Gage, Hannah
From: Casey Vickerson
Good morning, Hannah,
Please see the attached 316(b) 122.21(r) Final Reports to comply with permit requirements for AECC’s Bailey facility (Permit No. AR0000400, Part II.13), Fitzhugh facility (Permit No. AR001759, Part II.14), and McClellan facility (Permit No. AR0000841, Part II.13).
Thanks,
Casey Vickerson Environmental Engineer II Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. 501.570.2102
1 John L . McClellan Generating Station 316(b) 122.21(r) Information
Final Report, May , 20 1 6
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) prepared this report with the assistance of t he following individuals and organizations, under contract to t he Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) : Mr. David Bailey Ron Ulman and Associates 8819 Trafalgar C t. Springfield, VA 22151
Mr. Dan Bigbee EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. PBC 221 Sun Valley Boulevard, Suite D Lincoln, NE 68521
Mr. Kent Dixon EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. PBC 221 Sun Valley Boulevard, Suite D Lincoln, NE 68521
Mr. Nate Olken Alden Research Laboratory Inc. 30 Shrewsbury St., Holden, MA 01520 - 1843
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is submitted in compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) new f inal §316(b) regulations (“Rule”) for existing facilities that bec a me effective on October 14, 2014 for Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation ’s ( AECC ) John L. McClellan Generating Station ( McClellan ) . The Rule require s all facilities using a surface water intake flow greater than two million gallons per day ( MGD ) to employ or install best technology available (BTA) to reduce entrainment and impingement mortality. All facilities are required to submit the §122.21(r)(2) and (3) information and applicable provisions of the (r)(4) through (8) information for impingement that includes:
(r)(2) – Source Water Physical Data (r)(3) – Cooling Water Intake Structure Data (r)(4) – Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data (r)(5) – Cooling Water System Data (r)(6) – Chosen Method of Compliance with the Impingement Mortality Standard (r)(7) – Entrainment Performance Studies (r)(8) – Operational Status
All of this information is provided in th is document . The Rule’s entrainment information at §122.21(r)(9) through (12) is not included as this information is only required for facilities with an actual intake flow (AIF) that exceed s 125 MGD. M c C l ellan ’s maximum design intake flow is approximate ly 71 MGD (w e ll below the threshold) , and thus the AIF cannot exceed 125 MGD that requires submittal of the entrainment information. For impingement , McClellan should qualif y for a d e m inimis rate of impingement found at § 125.94(c)(11) of the Rule . This provision states , “ In limited circumstances, rates of impingement may be so low at a facility that additional impingement controls may not be justified. The Director, based on review of site - specific data submitted under 40 CFR 122.21(r), may conclude th at the documented rate of impingement at the cooling water intake is so low that no additional controls are warranted. For threatened or endangered species, all unauthorized take is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) . Notice of a determination that no additional impingement controls are warranted must be included in the draft or proposed permit and the Director’s response to all comments on this determination must be included in the record for the final permit.” AECC conducted a one - year impingement study at McClellan for compliance with the now remanded Phase II §316(b) Rule. Impingement samples were co llect ed over a 24 hour period every other week from January 5 th through December 19 th for a total of 25 sampling ev ents. During the course of the study a total of five live finfish were collected and 41 dead on arrival (DOA) fish whose mortality may or may not have been affected by McClellan’s cooling water intake structure ( CWIS ) . The majority of the impinged fish (8 7%) were G izzard S had , a common ubiquitous forage species. For the 25 sampling events ten of the events occurred when
v
McClellan was not operating , and the only reason the cooling water pumps were placed into operation was for the purpose of conducting the impingement study to estimate annual impingement under baseline (i.e., continuous year - round operation) conditions . All but nine of the fin fish (all DOA s ) impinge d occurred on the sampling da y s when the pumps were op erated solely for the purpose of the impingement study. The result is that under current normal operations the annual estimate of impingement mortality is nine (9) fish per year and th is uses the conservative assumption that the intake contributed to the mortality of these finfish . This equates to 0.75 finfish impinged per month. In addition to finfish, a total of 410 shellfish were collected , 97.6% of which were invasive exotic Asian C lams and Z ebra M ussels. The remaining species were nine crayfish and one native mussel. Based on the sampling , it is estimated 1,475 shellfish are impinged under actual operations. However, as discussed in Chapter 6, the Rule specifically allows zebra mussels, a nuisance species , to be excluded from the impingement numbe r , reducing shellfish impingement to 590 shellfish per year under normal operations. The Rule also allows ADEQ to name additional nuisance species , and AECC requests that ADEQ designate Asian Clams as a nuisance species since they are an exotic invasive s pecies that compete with native freshwater bivalves for food and habitat and have been known to clog condenser tubes and cause outages in power plants. If Asian clams are also excluded , then under normal facility operations zero (0) shellfish were entrain ed at McClellan during the 2006 study .
Actual McClellan water flow during the 2006 study was 12,390 million gallons. This is directly comparable to McClellan’s average annual facility flow of 12,281 million gallons over the past fi ve years (see Table 3 - 1 in Chapter 3) , and therefore , the 2006 study is representative of current operations. A complete copy of the 2006 impingement study report is provided as Appendix A of this document.
As noted in the §122.21(r)(4)(vi) information in Chapter 4, t he USFWS website and other resources were checked for the presence of f ederally protected threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. No federal ly threatened and endangered finfish or their designated critical hab itat were identified for the Ouachita River. However, five species of federally protected freshwater mussel species were identified as being potentially present in the vicinity of McClellan that included: 1. Ouachita Rock Pocketbook ( Arkansia wheeleri ) – End angered 2. Spectaclecase ( Cumberlandia monodonta) – Endangered 3. Pink Mucket ( Lampsilis abrupta) - En dangered 4. Rabbitsfoot ( Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical ) - Threat ened 5. Winged Mapleleaf ( Streptanthus hyacinthoides ) – Endangered
As discussed in Chapter 4, no observation references were found for occurrences for any of these species. A single Spectaclecase was reported five miles upstream of McClellan. Designated critical habitat for the Ouachita River was listed for only the Rabbitsfoot. That designated cri tical habitat extends from the confluence of the Little Missouri River with the Ouachita River at River Mile (RM) 385 downstream to RM 332.4. McClella n’s CWIS is located almost five that
vi Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
there is no reasonable potential to have no more than minor detrimen tal effects 1 to f ederally - listed species and designated critical habitat as a result of the operation of the McClellan CWIS. This is supported by: no impingement of finfish , eliminating risk of any f ederally protected species glochidia attached to the gill s of impinged fish, no impingement of f ederally protected shellfish, the small percentage of water withdrawn from the Ouachita River flowing past the CWIS (i.e., average is 1.8%), and current operations over the past five years have average d approximately a third of the maximum design flow.
