker was the most abundant species and represented 25percent of the electrofishing catch, followed in abundance by golden redhorse sucker(representing 20.0% of the total catch), and smallmouth bass (17.5%).

No other speciescontributed to more than five (5) percent of the May electrofishing catch. Black crappie,bluegill, pumpkinseed

sunfish, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and spotted bass were the gamespecies collected in May. A total of 22 fish representing four species were collected by seines inMay. Emerald shiner (representing 54.6% of the seine catch) and spotfish shiner (31.8%) werethe most abundant species.

Spottail shiner and spotted bass were also collected.

A total of 28 fish representing 10 species was captured during the July (summer) 2013 samplingevent (Table 5.12). A total of 11 fish representing six (6) species was collected duringelectrofishing efforts.

Smallmouth buffalo and golden redhorse sucker were the most abundantspecies and each represented 27.3% of the catch. Smallmouth bass (18.2% of the total catch)was the nest most abundant species.

Seventeen fish representing five species were collected inthe seines. Emerald shiner was the most abundant species and represented 58.8% of the seinecatch. Mimic shiner (17.7% of the total catch) and juvenile bluegill (11.8%) were the next mostabundant species.During the September (fall) 2013 sampling event, 13 fish representing 11 taxa were collected during electrofishing efforts.

No fish were collected by seines (Table 5.13). All of the speciesexcept for bluegill and golden redhorse sucker were represented by a single individual.

Bluegill, channel catfish, flathead
catfish, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, and walleye were the gamespecies collected.

During the November (winter) 2013 sampling event, 22 fish representing eight (8) taxa werecaptured during electrofishing efforts.

None were collected by seines (Table 5.14). Goldenredhorse sucker and shorthead redhorse sucker were the most abundant species collected by2013 Annual Environmental Report 15FENOC (BVPS)

Ielectrofishing and contributed to 31.8% and 27.3% of the total catch, respectively.

Rock bassand smallmouth bass were the only other species represented by more than a single individual.

Game species collected in November included

bluegill, channel catfish, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and yellow perch.Electrofishing catch rates are presented in Tables 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19 for fish that were iboated and handled during the 2010 through 2013 surveys by season (FENOC 2011, 2012 and2013). In 2013, the annual catch rate was 0.53 fish per minute. In 2013, the greatest catch rateoccurred in spring (May) when the catch rate was 0.97 fish per minute. Golden redhorse suckerand shorthead redhorse sucker contributed to the majority of this total. The lowest catch rateoccurred in summer (July) with a rate of 0.28 fish per electrofishing minute.The annual catch rate in 2013 (0.53 fish per minute) was comparable to 2012 (0.59), but lowerthan the prior two years (1.09 in 2010 and 0.93 in 2011). This is probably caused by the need toelectrofish during the day in 2013 and in May, July and November 2012 rather than at night as inall previous years. The 2013 catch rates in summer and fall were the lowest of the four years andthe second lowest (to catch rates in 2012) in spring and winter. Over the four years, the highestseasonal catch rates occurred in May 2010 (2.20 fish per minute).The results of the electrofishing sampling effort (Table 5.9) did not indicate any majordifferences in species composition between the control station (1) and the non-control Stations2A, 2B, and 3. A greater number of fish representing more species was captured at non-control stations than control station.

This was most likely due to the extra effort expended at non-control stations versus control station (i.e., there are three non-control stations and only one controlstation).

In 2013, more individual and species were collected by seines at the control stationcompared to the non-control

station, where sampling effort is equal (Table 5.10). This is likelydue to the schooling nature of shiner species, which represented the majority of the catch.In 2013, species composition remained comparable among stations.

Common taxa collected inthe 2013 surveys by all methods included redhorse sucker species, emerald shiner, andsmallmouth bass. Little difference in the species composition of the catch and relativecomposition was observed between the control (1) and non-control stations (2A, 2B and 3).Habitat preference and availability were probably the most important factors affecting where andwhen different species of fish are collected.

The results of the 2013 fish surveys indicated that there is a normal community structure in theOhio River in the vicinity of BVPS based on species composition and relative abundance of fishobserved during the surveys.

Benthivores (bottom feeders including suckers and buffalo) and Iforage species (e.g. emerald,

spottail, and spotfin shiners) were generally collected in the highestnumbers.

The numbers of forage species were comparable to those present in 2012 but less thanin some of the recent past years. Variations in annual catch were probably attributable to normal Ifluctuations in the population size of the forage species and the predator populations that rely onthem. Forage species, such as gizzard shad, minnow species and shiner species that have highreproductive potentials, frequently respond to changes in natural environmental factors I(competition, food availability, cover, and water quality) with large fluctuations in population size. This, in turn, influences their appearance in the sampled populations during annual surveys.2013 Annual Environmental Report 16FENOC (BVPS)

Spawning/rearing success due to abiotic factors is usually the determining factor of the size andcomposition of a fish community.

In addition, differences in electrofishing catch rate can be attributed to environmental conditions that prevail during sampling efforts.

High water, increased turbidity, and swift currents thatoccur during electrofishing efforts in some years can affect the collection efficiency in any givenmonth. In 2013, as in 2012, increased water clarity was apparent during all months sampled.

Adirect result of the increased clarity was the abundance of rooted submerged aquatic vegetation throughout the study reach. The amount of rooted vegetation was much more than in any otheryear sampled.

The increase in vegetation is likely the result of an increased photic zone due tozebra mussels filtering organic and inorganic particulates from the water and redistributes themto the benthic layer. The presence of rooted vegetation and increased water clarity can change thedistribution of many of the fish species present in the study reach.The impact of needing to electrofish during the day in 2013 is also a factor that contributed to the2013 catch. As previously discussed, shoreward fish movements at night generally increase catchrates. The avoidance of the majority of fish species from bright light conditions during the daywas likely as acerbated by the increased water clarity.5.4.3 Corbicula Monitoring ProgramIn 2013, eight (8) settled live Corbicula were collected from the Unit 1 cooling tower basinduring monthly reservoir ponar sampling (Table 5.20 and Figure 5.5). They ranged in size fromless than 1.00 mm to 9.94 mm. One dead Corbicula that fell into the 0.01mm to 0.99mm sizerange was also collected.

The season average density of settled live Corbicula was 48/ mi2.Thehighest density of settled Corbicula occurred in April when a density of 129 Corbicula/m 2 waspresent.

No Corbicula were collected in the scraping samples.

Corbicula juveniles were alsocollected in monthly pump samples collected in the Unit 1 cooling tower reservoir in June,August and September.

In 2013, four (4) live settled Corbicula was collected from the Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir; one during March and three in April (Table 5.21 and Figure 5.6). They were all less than 2mm insize that indicates that they were spawned late in 2012. Three dead Corbicula were alsocollected during the March-April timeframe.

These were all less than 1mm and likely werespawned late in 2012. The season average density of settled live Corbicula was 19/ mi2.Thehighest density of settled Corbicula occurred in April when a density of 129 Corbicula/m 2 waspresent.

No Corbicula were collected in the scraping samples.

Corbicula juveniles were alsocollected in monthly pump samples collected in the Unit 2 cooling tower reservoir in August andSeptember.

In 2013, BVPS continued its Corbicula control program (Year 24), which included the use of amolluscicide to prevent the proliferation of Corbicula within BVPS. BVPS was grantedpermission by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to use a molluscicide totarget the Unit 1 river water system and the Unit 2 service water system.2013 Annual Environmental Report 17FENOC (BVPS)

IIn 1990 through 1993, the molluscicide applications focused on reducing the Corbicula population throughout the entire river water system of each BVPS plant (Units 1 and 2). In 1994and 1995, the applications targeted the internal water systems; therefore, the molluscicide concentrations in the cooling towers were reduced during applications.

Consequently, adult andjuvenile Corbicula in the cooling towers often survived the applications.

Reservoir sedimentsamples taken after molluscicide applications represent mortality of Corbicula in the coolingtower only and do not reflect mortality in BVPS internal water systems.The monthly reservoir sediment samples and pump samples collected in Units 1 and 2 Cooling nTowers in recent years demonstrated that Corbicula were entering and colonizing the reservoirs.

