r ~';;"~:*'0'~~'-"""'m"'__I""''''''''''''''''' _ I I I i

AT DAIRYLANDPOlrJER COOPERATIVES is I I SITE I UniversityofWisconsin - LaCrosse LaCrosse. Wisconsin 54,601

I

the e

of

ember 1976 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - LA CROSSE LcFCtosse,Wiscons i n 54601 COLLEGE. OF ARTS; LETTERS, .AND· SCIENCES

Candidate: Kerry Brimmer

We recommend acceptance of this thesis to the College of Arts, Letters, and Sciences in partial fulfillment of this candidates' req"-i",,,mnV>+C" for the degree Master of Science in Biology.· The candidate has s oral defense of the thes

/7 1:4<7'1Date

/7 D~ /176 Date L&~/4Yt Date . ~:1~~~-C6rmniU~-Y} Th s J::?e.<.D~j;e 1126 ...... •- ;.. 'coo ••..

This thesis is approved for the College of Arts, Letters, and Sciences ~Arts,~ Sciences 77 16045 • ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wouldlilH:~~t'()~:~exppes~s~:~my:extremethanks to Dr. John Held for reviewing the manuscript and for advising and guiding in the sa:rrij:5lirig teChniques. Thanks should also be extended to DroDennis/Bpendel of Dairyland Power Coopera­ tive, the crew from Waupora,MIke Bur for his assistance in sampling, and the operators at Genoa and LACBWRwho

tended me every c~""""+~~" s------.....------

Page

LIST OF TABLES ••••••••••••.• &&. oe •• ·••• et ••••- •• 8

LIST OF FIGURES ••••••• o.~o~ • 0 & ~ • 8 • • a G • 0 • M • 0 • e

INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••• 0 .00 1

LITERATURE REVIEW •• o ••• eo 0 8 e & 0 80ft g _ eo •• e ~ •••••• 0 0 0 • 2

L METHODS AND MATERIALS. ••• •••• I 8 ~ e • • 8 0 • • • R Q •• S • m I a 0 8 a a • 1 I·

RESULTS •••• 0 ••••••••• • • Ii & • •••• 0 & B 01 • 26

}-I'9 DISCUSSION ••••• o •• o • • •• 0 e • • • 0 • 0 • • • 0 • b •

56 LITERATURE CITED ••••••• • ••• U .Ii 8 B' 0 .... -0 0' 8 .. -. II •••• " ••

• e 80 •• , ••••••••••• g eA' •• APPENDIX •••••••••• 0 ••••••• 59 • !F''"'''''"''::::::::::c:'''''' """,,'P"="TW _

iv

rfable 10 MorrthTy,rnihirnurn:,:a,:ne.:::max:tmumwater temperatures ang water leyels, with the monthly average water temperature of the Mississippi River near

000 ••• 01"' OO •••• OO.a,

Table 2. Correlationmatr'ix

volume ••. oo.

Table 3. Ten most impinged at Genoa

#3 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 .. 01 ••• 0 '•••• 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0

Table 4-. Listing of sified as;

s,port, rough andfbrage • 0 01 •00•0000000• 34·

Table.5. Estimated yearly sport fish harvest of Pool 9, estimated yearly mortality , and the

pe'rcent of the yearly sport J...L.i:J11 l1o.J..VI::i:JlJooo.ooooo

Table 6. Value ofcornrn.ercial species, ofimpin.ged at Genoa #3, and of the"Q.QIrlrnercialcatch in

Pool 90 0 • 0 • 0 •• 0 •• 0 • 0 ••••• "0'000 s 0 0 • •

Table 7. Ten most numerous fish species impinged at

LACBVJR.o 0 0 0 • 0 Otl 0" 0 0"'. 0 •• 0 • "'00000010 0 • 0 0 • 0 ••• 0 • 0 0 4,3

Table 8. Estimated yearly sport fish harvest of Pool 9, estimated yearly:mortalityatLACBWR, and the percent of the yearly sport fish harvest.oo •••• o. 4-.5 5 ;;;;:;:;S;;,;;CC""""""

Table 9. Value of commercial species, of impinged fish at LACBWR, and of the ommercial catch in Pool

" 9 • • til •• ••• ,; •••• .... .

'lIable 10. ous species impinged at Genoa #3 and LACBWR ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-8

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix I. Weekly listings of water levels and tempera­ tures of the Mississippi River near Genoa,

Wisconsin.. II • -I • " e. ,• 0 0 • •• 59

Appendix II. Weekly totals of impinged fish at Genoa #3 from 1 August 1974--21 June 1976, listed by numbers and biomass •••••••••••••••••••••. •• 61

Appendix III. Individual species impinged at Genoa #3

'''''''''' "'" from 1 August 1974--21 June 1976, listed by

numbersahd biomass •••••••••••••• 0'" 0 0 •••• 63

Appendix IV. , in phyletic sequence, impinged at both Genoa sites •• •••••••••.•••• 65

Appendix V. Weekly,totals of impinged fish at LACBWR from 1 August 1974--21 June 1976, listed by numbers and biomass ••••••••••••.••••••••••. 67

Appendix VI. Daily impingement 'data from Genoa #3 from 1 August 1974--21 June 1976, listed by numbers, and biomass ...... •...... 69 __ MM~",-r"'7 -C "*'~-~ - _~M_'~ ! ~, l

Appendix VII. Individual species impinged-atLACBWR from

1 1I11P"W':(T. lQ74'-Ll June l'-)/O, .L ..u::;ted by

and biomass...... Ie.' .1 ••• •• • .• • • II • .-.. •• ··Y. p.... ""--.-"

LISTOF'FTGURES

Figure 1. LOcatrofi·oT-tne·DairylandPOwerCooperative

...... •.....•...... ". Genoa site with respect to Genoa and the Mis- sissippi River ••• o•• oo.o •••• o••• o•••••••• o•••• 15

Figure 2. Exposed view of a traveling screen••• '00. 0•••

Figure 30 Devices • 19

Figure 4. Devices used for .l.J.H..v_DVUn 0 •• 0 •••• '.ct •

Figure 5- Weekly totals of numbers and biomass of fish

impingeda:t{}enoa #3 from 1 August 1974'-31 July 1975.0 •• 0••••••• 0.0.0.000 ••••• 0.0.0 ••• 0.000 27

. Figure 60 totals of numbers and biomass of fish

iIIlpingea.~a-t-<.·m:~noa·-#T·Tr·6m··6August 19

• •• -0 0 0 • 0 • e • 0 01 0 • 0 o 0 GO. • • 0 • • 0 • •

Figure 7. Percentag~by number of fish impinged at Genoa #3 and LACBWR from 1 August 1974-21 June 1976 accordingtQgQQDQrnic Q],assificatiOn. (rough,'

sport, forage)o •• o ••• o.o •• o.o.o ••••••••••• o.o. 35

Figure 8. Weekly totals of numbers and biomass of fisn

impihged~a""t'=DAeBw=R=from·l~f9=tc4·-3:1:~lci$y==

1975 ••• 0 0 0 •• II· ••••••••• 0 •••••••• e 0 0 ••••••• o. () • 0 4·0 lI" *='""''' ;~:f~~2~:;:;:-#q;a

Figure 90 Weekly to-talsOfrrtirrihers and biomass of fish

imptJ:l.g§9:at~1Jf..CBWR~from6 August 1975-21 June

19760.0.00. ell ••• I •• 0 ~ 000 000.00 • 0 ' .• ' o. 0- • • 0 ••••• ""C:~~~3 IIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIiII _

1

INTRODucrrION

Rationale

At the present time electrical consumption is increasing at a rate of 7% peryea7r.~~~A""t~hai; ra~te generat-i-RgGapa4~t¥"c", must be doubled every 10 years (McMillian, 1976). If these trends continue pQwerplant construction on the Mississippi River will increase, with plants having an increased electrical 2

output and greater intake water demand.. It is predicted that by the year 2000 few if any sltes along sippi River where once;;.;through cooling can be used exclusively

for plants generating 1000 lVIW (Jaske and Peterson t 1968~. Slnce· lmplngemen-.. t and'entralnment can have a determentac;,'t. 1

affect on the fishery of the intake watersource t all cautions must be taken to minimize i;hepotential impact. By measuring rates and assessing theimpactof.existing.power

plants t design and siting plants and on power plant construction in the future to al­ leviate a potential

LITERATURE REVIEW

Water Intake Design Considerations

When planningan--intake---s:GFuc:tu-reit may be to avoid impingeJJlentofallfish, but every attempt must made to minimize the....impact. There are several recommendations, which if followed will reduce the impingement rate. The most important consideration may be the actual place­ ment of the intake structure on the body of water. The intake should be located in a position where resident populations of aquatic organisms are not normally high. Placement should

. occur in a recessedbaY.c.o:r;cc=Qlicnd=~9J1DelLand constr::':l~!..ion of intake channels should be avoided. When placed in the above

positions high impingement rates may result t since fish tend to concentrate near the intake screens and are unable to escape impingement (Sharma, 1974·). lIS ;;;~=~C?":"" J

Intake approach velocitiesshouldnot.exceedO.iS ml sec. Intakes located where current velocities are in excess of 0.1.5 m/sec may exceed the recommended valUe (Eicher, 1974,) .. The necessity of low CiPPr'oacl1 velocities is to protect fish which do not have swimming capability sufficient to escape impingement. Selection of the screen mesh size is generally based. OIl the removal of trash from the intake water and is recommended that it should be 1027 em or less in size". The power industry has nearly standardized the mesh size at 0.9.5 em, so mesh size is no longer a major cOnsider~itio:n at most power plants (En­ vironmental Protection Agency, 1973)0 Fish escape pOtts shbuld be installed to provide lateral escape for fish. In the case of unidirectional flowing rivers, "the current provides good flow between the trash racks and screens so fish ehtering"tIi"e area are provided with an escape'"~-­ by the ports (Eicher, 1974,) " There should he a" mInimum of· warmed water recirculated. The warmed water isbrbught from the condensers to the intake structure to control iceformationandhasthetendency.ta concentrate fisho

Types of Physical Screening Devices

There have been many different screening devices developed, designed mainly to protect the condenser tubes from being clogged. In recent years there has been greater awareness of "L ~,,~':::~~r ---"

4·

the potential damage donetofishpopula"tions by conventional

screens, and now more CUllli~ueL given to the problem. The most widely used screen in p6Werplahtihtakes in the United S is the traveling water screen. It consists of a vertical screen run on an endless chain belt, with a line of spray operating at high pressure remove any debris accumulationD The major disadvantage of the system is that fish impinged on the face of the screen are easily destroyed during the process of There are several adaptations which may reduce the over­ all mortality rateD The screens may be run continuously to reduce the time interval that the fish are impinged. There

(, are also fish protective devices which may be mounted on the screens to reduce mortality (Environmental Protection Agency, 1973) • Another sc:reeh wrri"cli"h:r""used"on unidirectional rivers ,is the vertical drum screens" These consist ofa drum revolving on a vertical axisinfrentofthe circulating The screens are situated so they revolve with the current and are cleaned by internally housed spray nozzles. The major disad­ vantage of the verticaliravelingwater screen is that there is no provision for debris removal D The fixed screen is either permanently anchored or is constructed so remova±CC"'isc"'l"os=sci"'1::i:l:e"""-,,.['he=--s ~~nhas:bt-s"'~g=reat­ est applicability in waters which would have low incoming debris levels or with plants that have small water requirements. 5

The greatest advantage of this type is the. cost, which is small compared to those previously mentioned. disadvantage is theinCreasedimpingementtime1;?etween clean~ ings and the G:t:'uge rernoya.l techniques when -I:;he screens are cleaned (Environmental Protection Agency, 1973).

Behavioral Screening Systems

Along with the physical screening systems there are sev­ eral behavioral systems used- in river situations 0 ioral systems act to repel fish away from the intake structureo Electric screens have been developed which repel fish by forming an electric fieldo This method has been used predominately in repelingupstream-rn.ig;rations of fish,· mainly salmon. The electric field is formed by immersing a series of electrodes ·8.nda·ground wire. Several disadvantages of the screen have reduced its usefulness: First, the screen only effective on theu.pstreafumigration offish. Downstream move­ ment results in impingement since the fish are temporarily stunned and drift intdthe trash screens orleap.intothe field upon initial contac'ta.l1dare species of fish as well as the size of fish react differently to electric fields so constant observation and adjustments must be performed. Air bubble screens have been placed in front of the structure to form a physical barrier to fish. This method has had varied results and would have limited uses in the north~ ern latitudes, due to lower water temperatures that are en- 6

countered. Fish whicharelethargic,asa result of low water temperatures simply drift the screeno screen is establishedbyplacingequally""spaced air jets to provide a curtain of bubbles.

Related Impingement Studies

The impingement studies done to date show a great deal of factors influ- encing the , intake.des and intake capacity. The Indian Point generating station located on the Hudson River and operated by Consolidated Edison Company of New York

(; has demonstrated a consistently highlmpingement rate. During a period of 67 deYs from November·1969 to 11 January 1970, 1.3 million fish site (U.S. Atomic Energy Com-

A study done on the Indian Point generating station (Texas Instruments, 1974·) showed that be correlated with physical and chemical parameters since they affected the distribution and abundance of the various species. The study showed, for instance, that temperatures affected the impingement of white perch since this species became abundant in the area of the intake screens when the temperature dropped to 15°C in late fall. Work was also done on the correlation ,.. , .. @ 7 rL F

between approach velocities and volumetric··flow rates. The results indicated odic positive correlations between

the velocity, volume ,aridirllpirigerlleritrate~.... EVen though pasi.... tive correlations werenoi;always obtained it was decided to modify operations to ke velocities below 0.15 m/sec. Mortality samples .were taken using a c sample size of fish on four different dates. The tests yielded an overall mortality rate Q:f68%, with white perch consistently yielding a high mortality rate (88-i66%). The white catfish (Ictalurus catus) exhibited the lowes rate (0-78%) (Texas Instruments, 1974·). Fish kills have been reported from the Great Lakes region since 1952. Between 11 .... 1:3. Nov:ember 1952, an estimated 2-3 tons of fish, mainly gizzarclshad, (Dorosoma cepedianum), were killed after entering the intake structure of the Park-Davis Company plant in Detr()it;Mlclfigan-tMill·er; 1960) ~ A similar case occurred on 2 April 1972, •... when an estimated 60,000 emerald shiners (Notropisatherinoides), were killed after being drawn into the intake structure of a generating plant in Erie Harbor located at Erie, Pa. (Edsall and Yocom, 19(2). There have also been large· numbers of alewifes (Alosa pseudoharengus) impinged at different facilities on the Great Lakes. During April and May of 1965, as many as 450,000 alewife

were impinged hourlyccccJrr=iYne=verid:e-a4· tra"'v~@i1ingwaet~¥cCsereens at Chicago's Central District Water Filtration Plant (Edsall and Yocom, 1972). D .~..~.. ~. ~. ~~..., 1·1 8