As a result of providing data and information to support d e m inimis levels of impingement and no more than a minor risk of detrimental effects to f ederally - listed species and their designated critical ha bitat , McClellan’s existing CWIS should qualify as BTA for impingement.
1 See page 48383, 1 st Col., 1 st Full paragraph of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 158. As the standard below which the risk is not considered to warrant action in the permit.
vii
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 14 General § 316(b) Rule Overview ...... 14 Background ...... 15 Compliance Approach for McClellan ...... 15 Report Organization ...... 16
2 122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATERBODY PHYSICAL D ATA ...... 17 Narrative Description of Source Waterbody ...... 17 Aerial Dimensions ...... 17 Depths ...... 19 Flows ...... 20 Salinity ...... 21 Temperature ...... 21 Area of Influence ...... 21
3 122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTU RE DATA ...... 23 CWIS Configuration ...... 23 CWIS Operation and Intake Flows ...... 28 Flow Distribution and Water Balance Diagrams ...... 28
4 § 122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLO GICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA ...... 30
5 § 122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA ...... 50 Cooling Water System Operation ...... 50 Proportion of Design Intake Flow for Contact Cooling, Non - contact Cooling, and Process Uses ...... 51 Proportion of Source Waterbody Withdrawn ...... 51 Intake Velocities ...... 53 Existing IM&E Reduction Measures ...... 54
viii Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
6 122.21(R)(6) CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY IMPINGEMEN T STANDARD ...... 55
7 1 22.21(R)(7) ENTRAINM ENT PERFORMANCE STUD IES AND DIRECTOR REQUIREMENTS AT 125. 98(F) ...... 59
8 122.21(R)(8) OPERATI ONAL STATUS ...... 60 Operating Status ...... 60 Major Upgrades in Last 15 Years ...... 61 Other Cooling Water Uses ...... 61 Plans or Schedules for New Units within Five Years ...... 61
9 REFERENCES ...... 62
A SECTION 316(B) IMPIN GEMENT MORTALITY CHA RACTERIZATION STUDY FOR THE JOHN L. MCCLELLA N GENERATING STATION ...... A - 1
B SECTION 316(B) IMPIN GEMENT MORTALITY CHA RACTERIZATION STUDY FOR THE JOHN L. MCCLELLA N GENERATING STATION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
C EXAMPLE VELOCITY CAL CULATIONS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2 - 1 Map of the Ouachita River Basin (Ouachita River Valley Association) ...... 18 Figure 2 - 2 Vicinity Map of McClellan Generating Station ...... 18 Figure 2 - 3 Stage Duration Curve for USGS Gage #07074850 (2007 - 2015) ...... 19 Figure 2 - 4 Bathymetric M ap of the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of John L. McClellan Generating Station (Burns& McDonnell 2009) ...... 20 Figure 2 - 5 Mean Monthly Ouachita River Discharge (USGS Gage 07362000) for the period 1928 - 2014 ...... 21 Figure 3 - 1 Plan Layout of McClellan Generating Station Site ...... 25 Figure 3 - 2 McClellan CWIS – Plan View ...... 26 Figure 3 - 3 McClellan CWIS – Section View ...... 27 Figure 3 - 4 McClellan Process Water Flow Diagram ...... 29 Figure 4 - 1 Sampling locations for Ouachita fish stud ies ...... 33 Figure 4 - 2 Most commonly impinged species in small rivers from EPRI database (EPRI 2011) ...... 43 Figure 4 - 3 Most commonly entrained species for small rivers for facilities listed in EPRI entrainment database ...... 44 Figure 6 - 1 McClellan cooling water flow during the 2006 impingement study ...... 56
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 - 1 Data Used To Calculate the Area of In fluence at McClellan AOI Data ...... 22 Table 3 - 1 Estimated Actual Annual Intake Flow for McClellan Station (2011 - 2015) ...... 28 Table 4 - 1 Summary of the Number and Relative Abundance of Fishes Impinged at McClellan Station, January 2006 - Decemeber 2006 ...... 34 Table 4 - 2 Summary of the Number of Shellfish Impinged at McClellan Station, January 2006 - December 2006 ...... 34 Table 4 - 3 Species and Number of Fish Collected by Raymond (1975), Baker (1984), and Relative Abundance Scores by Wise et al. (1993) from the Ouachita River near Camden, AR ...... 37 Table 4 - 4 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Biological Monitoring Ouachita River, July 1991...... 40 Table 4 - 5 Mussels of the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam Downstream to the Louisiana State Line, 1996 ...... 41 Table 4 - 6 Life History Character istics * of Select Taxa in the Ouachita River near McClellan Station ...... 45 Table 4 - 7 Federally and State of Arkansas Listed Threatened and Endangered Fish and Shellf ish ...... 48 Table 5 - 1 Percent of River Flow Withdrawn on a Monthly Basis ...... 52 Table 5 - 2 McClellan River Intake Velocities ...... 54 Table 6 - 1 Species and numbers of fish collected at Bailey over the one year impingement study conducted in 2006 ...... 56 Table 6 - 2 Impingement level distribution in percentage of number of impinged fish annually for 165 facilities in EPRI database ...... 58 Table 8 - 1 Average Annual Capacity Factor for McClellan Generating Station (2011 - 2015) ...... 61
xiii
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this do cument is to provide the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) with 122.21(r) information for Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation ’s (AECC) John L . McClellan Generating Station ( McClellan ) . The introduction consists of three sections that include a general overview of the 316(b) regulation s , a discussion of the compliance approach for McClellan , and a summary of the organization of the remainder of this document.