Only 12 live and four dead settled Corbicula were collected in the cooling towers in 2013;however, their presence in the cooling tower pump samples indicates that they still are available for establishment in the cooling towers. The recent decrease of Corbicula at the BVPS returnsdensities to levels more consistent with densities in the Ohio River in the mid-1990's, but wellbelow those present during the 1980's. Whether the low density of Corbicula in 2013 isindicative of decreasing levels in the environment or due to sampling variability is uncertain,

however, continued monitoring of Corbicula densities is recommended.

5.4.4 Corbicula Juvenile Monitoring ProgramFigure 5.7 presents the abundance and size distribution data for samples collected in the OhioRiver near the intake structure by petite Ponar dredge in 2013. Twenty-four (24) live individuals nwere collected 2013; 15 in May, three in July, and six in November.

They ranged in size fromthe 0.01-0.99 mm size range that were spawned in late 2012 and 2013 to greater than 9.50 mmthat were spawned in prior years. The number of individuals collected in 2013 was somewhatmore than in 2012 (19 individuals) and 2011 (12 individuals) but less than the two years prior to Ithat; 27 individuals in 2010, and 42 in 2009. A spring/early-summer spawning period typically occurs in the Ohio River near BVPS each year when preferred spawning temperatures (60-65' F)are reached (Figure 5.8). The offspring from this spawning event generally begin appearing in Ithe sample collections in June. The settled clams generally increase in size throughout the year.The overall low numbers of live Corbicula collected in the sample collected outside the intakeand cooling towers in 2013, compared to levels in the 1980's, likely reflects a natural decreasein the density of Corbicula in the Ohio River near BVPS, although an increased density of livesettled individuals and juveniles collected in the cooling towers may indicate that thepopulation is beginning to increase again. Continued monitoring of Corbicula densities isrecommended.

I5.4.5 Zebra Mussel Monitoring ProgramZebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are exotic freshwater mollusks that have ventrally flattened shells generally marked with alternating dark and lighter bands. They are believed tohave been introduced into North America through the ballast water of ocean-going cargo vessels Iprobably from Eastern Europe. They were first identified in Lake St. Clair in 1988 and rapidlyspread to other Great Lakes and the Mississippi River drainage system, and have become2013 Annual Environmental Report 18FENOC (BVPS) increasingly abundant in the lower, middle, and upper Ohio River. They use strong adhesivebyssal threads, collectively referred to as their byssus, to attach themselves to any hard surfaces(e.g., intake pipes, cooling water intake systems, and other mussels).

Responding to NRC NoticeNo. 89-76 (Biofouling Agent-Zebra Mussel, November 21, 1989), BVPS instituted a ZebraMussel Monitoring Program in January 1990. Studies have been conducted each year since then.Zebra mussels were detected in both the pump samples (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) and the substrate samples (Figure 5.11 and 5.12) in 2013. Zebra mussel veliger pump samples were collected from April through October 2013 (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). Veligers were collected at all of the sixsites that were sampled in 2013. At most sample sites, there were generally two peaks in density.Densities in April and May were low. The first peak occurred in June. Then monthly densities were lower until a second peak occurred in September.

This seasonal pattern is typical for zebramussels in the northeastern United States. Spawning begins as water temperature reachapproximately 140 C and peaks at water temperatures of 210 C. Veligers densities usually peakabout two weeks after the optimum water temperature for spawning is reached.

Veliger densities then fall off as veligers mature and settle, although female mussels broadcast mature eggsthroughout the season. The greatest density of veligers was present in the sample collected fromthe Barge Slip in late June (17,808/M 3). This was somewhat lower than the peak density ofveligers collected in 2012 (34,628/mi

3) at the Emergency Outfall Building in August, but is ahigh density for the Ohio River. In April, veligers were collected only in the two cooling towerreservoirs.

This was probably due to the thermal enhancement of the cooling tower reservoirs, since the ambient Ohio River water temperatures did not reach the minimum spawningtemperature for zebra mussels until May. Thereafter, veligers were present in every samplecollected at all locations, except at the Barge Slip in May. Overall, veliger densities in 2013were consistent with those found in 2012.In 2013, settled zebra mussels were collected only in scrape samples at the barge slip and theintake structure (Figures 5.11 and 5.12). The highest density of settled mussels in any samplecollected was at the barge slip (12 mussels/m

2) in July. The mussels collected at each of the sitesincluded individuals that were capable of reproducing.

The density of collected adult zebramussels in 2013 was somewhat lower than the densities that occurred in 2012, but wereconsistent with those recorded in 2008- 2011.Overall, both the number of observations and densities of settled mussels in 2013 were consistent to those recorded in 2008-2012, and much higher than the preceding five years. Althoughdensities of settled mussels are low compared to other populations such as the Lower GreatLakes, densities comparable to those in the Ohio River are sufficient to cause problems in theoperation of untreated cooling water intake systems.

Whether the population of zebra musselsin this reach of the Ohio River will remain the same or increase cannot be determined.

In anycase, the densities of mussels that presently exist are more than sufficient to impact the BVPS,if continued prudent monitoring and control activities are not conducted.

2013 Annual Environmental Report 19FENOC (BVPS) 6.0 ZEBRA MUSSEL AND CORBICULA CONTROL ACTIVITIES In 2013, BVPS continued its Corbicula and zebra mussel control program (24th year), whichincluded the use of a molluscicide to prevent the proliferation of Corbicula and zebra musselswithin BVPS. BVPS was granted permission by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to use a molluscicide to target the Unit 1 river water system and the Unit 2 servicewater system.In 1990 through 1993, the molluscicide applications (CT-1) focused on reducing the Corbicula population throughout the entire river water system of each BVPS plant (Units 1 and 2). In 1994through 2006, the CT-1 or CT-2 (reformulated CT-1) applications targeted zebra mussels andCorbicula in the internal water systems; therefore the molluscicide concentrations in the coolingtowers were reduced during CT-1 or CT-2 applications.

Consequently, adult and juvenileCorbicula in the cooling towers often survived the applications.

Reservoir sediment samplestaken after CT-1 or CT-2 applications represented mortality of Corbicula in the cooling toweronly and do not reflect mortality in BVPS internal water systems.

In 2007 BVPS began usingNalco H150M as the molluscicide.

This product, which has the same active ingredients as theCT-2 and CT-2, was applied in the same manner.In addition to clamicide treatments, preventive measures were taken that included quarterly cleaning of the Intake Bays. The bay cleanings are intended to minimize the accumulation andgrowth of mussels within the bays. This practice prevents creating an uncontrolled internalcolonization habitat.IIIIIIIII2013 Annual Environmental ReportFENOC (BVPS)20

7.0 REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1994. Pennsylvania's Endangered Fishes, Reptiles andAmphibians.

Published by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

Counts, C. C. III, 1985. Distribution of Corbicula fluminea at Nuclear Facilities.

Division ofEngineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NUREGLCR.

4233. 79 pp.Dahlberg, M. D. and E. P. Odum, 1970. Annual cycles of species occurrence, abundance anddiversity in Georgia estuarine fish populations.

Am. Midl. Nat. 83:382-392.

FENOC, 2003. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First Energy NuclearOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 & 2. 113 pp.FENOC, 2004. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2005. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2006. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2007. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2008. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2009. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2010. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 pp.FENOC, 2011. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 ppFENOC, 2012. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 &2. 82 ppFENOC, 2013. Annual Environmental Operating Report, Non-radiological.

First EnergyOperating

Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1&2. 82 ppHutchinson, G. E., 1967. A treatise on linmology.

Vol. 2, Introduction to lake biology and thelimnoplankton.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1115 pp.2013 Annual Environmental Report 21FENOC (BVPS)

Hynes, H. B. N., 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto.NRC, IE Bulletin 81-03: Flow Blockage of Cooling Tower to Safety System Components byCorbicula sp. (Asiatic Clam) and Mytilus sp. (Mussel).

Pielou, E. C., 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology.

Wiley Interscience, Wiley & Sons,New York, NY.Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B.Scott, 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada(fifth edition).

American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 20:1-183.

Shiffer, C., 1990. Identification Guide to Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bureau of Education and Information.

51 pp.Winner, J. M., 1975. Zooplankton.

In: B. A. Whitton, ed. River ecology.

Univ. Calif. Press,Berkeley and Los Angeles.