Impingement data was collected from four Duke Power Company steam generatifig plants In'North and South Carolina and yielded varying Steam Station, located on the Yadkin River,. utilized a river intake design similiar to the Genoa site, and had a capacity of 4·88 MW and an The.impingement rate at the site was 11. with the gizzard shad and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petense) comprising 93.8% of all fish. The study on Buck Steam Station showed>thatapproa.ch velocities were not a determining factor concerning relative rates of impingement at the four.plants. It was also concluded that intake design significaYltlyaffectedimpingement rates. Impingement studies have been completed OIl Dairyland P0wer Cooperatives' Alma, Wisconsin facility (Wapora, 1976). The Alma plant, located on the Mississippi River, presently con- . ".',. (, . sists of 5 coal-fir.e.d~~uni t.g..With.§..cm9-~:1.111J]In outpu"tC):f?()? MW. The mean approach Vel.()c:1.i;yfor the site is 0.21 m/sec with a

m~ximum intake volumec..... c:...... •:...:.:...:..•:. • The impingement study at Alma was conducted:frOTIltTuly, 1974· to March, 1976. Theresu.lts showed the 4',925 fish were impinged with 86.7% being the gizzard shad. An annual impingement rate was estimated at 29,210.8 fish (Wapora, 1976). The stUdy con- cluded that the present Alma site did not have a significant impact on the Missi§§:1..I?12i""..EJ-y:er fish community, due in part ,'",,,,-,,,, ' -"'~""" ".~••"._".. ,,~"-' , .~ .." .~, .. m ..,·,,;·::;7::;;;::;;'::;,;;;~ to the large percentage of gizzard. shad (86.7%) which normally have a high natural mortality and to the low age group of all impinged fish, whicha,lso have high natural mortality rates. 9

An impingement study was also done at Dairyland Power Cooperatives' Genoa, Wisconsin facility apora, Wapora study estimated that 65,909 fish were impinged annually at Genoa . The most numerous species impinged were the blue- gill (Lepomis macrochirus), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grun- !liens), and emerald .LACBWR's ectedimpingernent waS 13,211 fish/year, with the majorSpE;G:ies being th.e fresh­ water drum, bluegill and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis; Wapora, 1975). An estimation of the species composition hear the Genoa site was determined byelectrofishing and by using hoop nets Results showed 58 species were present. The Genoa study showed that 4·8 different species were impinged at Genoa #3 while 4·2 species were irnpinged at LACBWR (Wapora, 1975). During the Genoa study mortality samples were run with a 50% mortality rate observ·ed~·for-the94·:fishtested. Thes..tudy ... ind-Lj=--.,.,-_ cated that the impact on the river was insignificant. This a,nalysis was made after comparing the studie/s results with the commercial fishing statistics for the same period. 'l'hlscom­ parison indicated thatithecombined impingmnE;Yl-ClJiOrna.s§ .. of both plants equalled theahhUal catch of only one commercial fisherman. It was also concluded that since most of the fishes impinged were bluegills, freshwater drum, and emerald shiners of age classes ° and,±cF~c:&fl.e.irrhfla~~~.§heT~lJcbg;~lJg small due to the high natural mortality of these age groups. 10

Entrainment Studies

The entrainment of··· larval·· fish and .•• eggs at povver· plants has been and will bec ome an even grea'!:;er' threat to fisheries as more water is withdrawn for cooling needs. Fish in the early developmental stages need only come into contact with the intake approach and they are carried into the plant. Once inside the power plants plumbing, an entrained. fish encou.nters several different stresses which may result in death. Mortality may result initially from collision with internal surfaces of the cooling system. Secondly, thermal stress may cause death, as heat is transferred to the water through the heat exchangers. And finally, gas bubble disease or the formation of air embo­ lisms caused by pressure and temperature· changes may also· result in mortality of the fish (Edsall and Yocom, 1972). A study was done on the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Genera­ ting Station to determine the number, species and vulnerability of entrained fish eggs and young (Snyder, 1975). The site, located on the Reservoir in Pennsylvania, has maxi-

I mtlm pumping capacity of 877.3 m3/sec and a maximum generating capacity of 87703 The pumped storage facilities pump water into an elevated reservoir when electri- cal demand is low and is returned to a lower reservoir via generation. The Muddy Run Generating Station, during the months of June and ..Tuly 1970, entrained an estimated 5.3 million eggs and 56.6 million young. The eggs were predominately the quillback 11

(Carpiodes cyprinus) while the entrained young were precarp (mrinus. carpio) and quillback. The study showed that en- trainment co.u.ld be reduced by manipulating pumping opera.tions during times when species vulnerability to entrainment was high. It is believed, the individuals pumped into the elevated reservoir raairrtain the fishery since nat­ ural reproduction is IbWbecaUSebfthe fluctuating water levels. A study was done at.theNorthern StatesPbwer54-5 lVlW nuclear generating staticm~onthe Mississippi River at Monti­ cello, Minnesota (Bergusonand Knutson,. +973). An attempt was made to determine the 'mortality of entrained fish, using the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) as the test species. The fish were introduced. into the condenser-cooling water at a·point between theciI"eli±-atingJ?lim~ps~-andthetravelingwater screens. Thefishwere ....thenrecapturedin the discharge canal where they were then placed in live boxes. 'rhe immediate mortality of the, test fish was between 22.5% and 100%. The total 168.."hour mortalityrangecl :f&,.om88.?% to 98 .A·% with the contrblg:rbupnbte:x:ceeding 10%. It was found "r that immediate mortality :resulting from entrainment increased with an increase in the maximum temperature reached during entrainment. Me chani c.al"[email protected],@,==-r:~J.UPEfrom entra j nm ent ranged from 5.4-% to 1].4-% of the total. The incidence of mechan- ical damage among fish that were alive upon recapture was quite low, an estimated 2%0 ,.~.. ~. U It t Research was done at the same plant to deterrnine the i ~ rate of natural entrainment (Knutson. 1974·) 0 Sa:mplirig was i ~ i I I I ~ f I I I I I hours. The remaining numbers were randomly dispersed out the rest of the time 0 I Entrainment studies were done at Dairyland Power Coopera- tives Genoa and Alma facilities (Wapora, 1975 and 1976). The . sampling period atAlma~-was-c:-fr0m.Ma:t?eh:1.974·-March :l.975jwki:le.------­ the Genoa stUdy extended from March-June :1.975. The results at Alma showed that a total of 274· fish were entrained during the sampling period with 4-3.5% being·the white bass (Morone chrysops), 2705% being various minnow species, and :1.0.2% the freshwaterarum~ Fish were encountered in the entrainment samples only during the months of May, June, and ·~E3~~3E·. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -_"'" • 13

entrained. It was assumed by the study group that entrainment at Genoa was in::3~gl"J:~-=fi~C1..Ilj;==12:§c;§'_~::3~Qfj;ll§high.reprnductive capabilities of the species

~~) r~~';;;;:;;;;;;;;;;'" 14·

MATERIALS AND METHODS

.Siteal'1d~P·lant Description

The study was conducted at Dairylarid Power C()()peratives U

Genoa site (Fig. 1), located approximately 1.2 km below Genoa, Wisconsin, with si directly north. The plant site is adjacepti;() the main channel of the Mississippi River on the east bank at a point where the river is approximately a depth of between 4·ahd5m as it passes by the site and the shore is riprappedforstabilizationo The site was a

low lying area and was .. filled to provide a stable foundation 0 There are three power plants at the site. Genoa #1 is a fuel oil-fired plant.constructed in 194·0 and is presently used only in situations. No sampling was done at

Uris plant duringthe·':-s::l;]:;];Ely··periodT~ The second plant.. , .... LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), is a nuclear re?ctQXwith a maximum output of 52 megawatts (MW). The intake is equipped with two sets of stationary trash barsilo.cated outside. These consist of: verti­ cal.parallel bars at approximately 8 em intervals and function i( to remove large debris.o The small debris and fish then pass into the crib house, which houses two vertical traveling water screens (Fig .2')"'cc"~h~sc~~rfLens...ar_gL_C.QmPQSOOQ;E:~Q,,o=95cm woven mesh and they remove any fish or debris large enough to

cause damage to the plantVs plumbing 0 The screens are run on an hourly mode during those times when the plant is in opera- Fig .. 10 Location of Dairyland PRwerCoopera.tives' (DPC) Genoa, WiscDns_in~s~te with:reepect to the town .' I' of Genoa and the Mis~issippi River. \1l OS] NN I W'

NISN03S1M

N 8 ·oN !Alva lf1 }lJOl l Fig. 2. Exposed view of a conventional vertical trav$ling water screen. 16

Head """,---~~~L.·.'·. terminaI ~ liF~,- 1-,,_, Motogear

Spray pipes and nozzles Torque tube~ Head head sprocket shaft

Chain and trays

Foot shah

CONVENTIONAL VERTICAL TRAVELING SCREEN

Ifrom Env ironmental Protection AgencY,197~1 ~·:':j~~:I.i);;"':;"••••••IlIIIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIIIlIIIlII••••••••••iII! • 17

tion~ LACBWR has a maximum water intake volume of 4'eO sec and an approachveloci of between 0.152 and 0.274 sec. The third has the largest electrical output with 350 MW. The plant is coal-fired and has a maximum water intake volume of 11.3rn3/sec and an approach velocity of between 0 0274, a.ndO 0579 m/sec. The intake struc... ture has two sets of stati6riar'y trash bars and three traveling water screens similiar to those described for LACBWRo The screens at Genoa #3 operate·on a differential pressure mode, the operation of the screens being controlled by debris ac'" cumulation.

Impingement-Sampling

It was necessary to experiment with different types of fish sampling devices which would work well at varying river levels, under varying plant operating conditions, and at the two different intake structures. Samples were taken weekly from 1 August 1974, to 2 1976, biweekly from 9 April- 8 June 1976, and we

Genoa #3 Four different sampling structures were SUbsequently designed for Genoa #3. ""'The'"~"t'eetJ.ni~~~t-i:-a;bcl7Y~cc at Genoa #3 consisted of three wire hoops constructed from 0.634;-cm diameter steel rods and 0 0634·-cm hardware cloth used 18

as netting material (Fig.j-A}o The hardware cloth used had

a slightly smaller mesfisizethantheO~95;;;;cmmesh us

the traveling water screens. The hoops were of th:r~~ dif- ferent sizes and placed on top of each other inside the crib house just as the water left the gutter and passed into the discharge pipe. in use, the were run hourly to amount of debris accumulation. When the top hoop became clogged with trash, it would be pulled, cleaned, and repla.ced.. This method was used 1-27 August 1974" at Which time the river stage and time of year produced too muchdebiis~~JfT()atingVegetation)for these hoops to handle and thernethbdhadtObediscontinued. The next method considered at Genoa·#'j was a cage-like structure with a wooden frame constructIon.. covered with

0 0 634, em hardware cloth (Figo 3-B) 0 This cage was placed in

the Mississippi Riverattheend~~D-f~th.eQ1Jtfl()Wpipe 0 The ...... • ~ . structure was weighted at the shore wlth rocks and stabi~lz

by ropes from A from the outflow pipe to the two farthest ends; this served to keep that end of the cage above the resented a volume of approximately 2.5m3. Theca.pacity of this cage increased the time interval needed between sampling runs and decreased the possibility of sample loss due to ) over;flowo This techYl:iClll~~,.¥1.gJ.c§~ll§e9: f~om 27 August 1974, to 3 January 1975, at which time the same device was lowered over an edge of ice. Since the water level was low and stable and the debris influx was negligible r this technique worked well. 1

Fig. 3. Devices used for impingement sampling at Genoa #3. A. Initial device incorporated at Genoa #3 from 1 .... 22August--49-74·-.------B.-Device used at Genoa #3 from 29 August 1974·-20 March 1975, then modified and used' from 25 March-26 April 1975, from 23 May-27 November 1975, and from 2 May-21 June 1976. C and D. Devices used at Genoa #3 from 3-17 May 1975, and from 4· De­ cember 1975-2 May 1976 • °0 It-~ ----- w' l----'""$l~

.,K,--- w S· )\

-s

w Z ------.."ll

I I I

I )/_~= ~_._._ I~ ..._-w·r-- __ , _ ,,\:.••••••••..••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•...... , . I ,'" P ,;;fF==""~.~. ''''''''''"T'!;~7~. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ...., 20

These conditions prevailed fromfreeze--upuntil .thefirst barge passed through which time the water was open and the cage was again set in the open Water as previously described. On 25 March 1975, the water level had increased to a point where the sinking so the entire opening was out of the water. A new was substituted similiar in all respects, except for styrofoam floatation mounted on the bottom to keep the structure at the water's surface. The metho~d proVed Very satisfactory and a 24''''hour sample could be On 3 May 1975, the water level rose to 633.87 feet msl (mean sea level) which required a new teChnique since the outflow pipe was completely submergedo A square meter frame was constructed from wood and covered with o.634,-cm hardware

cloth (Fig. 3-0) .Thisc-f:Fame·~was"plaGedwherethe hoops .had..~ prE?viously been used inside the crib house. On top of frame was placed a smgll QggE? QQyered with 0.634, cm hardware

cloth (Fi'g • 3-D) 0 The screens were allowed to run on dif­ ferential pressure since the amount of debris was small due to the shutdown of Genoa #3 for maintenance ahdthere was a 75% decrease in the amount of intake water required. The device required constant surveillance for the 21~·-hour sampling period, Ibut this On 23 May 1975, the water level receded to 627.22 feet msl and it was again possible to sample outside the crib house with the floated box. The technique proved adequate 21 until 4, December 1975, when severe weather necessitated another change. It was decided-to sample inside the crib house using the method incorporated during spring high water from ]-2] May 19750 The method was used until debris influx dictated another change on 2 May 1976. At this time, the floated box was used tudy.

IJaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor The initial device , con- structed of Fig. 4,-A). This box was came out of the crib house" technique was abandoned for one that would The method which was further down the gutter. It res and was flush with the :gutter (Fig•. 4,,,,..B). Again, the greatest. advan­ tage was the increased capac ty.

With the methods used from 1 August 5 De~ember 1 , it proved necessary to have constant observation at both sites while the nets were in place. For that reason, one 8-hour sample was obtained per week. 12 December 1974" the nets were set and left· for 24, hours. This was. due in part to the refined sampling techniques. For those samples that had a duration of less than 24- hours, it was necessary to calculate the sample on a 24'-hour basis. Fig. 4'0 Devices used for impingement sampling atLACBWRo =----=------~------A• Initial device considered at LACHlivR from 1

August-29 August 1974·. B. Device used at LACBWR from 5 September 1974·-21 June 19760

I i I "8

tc- ----,--== w 9"1 ----.---=:::::;

~_~ WS" -----~ 23

Sample Processing After eachsampli-ngperiod,thelarger fish were weighed, measured, and released immediately. The more numerous, smaller fi8h~8 w~r~pr~s~rved in 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory where they were weighed and measured and identified. If identification proved difficult, theindenti­ fication manualsbyEddyCi969),Becker ana..Jo:t111sor! (1970), and Lutterbie (1975 was made of nearly and may be reviewed upon reques •

Impingement Mortality Another aspect considered in this study was that of mortality rate of impinged fishes. This parameter was the most difficult to measure with accuracy. The problem that arose waS.a matter of influencingmo±':tality through collection techniques. MortCility samples were 'taken u.sing two methods. The first technique was the. sinking cage used .at Genoa #3.