General § 316(b) Rule Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued new f inal §316(b) regulations (Rule) for existing facilities that bec a me effective on October 14, 2014. These regulations require all facilities using surface water intake of greater than two million gallons per day (MGD) to install best technology available (BTA) to reduce entrainment and impingement mortality. All facilities are required to submit the § 122.21(r)(2) and (3) information and applicable provisions of the (r)(4) through (8) information for impingement that includes: (r)(2) – Source Water Physical Data (r)(3) – Cooling Water Intake Structure Data (r)(4) – Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data (r)(5) – Cooling Water System Data (r)(6) – Chosen Method of Co mpliance with the Impingement Mortality Standard (r)(7) – Entrainment Performance Studies (r)(8) – Operational Status
The BTA determination for entrainment is based on information provided to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) per mitting authority (ADEQ ) for McClellan . The BTA determination for entrainment is made on a site - specific basis. At a minimum, all facilities using >125 MGD actual intake flow (AIF) are required to submit entrainment information that includes the §122.21 (r)(9) - (12) information as follows: (r) (9) – Entrainment Characterization Study (r) (10) – Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study (r) (11) – Benefits Valuation Study (r) (12) – Non - water Quality Environmental and Other Impacts Study The §122.21(r)(10) – (12) information must be peer reviewed as required at §122.21(r)(13) of the Rule. Based on the results of the information provided, ADEQ makes a site - specific BTA entrainment determination that could range from a requirement to retrof it with a closed - cycle recirculating system (CCRS) to a determination that the existing cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is BTA. Once the BTA determination for entrainment is made, the facilit y must select from one of seven alternatives to reduce imp ingement mortality. The seven impingement mortality BTA alternatives include:
14 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
1. Closed - c ycle Cooling Recirculating System (CA1) 2. 0.5 fps Through - Screen Design Velocity (CA2) 3. 0.5 fps Through - Screen Actual Velocity (CA3 ) 4. Existing Offshore Velocity Cap (CA4) 5. Modified Traveling Screens (CA5) 6. System of Technologies as the BTA for Impingement Mortality (CA6) 7. Impingement Mortality Performance Standard (CA7) However, t he Rule includes a number of potential exemptions th at include : a de minimis exemption for de mini mis levels of impingement, a provision for less stringent standards for low - capacity utilization, an exemption for some or all of the § 122.21(r) information for facilities that withdraw cooling water from manmade lakes and reservoirs and have stocked or managed fisheries , and an exemption from use of technologies at nuclear facilities that conflict with federal nuclear safety requirements . T he Rule provides broad discretionary authority to ADEQ to deny exemption s or even impose additional requirements , especially if federally protected threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat are at risk. The Rule at 125.94(c) allows facility owners to request deferral of the 122.21(r)(6) chosen method of compliance for impingement informati on until after the permitting authority makes the entrainment BTA determination.
Background:
When the previous Phase II Rule was issued , a “Proposal for Information Collection” (PIC) was prepared in conformance with that Rule ; however, the PIC was never submitted due to the EPA remand of that r ule. The PIC described plans for information collection , including a one year impingement study. The PIC is provid ed as Appendix B. Th e impingement study was implemented in 2006 , and a summary of the results of that study are provided in Chapters 4 and 6 . T he completed study report is provided as Appendix A.
Compliance Approach for McClellan As will be documented in the § 122.21(r)(5) information (see Chapter 5) , McClellan withdraws wel l below 125 MGD AIF and is therefore not required to submit the § 122.21(r)(7) and (9) through (12) information . T he § 122.21(r)(7) information (i.e., Entrainment Performance Studies) is not considered “applicable” for McClellan since the entrainment informa tion is not required , and it is not listed as required for the impingement mortality BTA determination in the Rule (see Table VIII - 2 of the Rule preamble on page 48362 of the Rule). However , AECC is providing this information. McClellan should q ualif y for the “De minimis rate of impingement ” exemption discussed at §125.94(c)(11) of the Rule and Chapter 6 of this report provides information to support use of this compliance alternative .
15
Report Organization
The report is organized such that the §122.21(r)(2) through (6) information are presented in Chapters 2 through 6 of this report , respectively. Chapter 7 briefly discusses the §122.21(r)(7) information; Chapter 8 provides the §122.21(r)(8) facility operation al status information , and Chapter 9 provides references cited in this report.
16 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
2 122.21( r )(2) SOURCE WATERBOD Y PHYSICAL DATA
The Rule at 122.21(r)(2) requires th at AECC provide the following source waterbody physical data for McClellan : (i) A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by your facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports your determination of the water body type where each cooling water intake structure is located ;
(ii) Identification and characterization of the source waterbody’s hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical studies to de termine your intake’s area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies; and
(iii) Locational maps.
The following source water physical data are being provided to characterize the waterbody in the vicinity of McClellan . This informat ion is used to provide an understanding of the hydrology of the source waterbody in the vicinity of the intake . The information includes a descri ption of the river’s dimensions, key physical and chemical characteristics, and provides the figures and maps r equired under 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2).
Narrative Description of Source Waterbody
McClellan is located in Camden , Arkansas, on the west bank of the Ouachita River. The Ouachita River headwaters are located in the Ouachita Mountains in western Arkansas. The river flows east into Lake Ouachita, northwest of Hot Springs, Arkansas . From here, the river continues southeast into nearby Lake Hamilton and Lake Catherine. The Ouachita River continues south past Arkadelphia and Camden, where it turns to the south east. Continuing southeast, it crosses the Arkansas/Louisiana border near Crossett, Arkansas , where it continues south. In Louisiana, it flows south through Monroe, and continues until it meets the Tensas River to become the Black River near Jonesville. Th e Ouachita River Basin is shown Figure 2 - 1 .
Aerial Dimensions
McClellan is located approximately 2.5 miles SE of Camden, Arkansas and approximately 25 miles NNW of El Dorado, Arkansas (see Figure 2 - 2 ).