155-169 pp.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII2013 Annual Environmental ReportFENOC (BVPS)22 8.0TABLES TABLE 5.1BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION (BVPS)SAMPLING DATES FOR 2013Study Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBenthic Macroinvertebrate 26 19Fish 22 18 19 4Corbicula and Zebra Mussel 26 30 22 26 18 29 19 16 4Corbicula CT DensityZebra Mussel Veliger 30 22 26 18 29 19 16 Table 5.2Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2013 in The Ohio River Near BVPSPhylum Class Family GenusPrevious Collectedin NewinSub-Family Collections 2013 2013PoriferaSpongillafragilis XCnidariaHydrozoaClavidae...............

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

..C ord .lo hora lacustris HydridaeCraspedacusta sowerbii XHydra sp. XPlatyhelminthes Tricladida XRhaldocoela XNemertea XNematoda X XEntoprocta I Urnatella gracilis XEctoprocta Fredericella sp. XPaludicella articulata X........

Pectinatella sp. XPlumatella sp. XAnnelida_______

  • 4Oligochaeta xxlAeolosomalidae xSEnchytraeidae xNaididae X I X IAllonais nectinata xAmphichaeta leydigi XAmphichaeta sp. XArcteonais lomondi X XAulophonis sp. XChaetogaster diaphanus XC. diastrophus XDero digitata XDeroflabelliger XD. nivea XDero sp. XNais barbata XN. behningi XN. bretscheri XN. communis X XN. elinguis XN. pardalis X XI. pseudobtusa XN. simplex XN. variabilis X XNais sp. XOphidonais serpentina XParanaisfrici XParanais litoralis XParanais sp. X XPiguetiella michiganensis XPrislina idrensis XPristina longisoma XPristina longiseta XP. osborni X XP. sima xPristina sp. XIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPristinella sp.X6 .1 __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ __ -..1 Table 5.2 (conptinued)..

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2013 in The Ohio River Near BVPSPhylum Class Family Genus and Species Previous Collected in New inSub-Famil Collections 2013 2013Annelida Oligochaeta Naididae Pristinellajenkinae X XPristinella idrensisx............................

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

Tubificida Pristina osborni XRipistes parasita XSlavina appendiculata XSpecariajosinae X XStephensoniana trivandrana XSIvIariafossularis XS. lacustris X XUncinais uncinata XVejdovskyella conmata XVejdovskyella intermnedia XVe]dovskyella sp. Xx+ + 4-Tubificidae xxAulodrilus limnnobius xA. pigueti I X IA. DIuriseta x.......~ + 4-Aulodrilus sp.xx..............

Bothrioneurum vejdovskyanum XBranchiura sowerbyi X X.lyodrilus templetoni XLimnodrilus cervix XL. cervix (variant)

XL. claparedianus XL. hoffineisteri X XL. maumeensis X XL. profinidicla X XL. spiralis XL. udekemianus X XLimnodrilus sp. X IPeloscolex multisetosus longidentus XP. m. multisetosus XPotamnothrix moldaviensis XPotamothrix sp. XP. vejdovskyi XPsammoryctides curvisetosus XTubifex tubifexx+ 4-Unidentified immature forms:with hair chaetaewithout hair chaetaexxVx xI I I-Lumbriculidae xxHimudinae x x~_____ ____Ciossiphoniidae

________________

I x~IHelobdella elongataxH. stagnalis x I[Helobdella sp. X I _Emobdelhda Haplotamidae Lumbricina Il~urbficidae eErwobdella st).+ 4-xMooreobdella microstonma xStvlodrilus sp.+ 4xxx

..te te ....t ..a.....e..eh

.te.... ectdTable 5.2 (continued)

Phylum Class Family Gen and Spcies Pre-ious Collectedin NewinI Sub-Faml Collections 2013 2013Arthropoda Acarina X... ... ... .-IOxus sp. x XOstracoda X.Asellus sp. XArthropoda

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

.A m phipoda.

.:: Talitridae

.. .IHyalella azteca XSCrangonyxpseudogracilis XCrangonyx sp. XGaminarusfasciatus xGamnnarus sp. X XPontoporeuidae

.....Monoporeiaaffinis xCorophididae xDecapoda XCollembola XEphemeroptera_

X X............

....... Heptageniidae X.... .............

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

...... S ten a cro n sp. X...... ..... ...... S t e n o n e r n a s p .XEphemeridae

.Ephemera sp. XHexagenia sp. X XEphron sp. X XBaetidae

-I ats... .... ..... ..............

.... ... B e t s s .xCaenidae.. .... ..... ... ...... .. ...... ....... :..... ....... ....C e i pSerattella sp. X.. ..... ..........

..... ... ....... ..... .. ."~r t e l sp..... T r c r t i a.rc r ta e ......X .jc r t ia.. .... ..... ..................

........

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

.. ...... ........ IT r ic o ry th o d e s sp .XMegaloptera Sialis sp. XOdonataGo mphidacArgia sp.X........

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

...........

Drom ogomnphus spoliatus XSDromrogomnphus sp. XGomphus sp. X X.... ...........

..... .t ... .e ... ..... ..... ...... .... .. .............

... .. ..... .... .. ........ ... e s s s p............................

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

I st s .Libellula sp. XPlecoeera X XTrichoptera X[ Hydropsychidae

_____Cheurnatopsyche sp. X.Hydropsyche sp. XSParapsyche sp. XHydroptilidae

... Hydroptila sp. X XO0rthotrichia sp. XOxyethira sp. XCeraclea sp. Xoecetis sp. X.. .........

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

.Polycentropodidae Cvrnellus sp XPolycentropodidae Polycentropus sp. XIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Syste .at .c L..s ...... .a.ro.n...e.rae

..... .Table 5.2 92O(continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 11973 Through 2013 in The Ohio River Near BVPSPhylum Class Family .. ...... .Genus and Species Previous Collectedin NewinS ub-Family Collections 2013 2013Coleoptera Hydrophilidae xColeoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx variegalus XDubiraphia sp. XHelichus sp. XOplioserus sp. XSteneinis sp. XPsephenidae X')iplerai iUnidentified DipteraxxPsychodidae XPericoma sp. XPsychoda sp. _________

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

I. .... ..........

... ..... P s -h d pTelnatoscopus sp. XUnidentified Psychodidae pupae XChaoboridae Chaoborus sp. xSimuliidae Sirniliurn sp. XChironomidae X XChironominae XTanytarsini pupa XChironominae pupa X XAxarus sp. XChironomus sp. X XCladopelma sp. XCladotanytarsus sp. X XCryptochironomus sp. X XDicrotendipes nervosus X... ...................

....... D icrotendip es sp. X X.................

Glptotendipes sp. xHarnischia sp. XMicrochironomus sp. X.Aicropsectra sp. XA'ficrotendipes sp. x _____...........

........

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

i r t n i e pParachironomus sp. XParacladopelhna sp. XParatanytarsus sp. XParatendipes sp. xPhaenopsectra sp. X X.............................

Polypedilum (s.s.) convictum type XP. (ss.) simulans type xPolypedilurn sp. X XPseudochironomis sp. X XRheotanytarsus sp. XStempellina sp. X XStenochironomnus sp. x... ... .........

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

... S t n c i o o u -.............

..... .... Stictochirononnis sp. XTanytarsus coffinani XTanytarsus sp. X XTribelos sp. XXenochironornus sp. xTanypodinae_

XTanypodinae pupaexAblabesnzyia sp. XClinotanypus sp. XCoelotanypus scapularis XCoelotanypus sp. X XDjiahnabalista pulcher XO/ahnabatista sp. XProcladius sp. X XTanypus sp.X

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

... ...T..a. .................

T able .5.2 (continued)

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2013 in The Ohio River Near BVPSPhylum Class Family Genus andSpecies Previous Collectedin NewinS ub-Familv Collections 2013 2013Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemanninlyia group X X.. .... .. ..........

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

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

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

.. Z a v r e lim y ia s p .XOrthocladiinae XOrthocladiinae pupae XCricotopus bicinctus X.C. (s.s.) trifascia x..........

... Cricotopus (Isocladius)-sjlvestris Group X.... ................

... C. (Isocladius) sp. XCricotopus (s.s.) sp. X X.....E..u.................u...

.... E kiefferiella sp. X...................

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

Hydrobaenus sp. X........

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

L im n op hy es sp .XNanocladius (s.s.) distinctus X.. ....................

..........

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

.........