When the sinking cage was in use,a.1l0:r'ee-:taYlk was set up near the outflow pipe~ Random cross sweeps with a dip net were made in order to capture. both swimming and floating fish, which were then placed in the tank for four hours, I at whith time thos those floating as dead. Although some opercular movement was noted on a few individuals eventually classified as dead, the probability of their survival was considered smallo 24·

The other sampling structureemployedwas·the small cage which was placed just where the backwash water leaves the gutter and enters' the discharge pipe~irJnenthistechnique was used, the horse tank was set inside the house and as soon as it appeared that there were fish in the basket, it was pulled and 'the o • The screens were allowed.to.run on differential pressure during a mortality sample since that would be described as "normal operations" for the particular

Entrainment Entrainment samples were taken at Genoa #3 frorn cember1975 to 21 'June 1976. A Protek 0.5 horsepower electric diaphram pump (Protek SpecicLlity Company, Hous1;onTex8.s} was used to obtain the samples. A fry net with a meshsi~e of 4·23 micrometers was constructed to cover the end of the 5.08- em' PVC pipe. The samples were taken 'outsldethe crib house on the con- crete foundation enclosing the intake s as sumed that eggs and fry taken at that point be.normally entrained. When high water covered the outside intake structure, it became necessary to take the sample inside the crib house. i This was accomplished by placing the directly in front

When the sampling was done inside the crib house, between

98.1 to 109 0 0 m3 ,of water were sampled per 24· hours. 25

Between 11909 and 130.8 m3 of'water were.sampled per 24· hours when the pump was set up outside. After a 24·-hr sample was taken, the frynetwasthroughly rinsed into container erved in 10% formalin. rrhe sample was then taken back to the la.boratory for inspection.

/ 26

The greatest number of fishes were impinged during the fall (23 Sept ..... 22 beC.), With502fish!day weighing an aver- age of 4.• 6 I ~. , ~ -- - -- .L1~ ~.L~,~~ •.• ~~"~

21 November 1974·, the largest of 67 fish impinged per day weighing 2302 g!fish during theW-inter (22 Dec 0... 21 Mar.), with 202 impinged on 22 January 1976 for the greatest single winter total (Fig. 5 & 6).. These consisted mainly of gizzard shad ~72.7%by number). Winter was marked by water temperature and river stage. remaininglbWand constant (Table 1). Incoming debris was reduced.and consisted of small amounts of lose

rubble. Spring (21 Mar.-21 June) exhibited the. greatest in the physical parameters. Ri:ver stages fluctuated as much as 4 m and the water temperature increased200C (Table 1)0 Duripg April there were large amounts of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), a teresterial and emergent aquatic pl~nt being washed into the screens. During May and June, the incoming debris was again the sUbmergentaquatics. It was Fig. 5. \rJ eekly totals of numbers and biomass of fish impinged at Genoa #3 from 1 August 1974'-31 July 1975 (From BIOMASS ,-- - - NUMBERS' I ~42,OOO ,oot ~ I ~l,OOO ""f-- ~ I. I 1,800( ""' I•, · ~12,OOO . , •IS I I It I i \ •I ! 1,60C!:t- I I n , •• I I I , 10,000 • • 1 , I 1'°1 • ,I· I I I I I I f .. I ~ • > U) I I , ~ ct: f IU \ • I I » ex! I U' • I , U' :i I I ::,:) f \ • (,Q Z • I f , , , I • • I I I II 5004 I , . r5,OOO • / ,•. f n i :/• I,,. ~

• I , - ~ . . ... " I 100 " IVi vii ~ ~~_f "vr~~-~ , , i I 2'9 II ' 1'3 i 2'6 I 10 ' 2'3 I, i I 2'1 i 5 i 1'9 '3 I 18 ' 30 I 13' 27 ' 13 25 26 10 23 5 17 S 0 N 0 J F M M J N --.:l 1974 1975 Fig. 6. Weekly t of fish impinged at Genoa #3 from 6 August 1975-21 June 1976 (From

Appendix I) .. BiOMASS· ..... ­ 42 7,000-' NU!lrlBERS--.... r ,OOO !. J41,OOO 1 ,\ 1,800""" i\• Tr12,000 I \. I . I• I 1,600,,,,-/ I .;---/ I 1,000 I , I I • I

II) !¥ w I , l:l:l

~ I ·, :,) z IA ,

I 50 t II \ I\. • II \ , • • \ , • I \ \ ~ I . ~ , '·v·\ I 100 .~ " 14 J N co 29

Table 1. temperatures and th~

Monthly Month River level range (ft. msl)

January 621.20-622.32 February 0-3 621 .•. 4-0-6230J7 March 0-6. 621.18-625.83 April 8. 622.50-630.45 May

June 18.5- • 620.82-627.[1·0 July 620 0 628030 August 22-25 230 L[. 620.85-623030 September 14·-22 16.9 620" 60~621.82 October 10-15 12.3 620.18-621.50 November 1-13 I 6.6 621.4·2-623.55 December 0-8 I 3.2 620.72-622090 30 during this period in both years that the plant was shutdown for maintenance with a resultant drop in intake watero Between 26 April and 17 May 1976 Genoa #3 was shutdown water being used. It was during this period that an average of 19.8 fish were impinged per day. An average of 70.7 fish were impinged per day during the same period of 1975 when an average of 2 .1JCJ 05/rn~ofintake water was withdrawn each day. During spring, 118 fish were impinged per day with an average weight of 38 g/fish. This larger biomass per fish can be attributed to the impingement of large (over 500 g) fresh­ water drum, shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), and sauger (Stizostedion canadenseJ. The greatest single impingement in the spring was on IT April 1975 when 627 fish were impinged with 77.3% of those being bluegillo Summer (21 June-23 Sept.) was characterized by a mean impingement rate ofTbO flsn/a:ay~~wi~:EICa~meanweight of 17.2 is/ fish. The water level flUctuatedWithlnJm over the period and an increasing amount of debris,primarily SUbmergent aquatic plants, were coming in. The month of JUly exhibited a high impingement rate with of 3b4·fishper 24-hour sample. The three main species e samples were the white bass, emerald shiner, and gizzard shad (Fig. 5 & 6)~ A correlation matrix describing the impingement rate, water level, water t empera ture;,ccana:~~aTS(T=Oe tween"Ehe com13lned IJ:f'fa:}ce' flow and impingement rate for the two· power plants was completed (Table 2). The results show that there was no correlation be­ tween any of tWe variables tested and the impingement rate. 31

r.able 2. Correlation rate at Genoa (msl) J weekly intake volume impingement 1 Augus 1974,-21 June

.- Combined Genoa #3 Rate

ienoa #3 1 0 00 vater Tempo -0 007 vater Level -0 001 • 1.00 GACBWR 0.74· -0.26 0.03 • [ntake Volume -0002 -0.52 -0.31 -0 007 jombined Rate 1 000 -0 000 0.77 -0.03 1.00 32

. It was projected from the .. samplestake:rlthat.G-enQa.#3 impinged 80,588 fish/year, weIghIngiio9:2kg.This figure represented 60 species ..

The (11,733), emerald ( 1 ,376), black crappie • The three broad categori : ). The sport impinged fish, accounting for Fig. 7). Of this total, the sport fishes; the majority " Other important sport fishes e (6.8%), channel catfish only other sport fish over total crappie and the sauger 3 .. 2%and 3 Forage fisheg (Table 4·, total number with the emerald shiner making up 59% (34·.0% and 25.. respectively). Rough fishes (rraole 4·, Fig. 7) of the total number. The freshwater drum comprised 80.9% of the rough fish totalo Biomass was also recorded for every fish impipged and rough fish averaged 83.8 g/fish while the sport fishes aver­ aged 10.6 g;)fish and forage 9.7 g/fish. 33

~:able 36

Species Biomass g

Bluegi:J-l Emerald Shiner Freshwater Drum Black Crappie 1 , Gizzard Shad Channel Catfish 676 White Bass .9 Logperch 600 Sauger 542 White Crappie 34·

Table !.I.. Common names of the species impinged according to their ec0Ylomi g.gctl;E:lgQ:r':b<:;§ .. L§pg:r':~,:rQ1Jgh,ctYlCl. forage fish, From Appendix IV).

Rough

Carp TadpolelVIadtom Quillback Carpsucker Ston.ecat Whi te Sucl{er Chub Shorthead Redhorse Spotted Sucker Silver Lamprey Minnow Chestnut Lamprey 'Shortnose Gar Longnose Gar Bowfin Black Bullhead Mooneye Yellow Bullhead Trout-perch Freshwater Drum Brown Bullhead Brook Burbot White Bass Central lVIudminnow Blue Sucker Shovelnose Sturgeon Brook Stickleback Northern Hogsucker Northern Pike Logperch Smallmouth Buffalo Sauger River Darter Bigmouth Buffalo Walleye Fantail Darter Yellow Perch Gizzard Shad Brown Trout Creek Chub Crystal Darter Blackside Darter Spotfin Shiner I

Fig. 7. Percent distribution by number of fish impinged at Genoa 113 and LACBWR from 1 August 1974·-21 June 1976 according to economic value (rough, sport, forage). 35

~:: •ii ~. ~;

I~ "Ii i ~ ~ I.. i I SPORT 73.1% I

G#3 TOTAL

I I SPORT 66.9%

1

LACBWR TOTAL 36

Gen2.9- #J_~s _imQ§.ct _on the Mississippi·River In an attempt t6 estimate tne affect of Genoa, #3 on the Mississippi River,data for the sport fishes was compared to the creel census done by Hartman (1976h It showed that the most numerous speci (bluegill) was also most commonly harvested that impingement for 9.2% of the Pool 9 (Table 5). from the estimated sport lost from the population year; this was only 0.2% of the Another comparison was made with e are commercially harvested (Table 6). It was projected that the value of the fish lostdue...to.impingement at GeDQg#J Yif112. $67. o}~, annually. This G9mpgres tQ$83 ,909.33 harvested. com­ mercially in Pool Fernholz and Crawley, 1975). The three species which aGGQunted for 82% of the value of impinged fishes were 'the freshYiater ,drum, ShOyelIlQse sturgeon, and catfish ($22 .. 25, $20,,97, and $11.75, respectively). Even though the shovelnose sturgeon accounted for a major portion of the projected value".tt is an insignificant factor since the impingement mbrtali i- 37

r~ ~ ~:

t~\ ~. i ~ ~ t I

Table 5. Estimated aDrlllc:l.J.. flPOI'~ harvest of the :1.0 most com­ I monly caught species, estimated yearly mortality of those species due to impingement at Genoa #3, and the percent of the estimated harvest lost due to impingement, in Pool 9 of the Mississippi River •

Sport Fish .. Impingement Percent of Species Harvest* Mortality Harvest

Bluegills 209,64-5 19, 02 902

Bullheads 69,188 287 0 2 004· Walleye 53,785 0.2 Crappies 4·4',4-35 6.0 Freshwater Drum 4',0,702 406 Sauger ,736 10 I Largemouth Bass 25,603 201 I Yellow Perch 131,782 31:1. 05 2.3 1 Smallmouth Bass 12,4'79 86.2 0.7 I White Bass 11,551 1,019.5' 8.8 Total 512,906 26,613.6 5.2

* Hartman, 1976 1

! 38

ble 60 Value of the s of impinged fish killed fish, a.nd value of the CUll1l11t::L of the Missis- sippi River in __

Species rp .12 22.9 ffalo .42 109 079 12, eshwater Drum .20 11202 22025 1 tfish .80 14·.6 11.75 30,797.60 llhead • .8 1.•93 2,157.75 wfin 0 23.3 1002 2.1)0 ovelnose Sturgeon ~64· 32.8 20.97 1,4·4·8.26 ckers and Redhorse • ~ 09 49.9 4·.4·0 3°1.84· illback .09 1.3 .12 68.4-8 oneye • .87 2.1 r • 04· 3 .9 .17 8. 70 ------~------Total 275.1 $67.04 $83,909.33 39

LaCrosse Boili.ngWaterReactor Impingement

The physical~environmenta-l-~pa-rameters at LACBWR closely approximated those at Genoa #3 throughout the study and will not be presented here again. Spring day with a mean during 11 August 1975 and When was slmtdowrl.for repairs ,littlewater was withdrawn for purposes whi those times. It was operating, 63 fish were impinged .2 fish were impinged for the same period whentheplaTlt was shUtdown in the spring. On 26 April and 3 May 1975, there were 190 and 126 fish lmpinged respectivelyjthirty-three percent of these were bluegills. It was during summer that the lowest impingement rate was exhibited for any periOd with an average of 4·.3 fish per day.

It was again calcul~ted what the differences in impingement was during shutdown and ono There were 8.8 fish/day impinged during operation while only .9 fish were impinged daily during shutdown. The hlglfest impingement rate was during the fall at ·LACBWR when 64· fish were impinged daily, with each fish weighing an average of 10.3 g. On 21 November 1 LACBWR impinged 4-00 fish, 80.2% of those being bluegills (Fig. 8 & 9). Fig. 9. Weekly tbtals of numbers and biomass of fishes impinged atLACBWR from 6 August 197.5-21 June 1976 (From Append.ix III).

d NUMBERS N W Q Q Q, ..Q

N U1

N

-.....,------11--.__ S ~ .... '.J;.. " Q ""c::l" Nc.n Q <::) Q Q Q Q SSVWOUI Weekly totalsofnumbersandbiornass ofc fishes Fig. 8. impinged at LACBWR from 1 August 1974·-J1 July

1975 (Frorn ApperidiXIII).

==---- rrl ~ 400-1 ". I I II BIOMASS -•-•, "" II NUMBERS II r II ~4,500 II II T,200 ii, I• II I 300{ :t ,I ,• I r1,OOO I I , =.... v; if • 0 0:: :i , I jJ ~ li • ;e- 20 , U' II W " • 1°1 II I c.o I II i. ·1 II" •I .. .I I . •I I I I.· ." 100i II i I I I· I I I I I I 50~ 1\ I III •. ! ~ : r .~ ~ I; ". tj.. ,., !-l00 .~ ~ ••.."'.' 21 5 19 3 18 30 13 27 13 25 11 26 10 23 5 17 3 18 31 .l:::" N D J F M A ' M J J P 1975 4-2

An impingement rate of 29 fish per day was exhibited during the winter • •.•...... ••.•..•.•...•...... •=.•..••.••••••..•.•.•..•.••.•..•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••..•••...••...•..••••..••.. specieso The highest winter impingement was 68 fish impinged on 20 March 1975. However, the total number impinged was less than 10 fish per 2L!·hr during five of the wint.er tng periods (Figs. 8 & 9). A correlation matrix describing the impingement rate, water level, water temperatllre,·ahd also between the combined intake flow and impingement rate completed" (Table 2). The results ind.icated. that there was no correlation between any·of the variables tested and the impinge... ment rate at LACBWR. It was projected from the samples taken that LACBWR impinged 12,957 fish annucUly, weighing 35.4· kg. This figure represented 42 species.