17
Figure 2 - 1 Map of the Ouachita River Basin (Ouachita River Valley Association)
Figure 2 - 2 Vicinity Map of McClellan Generating Station
18 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Depths
Wate r surface levels for the last nine years (2007 - 2015) from USGS Gage #7362000 located near Camden, Arkansas , were used to estimate the water levels at McClellan . This USGS gage is located approximately five miles upstream of McClellan. From 2007 to 2015 , the maximum recorded water level was El. 112.85 f eet, which occurred on December 28, 2009 . During this same period the lowest reco r ded water level was El. 76.3 feet occurring on September 30, 2015 . Information provided by AECC indicated a low water level of El. 75.33 f eet at the intake. The 50% exceedance water level d uring this period was El. 80.42 f ee t. All elevations refer to NGVD29. The stage duration curve for this period is provided in F igure 2 - 3 .
A bathyme tric survey of the river in the vicinity of t he station was collected on August 6 , 2008. During the surve y the water level was El. 79.66 f ee t, a s measured at USGS Gage 7362000 . The results of this survey adjusted to the normal water level are provided in Figure 2 - 4 . At the McClellan CWI S , the river is approximately 229 f ee t wi de with an average depth of 14.9 f eet and a maximum depth of 23 f ee t.
F igure 2 - 3 Stage Duration Curve for USGS Gage #07074850 ( 2007 - 2015)
19
Figure 2 - 4 Bathymetric Map of the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of John L. McClellan Generating Station ( Burns & McDonnell 2009)
Flows
Flow in the Ouachita River ranges between a low monthly discharge of 2,309 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August and a high of 12,776 cfs in March. Ouachita River flows are taken from a river gage located a pproximately five miles upstream (USGS Gage 07362000) with a drainage area of 5,360 square miles. The monthly mean discharge from 1928 - 2014 is shown on Figure 2 - 5 .
20 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
14000
12000
) 10000 s f c (
e 8000 g r a
h 6000 c s i
D 4000
2000
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
Figure 2 - 5 Mean Monthly Ouachita River Discharge (USGS Gage 07362000) for the period 1928 - 2014
Salinity
The Ouachita River is an inland freshwater river, so the salinity is negligible at this location.
Temperature
The most recent source waterbody temperature data available was provided by AECC. Temperature data was collected from January 2009 until Decembe r 2015 at the intake when the pumps were operating . Water temperatures ranged from 47 to 89 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Water temperatures were lowest in January and February and highest in July and August.
Area of Influence
A simple desktop model was used t o determine the hydraulic area of influence (AOI) for the McClellan river water intake. The first step in this process was to define the approximate area within the 0.5 foot per second (ft/sec) velocity contour. The USEPA considers this velocity to be a de minimis value and is one of the seven impingement BTA compliance alternatives. That is, a fish can swim freely in a flow at this velocity and ostensibly avoid impingement. Accurately defining the AOI at cooling water intake structures requires a detailed understanding of the intake and the surrounding waterbody environment. Several basic and commo n assumptions were made for McClellan to define the approximate AOI using simplified calculations. These assumptions are:
The maximum AOI occurs at the mi nimum wa ter level (El. 75.33 feet); Invert at the Intake (El. 71 feet);
21
River currents at low river flow conditions do not affect flow patterns at the river diversion; and Flow fields expand at approximately 60° in both the horizontal and vertical direction from the face of the intake canal, unless the local topography/bathymetry reduces the available flow expansion angle.
The geometry of the CWIS, the adjacent s horeline, the bottom bathymetry , and design intake flow were based on information presented in 122.21(r )(2), (3) and (5). The AOI was calculated for a combined circulating a nd service water flow of 103.7 MGD (160.4 cfs). The data used to calculate the AOI for McClellan are provided in Table 2 - 1 . Int ake velocities for the current two pump operations are provided in Appendix C .
Table 2 - 1 Data Used to Calculate the Area of Influence at McClellan AOI Data
Estimated Entrance Water Level Intake Invert Location Flow (cfs) Water Depth Width (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Intake 160.4 El. 75.33 El. 71 5.3 22’ - 5”
Based on this information , the 0.5 ft/sec velocity contour extends up to 15 feet into the river . At the CWIS , the river is approximately 229 f ee t wi de ; therefore , the area of influence encompasses approximately 7% of the river width under the existing river water withdrawal rate. A nalysis of the calculated AOI indicates that most healthy fish within the Ouachita River will be able to avoid entrainment in the McClellan intake flow .
22 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
3 122.21( r )(3) COOLING WATER I NTAKE STRUCTURE DATA
The Rule at 122.21(r)(3) requires th at AECC provide the following CWIS information for McClellan : (i) A narrative description of the configuration of each of your cooling water intake structures and where it is located in the water body and in the water column;
(ii) Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and seconds for each of your cooling water structures;
(iii) A narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water intake structures, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation , number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable;
(iv) A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and
(v) Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure.
The following cooling water intake structure data are bein g provided to characterize the McClellan CWIS and assist in evaluat ing the potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms.
CWIS Configuration
McClellan utilizes a once - through cooling system that dra ws water from the Ouachita River near Cam den, Arkansas. The CWIS is located at latitude 33° 33’ 55.66” N, longitude 92° 47’ 27.33” W. Cooling water for McClellan is withdrawn through a single shoreline CWIS as shown on Figure 3 - 1 . The CWIS has two intake bays which are each equipped with a trash rack and a through - flow traveling water screen to keep debris out of the circulating water system. Each bay also has a cir culating water pump that distributes the cooling water to the condensers.
The face of the CWIS is approximately 42 feet wide and is separated into two 11.2 feet wide bays. The angled trash racks are located approximately 7.8 feet downstream of the face o f the intake structure and are used to prevent large debris from damaging the traveling water screens. The trash racks are 47 feet tall, extending from bottom El. 71.0 feet to the top deck El. 118.0 feet. A plan view and a section view of the CWIS are pr ovided on Figure 3 - 2 and Figure 3 - 3 , respecti vely.