..........

a n o c la d iu s s p .XOrthocladius sp. X X...............

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

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

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

P a ra m e trio cn em u s sp .X.............

.........

........Paraphaenocladius sp. X.. .. .................

Psectrocladius sp. xPseudorthocladius sp. xPseudosmittia sp. XSinittia sp. X..... .... .............

...... ....... ..... Theineinannimy ia sp. XDiames inae... ........

.... ... .. ..D iam esa sp. x........

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

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

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

....... .. P o tth a stia s p .XCeratopogonidae X................

..... .. .Probezzia sp. X X.....................

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

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

B e z z ia s p .X...................

... .. C ulicoides sp. x.... .........

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

..... D olichopodidae X.. ...................

...... ... E m p id id ae XIClinocera sp. X....... .. .. .. ..........

..W iedemannia sp. XEphydridae XMuscidae XRhagionidae X...............

..... ..... T ipulidae XStratiomyidae XSyrphidae XLepidoptera XHydracarinidia XOxus sp. XMollusca..........................

G astro poda ..... .._x.........

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

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

... H y d ro b iid ae XAncnicolinae

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

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

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

A m n tc o la s p .X... .. ..... ........................

A.n. .. .. ...........................

.A n ico la b in n ey a n a XAmnicola limosa X XStaknicola elodes X.. .. .... .... .... B ithynidae I-Bithynia

s. X.............

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

P h y s~ac e a ...XPleuroceridae Pleurocera acuta X XGoniobasis sp. X...." ..

... ... .... .... ... iPhy~sldae

.. .. ..x.. ... ........

... ....... .Phq sa sp. X X.. ... ..... ...... .... .... ........

... .. ..... P h ,sa a n cilla ria XIPhysa in tegmi XIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

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

.....T a b le 5 ..2 (c o n ti n u e d ) .... ... .. ..... ... ............................................

Systematic List of Macroinvertebrates Collected From 1973 Through 2013 in The Ohio River Near BVPSPhylum Class FlY.. .. Genus and Species Previous Collectedin NewinISub-aily Collections 2013 2013Mollusca Physacea Ancylidae X.Ferrissia sp. X XPlanorbidae Gillia atilis X X.. ..... ... ..........

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

.........

.. G v ra uilu s SP ........ ....... .. .. .........

... .....t d a .x ....IValvatidae XValvata perdepressa XValvata piscinalis XValvata sincera X XValvata sp. XPelecypoda XI Sphaeriacea XCCorbicuaidae i... .. ".. '. .........

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

... ........

-JCor~bicul_-a fl um inea XCorbicula sp. X X... ..... ........:Sphaeriidae.

XPisidium ventricosum XPisidiumn sp. X XSphaeriumn sp. X XUnidentified immature Splaeriidae XDreissenidae

.-, Dreissena polymorpha x xUnionidae XAnodonta grandis xAnodonta (inmature)

XElliptio sp. XQuadrula pustulosa XUnidentified immature Unionidae X* a TABLE5.3BFIITUlC NIACROIDVFRTEBRATECOUNTS FOR TRIPUICATESAMPLES TAKEN AT EACH SAMPLESTATION FOR MAY AND S EPTMBER 2013May SeptScientific name location May Location Sept 2013I 2A 2B1 2B2 2B3 3 Total I 2A 2BI 2B2 2B3 3 Total TotalAmnicola limosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5Arcteonais lomondi 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Aulodrilus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2Branchiura sowerbyi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2Caenis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1Chironomid pupae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3Chironomidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 4Chironomus sp. 0 0 .0 6 22 10 38 0 0 6 0 14 0 20 58Cladotanytarsus sp 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2Coelotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 10Corbicula sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7 31 2 16 58 59Cricotopus (s.s.) sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 5 6Cryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 0 0 14 14Dicrotentipides sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 21Diptera 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Dreissena polymorpha 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 25 27 30Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 3Ephonsp.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Ferossia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 87 95 95Gammarus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6Gillia atilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 2 11 11Gomphus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2Hexagenia sp. 0 0 0 1 10 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Hirudinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 4Hydroptila sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Immature tubificid without 126 30 79 27 8 63 333 20 8 28 5 244 28 333 666Immature tubiflcid with hair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3Limnoddlus hoffmeisteri 3 0 0 3 1 3 10 1 0 3 1 7 8 20 30Limnodrilus maumeensis 1 2 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 21Limnodnilus profundicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Limnodfilus udemekianus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Lumbticulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3Naididae 0 0 1 0 1 29 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31Nais communis 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Nais pardalis 1 3 5 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9Nais variabilis 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 24Nematoda 2 1 5 2 0 9 19 0 0 1 0 0 70 71 90Oligochaeta 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4Orthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Oxus sp (Hydracadna) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Paranais sp 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 32Phaenopsectra sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2Physa sp 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2Pisidium sp. 2 1 0 1 0 7 11 1 0 3 12 0 3 19 30Pleurocera acuta 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Plecoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2Polypedilum sp. 2 4 1 0 1 5 13 1 3 9 3 0 1 17 30Pristina osbomi 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Pnstinella jenkinae 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 0 8 5 14 20Probezzia sp. 2 0 1 3 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 11Procladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 1 4 8 10Pseudochironomis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4Specaria josinae 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Sphaerium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5Stempellina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Stylaria lacustris 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Tanytarsus sp. 1 3 0 0 0 8 12 0 2 8 0 0 0 10 22Thienemannimyia group 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Tubificidae 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Valvata sincera 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 6Total 147 46 96 47 46 228 610 26 28 140 57 311 277 839 1449 TABLE5.4MEAN NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (NUMBER/Mz)

AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF OLIGOCHAErMS, CHIRONOMIDS,

MOLLUSKS, AND OTHER ORGANISMS, 2013 BVPSMay Station1 (Control) 2A 2B1 (Non-control) 2B2 (Non-control) 2B3 (Non-control) 3 Total Mean#/M2 % #/M2 % #/mz % #/m2? % #/m % I #/M2 #/M2 %Oligochaetes 1964 93 502 76 1261 92 473 70 158 24 2551 78 1149 79Chironomids 43 2 115 17 14 1 86 13 330 50 387 12 162 11Mollusks 43 2 14 2 0 0 14 2 29 4 172 5 48 3Others 57 3 29 4 100 7 100 15 143 22 158 5 98 7Total 2107 " 100 660 " 100 1375
  • 100 673
  • 100 660 P 100 3268 ' 100 1457 100September Station1 (Control) 2A 12B1 (Non-control) 12B2 (Non-control) 2B3 (Non-control) 3 Total Mean/ M 2 % / 2 % / 2 % # / 2 # / M2 % L / 2 # / 2%Oligochaetes 315 84 115 29 487 24 100 12 4099 92 631 16 958 48Chironornids 29 8 258 64 917 46 57 7 244 5 229 6 289 14Mollusks 29 8 29 7 516 26 659 81 29 1 1949 49 535 27Others 0 0 0 0 86 4 0 0 86 2 1161 29 222 11Total 373 100 402 100 2006 ' 100 816 ' 100 4458 ' 100 3970 100 2004 100M M M- M M--- M--- M M- M M M TABLE 5.5MEAN NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES (NUMBER/M
2) AND PERCENTCOMPOSITION OF OLIGOCHAETA, CHIRONOMIDAE,
MOLLUSCA, AND OTHERORGANISMS FOR THE CONTROL STATION (1) AND THE AVERAGE FORNON-CONTROL STATIONS (22B1, 2B2, AND 2B3), 2013 BVPSMay 1 Control Station (Mean) Non-Control Station (Mean)I #/M2 % #/m2 %Oligochaeta 1964 93 631 70Chironomidae 43 2 143 16Mollusca 43 2 14 2Others 57 3 114 13TOTAL 2107 100 903 100September 1 Control Station (Mean) Non-Control Station (Mean)________
  1. /m2  % #/m2 %Oligochaeta 315 84 1562 64Chironomidae 29 8 406 17Mollusca 29 8 401 17Others 0 0 57 2TOTAL 373 100 2427 100 TABLE 5.6SHANNON-WEINER DIVERSITY, EVENNESS AND RICHNESS INDICESFOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN THE 01O RIVER, 2013StationMay 1 2A 2BI 2B2 2B3 3No. of Taxa 12 9 10 10 8 23Shannon-Weiner Index 0.32 0.57 0.35 0.66 0.63 1.04Evenness 0.30 0.60 0.35 0.66 0.70 0.76Richness 2.20 2.09 1.97 2.34 1.83 4.05StationSeptember 1 2A 2B1 2B2 2B3 3No. of Taxa 7 10 29 8 18 23Shannon-Weiner Index 0.41 0.94 1.28 0.62 0.44 0.92Evenness 0.49 0.94 0.88 0.69 0.35 0.68Richness 1.84 2.70 5.67 1.73 2.96 3.91 Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control) and 2B (Noncontrol),

BVPS, 1973-2013.