Species Composition The species composition at LACBWR was very similiar to that of Genoa #3~ The bluegill was the most numerous with (974·), fo+lowed by the freshwater drum (4'90), black crappie (208), gizzard sh~d (186), and the channel catfish ; Table

7) • The sport fishes were again the dominant group with 66.9% of the total numbero The bluegill comprised 52.4% of the ~ sport fishes, again the majority being young-of-the-year. The black crappie accounted for 1102% and the channel catfish 10.0% (Fig. 7). 4-)

Table 7. The ten most Ylu.rn.erous fish species~rnP~YlgE;d at LAC BWRfrom1Augu.st 19 7L~.- 21 June 1976. listed by numbers and biomass (Frorn.Appe1'1.dix V).

Species Numbers Biomass g

Bluegill 974· 2,0402.8 Freshwater Drum 490 8,881.8 Black Crappie Chamlel Catfish 186 1,252.7 Gizzard Shad 185 6,378.5 Tadpole Madtom 87 White Bass 82 Brown Bullheaq. 71

Whi te Crappi'e 70 Flathead Catfish 60 4-4·

The rough fishes were26.0%bfthe total number with the freshwater drum Delfjgd6minant (9t ~ 0%) 0 Forage fishes followed at 7.t%, CVlJC0±0l,.L tadpole madtom (Noturusgyrinus, 22.8%) as the dominant species

(Fig. 7), Biomass was again recorded and rougn 1-1sn averaged 22. g and forage fish 21. fish averaged only 7.2 g. The reason for the larger forage fish biomass was that 4·8.8% of the forage fish were gizzard shad, weight. of 34·.4· go

An attempt to on the Mis- sissippi River was accomplished by comparing impingemen results with the cre (1976) ahd the commercial and Crawley, 1975)0

When the was c U!ll ~o..L to the ten mosi;; in Pool 9, the

results show that IJl-I-l,DVUI\ 0.6% of the esti­ mated harvest- ahd the white bass exhibited the percentage of the harvest with t.9% and t .1%. A. cOrnparison between the commercial fishing statistics and LACBWR' s impingem ------commercial catch is valued at $83,909.33, while the estimated value of the fishes removed at LACBWR is $5.960 The greatest 45

Table 8. Estirn.a.tedannuaIsp()r1narv8st monly caught species,estimated yearly mortality of those species dueto.impingement at I,ACHII'JR ~ and the percent of the estimated harvest lost due to im'" pingement, in Pool 9 of' the .. lVlississippiRiver.

Sport Fish Impingement Percent of Species Harvest* Mortality Harvest

Bluegills 209,645 1,54·6.0 007% Bullheads 69,188 209.6 0.3 Walleye 53,785 0.0 0.0 Crappies 4-,4-35 4-4·1. J-j. 0.9 Freshwater Drum Sauger 08 Largemouth Bass 25, 100.0 0.4·

Yellow Perch 13,782 1 o. Smallmouth Bass 0.0 White Bass ------~--~._--~~~~~~----~------Total 51 006%

* Hartman, 1976 4·6

proportion of the commercial value of rough fish was attributed

to the freshwater drum ($2 0 F catfish .97) (Table 9). I I Mortalit;y Mortality is the one parameter which gives the best incli- I cation of industry. the course taken on five dates to measure 1974·; 12 June and 25 J4,ly 1975; and 13 was a great deal of f·the different species (Table 10) highest mortality rate (100%) of those species, the bluegill, exhibited a 451 sampled. The mortality rate for all 4-3.5%0 It was calculated, therefore, that from the population at Genoa #3 was ann~ally. The loss year with 15.0 kg removed.

Entrainment

1rJ eekly en-cralnmentsamples· were "oak'ertfroTh 12 Decernhp.r 1975 to 21 June 1976. No fish eggs or fry were taken in any of the entrainment samples during the stUdy. The only fish that was tak~n was one 150 trained. 4'7

ffable 9. Value of the commercial Spgi¢ies in 1975, biornassofim­ pinged fish killed a tLA.CBWR,iVC:1.lueofthe impinged fish , and value of the cOIl1Il1ercialfish caught in PO,ol 9 of the Mississippi

Kg/yr of Fish Value of Value 'of Species Price/kg removed at impinged commercial (dollars) LACBWR fish catch

Carp .12 024- $0.03 $22,650.

Buffalo • .4-1 .17 12,838.11 Freshwater Drum 4-010 2.79 13,633.20 Catfish .80 2.42 1.97 30,797.60 Bullhead 31 .76 .Bowfin .04 4-.16 .18 Shovelnose Sturgeon 0.00 .00 1,4-4-8.26

Suckers and R~dhorse .09 .14- 01 301 •• 84­ Quillback .09 0.• 00 .00 C;8.4-8 Mooneye .13 2.16 Gar 004· 004 .01 8070 ------~------_.----- Total 24-.17 $5096 $83,909033 4B

Table 10. Percent mortality foX' vaX'ious species impinged at Genoa #3 and LACBWR.

Species

Gizzard Shad . Whi te Crappie 4-9% 10 White Bass 4-2% 20 Freshwater Drum 4-0% 23 Black Crappie 38% 65 Bluegill 38% 451 Channel Catfish 31% 37 Logperch· 6%_ Yellow Perch" 0% 14- - Percent Mortality Rate of all species 4-3.5% 4'9

DISCUSSION

Three other impingement studies were compared to the Genoa study to see if any. similar trends existed and to better assess the overall the Mississippi River fish community. Waporas·1 Genoa studyail.d.thepresent study exhibited similiar results at jected impinge- ment estimate at that sIte was 13,211 flsh!year, while the author's estimate at the same faciJ.ity was 12,957, a difference of less than 260 fish annually. TheWaporastudy results

indicated the freshwater drum was the most;

obtalned'anannual impingement rateC):f 80,,588j adifference of over 16,500. This difference maybe attributed to an ex­ ceptionally high impingement 6f fish on ZlN()vember 1974·, when 7006 fish were impinged. If the Wapora study missed this inf~Ux of fish, this would account for such a large difference.

TheWapora resul tsatcc~Gel'l0a#§.·shGvv'ed. th&·1J±'UegTl~1:to'bec"the most numerous species impinged followed by the freshwater drum and emerald shiner. Thepreseritstudy ind.icated the bluegill, emerald shiner, and freshwater drum were the most abundant, in L decreasing order. 50

The Alma study (Wapora, 1976) yielded an rate of 29,2100 sh Alma site a maximum output of 208M11\l'withameanapproach velocity of 0.2 m/sec. Since the aCtual operational data was h6t given, it is difficult intakestruc- ture at Alma is S.L!l1.LJ...Lal. a series screens. The has a greater surface, The Buck Steam on the Yadkin River in North Carolina hasaU!aX.LU!LHIl of 4·88 MW and an apporach velocity of between 0 060-004.2 m/sec 0 The impingement rate at this site was 4',179 fish/year 0 This rate was considerably lower than the rates observed at either of the two sites at .Genoa--witha generating capacity greater than the two Genoa plants combined 0 The reason for this difference may be that fish abundance near the intake struc­ ture at Buck Steam Station did not resemble that which occurs at Genoa. Again, operational and environmental factors for th~ study were not given, which makes comparison difficult. It might be suggested that future impingement studies be figured on the basis of number of fish impinged per thou~ sand cubic meter of intak4bwatg-r-=o .... If _.:tlHa.da.:ta"=w~re~=presented in>this form, the variability in plant operations would be ,\"" compensated for and comparison between plants would be simpli- fied. 51

Impingement Trends

Both impingement during that the be explained and June, from have fish which with the intake s spawn- ing weakens the fish which makes them pingement.

During the fall, as water temperatures decline, fish may become lethargic and thus more prone to impingement 0 It has also been noted that during the middle of November, the two "" """~'" -"~""""~""""""'""""""""""~O_--t sites began recirculating a portion of the heated condenser water back to the intakes to control ice formation. It may be that this warmed water draws the fish into the intake struc­ ture, where they are then impingedo For some unexplained reason it is only during the initial weeks of this process that increased impingement is noted. Throughout the study period there was a higher impingement rate at Genoa #3 than at LACBWR. It was thought the difference m~yObe attributed to the increased velocity and intake volume at Genoa #30 A difference of as much as 0.305 m/sec in approach velocity and 7.3 m3/sec in intake volume would seem 52

to indicate a greater chance of fish being .impinged at Genoa

#30 fA study conducted at four Duke Power Company

(Edwardset al., 197LI') ihdicatedthat impingement at -the four

sites could not be explained OTl the basis of intake a.pproach velocitiesm A study at Indian Point generating station on the Hudson River showed positive correlations between the operational variahLes a.:n.d-th.i? impingement rate (Texas In­ struments, 1974·). The intake structures at the two sites vary considerably. The design at LACBWR is ()heWhich extends out into the river. Once the intake water passes through the outermost trash racks

it goes directly into the .trave.ling;... water scre.ens 0 AtGenoa #3, however, the structure is situated so the intake water must enter from the downstream sideo design results in the formation of eddy currents in the.intake area. It was observed that largenumBers·ei'-El·:f:d'-;E'ct=organi..smspass·into the intake structure • The.presenceof eddiesma.Y···fo:nnahabitat that attracts fish,and..'th.esefish wouldPemoresusceptiple to impingement., Fish impingement at the two Genoa.power plants is likely the result of a may be at- traotedto an intake structure. by their normal diel movements or by some seasonal stimulus such as changing water temperatures or .~ i ver 1 evels, and,?.o.~=:th.@,=~@.~a:wni-ngcO.=r:g.llc€==fl.=i.f..,. ... ficultyarises in that it may be a combination of the physical'? behavioral factors along with an approach velocity which is greB.t enough at the time of the increased fish concentrations 53 to impinge the species present. There were many times when numbers of were seen in front of the screens but were able to negotiate the approach velocity and avoid impingement 0

Three conditions may have influenced are usually operated on may be impinged on screens operate and transiJortt~hemoutofthe water for dis- charge through the washW<3,-t;ep-t;rQ1.lgh. $eqondly, small.ledges on conventional screensareinadeauatetoretain active fisho This results in "recycling" as fish flip off the screen as the baske-t; clears the water and are reimpinged. This is repeated until the fish areeith'eI'=<.l-ead-~oI'-insueha weakened condition --= that they remain on the narrow· ledge until they are transported to the wash wa ter~section. .T.hirdly, screen wash water pres­ sure is normally 90,..;.10()iP"s.i. This pressure is necessary to effectively removeValisnaria, Phalaris, ·and other debris that co~llects on the faceafthe . screens • Water at this pressure is injurious to fish.

~Even though normal operations tend to have the effect of causing mortality, it,was=,n~4ha4r=ma~t-he..f4&fl..=.C&@TIEkng throughI.were already In poor health. Some had open leslons,• parasites, and many may have been dead but due to lack of decomposition, they were counted in the sampleo 54·

The mortality samples probably expressed a maximum value

...... j due to the sampling techniques. Because of 'the construction of the screen wash system it was difficult to remove without stres The time the fish under the backwash stream increased the mortality when the sample ,was taken outside of the crib house in the sinking cage. When large amounts of debris were coming through, this entangled the·fish and made separation difficult. The sampling teChnique inside the crib house also put :?tress on the fish by havingtheba'Ckw§.shwater running over the fish and dumping debris on them. Every attempt was made to remove the fish as quickly as PQs$:t1:>J.~l:mt Some mortality likely resulted from samplingo

The.impingementoffish·at bothGenOasites'has'a minirna.l effect on the fisheries of Pool 90 The commercial fishing data seem to indicate·that the biomass of impinged fish consti­ tuted a small economic loss,:.less .. than 0 .. 08% of the annual cormnercial harvest in Pool 90 The data on the sport fishes show; that both sites impinge approximately 508% of the ten most commonly harvested sport fishes in Pool 9 0 It'shDu3::d"~oe "no-c'e·d..'=thct't eYentftou·gft·~~:8'%c...... may be a significant percentage of those harvested, nearly all of the impinged fishes had not reached a size which place them in the fisherYe Well over 90% of the bluegills, white bass, ~ 55

and crappies were too small to be considered catchable. It is also at this age that most species have a veryhi.gh natural rnortality rate. Consequeritly,iIIlpirigerrieritmOrialfiy of game fishes does not significantly.compete with the sport fisheryo

Entrainment

Evidence points to the fact that even though no fish were present in the samples there were fish being entrainedo Wapora (1975) conducted an entrainment study at

1.3 March to 24· June 19750 The total number of fish inWaporas 0 entrainment samples was 169; with 80% of those being )on one date (10 June 1975). The projected entrainment rate for the period was 101 million. Another entrainment study was conducted on a power plant at Alma, Wisconsin (Wapora, 1976)0 During that study, 276 fish were entrained;agai~n'-sm)wingthatfish were1:5eTYlgpa§§ea~' I through the plumbing of power plants located on the MissTssippi Rivero I The sampling technique incorporated was inadequate to obtain a large sample 0 The-average amount of water sampled by the pump was 0 00014.) rri.3/secwhen the pump was on the intake I struc,ture outside the crib house 0 When the pump was set up in front. of the screens inside the crib house, an average of 0 000114. m.3/sec of of ~enoa #.3 being .3.8 m.3/sec ·duringthis period, the sample ranged from 000.3-000.38% of the totaI~ A sUbsample of this size could easily miss incoming fry and eggs o 56

LITERATURE CITED

Becker, G.C. and T.R.Johnson" 1973" Se:.Leetedkeystothe fishes· of Wisconsin. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Wis.-Stevens

Point. 57p.

Berguson, S .R. and K.M.iKhUtson. 1973. An assessment of entrainment of smalL fish. St. Cloud State Coli. Bioi.

Dept., St. Cloud, Minnesota. 60p.

Eddy, s. 1969. The Freshwater Fishes. WtJl~· C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Towa. 286p.

Edsall, T.A. and T.G. Yocom. 1972~ Review of recent technical information concerning the.advei':seieffectsof·· once through

cooling on Lake Michigan. U.S. FishandWildl. Servo, Bur. Sport Fisho and Wildl. , Great Lakes Fisho Lab~, Ann Arbor,

Michigan. 86p.

, Edwards, T. J 0' W.H. Hunt, L.E.JVIill$r,iapdJ.J.Sevic. 1974,. An evaluation of the impingement of fishes at four Duke

Power Company Company, Envi. , 28p.