23
Immediately behind the trash racks there is a depression in the floor of the structure where a sediment sump is located. The sump is approximately 3 feet by 3 feet and is used to collect sediment before it reaches the traveling water screens. The collected sediment is removed from the intake via a pump. The traveling water screens are located approximately 10.5 feet d ownstream of the trash racks. The screens are 10 feet wide and are equipped with 0.375 inch square mesh. The traveling water screen s invert is at El. 62.9 feet . The screens rotate at a speed of 10 feet /min and are operated as needed based on the water level differential across the screens. Any debris collected by the screens is removed by a high - pressure spray wash system rated for 305 gpm at 70 psi. Fish and debris removed off of the screens are collected and disposed of. The most common types of debris experienced at McClellan are leaves and hickory nuts ; however, neither have had a substantial negative impact on plant operation.
Two circulating water pumps, one per intake bay, are located approximately 18 feet downstream of the traveling water screens (about 39 feet downstream of the entrance to the intake structure) and have a combined capacity of 71,000 gpm (158.2 cfs). There is an additional service water pump located just downstream of the circulating water pumps , which has a capacity of 1,000 gpm (2.2 cfs). The service water pump supplies screen wash water and also serves as an emergency pump in the case of a fire. The total facility flow, or CWIS design flow, including both types of pumps is approximately 72,00 0 gpm (160.4 cfs). The facility discharges the cooling water back into the Ouachita River approximately 400 feet downstream of the CWIS after it has completed the once - through cooling process ( Figure 3 - 1) .
24 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Figure 3 - 1 Plan Layout of McClellan Generating Station Site
25
Figure 3 - 2 McClellan CWIS – Plan View
26 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Figure 3 - 3 McClellan CWIS – Section View
27
CWIS Operation and Intake Flows
McClellan has two circulating water pumps that are used to meet the cooling water requirements of the facility. Each of the circulating water pumps has a design flow of 79.1 cfs (35,500 gpm), w ith a combined capacity of 158.2 cf s (71,000 gpm). In addition to the circulating pumps there is a single service water pump/emergency fire water pump with a capacity of 2.2 cfs (1,000 gpm) . This service water pump does not provide any cooling water. The annual circulating p ump hours of operation for the last 5 years (2011 - 2015) are provided in Table 3 - 1 . When the circulating water pumps are operated the CWIS is operating.
The annual desi gn intake flow of McClellan is approxi mately 37,318 million gallons. McClellan is operated as a peaking facility, meaning it only operates when there is a high demand for energy ; therefore , its actual intake flow is significantly less. The estimated annual flows, estimated by multiplying the design intake flow by th e annual pump hours of operation, and their percentage of the maximum design intake flow for the last five years are provided in Table 3 - 1 . The table shows the maximum actual intake flow over the last five years w as only 51% of the design intake flow on an annual basis.
Table 3 - 1 Estimated Actual Annual Intake Flow for McClellan Station (2011 - 2015)
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pump hours of operation (last 5 years) 5,498 5,947 7,025 3,787 2,760
Estimated Actual Annual Intake Flows 19,069 13,035 13,893 6,285 9,123 (Millions of Gallons) Maximum Annual Design Intake Flow 37,318 37,420 37,318 37,318 37,318 (Millions of Gallons) Percent of Maximum Design Flow 51% 35% 37% 17% 24%
F low D istribution and W ater B alance D iagram s
The water balanc e diagram for the McClellan circulating water system is provided in Figure 3 - 4 .
28 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Figure 3 - 4 McClellan Process Water Flow Diagram
29
4 § 122.21( r )(4) SOURCE WATER BA SELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER IZATION DATA
The Rule at § 122.21(r)(4) requires AECC to provide the source water biological baseline characterization data for the Ouachita River and the specific information required is as follows: §122.21(r)(4) Source water baseline biological characterization data . This information is required to characterize the biological community in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and to characterize the operation of the cooling water intake structures. The Director may also use this information in subsequent permit renewal proceedings to determine if your Design and Construction Technology Plan as required in §125.86(b)(4) of this chapte r should be revised. This supporting information must include existing data (if they are available). However, you may supplement the data using newly conducted field studies if you choose to do so. The information you submit must include:
(i) A list of data required in paragraphs (r)(4)(ii) through (r)(4)(vi) that were not available with an explanation of efforts to identify sources of that data.
(ii) A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance near th e CWIS.
( iii) I dentification of species and life stage that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. Species evaluated must include the forage base as well as those important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries.
(iv) Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance of relevant taxa.
(v) Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column migratio n) of biological organisms near the cooling water intake structure.
(vi ) I dentification of all Federally - listed threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat that are or may be present in the action area 2 .
( vii) Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan.
2 The “action area” can be generally considered the area in the vicinity of impingement and entrainment at the CWIS.
30 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
(viii) If the information requested in paragraph (r)(4)(i) of this section is supplemented with data collected using field studies, supporti ng documentation for the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization must include a description of all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling and data analysis , including a description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sam pled and evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish); and sampling and data analysis methods. The sampling and/or data analysis methods you use must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and based on consideration of methods used in other biological studies performed within the same source water body. The study area should include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure.
(ix) T his part clarifies that the Source Water Baseline Characterization Data for owners/operators of existing facilities or new units at existing facilities is the information in paragraphs (r)(4)(i) through (xii) of this section.
(x) Identification of protective measures and stabilization activities that ha ve been implemented and a description of how these measures and activities affected the baseline water condition near the intake .
(xi) A l ist of fragile species, as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(m) .
(xii) O wners/operators of existing facilities that have inc idental take exemptions or authorization for its cooling water intake structure(s) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide any information submitted to obtain those exemptions or authorizations to satisfy the permit application information requirement of paragraph 40 CFR 125.95(f) if included in the application .
This chapter is organized to provide each numeric piece of information (i through xii) listed above in sequence.
122.21(r)(4)(i) - Source water biological data required in paragraphs (r)(4)(ii) through (r)(4)(xii) are available for the Ouachita River in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS. Historical biological data (1972 to 1992) are available from investigations that focused on the ad ult fish community in the river.
Several state and public entities were queried and available research data was reviewed to determine if biological data existed for the Ouachita River in the vicinity of CWIS. Entities queried included:
1. Arkansas Departm ent of Environmental Quality, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Tate Wentz. Aquatic Ecologist Coordinator. February 2016.
2. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC), Brinkley, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Andrew Yung, District 6 Fisheries Supervisor.
3. AGFC, Mayflower, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Jeffrey Quinn, Stream Fisheries Biologist.
31
4. AGFC, Benton, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Kendall Moles, Malacologist.
5. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Dr. John Jackson, Head, Department of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Fisheries Science. March 2016.
6. Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Dr. Jerry Farris, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology. March 2016.
7. Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Dr. Tim Knight, Profe ssor – Dean of the Patterson School of Natural Sciences. March 2016.
8. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Personal Communication. Dr. Michael Eggleton, Associate Professor – Fisheries Science. March 2016.
122.21(r)(4)(ii) - Fishery surv eys or scientific studies are limited near McClellan that provide data on the life stages and relative abundance of fish in Ouachita River in the action area of the CWIS. Figure 4 - 1 identifies fish sampling sites on the Ouachita River to show their spatia l relationship to McClellan ’s CWIS for the fisheries data presented herein.
AECC completed an impingement characterization study at McClellan that was conducted from January 2006 through December 2006 (Burns & McDonnell 2007). Twenty four hour long imp ingement characterization sampling events were conducted every other week for a total of 25 sampling events. While this study was conducted within the hydraulic zone of influence of the CWIS , it provides an indication of fish inhabiting the river near the intake structure that were susceptible to impingement, their relative abundance, and size. Only five live specimens were collected during 600 hours of sampling representing three species classified as alive and 4 1 specimens representing three species tha t were classified as dead prior to being impinged (Table 4 - 1). A total of 410 shellfish were also collected during the study; the most common were the non - native zebra mussel and Asiatic clam (Table 4 - 2).
32 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Figure 4 - 1 Sampling locations for Ouachita fish studies
33
Table 4 - 1 Summary of the Number and Relative Abundance of live Fi nfish Collected in Impinge ment Samples at McCl ellan and Estimated Number of Dead on Arrival Finfish Based on Normal Operations , January 2006 - Decemeber 2006 Estimated Dead Species Common N ame Scientific Name Live Species Collected Impinged Under Normal Operations Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 2 38 Shiner Cyprinidae 1 -- Channel C atfish Ictalurus punctatus -- 1 Flathead C atfish Pylodictis olivaris 1 -- Black C rappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 -- Lepomis species Lepomis sp. -- 1 Unidentified -- 1 Totals 5 41
Table 4 - 2 Summary of the Number of Shellfish Impinged at McClellan Station, January 2006 – December 2006 Number Common Name Impinged Crayfish 1 Asiatic Clams 198 Zebra Mussels 202 Native Freshwater Mussels 1 Snails 1 Totals 410
Raymond (1975) completed an extensive survey of the summer fish community in the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam to the Louisiana state line from 1972 through 1975. Sixty - two sampling trips were made to 25 different sites. Fish were collected primarily by seines; hoop nets were used twice and an electrofishing unit was used once. Data for the following discussion were taken from the following sampling sites (Figure 4 - 1):
1. Site 13 was located in the Ouachita River at the confluence with the Little Missouri River at River Mile (RM) 358.5 approximately 30 RM upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS located at RM 327.5. Site 13 was sampled 1 1 times during the Raymond (1975) study. 2. Site 14 was located in the backwaters of the Ouachita River near Camden, Arkansas (RM unkno wn) and it was only sampled twice.
The three - year Ouachita River study resulted in the collection of 111 species of fish; 71 species were collected at sample Site 13 , and 11 species were collected at sample Site 14 (Table 4 - 3). At Site 14, cyprinids were the dominate species, accounting for 120 specimens (96.0%) of the 125 specimens collected. Blacktail shiner was the dominate species (48.8%), followed by emerald shiner (17.6%) and steelcolor shiner (16.0%). The 11 sampling events at Site 1 3 resulte d in the collection of 71 species with cyprinids accounting for 9,092 of 11,595 specimens or 48.8% of the
34 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete total sample. Site 1 3 is approximately 30 river miles upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS and is located in a section of river that is “natural” and not imp acted by channel maintenance practices.
Baker (1984) assessed the game fish community in the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita R ivers. The report provided descriptions of sample sites, body condition factors of select species, catch per unit effort by number and weight, and a diversity index for each site. Fish were collected using a boat - mounted electroshocker, experimental gill nets, hoop nets, seines , and a backpack electroshocker. Nine sites were sampled on the Ouachita River of which eight wer e between Remmel Dam and the Louisiana state line (Figure 4 - 1). Site 4 was located five to seven miles downstream of Camden between RM 327 and RM 325 in the vicinity of the McClellan Station CWIS (RM 327.5). Site 5 was located on the Ouachita River at th e confluence with the Little Missouri River (RM 358.5) approximately 30 river miles upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS (RM 327.5). At Sites 4 and 5, three samples were collected using experimental gill nets, six samples using a boat electroshocker, six samples with three - foot diameter hoop nets, and six samples were collected using a 15 – foot long, ⅛ - inch mesh seine. A total of 26 species (461 specimens) were collected at Site 4 in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS (Table 4 - 3). The most common species found at Site 4 were the B lacktail S hiner ( 29.3%), T hreadfin S had (25.6%), and S teelcolor S hiner (14.9%). Thirty species (190 specimens) were collected at Site 5 approximately 30 river m i les upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS. The most common species at Site 5 were B la cktail S hiner (26.3%), S teelcolor S hiner (10.5 %) , and B igeye S hiner (10.5% ) (Table 3). Length or life stage data was not provided by Baker (1984).
The Lower Ouachita River Work Group sampled fish along nine sites of the lower Ouachita River in Arkans as of which three bracketed Camden , AR (Figure 4 - 1 ). Site 4a was located downstream of the Little Missouri confluence (RM 358.5) ; Site 4 was located 1.5 to 3.0 river miles upstream (RM 333.9 to 335.4) of the Arkansas State Highway 7 Bridge near Camden, and Site 5 located approximately 2.5 river miles downstream (RM 325) of McClellan ’s CWIS (RM 327.5).