Preoperational 1973 1974 19751 2B I 2B I 2BMay 248 508 1116 2197August 99 244 143 541 1017 1124Mean 173 376 630 1369 1017 1124Operational 1976 1977 1978I 2B 1 2B I 2BMay 927 3660 674 848 351 126August 851 785 591 3474 601 1896Mean 889 2223 633 2161 476 1011Operational 1979 1980 19811 2B I 2B I 2BMay 1004 840 1041 747 209 456Aug/Sept 1185 588 1523 448 2185 912Mean 1095 714 1282 598 1197 684Operational 1982 1983 19841 2B I 2B I 2BMay 3490 3026 3590 1314 2741 621September 2958 3364 4172 4213 1341 828Mean 3223 3195 3881 2764 2041 725Operational 1985 1986 19871 2B I 2B I 2BMay 2256 867 601 969 1971 2649September 1024 913 849 943 2910 2780Mean 1640 890 725 956 2440 2714IIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control) and 2B (Noncontrol),

BVPS, 1973-2013 (Continued).

Operational 1988 1989 19901 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 1804 1775 3459 2335 15135 5796September 1420 1514 1560 4707 5550 1118Mean 1612 1645 2510 3274 10343 3457Qperational 1991 1992 19931 2B I 2B 1 2BMay 7760 6355 7314 10560 8435 2152September 3588 2605 2723 4707 4693 2143Mean 5808 4480 5019 7634 6564 2148Operational 1994 1995 19961 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 6980 2349 8083 9283 1987 1333September 1371 2930 1669 3873 1649 2413Mean 4176 2640 4876 6578 1814 1873Operational 1997 1998 19991 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 1411 2520 6980 2349 879 1002September 1944 2774 1371 2930 302 402Mean 1678 2647 4176 2640 591 702Operational 2000 2001 20021 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 2987 2881 3139 5232 1548 2795September 3092 2742 8632 14663Mean 3040 2812 3139 5232 5090 8729 Table 5.7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities for Stations I (Control) and 2B (Noncontrol),

BVPS, 1973-2013 (Continued).

Operational 2003 2004 2005I 2B I 2B 1 2BMay 7095 10750 2752 4558 516 1146September 2193 6464 10062 7604 4773 6435Mean 4644 8607 6407 6181 2645 3791Operational 2006 2007 20081 2B 1 2B I 2BMay 143 1242 559 912 158 1252September 229 2199 560 3794 1161 2150Mean 186 1721 560 2353 660 1701Operational 2009 2010 20111 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 71 1462 1763 2527 115 1700September 903 1902 1720 1256 874 1233Mean 487 1682 1742 1892 495 1467Operational 2012 20131 2B 1 2B 1 2BMay 71 1462 2107 903September 903 1902 373 1731Mean 487 1682 1240 1317IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TABLE 5.8TOTAL FISH CATCH; ELECTROFISHING AND SEINE NETCOMBINED DURING THE BVPS 2013 FISHERIES SURVEYCommon Name Scientific Name Number PercentSmailmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 4 3.23Black crappie Ponoxis nigrornaculatus 2 1.61Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 6 4.84Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 2 1.61Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 22 17.74Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1 0.81Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 2 1.61Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 3 2.42Golden redhorse sucker Moxostoma erythrurum 19 15.32Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 3 2.42Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus 3 2.42Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 1 0.81Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 2 1.61River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 3 2.42Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 4 3.23Sauger Sander canadense 1 0.81Shorthead redhorse sucker Moxostoma macrolepidotum 17 13.71Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 3 2.42Smalimouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 13 10.48Spotfin shiner Notropis spilopterus 7 5.65Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus 4 3.23Walleye Sander vitreum 1 0.81Yellow perch Percaflavescens 1 0.81Total Fish Collected in 2013 1 124 100.00 TABLE 5.9COMPARISON OF CONTROL VS. NON-CONTROL ELECTROFISHING CATCHESDURING THE BVPS 2013 FISHERIES SURVEYCommon Name I Control % Non-control

% lTotal fish %Smallmouth buffalo 4 5.6 4 4.71Black crappie 2 2.8 2 2.35Bluegill 4 5.6 4 4.71Channel catfish 1 7.69 1 1.4 2 2.35Emerald shinerFlathead catfish 1 1.4 1 1.18Freshwater drum 2 2.8 2 2.35Gizzard shad 1 7.69 2 2.8 3 3.53Golden redhorse sucker 3 23.08 16 22.2 19 22.35Longnose gar 1 7.69 2 2.8 3 3.53Mimic shinerPumpkinseed 1 1.4 1 1.18Quillback 2 2.8 2 2.35River carpsucker 1 7.69 2 2.8 3 3.53Rock bass 4 5.6 4 4.71Sauger 1 1.4 1 1.18Shorthead redhorse sucker 3 23.08 14 19.4 17 20.00Spottail shinerSmallmouth bass 3 23.08 9 12.5 12 14.12Spotfin shinerSpotted bass 3 4.2 3 3.53Walleye 1 1.4 1 1.18Yellow perch 1 1.4 1 1.18Total 13 100.00 1 72 J 100.0 85 100.00IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TABLE 5.10COMPARISON OF CONTROL VS. NON-CONTROL SEINE CATCHESDURING THE BVPS 2013 FISHERIES SURVEYCommon Name Control % Non-control

[ % ITotal fishl %Bluegill 2 5.88 0 0.00 2 5.13Emerald shiner 21 61.76 1 20.00 22 56.41Mimic shiner 3 8.82 0 0.00 3 7.69Spottail shiner 3 8.82 0 0.00 3 7.69Smallmouth bass 0 0.00 1 20.00 1 2.56Spotfin shiner 5 14.71 2 40.00 7 17.95Spotted bass 0 0.00 1 20.00 1 2.56Total 34 100.00 5 100.00 39 100.00 TABLE 5.11FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE MAY 2013 (SPRING)

SAMPLINGOF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPSSample locations