Eicher, ,J. 1974-. Design of intake structures for new steam

.,'\ el-ectric stations. Portland General Electric Company. 1 Op • . Environrri.ental Protection Agency. 1973. Development document for proposed best technology available for minimizing \ adverse structures. D.C. 1?5pe

Fernholz, Willis·B.andV~E~Crawley. 1976. Mississippi River commercial fishing statistics for 1 of Natural Resources,Bur.of Fish and Wildle Management, I Madison, Wisconsin. 23p. I Hartman, Ernest C. 1976~ Recreationuse.s Mississippi River. U~S. Army Corps of Engineers,St.

District.

J·as~e, R.T. and D.E. Peterson. 1968. A test simulation potential effects of thermal power plants on streams in the upper Mississippi River basin. Battelle Memorial Insitutue, Pacific Northw,9st Laboratory, Richlan, Washing-

ton. 74,p.

Knutson, K.M. 1974,. Na.tural.entrainment of small fish. St. I Cloud State Coll. Biol. Dept., st. Cloud, Minnesota.

Lutterbie, G.W. 1 Wisconsin. Mus •. Nat. His.t e Univ.WiSe-Stevens Point. 4Jp.

McMiLl.ian, Me 1976. A power plant in your community? Coop-

erative Extensio;rc:LE~gra~Hpj vept.Wi§ ·lJ'4§logj,§~XJ.,bWl§.

16p. 58

Sharma, R.K. 1974,. Siting and designing of water intake structures to minimize fish kills. Argonne National Lab Argonne, Illinois. 28p.

Snyder, Darrel E. 1975. Passage of fish eggs and young through a pumped storage generating station Cano 32:1259-1266.

Texas Instruments Incorporated. 1974,. Indian Point impiYlgement study report for-the period 15 June 1972 through 31 December 19730 Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, New. York, New York. 94,p.

U. S. A.tomic EnergyCommis-sioTI-;'---t972-~------Final envir0n:ment-ar~s·tate::: ment by the UIlS.AtomicEnergy Commission, directorate of licensing. Docket No •. 50-24'7 0

Wapora Incorporated. 1975. Studies to determine aquatic ecological impacts of thermal discharges at the Genoagenerat­ ing stationo Prepared for Dairyland Power Coop., LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 99p.

Wa pora .I ncorporated o1c9=r&.Mrnct=illI:1: t Num1ger=cS=-ix-Gool-4-ng,cWater Intake Structure 3t6(b) Document. Prepared for Dairyland Power Coop., LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 91p. XrGN:iIddV 59

Appendix I •.

Temp Date ( oC)

1. Aug. 1974, 62i.75 22.0 • .....rv &.,.;J.,. " 5 Aug. 621.75 22.0 12 June 623.65 18.5 1.5 Aug. 621 .86 24·.0 17 June 625.35 19.0 22 Aug. 622.70 24·.0 26 June 627.4·0 2500 29 Aug. 620.85 22.0 3Jllly 627.93 26.5 5 Sept. 620.73 1.7.0 10 .:ru.ly 628.30 24'.5 13 Sept. 621008 16 00 18 July 625.86 25 .. 5 19 Sept. 620.60 17.0 ., 25 July 622.92 25.5 26 Sept. 620.90 :l.LhO 31 July 620.74 28.0 3 Oct. 620 • :I. 8 11.0 6 Aug. 621.28 25.0 10 Oct. 620 "92 11 ;0~'1'4;~A:ug" 621.30 25.0 17 Oct. 620.79 11.0 2LAug. 621.02 24'00 23 Oct 620.4·6 10.0 28 Aug 0 623030 23.0 31 Oct 621.50 13.0 5 Sept. 621082 22 00 7 Nov. 621068 8.0 12 sept .. 621052 18 00 l LI' Nov. 622.07 4,. 0 18Sept~ 621.82 17.0 21 Novo 621.76 2.5 25 Sept. 621055 14·.0 27 Novo 621.70 1.0 2 Oct. 621.10 13.0 5 Dec. 620.97 0 9 Oct. 620.76 1500 12 Dec. 620~72 0 160cti 620.9314'00 19 Dec. 621 ,,60 . ~··o "..·.... 23-0'CT;'==· 620,,93 13;0 26 Dec,. 621.38 0 30 Oct. 621.4,0 12.0 3 Jan. 1975 621.27 0 6 Nov .. 621.4·2 13 .0 10 Jan. 621.20 0 13 Nov. 623.55 8.0 18 Jan. 621.300 20 Nov. 623.35 11.0 26 Jan. 621.58 0 27 Nov. 623 .. 33 5.5 30 Jan~ 621;64 0 4 Dec. 622050 5.0 6 Feb. 621.40 0 12 Dec. 622 .. 90 8 .. 0 13 Febo 621..58 0 1 20 Feb. 621.75 0 27 Dec. 622.4-3 8.0 27 Feb. 621.74· 03 Jan. 1976 622.32 8.0 6 Mar'. 621.60 0 8 Jan. 622.20 8.0 13 Mar. 621.18 0 15 Jan. 621.65 7.0 20 MaT'. 621. 1+7 0 22 Jan. 621.90 ·4·.0 25 Mar. 623.90 0 29 Jan. 622.05 3.0 4· Apr. 622.50 .5 4 Feb. 622.35 2.0 11 Apr. 622 .. 98 '~,c'~3T:5·1~ F'e4:>lf' '021.83 "3~:0 17 Apr. 629.85 5.0 19 Feb. . 623.37 2.0 26 Apr. 629.91./. 11 .. 5 27 Feb" 622.86 2.0 3 May 633087 10.0 4· Mar. 623.05 0.5 10 May 631.87 13.5 11 Mar. 622.55 1.0 17 May 629.02 16.0 19 Mar. 623.50 3.0 23 May 627.22 21.0 25 Mar. 625.83 6.0 29 May~ 626028 20.0 2 Apr.* 629.02 6.0

(Continued) 60

Appendix I. (Continued)

Date Temp (msl) 9.0 o _ 0 12.0 9.0 10eO 15.0 17.0

21

-;(- Samples taken biweekly

..:, 61

APpendix II. Weekly totaTs 6f irnpingedfish at Genoa #3 from 1· August1974"=21 June 1976r listedby numbers and biomass.

Date Number Biomass Date Number Biomas$ ( g) (g)

1 A.ug. 197L,- 5 Aug. :1.5 Augo 22 Aug. 29 Augo • 5 Septo 114-.7 13 Septo 76.8 19 Sept. 8708 26 Sept. 112.0 3 Oct. 8 .0 10 Oct. 1 0 17 Oct. • 23 Oct. 999.0 31 Oct. 228.0 05 7 Nov. .. 337.6 3 14· Novo 1705.8 1 21 Nov. 7006.0 .0 27 Nov. 24·0.0 30 4-84·.0 5 Deyo 32.0 Oct. 4-0 139705 12 Dec 0 63.0 Oct. 72 1796.3 19 Dec. 108. 552U;'T '23 Oct 0 38 14-35.1 26 Deco 4·0 .8 'ccc'204·.30 •.•. --)0'-crcT:- 122 4·892;2 3 Jano 1975 )2.0 681~2 6 Nov. 34· 4·5105 10 Jan. 4·4·~··0 •. ?3r;}· TTNovo 224· 14-39.3 18 Jan•. 66.0 1.30609 20 Nov. 613 910300 26 Jan. 88~0 .'Cj'!J7'; 0 .... 27'" Novo 292 4-819.0 30 Jan.- 62.0 84-'7.0 4· Dec 0 52 796.8 6 Feb. 101.0 852;0 12 Dec. 29 270.4· 13 Feb. 4·0.0 12300J 19 Dec. 14- 425 02 20 Febo 78.0 2456.3 27 Dec. 5 18005 27 Febo 4200 654:.4· .•.....•...... 3 Jan. 1976 8 37.0 6 Mar/ 73 00 834'08 8 Jan. 13 802.8 13 Mar. 66.0 120109 15 Jan. 27 56203 20 Maro 50 00 682.5 22 Jan. 202 74-14-09 25 Mar'o 32.0 2210.5 29 Jan. 14·0 525006 4· A.pr. 3300 278.9 4· Febo')(- 60.5 1753.8 11 Apro 38.0 88.0 12 Feb. 4·4· 225509 17 Apro' 627 00 1:t~:5 ;1 ,. "'19 ...... j'i"e'b •.. ····64· .. ... 268,,=~c6' .. 26 Apro - - 27 Febo . 4'7 801.7 3 May 182 00 136103 4- Mar. 61 1227.8 10 May 37.0 577.7 11 Mar. 86 275209 17 May 64·.0 519.3 19 Mar. 14·6 2673.2 23 May 31.0 14-8704- 25 Mar. 526 7183.0 29 May 50.0 929201 2 Apr. 288 3108.0

(Continued) 62

Appendix II. (C ontinued)

Date Number Biomass W 9 Apr.* 89.5 7271.5 15 Apr. orr 292.5 174-37.2 21 Apr .~f 93.3 1134·2 •• 0 28 Apro* 62 34'06 0 5 6 lVIay* 7.5 512 10 fv'Ia.y,* 1 7 lVIay~f 670 2}+ lVIay* .5 24-30.7 2 June* 22 864' •• 5 7 June 78.5 5755.2 14· June 224·.0. 7803 21 June 91 9039.5

* $amples taken biweekly and averaged. 63

Appendix III • Individual species impinged at Genoa 1/3 from 1 August-,21 June 1.·9··76, ....:Lig:t.;ed by numbers and biomass 0

Species Numbers Biomass (g)

Bluegill 11733 26264·.0 Emerald Shiner 14-94· 3857.2 Freshwater Drum 1376 72194·.5 Black Crappie 1123 14-855.7 Gizzard Shad 1090 23627.5 Channel Catfish 676 6917.3 White Bass 658 1031209 Logperch 600 3372.3 Sauger 54·2 ,- 284·80.6 White Crappie 533 4·004'04· Spottail Shiner 4·01 696.8 Tadpole Madtom 987.7 Rockbass 2. 2830.4· Largemouth Bass 227 374·8.1 Flathead Catfish 191 3265.7 Yellow Perch 166 1302708 Silver Ch,ub 164· 3930.7 Walleye- 71 1123201 Black Bullhead 67 3832.1 River Darter 65 157.8 Pumpkinseed 64· 1228.6 Brown Bullhead 1173.7 Longnose Gar 53 69907 Carp 4'7 14918.2 Northern Pike 4·1 1972707 I Golden Shln'er 4·1 393.5 I Silver IJamprey 4·1. 158805 Trout-perch 39 15705 Brook Silversides 38 4.6 0 3 1 Shorthead Redhorse 38 14'74-6.2 I;! Shovelnose Sturgeon 35 2174·607 Spotted Sucker 35 1535904· Yellow Bu'llhead 32 1282.3 Stonecat' 29 168.1 Mooneye 29 518607 Smallmouth Buffalo 28 1216.6 Pugnose Minnow 13 17.8 Common Shiner Bigmouth ~uffalo 2 539.1 White Sucker 11 166206 Fantail Darter 11 3003 Bowfin 11 151)-15. ° Smallmouth Bass 9 320.6 Bullhead Minnow 8 36.9

(Continueq.') !\! r 64- Appendix 1110 (Continued)

Species Numbers -BIOirias s {g

Ico Fathead Minnow 8 23.6 Warmouth 7 23.7 Weed Shiner 7 10.7 Shortnose Gar 6 2045.4­ Blue Sucker 6 1119.4· Brook Stickleback 5 7.5 Spotfin Shiner 4- 15.0 Crystal Darter 3 6.5 Blackside Darter 3 6.2 Chestnut Lamprey 3 24-9.0 Northern Hogsucker 2 32.0 Brovm Trout 2 119.0 Quillback 1 351.7 Burbot 1 180.5 Central Mudminnow 1 2.2 Northern Creek Chub 1 22. 0 Totals 22bOl 385,977.7

I i

i~

I.~ ~ ! I, ~ I I I I 1 I 6.5

Appendix IV. List of all species, in a phyletic sequence of"families;irnpingeda::tooth•• Ge noa::sites ••~

Class Agnatha Order Petromyzontiformes Family Petromyzontidae Silver:EJCl.mpr~y=IchthyomyzonunicuspisHubbs & Trautman Chestnut Lamprey-Ichthyomyzon castaneus Girard Class Osteichthyes Order Aci:gSillSel'i:rO:t'rne~ Fami 1 y Acipenser'i.clcte ShovelnoS8)Sturgeon--ScaphirhYY1Chus·· platorynchus Order Semionotiformes . Family Lepisosteidae LongnOse·Gar"'LepisosteusosseusiILi11.na.eus) Shortnose Gar-Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque Order Amiiformes . Family Amiidae Bowfin-Amia calva Linnaeus Order Clupeiformes Family Clupeidae .. Gizzard Shad.... Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur) Order Osteoglossiformes Family Hiodontidae . ". Mooneye .... Hiodon tergisus Lesueur Order Salmoniformes Family Sa:Lrn()n:icle:t.~ .. __ .__ __ _. . . Brown Trout.... Salmo trutta Linnaeus Family Umbridae Central MUdmlnnow~Umbra limi (Kirtland) Family Esocidae NorthernPiRe=Es6xTucius Linriaeus Order Cypriniformes Family Cyprinidae Carp-CyprinuscarpioLinna~us Silver Chub-Hybopsis storeriana'CKirtlarid) Golden Shiner.... No.tern.igonuscrysoleucas (Mi tchill) Pugnose Shiner-Notropis emilae (Hay) EIl1erald Shiner-Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque Common Shiner.... Notropis cornutus (Mitchill) Spottail Shiner-Notropis hudsonius (Clinton) '"',' Spotfin Shiner.... Notropis spiloft~rus (Cope) Weed Shiner':=l\fotropis texanus Girard) Fathead Minl1ow=PimepJiaIes" prorrielas" Ra.:tfnesque . Bullhead Minnow-Pimephales vigilax (Baird and Girard) CreekChub.... Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill) Family Catostomidae Quillback-Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur) White Sucker.... patostomus commersoni (Lacepede)

(Continued) 66

Appendix IV. (Continued)

BhieSuGker~GYGleptus elongatus (Leseur) Spotted Sucker..c.Minytrema melanops(Rafinesque) Shorthead Redhorse-Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur) SIhallIhouth Buffalo-Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque) BigrnouthBuffalO....Tcti6bUs cyprinellus(ValenciE,mnes) Order Siluriformes Family Tctaluridae Black Bullhead-IctaTu.rus Tnelas (Rafinesque) Yellow Bullhead"'IEtalu.ru.snatalis (Lesueur) Brown Bullhead-Ictalu..ru.sGasterosteiformes Family Gasterosteidae Brook Stickleback-Culaea inconstans (Kirtland) Order Perciformes Family Percichthyidae .. ~-~~~-~~~._~~. White Bass~Moronechrysops (Rafinesque) Family.Centrarchidae Rockbass-Ambloplites rupestris(Rafinesque) Pumpkinseed,...Lepomis .. .gibbosus (Linnaeus) Warmouth-Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier) Bluegill-Lepomisrnacrochirus Rafinesque Smallmouth Bass"'Micropterus dolomieui Lacepede Largemouth Bass....Micropterussalmoides(Lacepede) White Crappie,...Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque Black Crappie.... P6mOxis nigrornaclilatus (Leseur) Family Percidae Crustal Darter-Ammocrypta asperlla (Jordan) Fantail Darter-Etheostoma flabellare Rafinesque Logperch... Percina caprodes (Rafinesque) Blackside Darter-Percina maculata (Girard) River Darter""P&Fe~l'1a=OO.:l:illla;:r:'-€l?i.~(Gil"Clili'Q ). Yellow Perch-Perea flavescens (Mitchill) Sauger-Stizostedioncanadense(Smith) Walleye-Stizostedion vitreum (Mitchill) Family Sciaenidae Freshwater brum-Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque 67

Appendix V. Weekly tota.ls of impinged fishalLACBWR from August 197}+-21 June 1976, listed by numbers and biomass 0 ..: ~.: ~ : .