Site 4a was sampled in August of 1992 using two boat electroshockers and a backpack electroshocker with a seine. Site 4 was sampled in July of 1991 using one boat electroshocker and a backpack electroshocker and again in July of 1992 using two boat electroshockers and a backpack elect roshocker with seine. Site 5 was sampled in July 1991 and July 1992 using a boat electroshocker, a backpack electroshocker with seine, and gill nets.
Relative abundance scores were determined for each species at each sampling site and year. Relative ab undance scores were numerical rankings with “1” equaling rare; “2” equaling present; “3” equaling common; and “4” equaling abundant. This scale was used in 1991 for young, subadults, and adults combined. In 1992, two scores were determined, one for young and subadults combined and one for adults. The two 1992 scores were added to yield an eight - point scale.
Forty - seven species were collected during the two years of sampling at Sites 4 and 5, which were both near McClellan ’s CWIS (Table 4 - 3). At Site 4, 39 species were collected in 1991 and 25 were collected in 1992. The 1992 sample had more T hreadfin S had and G izzard S had and less diversity than in 1991. In general, the most common species at Site 4 were central S toneroller,
35
S teelcolor S hiner, G izzard S had, Mississippi S ilvery M innow, and G olden R edhorse. At Site 5, a total of 36 species were collected over the two years of sampling. Steelcolor S hiner, G izzard S had, and L ongear S unfish were the most abundant species at this site. Thirt y - four species were collected at Site 4a approximately 30 RM upstream of the McClellan ’s CWIS. Abundant species at Site 4a were S teelcolor S hiner, G ravel C hub, B anded D arter, L ongear S unfish, and S potted B ass.
The collections by Baker (1984) and Wise et al. (1993) had roughly comparable levels of sampling effort. Species richness at the sites in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS (±10 river miles) ranged from 25 to 39 and averaged 30. This relatively tight range of species richness occurred despite the fact that sampling effort and sample sites were not identical, and the samples were collected eight years apart.
The speci es richness at Raymond (1975) Sites 13 and 14 were 71 and 11, respectively, and reflect the dissimilarity of the river habitat sampled compared to that near McClellan ’s CWIS. Site 13 is located in a section of the Ouachita River that is not maintained for navigation , and Site 14 is a backwater that is hydraulically connected to the Ouachita River. The Ouachita River in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS is a maintained navigation channel and has flowing waters. Baker (1984) Site 4 and Wise et al. (1993) Si te 4 and 5 sample efforts were completed in a river segment that is similar to the Ouachita River in the vicinity of the CWIS.
While no specific early life stage studies (i.e., eggs and larval fish) could be found for the O uachita River , such a study was found for the White River near DeValls Bluff, AR to evaluate fishery - related effects of a proposed pumping station that would divert water from the White River (Killgore et al. 1998). The Ouachita River at the McClellan ’s CWIS is a maintained navigation channel as is the White River where the larval fish sampling was conducted. Ichthyoplankton in the White River was determined from 629 larval fish samples collected from March through October 1996. A total of 6,179 individuals that represented at least 30 species of larval fish were collected during the study. Dominant families in the White R iver ichthyoplankton drift were: Cyprinidae (67%), Catostomidae (22%), and Clupeidae (7%). Baker et al. (1984) adult fish sample near the McClellan CWIS was 62% Cy prinidia and 26% Clupeidae , and the ADEQ ( 2 013b) sample was 74% Clupeidae and 8% Catostomidae. Entrainment potential in the White River was greatest in summer due to high drift densities of native cyprinids, sucker larvae were most vulnerable April and Ma y, and shad were most vulnerable from May through June.
36 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Table 4 - 3 Species and Number of Fish Collected by Raymond (1975), Baker (1984), and Relative Abundance Scores by Wise et al. (1993) from the Ouac hita River near Camden, AR
Raymond (1975) 1 Baker (1984) 1 Wise et al. (1993) 1972 - 1975 1984 1991 2 1992 3 1992 3 1991 2 1992 3 Family Common Name Scientific Name 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 Polyodontidae Paddlefish Polyodon spathula -- -- 1 ------Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus ------1 3 2.5 2 3 5 Lepisosteidae Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 3 -- 1 5 2 1 2 -- -- Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 1 -- -- 1 ------Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 6 -- 3 6 4 7 3 4 4 Clupeidae Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 51 -- 118 -- -- 6 2 2 Hiodontidae Mooneye Hiodon tergisus 1 ------Anguillidae American Eel Anguilla rostrata 2 -- -- 3 2 2 2 2 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 296 ------4 1 6 2 1 Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta 422 61 135 50 1 4.5 4 2 5 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 1 -- -- 3 3 2 2 3 3 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei 1,593 20 69 20 3 4 8 3.5 4 Gravel Chub Erimystax x - punctatus 1,065 -- -- 2 -- -- 7 -- -- Mississippi Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 31 1 58 -- 4 7 2 -- Ribbon Shiner Lythrurus fumeus -- 1 ------Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 6 -- -- 1 ------Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 7 ------Cyprinidae Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 2 ------Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 423 22 11 2 3 2 1 -- 2.5 Bigeye Shiner Notropis boops 4,585 -- 10 20 -- -- 4 -- -- Common Shiner Notropis chrysocephalus -- 4 ------Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus 19 ------Weed Shiner Notropis texanus ------2 ------Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus 35 ------Pugnose Minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae 16 ------1 ------Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus 437 4 -- 5 ------Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 154 9 ------2 4 -- 4.5
37
Raymond (1975) 1 Baker (1984) 1 Wise et al. (1993) 1972 - 1975 1984 1991 2 1992 3 1992 3 1991 2 1992 3 Family Common Name Scientific Name 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio ------1 -- -- 2 -- -- Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus ------2 ------Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans 25 ------1 -- 4 -- 1.5 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus -- -- 1 1 2 -- -- 2 -- Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus ------2 -- -- 3 2.5 Catostomidae Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 3 ------Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 3 ------2 3 -- -- 2 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum 115 -- -- 5 4 2.5 6 2.5 2 River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 7 ------2 -- 4 -- -- Blacktail Redhorse Moxostoma poecilurum 5 -- -- 3 2 4 2 2.5 2 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus ------2 2 Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis -- -- 1 ------Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 31 -- 2 16 2 2 2 2 2 Ictaluridae Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus 106 ------Mountain Madtom Noturus eleutherus 16 ------5 -- -- Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus 1 ------Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1 -- 3 -- 2 ------2 Aphredoderidae Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 8 -- -- 2 ------Esocidae Grass Pickerel Esox americanus 1 -- 1 -- 2 ------Northern Studfish Fundulus catenatus 2 ------Golden Topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 1 -- 1 6 ------Fundulidae Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus ------2.5 ------Southern Starhead Topminnow Fundulus nottii 2 ------Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus 16 ------2.5 2 4 2 6 Poeciliidae Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 111 1 9 -- 2 1 -- -- 3 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus 351 -- 11 14 2 -- 4 2.5 5 Atherinidae Inland Silverside Menidia beryllina -- -- 2 ------Moronidae White Bass Morone chrysops 2 ------