  • Seine Electrofishing Common Name S-1 S-2 E-1 E-2A E-2B E-3 Total % Total %Smalmouth buffalo 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Black crappie 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Bluegill 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Channel catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00Emerald shiner 11 1 12 54.55 0 0.00Flathead catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00Freshwater drum 0 0.00 0 0.00Gizzard shad 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Golden redhorse sucker 1 6 1 0 0.00 8 20.00Longnose gar 2 0 0.00 2 5.00Mimic shiner 0 0.00 0 0.00Pumpkinseed 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Quillback 2 0 0.00 2 5.00River carpsucker 1 1 0 0.00 2 5.00Rock bass 1 0 0.00 1 2.50Sauger 0 0.00 0 0.00Shorthead redhorse sucker 1 8 1 0 0.00 10 25.00Spottail shiner 2 2 9.09 0 0.00Smallmouth bass 2 3 1 1 0 0.00 7 17.50Spotfin shiner 5 2 7 31.82 0 0.00Spotted bass 1 2 1 4.55 2 5.00Walleye 0 0.00 0 0.00Yellow perch 0 0.00 0 0.00Total 18 4 4 22 10 3 22 100.00 39 100.00IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII* Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.12FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE JULY (SUMMER) 2013 SAMPLINGOF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPSSample locations
  • Seine Electrofishing Common Name S-1 S-2 E-1 E-2A E-2B E-3 Total % Total %Smallmouth buffalo 1 2 0 0.00 3 27.27Black crappie 1 0 0.00 1 9.09Bluegill 2 2 11.76 0 0.00Channel catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00Emerald shiner 10 10 58.82 0 0.00Flathead catfish 0 0.00 0 0.00Freshwater drum 0 0.00 0 0.00Gizzard shad 1 0 0.00 1 9.09Golden redhorse sucker 3 0 0.00 3 27.27Longnose gar 0 0.00 0 0.00Mimic shiner 3 3 17.65 0 0.00Pumpkinseed 0 0.00 0 0.00Quillback 0 0.00 0 0.00River carpsucker 0 0.00 0 0.00Rock Bass 0 0.00 0 0.00Sauger 1 0 0.00 1 9.09Shorthead redhorse sucker 0 0.00 0 0.00Spottail shiner 1 1 5.88 0 0.00Smallmouth bass 1 2 1 5.88 2 18.18Spotfin shiner 0 0.00 0 0.00Spotted bass 0 0.00 0 0.00Walleye 0 0.00 0 0.00Yellow perch 0 0.00 0 0.00Total 16 1 0 4 6 1 17 100.00 11 100.00* Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.13FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE SEPTEMBER (FALL) 2013 SAMPLINGOF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPSSample locations
  • Seine Electrofishing Common Name S-1 S-2 E-1 E-2A E-2B E-3 Total % Total %Smallmouth buffalo 0 -0 0.00Black crappie 0 -0 0.00Bluegill 1 0 -2 15.38Channel catfish 1 0 -1 7.69Emerald shiner 0 -0 0.00Flathead catfish 1 0 -1 7.69Freshwater drum 1 0 -1 7.69Gizzard shad 1 0 -1 7.69Golden redhorse sucker 1 1 0 -2 15.38Longnose gar 1 0 -1 7.69Mimic shiner 0 -0 0.00Pumpkinseed 0 -0 0.00Quillback 0 -0 0.00River carpsucker 0 -1 7.69Rock bass 0 -0 0.00Sauger 0 -0 0.00Shorthead redhorse sucker 0 -0 0.00Spottail shiner 0 -0 0.00Smallmouth bass 0 -1 7.69Spotfin shiner 0 -0 0.00Spotted bass 0 -1 7.69Walleye 1 0 -1 7.69Yellow perch 0 -0 0.00Total 0 0 3 6 3 1 0 13 100.00IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*Gear = (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.14FISH SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE NOVEMBER (WINTER) 2013 SAMPLINGOF THE OHIO RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF BVPSSample locations
  • Seine Electrolishing Common Name S-1 S-2 E-1 E-2A E-2B E-3 Total % Total %Smalimouth buffalo 0 -0 0.00Black crappie 0 -0 0.00Bluegill 1 0 -1 4.55Channel catfish 1 0 -1 4.55Emerald shiner 0 -0 0.00Flathead catfish 0 -0 0.00Freshwater drum 1 0 -1 4.55Gizzard shad 0 -0 0.00Golden redhorse sucker 2 1 3 0 -6 27.27Longnose gar 0 -0 0.00Mimic shiner 0 -0 0.00Pumpkinseed 0 -0 0.00Quillback 0 -0 0.00River carpsucker 0 -0 0.00Rock bass 1 2 0 -3 13.64Sauger 0 -0 0.00Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 4 1 0 -7 31.82Spottail shiner 0 -0 0.00Smallmouth bass 1 1 0 -2 9.09Spotfin shiner 0 -0 0.00Spotted bass 0 -0 0.00Walleye 0 -0 0.00Yellow perch 1 0 -1 4.55Total 0 0 6 7 3 6 0 -22 100.00* Gear= (E) Fish captured by electrofishing; (S) captured by seining TABLE 5.15ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FISH OBSERVED DURINGELECTROFISHING OPERATIONS, 2013Common Name May July Sept Nov TotalUnidentified black bass 3 3Smalhmuth buffalo 0Longnose gar 1 1Unidentified suckers 5 1 6Unidentified sunfish 3 3Gizzard shad 3 1 4Total 15 1 1 17IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII* = Not boated or handled Table 5.16CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2010 FISHERIES SURVEYSeason Effort (minm) Common Name Number Collected CPUE(fish/min)

Spring 41.0 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.0976Channel catfish 3 0.0732Freshwater drum 1 0.0244Gizzard shad 3 0.0732Golden redhorse sucker 11 0.2683Longnose gar 4 0.0976Mooneye 2 0.0488Sauger 16 0.3902Shorthead redhorse sucker 22 0.5366Silver redhorse 4 0.0976Smailmouth bass 13 0.3171Spotted bass 2 0.0488Walleye 3 0.0732White bass 2 0.0488Season Total 90 2.1951NumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.4 Smalmouth buffalo 4 0.0990Channel catfish 1 0.0248Flathead catfish 1 0.0248Golden shiner 1 0.0248Mooneye 1 0.0248Quillback 2 0.0495Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 0.0495Silver redhorse 1 0.0248Season Total 13 0.3218 Table 5.16 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2010 FISHERIES SURVEYNumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Fall 40.2 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0249Gizzard shad 6 0.1493Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0498Sauger 1 0.0249Shorthead redhorse sucker 2 0.0498Silver redhorse 1 0.0249Smallmouth bass 3 0.0746Spotted bass 4 0.0995White bass 6 0.1493Season Total 26 0.6468NumberSeason Effort(min)

Common Name Collected CPUE (lish/min)

Winter 40.4 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0248Freshwater drum 3 0.0743Gizzard shad 4 0.0990Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0495Mooneye 1 0.0248Pumpkinseed 0 0.0000Quillback 2 0.0495River carpsucker 1 0.0248Sauger 3 0.0743Shorthead redhorse sucker 7 0.1733Silver redhorse 5 0.1238Smallmouth bass 3 0.0743Spotted bass 2 0.0495White bass 13 0.3218Season Total 47 1.16342010 162.0 176 1.08642IIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIU Table 5.17CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHIELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEYNumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Spring 40.5 Smallmouth buffalo 2 0.0494Channel catfish 1 0.0247Gizzard shad 1 0.0247Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0494Longnose gar 1 0.0247Quillback 5 0.1235Shorthead redhorse sucker 12 0.2963Smallmouth bass 5 0.1235White bass 2 0.0494Season Total 31 0.7654NumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.3 Bluegill 2 0.0496Freshwater drum 1 0.0248Gizzard shad 3 0.0744Golden redhorse sucker 1 0.0248Longnose gar 1 0.0248Quillback 3 0.0744Shorthead redhorse sucker 3 0.0744Smallmouth bass 2 0.0496Spotted bass 3 0.0744Season Total 19 0.4715 Table 5.17 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2011 FISHERIES SURVEYNumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Fall 40.2 Smalimouth buffalo 1 0.0249Black crappie 1 0.0249Bluegill 1 0.0249Channel catfish 1 0.0249Common carp 1 0.0249Flathead catfish 2 0.0498Freshwater drum 1 0.0249Gizzard shad 3 0.0746Golden redhorse sucker 5 0.1244Longnose gar 3 0.0746Monneve ? 0.0498Sauger 5 0.1244Shorthead redhorse sucker 10 0.2488Silver redhorse 2 0.0498Smallmouth bass 8 0.1990Spotted bass 5 0.1244Walleve 3 0.0746White bass 3 0.0746Season Total 57 1.4179NumberSeason Effort (mi) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Winter 40.5 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.0988Bluegill 3 0.0741Common carp 1 0.0247Freshwater drum 2 0.0494Gi77ard shad 1 0.0247Largemouth bass 1 0.0247Pumpkinseed 1 0.0247Saucer 11 0.2716Shorthead redhorse sucker 9 0.2222Smailmouth bass 7 0.1728Spotted bass 2 0.0494White bass 1 0.0247Yellow perch 1 0.0247Season Total 44 1.08642011 161.5 151 0.93498IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Table 5.18CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2012 FISHERIES SURVEYNumbe rSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Spring 40.1 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0249Channel catfish 1 0.0249Conmon carp 1 0.0249Gizzard shad 5 0.1247Golden redhorse sucker 5 0.1247Longnose gar 1 0.0249Rock bass 1 0.0249Shorthead redhorse sucker 5 0.1247Smalimouth bass 3 0.0748Season Total 23 0.5736NumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.1 Smalhmouth buffalo 5 0.1247carp 1 0.0249Gizzard shad 8 0.1995Largemouth bass 1 0.0249Smalimouth bass 3 0.0748Season Total 18 0.4489 Table 5.18 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2012 FISHERIES SURVEYNumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/mi)