Date Numbers Biomass Date Numbers Biomass W UD

1 Aug 0 1974· • o 5 Augo 54'00 193.8 12 June 12.0 283. 15 Augo 17 June 2 0 0 5. 22 Aug. 26 June 2.0 1107 29 Aug. 3 July 5 Septo 10 JUly 13 Septo 4·.8 26.9 18 JUly 19 Sept 9 2.7 2106 25 July 26 Septo 37.3 68.3 31 July 3 Octo 6 Augo 10 Octo 18.0 ?§.4· .. :1.4· Aug 0 17 Oct. 33.0 78.9 21 Augo 9 84·~6 23 Oct. 39.0 77.1 28 Augo 31 Oct. 4·5e 0 68.1 5 Sept. 7 : 1ll-}~1 7 Novo 36.0 121.5 12 Sept. 14· Novo 299.5 4·658.3 18 Sept. :.18.8 21 Nov. 4·0000 802.0 25 Sept. 15 128.4­ 27 Nov. 4·0.0 350 0 8 2·Oct. 19 14·4- 08 5 Dec. 25.0 11302 9 Octo 25 18905 12 Dec. 9.0 494'.7 16 Oct. 5 09 QC..:t!L~. 19 Dec. 20.5 91 0 4· .. .2.1 .. 6 26 Deco 13.2 ·bD.:C·= 30 Oct 0 180 5967.1 3 Jano 1975 6.0 62.3 6 Novo 15 350 10 Jan. 18.0 11+;0 13 Nov. 25 4-13. ? 18 Jano 33.0 280 01 20 Nov. 24·4­ 150505 26 Jano 3,,0 "2~~6' 2T Nov. 56 4·8501.1­ 30 Jano 37 0 0 624'.5 4- Dec. 34­ 4'39 .. 7 6 Febo 53.0 4·02;0 12 Dec. 35 3770 l 1· 13 Febo 59 0 0 780 07 19 Dec. 5 56.1 20 Febo . 56.0 66209 27 Dec. 4· r006 27 Feb•. . 26.0 279o..63Jan. 1976 5 66.4­ 6 Mar. 38.0 4-60.1 9 Jan. 8 70 0 2 13 Mar o 4,700 4-54-09 15 Jan 15 19601 20 Mar. 68.0 970.3 29 Jan. 19 495.7 25 Mar o 15 0 0 18608 5 Feb. 38 63808 4· Apro 15.0 593.6 12 Feb. 20 34-4-04­ 11 Apre 19 0 0 205.5 19 Feb. 4·4­ 612.8 17 Apro 167.0 1rm5oT·27·F·eb ~ ... _.. Ij:)~ .. glj:r':'6 . 26 Apr. 36.0 324- 00 4- Mel!:'. 3 May 126 00 54-5903 11 Mar. ·10 May 6.0 3805 19 17 May 3200 4-57.8 25 Mar. 23 May 33 0 0 618.9 2 A.pr o 29 May 9 A.pro 68

Appendix V. (c

Date

• 21 Apro 6 10 May 17 May 24·lV1ay 2 June 7 June 14· June 21 June 9'9;

App~ndix VI-lo ImpingementJJa,.i:;a,..f'romGenoa#3f'orAugust, 1974-0 8/1 .. 8/5····8/15 8/22 8/29 Total Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of' Fish Collected Biomass Fre.shwatel' Drum 24· 3 14-8 3.4 17804­ 14-.4· 6640.4· 240 040 94-0 08 Flathead Catf'ish 24· 15 3.40 4-2.4- ' 806~-~- .. 21- . 107 3t.3 .Channel Catf'ish 906 9 3 13~6 35·~·2 6 0 7 1206 4·.8 1503 3904- Longnose Gar 4-.8 '3 J h 8.2 15.4·- 18 0 40 3308 Largemouth Bass 9 15 0 0 ·34,8 4-806 . Blu~gill 12 9 10 0 2 3102 10.8 4-08 2706 White Bass 27 8 35 0 0 38. 3306 7106 .- ...-~-..~..-.~ ..~.... -:-.. ·6-~·--·-··· Smallmouth Bass 6 0 0 9 9.0 S'pottail Shiner 6 6.0 1101 1101 Stonecat 3 3 0 0 303 303 White Crappie' 4· 4'00 16906 169 06 Logp;erch 6 6.0 19.2 1902 Tadpole Madtom .....-.-...-...-_...._.. ~..__._._- --3------~- ... }.·o············ 54·.4· 54'04· EmeriL)..d Shiner 21 608 2'708 145.2 708 153 00 Gizzard Shad '608 608 4309 4'309 Mooneye 304­ 3.4 124'04· 124-04: Black_Crappie 10.2 100 2 202.3 202 03 Brook Silversides . 304- -"304· 207 2.7

TotalNumber 62 0 4. 6.0 81.0' '20700. 12508 L~8202 Number of' Species 4· 1 8 9 10 18 Hours Sampled 5 0 0* 4L o"Q:li: . .,.=.B.o O~-ll' ...... 12 ~.Q* ...+.oQ~...... ~cGZlYO~ X Fish per Hour 2.6 0025 3.3 806 5.2 40 00 Total BiC?mass g '52.3 13.8 . 12104· 11#202 661.7 199104·

Projection Number'of' Samples Taken:. 5 Estimated Number of' Fish J;l,npinged: 2,976 00 Estimated Total Biomass: 12,34·607 ! 70 r Appendix VI-20 Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for September, 1974- 0 I 973 ··········97ij 9/19 9/2 6 Total S,pecies Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Freshwater Drum 5.4- 1 207 801 17.2 I 2314-.9 .. 190 02 34-.0 1190.9 3730.0 GIzzard Shad 3204- 7 02 207 4-2.3 536.2 150 02 3.8 69002 White Bass 10.8 2.7 8.1 21 0 6 108.5 67.2 9304- 269.1 Flathead Catfish 24-.3 24-.3 123.9 12309 Channel Catfish 504­ 7.2 5.4­ 18 0 0 12Y-02 17.8 14-68.3 1610.3 Black Crappie 5.4­ 4·.8 207 .5 .4­ 1803 14-906 12 •.5 1706 45.4- 225.1 White Crappie 2 0 7 207 1.5.4­ 1504­ Bluegill 504­ 62.1 157.5 4'.9 62.5.6 920.5 Fantail Darter 801 801 24-.0 24-.0 1 Brook Silversides 2.7 207 3 0 2 3,,2 Emerald Shiner 1305 4'08 2106 4-8 0 0 2305 4-.8 3907 88.8 Tadpole lVIadtom 14-04­ 1701 21. 0 4- 24-.4- Lopgnose Gar 4-70.5 Spbttail Shiner 2 0 7 Z07 1101 11;1 Stoneca.t 2.7 2.7 2.4· ~4-

Total Number 116.1 75.4­ .. 86.4- 13204­ 4-10.3 Number of Species 11 7 9 7 15 Hours Sampled 9;0* 10;0* 8.7.5* 900* 36.75* X Fish per Hour 4-.8 3.1 3.6 .50.5 4-025 Total Biomass g 34-28.3 511.1 1838 00 20080.5 778509

Numb~r of Samples Taken: 4­ Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 3,000.0 Estimated Total Biomass: 58,394;,,2 71.

Appendix VI-3. Impingement ..D~j;;~J:rQlJl Q§DQa#3 for October, 1974·. ···1-0/3.....:...:...·.....-1:..0,7.:..1:0:..:..:.10.,/1·7 10/23 10/31 Total Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass Freshwater Drurn 9 8607 Bluegill 97.5 210 14,2.5 1110.0 2.56.8 1818.9 White Bass 9 1.56.6 Gizzard Shad 9 3 66 451~2 160 •.5 24·6.6 4'1.1 1013.1 Black Crappie 9 3 18 2.53.8 13800 4·62.3 Emerald Shiner 6 6 7•.5 7. .5 White Crappie 9 21 6 2604, 64,.8 Longnose Gar 3 12.9 Largemouth Bass 3 3 23.4, 23.4· Fantail Darter 3 3 6.3 6.3 River Darter 3 3 4,.8 4-.8 Walleye 3 3 ~) . 20.1,1:801 20.4:8.1. _

Total Number 8 Number of Species Hours Sampled 00* X Fish per Hour 306 .0 Total Biomass g 10.53.9 .4,

Projection Number of Samples Taken: .5 Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 9,672.0 Estimated Total Biomass: 34,,232;4, 7?

Appendix VI_LI'. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for November , • 11 11/27 Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of FishColledted Biomass

Freshwater Drum 3 0 2 7.4­ 4-4­ 24­ 25~3 840302 14-14-.6 206.8 Bluegill 284-.8 1520.7 6459 120 377.6 "124-605 4-552. '7 5780 Walleye 3 0 2 1256.9 Largemouth Bass 16 o 11702 Yellow Perch 3.2 4-9.6 Gizzard Shad 906 o 550 51.9 127.2 Spottail Shiner 60 4-04­ 1 1006 206 13.2 Black Crappie 9.6 25.9 44­ 4­ 83.5 4-20 08 295.3 1098.7 212 04­ 2027 White Crappie 4-1.6 4-4-04­ 24-2 12 34-0 174-.4­ 15605 960 50.8 134107 Warmouth 3,,2 3.2 8. 8 .. 9 Longnose Gar 07 4-.4­ 4 12.1 39 0 6 83 0 6 55 0 2 178.4­ Tadpole Mudtom 307 4-.4­ 4­ 12 01

~'" 4-08 3.1 9.6 17. Stonecat .8 Flathead Catfish 904­ 6.6 06 Chanllel Catfish .8 24­ 3208 7.5 38 0 0 4505 Emerald Shiner 404­ 4­ 804­ 5.7 10 1507 Rockbass 10L02 4­ 10502 1 302 10.8 .4­ Spotted" Sucker o 4-.4 352000 3520 00 White Bass 8 8 88.0 88 0 0

Total Nllmber 33 Number of Species 10 9 1 1 19 !lours ," Sa,mpled 7.5* 6.5* 504-5* 6 0 0* 25045 X Fish. per Hour 14-01 71.1 291.9 10.0 9608 Total Biomass g 259801 5635.5 12275.6 14-96.8 22006,,0

Projection Number of Samples Taken: 4 Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 69,696.0 Estimated Total Biomass: 165,04-5.0 73

Appendix VI-5. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for December, 1974'0 9 12/26 Total Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass ofFish Collected: Biomas Freshwater Drum 07 2.4­ 29.7 02 2507 324-00 Bluegill 1205 1.2 4-4-.7 17.8 1.7 4-604­ White Crappie 602 1905 Flathead Catfish 1.2 9Q7 10 0 8 196.3 Sauger 3 0 0 618.0 Gizzard Shad 4-.8 32.2 77.5 301.2 Channel Catfish 1902 66 0 0 4'7.8 14-607 White Bass 2.4- 12.2 21.5 19705 Tadpole Madtom 1.2 203 7.1 12.2 Stonecat 102 2.3 1~3 2~3 Emerald Shiner 702 38.0 11 0 0 74- 0 0 Spottail Shiner 2.3 2 0 Brook'~ilversides

Total Number 24-4-03 Number of Species !iours Sampled 705* X Fish per Hour 1.3 10 01 Total Biomass g 11007

Number of Samples Taken: Estimated Number of Fish Estimated Total Bi omass":C"='"'=",=",=",==~~W~*===""~="~~,==."",="".,•.•.,,, 74-

Appendix VI-6 .. Impingement DatafromGenoa#:3::f()rJanuary, 1975. 1/3 1/10· 1/18 ··1/26 1/30 TOtal Numbers Sp$cies Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass Freshwater Drum 11 17 4-3 57 45 1r13 160~4­ 175.2 517 .. 1 663.1 507 .. 7 2023,,5 Bluegill 1 1 2 1 5 205 0.3 3.0 0.5 6 .. 3 White Bass 5. 4­ 7 2 14­ 59 .. 3 65.4­ 14-0 .. 4- 32,,0 297 .. 1 Mooneye 1 1 2 4-02.6 708 0 0 1110.6 Channel Catfish 9 21 16 12 13 71 16 .. 7 39.7 33.9 32 .. 1 26,,8 149,,2 Tadpole Madtom 1 3 2 1 7 0 .. 9 2 .. 1 .. 2.5· 7.9 13.4­ Trout-perch 1 1 4- 6 6.8 3.7 21 .. 5 32.0 Yell'Ow Perch 1 1 5.6 5.6 Brown Bullhead 2 1 1 1 5 26,,2 10,,3 10 .. 8 10,,0 57 .. 3 Gizzard Shad 1 1 2 70.0 270.0 34-0.0 White Crappie 1 1 3 .. 2 3 .. 2 BrookSilversides ? .. o 2 /,J,f 5.0 5,,0

Total Number 32 4-4- . 66 88 62 292 Number of Species 9 6 5 10 6 12 Hours Sampled 2lj:~ 2}+ .. 24­ 24- 24­ 120 X Fish per Hour 1.3 1 .. 8 2.75 3,,7 2.6 2.• 4-3 Total Biomass g 681,,2 231.3 1326.9 957 .. 0 84-7.0 4-04-3.4-

Projection Number of Samples Taken: 5 Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 1,785.6 Estimated Total Biomass: 25,069.1 75

. - 57 28 673.4· 383.8 2 2 .- 0 1 2 508 52 02 2 123.2 28.3 1h 6 2 Tadpole Madtom 600 608 Stonecate 1 1.0 Brown Bullhead 1 30 3.6 Gizzard Shad 1 4 35.9 800.8 Black Bullhead 1 2 05 4,7.7 Bluegill 2 1.3 10.4 Spotted.Sucker 1 1281.4- Brook Silversides 1.7 Log-perch 309 Carp 1 1

Total Number 1010 4-0 Number of Species 8 6 Hours Sampled 24­ 4­ X Fish per Hour 4·.2 1.7 1075 Total Biomass g 852.0 1230 03 654'04

Number of Samples Taken: Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 1,814-.4· Estimated Total Biomass: 36,35204