Fall 40.1 Smallmouth buffalo 4 0.0998Black crappie 1 0.0249Common carp 2 0.0499Freshwater drum 1 0.0249Gizzard shad 10 0.2494Golden redhorse sucker 3 0.0748Largemouth bass 1 0.0249Quillback 1 0.0249Rock bass 1 0.0249Sauger 1 0.0249Shorthead redhorse sucker 3 0.0748Smallmouth bass 2 0.0499Spotted bass 1 0.0249White bass 6 0.1496Season Total 37 0.9227NumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Winter 30 Smallmouth buffalo 1 0.0333Freshwater drum 1 0.0333Golden shiner 1 0.0333Shorthead redhorse sucker 3 0.1000Smallmouth bass 2 0.0667Walleye 1 0.0333White bass 1 0.0333Season Total 10 0.33332012 150.3 88 0.58550IIIIIIIIIIIIII Table 5.19CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISH/ELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2013 FISHERIES SURVEYo NNumberSeason Efforti Common Name Collected CPUE (lish/min)

Spring 40.4 Smalknouth buffalo 1 0.0248Black crappie 1 0.0248Bluegill 1 0.0248Gizzard shad 1 0.0248Golden redhorse sucker 8 0.1980Longnose gar 2 0.0495Pumpkinseed 1 0.0248Quillback 2 0.0495River carpsucker 2 0.0495Rock bass 1 0.0248Shorthead redhorse sucker 10 0.2475Smallmouth bass 7 0.1733Spotted bass 2 0.0495Season Total 39 0.9653NumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Summer 40.0 Smallmouth buffilo 3 0.0750Black crappie 1 0.0250Gizzard shad 1 0.0250Golden redhorse sucker 3 0.0750Sauger 1 0.0250Smallmouth bass 2 0.0500Season Total 11 0.2750 Table 5.19 (continued)

CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE AS FISHIELECTROFISHING MINUTE)BY SEASON DURING THE BVPS 2013 FISHERIES SURVEYNumberSeason Effort (min) Common Name Collected CPUE (fish/min)

Fall 40.4 Bluegill 2 0.0495Channel catfish 1 0.0248Flathead catfish 1 0.0248Freshwater drum 1 0.0248Gizzard shad 1 0.0248Golden redhorse sucker 2 0.0495Longnose gar 1 0.0248River carpsucker 1 0.0248Smallmouth bass 1 0.0248Spotted bass 1 0.0248Walleye 1 0.0248Season Total 13 0.3218Common Name Number CPUE (fish/min)

Season Effort (min) Collected Winter 40.1 Bluegill 1 0.0249Channel catfish 1 0.0249Freshwater drum 1 0.0249Golden redhorse sucker 6 0.1496Rock bass 3 0.0748Shorthead redhorse sucker 7 0.1746Smallmouth bass 2 0.0499Yellow perch 1 0.0249Season Total 22 0.54862013 160.9 85 0.52828IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TABLE 5.20UNIT 1 COOLING RESERVOIR MONTHLY SAMPLINGCORBICULA DENSITY DATA FOR2013 FROM BVPSArea Maximum Minimum Estimated Collection Sampled Live or Length Length NumberDate (sq ft) Dead Count Range (mm) Range(mm) r s mDead 1 0.001-0.99 0.001-0.99 433/26/2013 0.25Live 2 1.00-1.99 0.001-0.99 864/30/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 3 1.00-1.99 0.001-0.99 1295/22/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 0 ...... 06/26/2013 0.25 Dead 0 0Live 1 0.001-0.99 0.001-0.99 437/18/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 1 6.30-9.94 6.30-9.94 438/29/2013 0.25 Dead 0 ---- ---- 0Live 2 2.00-3.34 1.00-1.99 869/19/2013 0.25 Dead 0 0Live 0 ---... 010/16/2013*

Dead ---Live --- ---.....11/4/2013 0.25 Dead 0 0Live 0 ...... 0Dead 1 --Unit summaryLive 8 ...... 48*Not sampled due to outage TABLE 5.21UNIT 2 COOLING RESERVOIR MONTHLY SAMPLINGCORBICULA DENSITY DATA FOR2013 FROM BVPSArea Maximum M'lnimum Estimated Collection Sampled Liw or Length Range Length NumberDate (sq ft) Dead Count (mm) Range(mm)

(per sq m)3/26/2013 0.25 Dead 2 0.001-0.99 0.001-0.99 86Live 1 1.00-1.99 1.00-1.99 434/30/2013 0.25 Dead 1 0.001-0.99 0.001-0.99 43Live 3 0.001-0.99 0.001-0.99 1295/22/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 0 ..... -06/26/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 0 --- --- 07/18/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- --- 0Live 0 --- --- 08/29/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 0 --- --- 09/19/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- 0Live 0 --- --- 010/16/2013 0.25 Dead 0 --- --- 0Live 0 --- --- 011/4/2013 0.25 Dead 0 0Live 0 --- --- 0Dead 3 --- --- 14Unit summary Live 4 ...--- 19IIIIIUIIIIII 9.0FIGURES

--- --- ------- ----- -02lIFigure 5.12013 Beaver Valley Power Station Aquatic Monitoring Program Sampling Control and Non-Control Sampling Stations F-zU"ml 14.00 itLThu Jan 1610:231997 LEGEND Scia 1:31.250 fat jBnIthic sample site 200D FeeINlow MetersPLli Or anis Vael y StationLocation Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Benthic Organism Survey Sampling, Sites for the 2013 StudyFigure 5.2= M/ M M--- M M M M- M M M M 1 m m m m m m m m -i- m -m m- -m icj 3]a-Shlppbngpout zz021'IaLIEGENDa CEfrctzofishaing sitee Seine siteMeg 14.WThW Jon 18 10:.14 1997Statin 2AScie 1:31.250 jai canter)20W) Feet0 Iwo Mate",I'kal..Beaverr Vai ver StataioFigure 5.3.Location Map for Beaver Valley Power Station Fish Population Survey Fish Sampling Sites for the 2013 Study 0mmV0Figure 5.4Location of Study Area, Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, Pennsylvania BVPSm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Comparison of live Corbicula clam density estimates among 2013BVPS Unit I cooling tower reservoir events, for various clam shell groups.500 ___________________________

450 -_______________________

w/400= 350300 .90 5150100 .SIZE RANGEz 20J0-3.34 r50 ....-...0 1 M 1.0-3/26 4/30 5/22 6/26 7/18 8/29 9/10 10/1 11/4M0. 0 1-0. 99 MM 43 86 0 43 0 0 0 0 0111.00-1.99 MM 43 43 0 0 0 43 0 0 0* 2.00-3.34 mm 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 05 3.354.74 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0M 4.75-6.29 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 6.30-9.49 mm 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0a >9.50 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Figure 5.5ITOTAL #/m2 1 86 1 129 1 0 1 43 1 43 186 10 1] 0 _L 0__*No sample collected in October due to Unit I Shutdown Comparison oflive Corbicula clam density estimates among 2013 BVPS Unit 2 coolingtowerreservoir events, for various clam shell gmups.I4W3W300c2502cc-f5o50 20 41M 5/22ftl0?0.00a 0 120 0D0.00--1.1 mm 43 0 0.a 80-3-,3 mm 0 a 0 mm 0 0 0ml 75.20 mm 0 0 0.,0-0.40mm a 0a'-O.Somm 0 0 0TOTAL OW 43 120 0MiTALý990 nnn.0 ITflWOMmmSIZE RANGEFigure 5.60 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 # 0 0 00 -0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0m = = = m = m = m m m = m m m m = m m Comparison of live Corbicula clam density estimates among 2013 BVPS Intake Structure sample events, for various clam shell groups.-J0LL.U-0wz14121086420-9.5Gmm4.75-6.29 mm200-3.34 mm00-0992:-

-mm -SIZE RANGE5/227'189'10011/40M0.01-0.99 mm01.00-1.99 mm 3 0 0 102.00-3.34 mm 5 0 0 303.35-4.74 mm 2 0 0 1m4.75-6.29 mm 1 0 0 006.30-9.49 mm 1 0 0 1m>9.50mm 2 2 0 0OTOTAL 15 3 0 6Intake structure bottom samples arecollected from the Ohio River at the IntakeBuilding.

Figure 5.7 908070LI.0)to0)0.E0)I-0)(0Water Temperature and River Elevation Recorded at the Ohio River at BVPS IntakeStructure During 2013 on Monthly Sample Dates.676674672(0m670 E0668666-u-temp-4elevation 664605040303/26 4/30 5/22 6/26 7118 8/29 9/10 10/16 11/42013 Monthly Sample DatesFigure 5.8M M-m M M M M M M M mI M M MM 250002000015000d1000050000~ILmIntake Structure/Open WaterUnit I Cooling TowerReservoir*

Unit 2 Cooling Tow~er Reservoir 04/30 0 32 5705/22 7 451 3306/26 2660 6936 1186807/18 2760 900 1040*8/29 50 1620 6906*9/10 22916 6200 16750010/16 160 0 3130Sample locationFigure 5.9. Density of zebra mussel veligers collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2013.*Unit 1 sample not collected in October due to unit shutdown 20000180001600014000120001000080006000400020000Barg Sli Splsh Pol / Emergency Out fallBarg Sli Spash oolFacility*

E0 0 005/220 50 017808 6480 1306507/18 2010 4000 321008/29 7800 1570 5775*9/10 7308 16940 14800010/16 2660 2856 2100Sample locationFigure 5.10. Density of zebra mussel veligers collected at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2013.*No Sample Collected at EOF in April or May; Construction Precluded Access 3.02.01.0i i !Intake Structure/

Water*0.0 -Unit 1 Cooling TowerReservoir**

Unit 2 Cooling TowerReservoir 83/26 2.2 0.0 0.0o4/30 0.4 0.0 0.005/22 0.9 0.0 0.006/26 0.9 0.0 0.0m7/18 0.4 0.0 0.008/29 0.0 0.0 0.0.9/10 0.4 0.0 0.0010/16 0.9 0.0 0.0011/4 0.0 0.0 0.0Figure 5.11. Density of settled zebra mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2013.*Intake not sampled in August due to high water.**Unit 1 Cooling Tower not sampled in October due to unit shutdown 151050/v AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=_IBarge Slip**Splash PoolEmergency OutfallFacility*

03/26 9 0 004/30 0 0 005/22 0 0 006/26 1 0 007/18 12 0 0E8/29 0 0 0*9/10 2 0 0E10/16 1 0 0011/4 1 0 0Figure 5.12. Density of settled zebra mussels at Beaver Valley Power Station, 2013.*No sample collected at EOF in April or May; Construction Precluded Access**No sample taken at Barge Slip in August due to High Water.

10.0PERMITS Attachment 10.1:PERMITS & CERTIFICATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Registration Number Regulator/Description Expiration BVPS EPA generator identification Resource Conservation

& Recovery ActPAR000040485 (RCRA) Identification number for regulated waste activity.

Also used by PA DEP Indefinite to monitor regulated waste activity under the Pennsylvania Solid WasteManagement Act (SWMA).04-02474 BVPS EPA Facility Identification Number for CERCLA/EPCRA/SARA.

Used forSARA Tier II reporting and emergency planning.

Indefinite 04-02475 FE Long Term Distribution Center/Warehouse (22) EPA Facility Identification Number for CERCLA/EPCRA/SARA.

Used for SARA Tier II reporting and Indefinite emergency planning.

PA0025615 BVPS NPDES Permit number under US EPA and PA DEP. 12/27/2006 Continued pendingapproval ofreniewalapplication.

04-13281 BVPS Unit I PA DEP Facility Identification

& certificate number for regulated storage tanks. Indefinite 04-13361 BVPS Unit 2 PA DEP Facility Identification

& certificate number for regulated storage tanks. Indefinite OP-04-00086 PA DEP State Only Synthetic Minor Permit for emergency auxiliary

boilers, 10/12/2012 emergency diesel generators, paint shop and other miscellaneous sources.

Continited pendingapproval ofrenewalapplication.

N/A PA DEP Open Burning Permit for operation of the BVPS Fire School- annualapplication and renewal 01/01/2015 042009 450 002RT US Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Registration 06/30/2015 200100242 US Army Permit for maintenance dredging (With Encroachment/Submerged Lands 12/31/2021 Agreement

  1. 0477705, this allows maintenance dredging.).

0477705 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for construction and Indefinite maintenance of current barge slip. (With US Army Permit #200100242, this allowsmaintenance dredging.)

06786A Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for transmission line over Ohio Indefinite River @ Mile 34.518737 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for Unit I intake and discharge Indefinite (main combined intake and outfall structures) 0475711 Encroachment Permit/Submerged Lands Agreement for construction and Indefinite maintenance of Unit 2 auxiliary intakeGP020409201 For construction and maintenance of boat ramp near barge slip. Indefinite

-End Table -

APPENDIX ASCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME'OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970 THROUGH 2013BVPS1Nomenclature follows Robins et al. (1991)

Appendix ASCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAME1OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO RIVER, 1970 THROUGH 2013BVPSPage 1 of 3Family and Scientific NameLepisosteidae (gars)Lepisosteus osseusHiodontidae (mooneyes)

Hiodon alosoides H. tergisusClupeidae (herrings)

Alosa chrysochloris A. pseudoharengus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinidae (carps and minnows)Campostoma anomalumCarassius auratusCtenopharyngodon idellaNotropis spilopterus Cyprinus carpioC. carpio x C. auratusLuxilus chrysocephalus Macrhybopsis storeriana Nocomis micropogon Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis atherinoides N. buccatusN. hudsonius N. rubellusN. stramineus N. volucellus Pimephales notatusP. promelasRhinichthys atratulus Semotilus atromaculatus Catostomidae (suckers)

Carpiodes carpioC. cyprinusC. veliferCatostomus commersonii Hypentelium nigricans Ictiobus bubalusI. nigerMinytrema melanopsCommon NameLongnose garGoldeyeMooneyeSkipjack herringAlewifeGizzard shadCentral stoneroller GoldfishGrass carpSpotfin shinerCommon carpCarp-goldfish hybridStriped shinerSilver chubRiver chubGolden shinerEmerald shinerSilverjaw minnowSpottail shinerRosyface shinerSand shinerMimic shinerBluntnose minnowFathead minnowBlacknose daceCreek chubRiver carpsucker Quillback Highfin carpsucker White suckerNorthern hogsucker Smallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloSpotted sucker Appendix A(Continued)

Page 2 of 3Family and Scientific NameMoxostoma anisurumM. carinatum M. duquesnei M. erythrurum M. macrolepidotum Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes)

Ameiurus catusA. furcatusA. melasA. natalisA. nebulosus Ictalurus punctatus Noturus flavusPylodictis olivarisEsocidae (pikes)Esox luciusE. masquinongy E. lucius x E. masquinongy Salmonidae (trouts)Oncorhynchus mykissPercopsidae (trout-perches)

Percopsis omiscomaycus Cyprinodontidae (killifishes)

Fundulus diaphanus Atherinidae (silversides)

Labidesthes sicculusPercichthyidae (temperate basses)Morone chrysopsM. saxatilis M. saxatilis x M. chrysopsCentrarchidae (sunfishes)

Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis cyanellus L. gibbosusL. macrochirus L. microlophus L. gibbosus x L. microlophus Common NameSilver redhorseRiver redhorseBlack redhorseGolden redhorseShorthead redhorseWhite catfishBlue catfishBlack bullheadYellow bullheadBrown bullheadChannel catfishStonecatFlathead catfishNorthern pikeMuskellunge Tiger muskellunge Rainbow troutTrout-perch Banded killifish Brook silverside White bassStriped bassStriped bass hybridRock bassGreen sunfishPumpkinseed BluegillRedear sunfishPumpkinseed-redear sunfish hybridIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Appendix A(Continued)

Page 3 of 3Family and Scientific NameMicropterus dolomieuM. punctulatus M. salmoides Pomoxis annularis P. nigromaculatus Percidae (perches)

Etheostoma blennioides E. nigrumE. zonalePerca flavescens Percina caprodesP. copelandi Sander canadense S. vitreumS. canadense x S. vitreumSciaenidae (drums)Aplodinotus grunniens Common NameSmallmouth bassSpotted bassLargemouth bassWhite crappieBlack crappieGreenside darterJohnny darterBanded darterYellow perchLogperchChannel darterSaugerWalleyeSaugeyeFreshwater drum1Nomenclature follows Robins, et al. (1991)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14147A029&oldid=790491"