.; l Appendix VI-So Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for March, 197.5. 3/6 3/13 3/20 3/2.5 Total ,. Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass Freshwater Drum .54, 4,4, 36 18 1.52 .580.0 601.4, 302.8 103.7 1.587.9 Carp 1 1 4·6.6 Brook Silversides 1 0.7 2.2 Channel Catfish 10 8 .54'3.6 Weed 'Shiner 1 1 2.1 1.3 3.4, Rockbass 1 1 1.3 1.3 White Sucker 1 1 1208.1 1208.1 Quillback 1 1 3.51.7 3.51 .7 Trout-perch 1 1 2 .5.7 7.7 Bluegill f 4, • 267.8 White Bass 13 3.5.0 101.3 231.4, River Darter 1 1 1.8 1.8 Gizzard Shad 459.8 Brown Bullhead 1 .5.0 Tadpole Madtom 2 0;7 Black Bullhead 1 140300

Total Number 32 221 Number of Species 6 7 8 16 Hours Sampled 24, 24, 96 X Fish per Hour 3.0 2.7.5 2.1 1.3 2·3 Total Biomass g 834,.8 1201.9 682 •.5 2210 •.5 4'929.7

Projection Number of Samples Taken: Estimated Number o:fFish Impinged: 1,711.2 Estimated Total Biomass: 38,20.5.1 '. 77

Appendix VI-9. Impingement Data from Genoa #.3 for April, 1975

Species Freshwater Drum 9 1 5 196.3 16.3 6907 282.3 Yellow Perch 1 1 1 3 White Crappie 7 28.9 Tadpole Madtom Channel Catfish 3 9 8 22 Brook Silversides .3 5.0 2.6 6.6 14-.2 Bluegill 2 .3 4-85 490 .307 3.7 .0 514-04 Rockbass 16 308 20.0 23.8 Largemouth Bass 1 4­ 5 17 ~2 59.4- 76.6 Central Mudminnow 1 2~2 Brown Bullhead 1 4­ 9 14­ t 9.5 15.8 57.6 82.9 Black Bullhead 3 14'07 Brook Stickleback 10.3 2.6 Emerald Shiner 1 2.0 Stonecat .3 .3 .2 .3.2 Pumpkinseed 1 22.0 2200 Yellow.Bullhead 12804­ Smallmouth Bass 706 7.6 Warmouth 1 1 2.0 2.0 Black CFappie 8 8 600.3 60,.3 Silver Lamprey 50.8 5008

.. Total Number .3.3 .38 627 698 Number of Species 11 10 17 21 Hours Sampled 24- 24- 24­ 24- 96 X Fish peT Hour 1.4­ 1.6 2601 703 'rotal Biomass g 27809 88.0 1195.1 1562.0

Projection 1975.. Total Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass 8

321 .. 5 White :Bass

Projection Rumber of Samples Taken: .5 Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 2,232 Estimated Total Biomass: 82,074-.9 Appendix VI...,11 0 Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for June, 1975. 1/5 . 6/12 6/17 6/26 Total -Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass Freshwater Drum 4·8 11 9 68 16809.3 2192.8 214'9.3 21151.4· Shovelnose Sturgeon 10 2 2 14 00 1791.2 1536.0 1007202 1 2495.0 1 1 11 5509 74·400 4·29909 4 6 158500 3.2 2818.2 2 2 5 15 187.6 14·001 25704· 1633.3 1 390.0 1 5 . 23 60.3 438101 3 4· 1.7 83607 0 1.0 ~ 9.4· 301 29.0 4· 1 2 14 8 209 18.9 1122.3 :t 9 9 .. 804· 8.4· 1 4·80.0 1 {I 1 1 l 6.5 6 0 5 Longnose 1 0.4· Walleye 1 1 457.1 S-tonecat 1 .3

'Tadpole Madto,m 10 42 0 5 188.9 :Brown Bullhead 1 189.7 1 290 00 Channel Catfish 5 14-28.2 :Emerald Shiner S:po-tfin Shiner YJeed Shiner -1 " 1.7 Pugnose Shiner 13 -'., .: 17.8 Golden Shiner .3 1 4- ·38.0' 11.6 49.6 ~luegili 16 3 5 2 26 162.4- 309.4 87.1 8.0 566.9 ~lack -~,,,.,=,~,,----_c---5--· CrapIlle . _ow. ••• --".'.=z J ._.. 46~1 35300 399.1 . White Crappie 2 1 3 01 004 19.5 Rockbass 1 2 8 .3 19.3 3.0 35 01 70.7 Yellow Perch 1 2 4· 8 ..3 194.0 43.6 245.9 River Darter 1 1 1.7 1.7

(Con-tinuedJ 80

Appendix VI-11 (Continued) 6/26 Total Logperch 3909 Pumpkinseed 1 24-05 Spottail Shiner 2

Total Number .24-4­ 889 Number of Species 17 36 Hou'rs Sampled 24 96 X Fish per Hour 10 0 2 9.25 Total Biomass 3154.1 564-35 00

project~ioh . Numbers of Samples Taken: 4­ Estimated Number ofFish Impinged: 6,660 Estimated Total Biomass g: 4·23,26205

l Appendix VI-12 0 Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for July:, 1975. 7/3 .. 7/10. 7/18 7/25 7/31 'Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Pumpkinseed 1 1 3600 36.0 Rockbass 3 3 1 5 4 16 . 130.3 15404 7.2 246.6 6303 601.8 White Crappie 13 42 6 61 .8.9 185.8 6107 256.4 Black Crappie ------"~--,, 4· 2 6 4'7407 332.0 80607 Bluegill 1 4· 19 12 36 38.0 32.9 804.9 250 06 1126.4· Largemouth Bass 11 4· 8 23 19.'1 .. ·1204 ·26.8 58.9 Flathead Catfish ·2 6 68 76 121,1 5.1 225.7 351.9 Channel Catfish 2 15 113 130 10505 608 87.7 200.0 ...... ~ 3~ -~._-~y~ ~lj. ~9 ~2lj·~ Tadpole Madtom' 3 ...... 8 .. 2. 2103 8.5 7.0 23.0 68.0 .. Black Bullhead 1 1 lj.409 4·4'.9 Stonecat.: :.". 1 1 2 7.5 :9.2 GoldE?n Shirier 2 7 9 503 lj.302 4-8;- Silver Chub 2 1 8 12 21.5 2006 27.9 9105 161.5 . \ I.,. Emerald Shiner 66 50 53 123 292 '~r·~· ~·~~i·r . 14'7.0 107.6 97.5 170.1 522;2 Spottail Shiner 6 207 4·6 259 7.5 16405 58.8 23008 Carp 1 25 2 28 29-611·.0 183901 5.0 4808.1 Bullhead Minnow 2 1 3 1401 4.5 18.6 Sh~r~£ad Redhorse 1 L.------~.~,~"-,,._- 2 ; i " .54·0.0 828 00 1368;0 , White Bass 24- ·258 54 19 16 371 I 333.1 109.9 5100 5803 571.8 Silver Lamprey 2 I' 2901 29.1 Shovelnose"Sturgeon 11 5 1 17 II 7222.. 7 269500 200 9919.7 Longnose Gar 1 5 . 6· ,)' . 21.5 1704· 38.9 [' Mooneye 1 1 2)100 231.0 I Trout-perch 1 1 2 I 0.6 5.lj. 6.0 Northern Pike 2 1 3 " 2708 800 35.8 I· Freshwater Drum 3 8 9 6 13 47 ·962.0· '19900 ~ 1650.4 -1637.lj.·2lj.95~4·694·4·.2 Sauger . 1 6 25 7 306~'~ 565,,0' 567.0 254 09 26.1 1069.4 2482.4 Yellow Perch 3 1 lj. 3501 14'05 49.6 16 28 'lj.lj. 20.5 33.lj. 53.9 River Darter 2 - ,2 2.8 2.8 Gizzard Shad 6 151 56 25 4J 281 11 0'9 36501 .19509 116.3 24J 05 . 932.7 Brook Stickleback 1 1 007 0.7

(Continued) 82, .•.••>

Appendix VI-12 (Continued)

'Total Number Number of Species 3 liours Sampled 24, X Fish per Hour 2.4 Total Biomass 124'76.5

Prpjection Number of Samples Taken: 5 Estimated Number of Fish J:IllP:ing§cl: 1113°808 Estimated Total Biomass g: 198,4,82_5 ...... _.....' 83

Appendix VI-l.3. Impingement Data from Genoa #.3 for August, 1975. 8/6 8/21 8/28 Total Numbers - Species NUmber and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass 8 6 8 10 .32 1.34- .4 64-.1 8.3.9 .374-.8 657.2 Emerald Shiner .37 2.3 27 25 112 64- •.3 4-,3.0 60 •.3 .39.7 207 •.3 Freshwater 'Drum 5 4­ lj­ 19 .32 29.9 24-.4­ 12.1 521.1 587.5 Gizzard Shad 16 7 8 15 4-6 --lb6~6 86.8 f7lj-.7 .317.9 74-6.0 White Bass .3 1 1 7 12 2.3.2 7•.3 8.4- 101.6 14,0.5 Carp 1 1 1285.0 1285.0 29 16 8 85 70.0 28.5 27.2 16.3.2 1 1 9 16 20 •.3 11.8 12.34-.7 1.380.9 -2 7 4·5 59 2.6 17.6 12.3.6 150.7 2 lj- -.3.2 7.7 Rockbass 4­ 2 9 49.1 22.2 154-.1 -Blaqk Crappie 4- 25 29 18.8 189.1 207,,9 Largemouth Bass 1 6 5.1 4-2.7 \ ,- Logperch 5 4­ 15 T 12.6 7.lj­ 28.7 Flathead Catfish 9 4 11 .32 4-2.lj- 19.0 60.8 14-,3.1 Longnose Gar 5 2 10 64- •.3 2lj-.6 100•.3 Silver Chub 1 9 11 1lj-.lj- 159.9 18'5.5 " •.3 Brook Silversides 1 1.1 1.1 River Darter 1 1 _2.5 2.5 Yellow Perch .3 1 1 5 21.0 5.0 4.5 .30.5 ShortheadRedhorse 1 1 2.34- •.3 2.34- •.3 Trout-perch 1 -2 6 1.0 4-.8 10.0 Yellow Bullhead .3 1 1 9 13.5 1.2 .3 •.3 .3.3.2 Walleye 1. 1 2 '" .31.0 495.8 526.8 Mooneye 1 1 2 4- 11.0 8.2 68.8 88.0 White Sucker: 2 2 2.0 2.0 Bullhead Minnow 1 2 .3 (~ 2.2 7 •.3 9.5 1 .2 4.2 Chestnut. Lamprey ) 1 lj-5.0 45.0 Whi te Cra:ppie .. 2 8 10 10.9 117.1 128.0 Crystal Darter 1 1 1 .3 .3.0 1.5 2.0 6.5

(Continued)

i • Appendix VI-13 (Continued)

Total Total Number 4·80 Number of Species 32 Hours Sampled 96 X Fish per Hour .501 Total Biomass g 73.5.5.4

Number of Estimated Estimated Appendix VI-14·. Imping.ementData ft.omGenaa =#3 :for September;T975~

.9/5. 9/12 9/17 9/25 Total Numbers Species Number and Biomass of .F~sh Collected Biomass Bluegill . 12 5·" 9 13 39 '226.4 154·.4 177.5 256.8 815.1 Emerald Shiner 21 22 3 :5 51 38.6 4·5·.67.5 1-4.3 106.0 Freshwater Drum 2 9 J -4 18 4·.4· 399.1 311.:5 492.1 ~207.1 Gizzard Shad 6 4· 10 90.3 93.0 183.3 White Bass 6 3 2 1 12 83.1 .155.3 36.6 159.5 4-34·.5 Channel Catfish 2 2 1 1 6 6.6 12.9 .0.• 9 7",5 27.9 .1 8 :198.7 1030.0 3 5 lJ,.5 16~5 ·······:1·.. · 1 2 ·4· ..

_.. - 8 .. 2 :0.• 9 3.5.0. 44.1 Black Crappie 1 2 1 2:5 29 1.1 .•1 92.2 1.0.• 0 210.8 324·.1 .Largemouth Bass 3 3 :2.59.3 259.3 . Flathead Catfish 4· 4· . 18.• 8 18.8 BrookSilversides 1 1 1.9 1.9 I. Yellow Perch 1 1 ,I ~ ~\~~~i-r~'; 1.04·,.8 104·.8 S-tonecat :2 2 7)·.0 73.0 Trout-perch 1 1 3.8 3.8 Black· BUllhead 1 1 1'7B,.6 178.6 ., ...... J... -::--__----': 229·.·0 229.0 lVlooneye 1 3 3 7 :25..2 ·:2.5.6.. B ilH35,.J.j· 767.4· Whi-te Crappie 3 :3 :1~6,.B 16.8 .Common'Shiner' 1 1 1 .. 9 1.9

To-tal Number 69 5B 24· .56 207 Number of Species 1·4· :13 '9 1D 21 Hours Sampled 2-4· 24 24 24· 96 Sf Fish pe:r'··Hour 2 .. 9' 2 .•·4 :1 ...:0 :2 .. 3 2,.2 " .To-tal Biomass g 1588·.5 1379·.:3 1133,,:1 1441.0 5543.9

..•. , 3?:rD,~·.e:c·ti:un

Number of Samples Taken: ·4 j;s-timated Number o:fFish Impinged: :1,,:5.J3~: . Es-timated'Total"Biamass :' ...... ··4.1,,~:579:;J 86

Appendix VI-15. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for October, 1975; .. 10/2 10/9 10/18 10/22 10/31 Total Numbers Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass -13 13 14­ 12 55 107 261.2 114-.9 650.8 177.2 525.2 172903 Emerald Shiner 1 3 22 2 28 _ 1.7 13.4­ 71.3 4.1 90.5 Freshwater Drum 5 1 2 4­ 12 117.8 23.0 57.6 59.3 257.7 Gizzard Shad 16 5 20- 4-4 4-41.3 209.4 556.3 1311.6 White Bass 5 4 1 12 103.1 95.8 29.2 27603 Sauger 3 9 16 380.8 3220.0 4-062.5 Tadpole MadtoIll. 2 2 4-.5 4-.5 Rockbass 10 10_ 10.8 10.8 3 7 33 92.3117.7 195.0 17.4 ?35.6 565. Largemouth Bass 2 2 5 9 164-.6 25.5 84-.3 274.4­ Logperch 1 1 8.4­ 8.4 Flathead Catfish 1 1 3.6 3.6 Longnose Gar 3 3 111.9 111.9 Brook Silversides 1 1 1.7 1.7 Yellow Perch 4 4 149.2 149.2 Shorthead Redhorse 1 295.2 Trout-perch 1 3.4· 2 '" 6.2 Walleye 1 4-0.0 Mooneye 1 1 1 3 24.1 23.5 4-40.0 487.6 Bullhead Minnow 1 1 2 4.8 4.0 8.8 White Crappie 1 1 8.4­ 8.4­ Common Shiner 3 1 4· 7·3 2.2 9.5 Burbot 1 180.5 " Total Number 72 38 122 302 Number of Species 11 12 13 24 liours Sampled 24· 24 24· 120 X Fis-h per-HQur 3.0 1.6 5.1­ 2.5 Total Biomassg 1796.3 14-35.1 4-892.2 10005.1

)?rojection

Number_of Samples Taken I 5 Estimated Number ofFish Impinged I 1,800 Estimated Total Biomass gl 62,031.6 1\.ppendixVI-160 Impingement.Data from Genoa #3 for November. 1975. 11/2.5 Total .'A .~_~. ,"."•.~_",. ,. _'._',,' ,~,'."_,".""_~."••~_,,...... Numbers .,Species -Numbers and, Biomass of Fish Collected Biomass

.Emerald Shiner

Gizzard Shad White :Bass Quillback

1.0 Sauger :S:pnttail 'Tadpo:le Rockbass 6 ~~ 23.4 10.3 ',~ :Black 236 134, 12'06.0 9.59 00 :Larg-EIllouth 14, 09 192•.5 \ I. :Logperch . 'f .6 2.6 {tfXj«~r FlB:th£B.:d Ca't:fish 1 14 32.8 6.1 78.0 Carp 2 2 1.59.3 1.59.3 .Ltmgnrxs'e :S'turgeon 2 2 .57.9 Bil'V£T Sho'V£U:nose S'turgeon 1 11 •.5 konk Silvilrsides 2 2 3.7 3.2 Y-eJ.low :Perch 1 . 6 .7 'S'tone:ca't !Northern " floli:len Shiner Shorth:ead Redhorse

.~., ~ n;:ack :Bullhead 2 10.9 WaTle:ye 4 1972.7 1 21 •.5 21..5 Warmouth 1 .8 1.8

:Spo-tted ,SUcker "" "" -,,,,. 1 1 .5.9 5.9

(Con1±nued) , Appendix VI-16 (Continued) 1176 . 11714· 11720 11/25 Total Whi te Suclcer ,······3 7 Q 8 5.4· 13 02 White Crappie 5 2 7 65,,0 1}05 78.5 2 Common Shiner 4-04-

Total Number 34- 224 613 292 1163 Number of Species 12 11 22 23 34· Hours Sampled 24· 24· 24· 24· 96 X Fish per Hour 104- 903 2505 12.2 1201 Total Biomass g 4-5105 14-3903 9103.0 4-819.0 15812,.8

Projection Number of Samples Taken: 4· Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 8,712 Estimated Total Biomass g: 118,596.0

Appendix VI-18. Impingement Data ftam_ Genoa #3 for January, 1976. 1/3 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 Total Numbers ".,- Biomass Species Numbers and Biomass af Fish Collected 1 2 3.2 • 3.9 Emerald Shiner 2 1 3 . 5.1 2.0 7.1 4 4 29 26 63 734.2 88.8 826.7 522.0 2171.7 9 14-7 . 93 24-9 }10 .. 0 5978.0 4447.0 10735.0 2 3 8 11.4- 15.7 18.3 57.9 1 2: 9 3 15 2}.. 0 4-U ..5 204-.5 58.9 326.9 2: 7 9 8 27 1Q ..5 1.7 .. 5 330.0 29.3 390.8 1 1 2 9.3 21.8 1 1 1 - 4.0 0.7 LJ·.7 1 2.9 1 1 16.5 16.5 2 1 2 9 8",1 3.2 15.1 4-1.6 2 2 I f~ t 4-.0 4.0 1 2 4.0 9.8 1 1 154.2 154·.2 1 1 22.7. 22.7 1 1 ".

P·m;iac::tf.an. Number of Samples Taken: 5­ " Esti:mated Number of Fish Impinged::: 2:r.380.8 Esti:mated Total Biomass g: . 8:1,,219.1 Appendix VI-19. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 2/4- 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/27 Species Number and Biomass of Fish Collected --_.__ .....-.._,- Bluegill 94.6 Emerald Shiner 1 2 2 0.6 2.3 4.2 Freshwater······Drum ·9 29 17 24- 17 186.0 661.9 3.52.0 104-3.4 382.1 Gizzard Shad 18 .5 2 3 7.59.3 .58.5 9'7.6 Black Crappie 6 .5 1 4- 6 .5.0 32 •.5 50.4· White Bass 1'3 4- 4- 9 4908 1.59.8 .5 13 .5 .564-.0 12 03 56.0 21.4- Sauger 1 114-.0

3 4 009 .500 13 •.5 ·9.8 3.6 32.8 Rockbass 4 4- 12.7 FlatDead Catfish 2 2 _.5 . 3 1 4.4- 4.2 1049.0 11..5 1003 1 301 4.0 7.1 t i, Brown 2 2 " 12 •.5 Redhorse 2 3 303 6.8 10 •.1 Walleye 2 2 124-4 •.5 1244- •.5 Black Bullhead 3 2 1 6 08 19.4 .6 " 0 2 21.0 .53.4- 1 1 48.2 48.2

120 2.3 924·7.1 , Projection Number of Samples Taken: .5 Estimated Numper of Fish Impinged: 1,.54.5.8 Estimated Total Biomass g: .51,783.8 I 512

Appendix VI .....ZO" Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for March, 1976. 93

Appendix VI-20 (Continued) 9 Total Pumpkinseed .571.0 .571.0 Spotted Sucker 2 8 10 0.5 33 •.5 4-2 0 0 Fathead Minnow 1 1 30.5 Shortnose Gar 2 2 .572 00 .57200

Total Number 61 86 146 .526 819 Number of Species 12 16 22 28 36 Hours Sampled 24· 24 24 24· 96 X Fish per Hour 2 0 .5 3.6 6.1 2109 8.5 Total Biomass g 122708 27.5209 2673.2 7183.0 1383609

Numbers of ,:)o.lIlJ!J..c;o Estimated Number of Estimated Total Biomass Appendix VI-21 (Continued) 4/10 4/13 4/15 Bigmouth Buffalo 4

Smallmouth Buffalo 1 34.0

Smallmouth Bass Spotted Sucker 2 6 1985.0 5770.0 4.0 Brown Trout 1 112 Brook Stickleback 1 3.0 Shortnose Gar 1 14-2.0 o 3.0 Chestnut Lamprey

Total Number 284· 91 93 351 Number of Species. 14· 17 21 23 Hours Sampled 24 24 24 24· \ ,. Sf Fish per Hour 11.8 3.8 3.9 14.6 9.5 Total Biomass g 2872.0 6727.5 7392.0 21881.5 12853.5

Projection !'lumOeroIljaIllPl.E;ls'l'ctKen: 10 Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 4:,536 .. Est1matea~TotaEBlomass g: 273,325.5

" Appendix VI-Z1. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for April. 1976. 4/10 4/13 4/15 Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected Bluegill 20 4 1 10 10 506.0 395~3 92.0 514.0 810.0 Emerald Shiner 4 2 1 1 8.0 4~5 3.0 2 Freshwater·.· Drum 4 2 4 1 92.0 671.0 650.0 469.0 Gizzard Shad 4 2 Black Crappie 13 79.0 White Bass 1 346.0 Channel Cat:fish 2 5 53.5 299.0 1 Whi te Crappie 677.0 Sauger '5 31 358.0 4303·.9 Spottail Shiner 2 11.0 TadpolelYLadtam 2 d 15.9 ';:1, Rockbass 1 2 . 56 .. 0 3.5. 0 LargemCluthBass

I, Logperch 17 136 t 134.0 854.0 812.0 2 Flathead Cat:fish 159.0 LangnClse G:ar 1 39.0 ~hu:b ? 19 59 14 Sil.ver 166.5 512.0 1545.0 ·331.0 Y~g~~ _~-----'-'---'~~1'704;16 5 35 29 It, .. Eerch.= 2 ° 298,,5 3467,.0 2094,•.0,=.---- 1 Carp 2212.0 130.0 Sl!i!oiV'elmrs:e Sturgeon River--Da.rrter.. 8 1 10 .56.0 4.5 23.5

2 .0 o " o GlO!lden shirier 1 1)..0 1 Yellow Eu:LThead 5.0 Shorthead Redhorse WalI'eye' 9· ...•.....~.~,.~,,~c,.= _,.t6.. 2 453.0 457.0 1061.0 115.0 Black Bullhead 3 5 15 2 129.0 472.0 1398.0 209.0 Silver Lamprey 7 2 2 250.0 110.5 157.0

(Continued) Appendix VI-21 (Continued.) 4/23 4/27 4/28 Total 'BlUegill 12 21 18 19 9 ~~ ---.~~--~...----.-.._.~.~-..... _.~~~ .394.0 1ljB6" 0 152-4" 0 1185,,0 .2..59,,0 3.0 Freshwater Drum 4· 9 1 2 1539.0 2528,,0 '792.0 981.0 Gizzard Shad 1 .5 15 2295.0 lroLj·6.0 Black 7 .3 220 1020.0 .2..53.. 0 ,3527.0 White 1 1 12 575.0 -46-4.0 3481.5 Channel 30 504.0 17 B01.0 Sauger 15 76 0 16lJ.s" 0 9158.0 16 0 8,,0 89.5 2Lj· .3 .. 0 85.5 Rockbass 1 1 21 lj·",D 3,,0 351.5. Lj. .2299.0 3.2 39 lj·Lj·8 1 ?lj.",O 180",0 2860.0 \ /, Flathead 1 :1 13 'f lj·.o 5 .. 0 .2.35.0 Longnose 1 39.0 Silver Chub 1 :115.0 25.0 2711.5 Yellow Perch 3 1 1 570,,0 90",'0 133,,0 .. Shovelnose Sturgeon 2 River Darter .3 B",D

" Trout-perch. . Brown Bullhead 2 1 11 '1D",'O 380.0 Northern Pike 1 o· Golden Shiner 3 " 00.0 Yellow .Bullhead 287.0 Shorthead R~dhorse 3 1.397.5 Walleye 46 .2557.0 . 31 .0 102.0 3.0 2'7.0 2389.0 Silver Lamprey . 2 lj. .17 84·.0 .21lJ·.. 0 815.5

(Continued) 97

Appendix VI-21 (C 4/20 4/21 Bigmouth BuffaT6 11700 o White Sucker 1 2 -4-]1 0 0 o Smallmouth Buffalo 3 2 7 193 00 72.0 361.0 Pumpkinseed 4· 3 3 10 24·4'00 15000 17200 566 00 1 1 2 Smallmouth Bass 0 o 297 00 3 4'00 Spotted Sucker 2 1 20 1 S78 00 112700 10516.0 Brown Trout 1 70 _Brook Stickleback 1 3 0 0 Shortnose Gar 2 725 00 Bowfin 1613 00 Fathead Minnow 3 0 0 -1 Chestnut Lamprey 1 114'00 114'00

-----~-8-- 150;(' 1111 Total Number 126------1.-1-2----- 62 61 Number of Species 27 22 23 10 10 4-] Hours Sampled 24·24, 24 24 24· 24.0 603 :x: Fish per Hour 5 02 4'07 4'01 2 0 6 05 Total Biomass g 5064'00 13724-.0 14.676 00 3009 00 00 9110805

Number of Samples Taken: Estimated Number of Fish Impinged: 4·, Estimated Total Biomass g: 273,

, Appendix VI-22. Impingement Data from Genoa #3 for 4/6 4/7 ·4/10 4/17 4/23 4/24 Species Numbers and Biomass of Fish Collected

12.5.0 73.0 .0 Emerald Shiner 2 3 6.0 10.0 Freshwater· Drum 1 26.0 Black Crappie 2 1 1 2 o 32.0 64·.0 187 White Bass 1 1 2 39.5.0 17.0 4·12.0 Channel Catfish 1 1 3.0 3.0 White Crappie 1 1 4·.0 4·.0 Sauger 1 1 2. 34.0 .5 .5 Spottail Shiner 7.0 1 1 2 .5 4·.0 .5.0 10.0 2.5.0 Rockbass 1 2 14.5.0 1100 10.0. 3.0 Flathead Catfish 1 4.0 Silver Chub 2 2 I" ~ .59.0 .59.0 Yellow Bullhead 1 1 36.5.0 36.5.0 Yellow Perch 2 3 1 6 4.5.0 73.0 62.0 180.0 Brown Bullhead 1 1 28.0 28.0 Northern ---.----..------ror;-o- 1 1 --59-~ '" 142~0 351;0 • n 1:1 Mooneye 1 2 3 42.0 129.0 Shorthead Redhorse i. 3 .540.0 1183.0 1723.0 1 1 Silver Lamprey 2 3 1 90.0 168.0 2100 Blue Sucker 1 1109.0 Common ';)ll.l.Ht'l. , 29.0 . 29.0

Total Number 8 7 2 8 23 39 87 Numbe+ of Species 6 5 2 . 6 16 15 25 Hours Sampled 24- 24· 24· 24 24 24- 144 Sf Fish per Hour .3 .3.1 .3 1.0 1.6 0.6 Tota-iliBfcomass=g . :353. 0- 67:1.-0 -8.0~~=&-r{1ij'0194'9~0 2912,,5 6.563.5

Pro

'. ( \ Number of Samples Takenl 6 Estimated Number of Fish Impingedi 4·4·6.4· Estimated Total Biomassl 33.911.4· Number of Samples Takenl .5 Estimated Number of Fish ImpingedI 2 p .592 Estimated Total BiomasSI 180,l.J96.2 ~T Ef ",-, _N & .W

A.ppendix VII. Individual species impinged at LACBWR from 1 August 1974--21 June 1976, listed by num,.,. bers and biomass.

Species Numbers Biomass (g)

Bluegill 974­ 2042.8 Freshwater Drum 4'90 8881.8 Black Crappie 208 2978.6 Channel Catfish 186 1252.7 Gizzard Shad 185 6378.5 Tadpole Madtom 87 373.1 White Ba:;:;s 82 1165.9 Brown Bullhead 71. 622.0 White Crappie 70 917.8 Flathead Catfish 68 292.2 Largemouth Bass 63 754-.0 Rockbass 57 193.7 Silver Chub L[-4- 1163.1. Yellow Bullhead 38 4-22.4­ Black Bullhead 23 4-07.7 Emerald Shiner 18 -109.5 Golden Shiner 14­ 92.5 Yellow Perch 12 374-.0 Smallmouth Buffalo 11 167.0 Trout-perch 11 4,6.0 Spotted Sucker 42.4- Mooneye 221;5 Carp 1.4-9.2 Spottail Shiner 26.6 Northerrt Pike 4­ 2010.2 Logperch 4­ 28.5 Shorthead Redhorse 4­ 2003 Sauger 3 255.0 Stonecat 3 2203 Bullhead Minnow 11.7 Spotfin Minnow 31.7 White Sucker 9.4­ Bigmouth Buffalo 9'2.7 Bowfin 2620.0 Silver Lamprey 34-.9 Northern Creek Chub 13.7 Fathead Minnow 8.8 River Darter Warmouth 1 3.8 Brook Silversides 1 .1 Longnose Gar 1 26.0 :Northern HQgauckEOl:r' ····1 15.0 Totals 2778 34-,284-.3