38 Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete
Raymond (1975) 1 Baker (1984) 1 Wise et al. (1993) 1972 - 1975 1984 1991 2 1992 3 1992 3 1991 2 1992 3 Family Common Name Scientific Name 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 5 ------Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum 1 ------Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 3 ------Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 28 2 1 3 3 4.5 4 2 4.5 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis 534 -- 1 4 3 5 8 4 5.5 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 1 ------2 -- -- 3 2 Centrarchidae Redspotted Sunfish Lepomis miniatus ------1.5 -- 2 2 -- Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 4 ------Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 46 2 13 5 3 3.5 7 2.5 4.5 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 8 -- 1 3 2.5 5 4 3 3.5 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis -- -- 1 -- 2 -- 1 2 -- Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 2 -- 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 Scaly Sand Darter Ammocrypta vivax 16 -- 2 3 -- 1 -- -- 2 Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella 13 ------1 ------Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides 9 ------Creole Darter Etheostoma collettei 10 ------1 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene 2 ------Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosoma 9 -- -- 1 ------Harlequin Darter Etheostoma histrio 11 ------2 -- 5 -- -- Orangebelly Darter Etheostoma radiosum 16 ------1 -- -- Speckled Darter Etheostoma stigmaeum 95 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Percidae Redfin Darter Etheostoma whipplei 34 ------Banded Darter Etheostoma zonale 158 ------8 -- -- Logperch Percina caprodes 21 ------3 -- -- 2 2 Channel Darter Percina copelandi 575 -- -- 2 -- -- 2 5.5 Blackside Darter Percina maculata 2 ------1 Dusky Darter Percina sciera 8 ------2 -- 1 -- -- Stargazing Darter Percina uranidea 5 ------Saddleback Darter Percina vigil 3 ------Walleye Sander vitreum 9 ------Sciaenidae Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 4 -- -- 1 ------Total Numbers 11,595 125 461 190 NA NA NA NA NA Species 71 11 26 30 39 25 34 26 31 1 Values are number of specimens collected 2 Values are relative abundance scores with 1=rare, 2=present, 3=common, and 4=abundant 3 Values are the combined relative abundance scores of young and subadults plus adults
39
ADEQ conducts biological/habitat monitoring to support the establishment of biological criteria used to evaluate the biological integrity of a water body. Biological data collections consist primarily of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Additionall y, measurement of existing aquatic life habitat used to identify habitat stressors that may be affecting the communities in addition to water quality contaminants (ADEQ 2013a). ADEQ completed a biological monitoring survey in Ouachita River above the High way 7 Bridge near Camden, AR in July 1991. The sampled location was approximately 4.8 river miles upstream (332.3 RM) of McClellan ’s CWIS (RM 327.5). A one - time electrofishing effort was completed at the site on 13 July 1991 with a 90 - minute effort (ADEQ 2013b). Of the 15 species collected, Mississippi S ilvery M innow accounted for 100 specimens or 50% of the fish sampled (Table 4 - 4 ).
Table 4 - 4 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Biological Monitoring Ouachita River, July 1991.
Common name Scientific Name Total Number Relative Abundance (%) American Eel Anguilla rostrata 1 0.5 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum 15 7.5 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 2 1.0 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 5 2.5 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 0.5 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 2 1.0 Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta 16 8.0 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei 25 12.5 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 2 1.0 Mississippi Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 100 50.0 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 20 10.0 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 4 2.0 Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus 4 2.0 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1 0.5 Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 2 1.0 Total Numbers 15 200 100.0
Posey (1996) characterized the mussel species composition in the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam (RM 437.5) to the Louisiana state line (RM 221.2). Searches were performed by a diver and were aimed at finding locations where densities were 10 mussels per s quare meter or higher. Thirty - six species and 23,465 specimens were collected during the survey and 61mussel beds were located on the lower Ouachita River (Table 4 - 5). Mussel abundance by species and descriptive collection locations were not provided in the report. Listed species were collected from an approximate 216 river mile segment of the Ouachita River. Of these species, the S outhern M apleleaf had not been recorded in the Ouachita River since 1918, and the P ink M ucket, Ouachita R ock P ocketbook, an d W inged M apleleaf are currently federally endangered species (ANHC 2016).
40
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
Table 4 - 5 Mussels of the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam Downstream to the Louisiana State Line, 1996
Common Name Scientific Name Bankclimber Plectomerus dombeyanus Black Sandshell Ligumia recta Bleufer Potamilus purpuratus Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata Deertoe Truncilla truncata Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis Fluted Shell Lasmigona costata Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria Louisiana Fatmucket Lampsilis hydiana Mapleleaf Quadrula Monkeyface Quadrula metanevera Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Rock Pocketbook Arkansia wheeleri Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium Southern Mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema pyramidatum Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica Rock Ppocketbook Arcidens confragosus Spike Elliptio dilatata Squawfoot Strophitus undulatus Threehorn Wartyback Obliquaria reflexa Threeridge Amblema plicata Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava Wartyback Quadrula nodulata Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres
41
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
122.21(r)(4 )(iii) - Limited fisheries data are available from near McClellan ’s CWIS that directly contributes to the determination of species and life stage that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. However, EPRI published a report that summarized the results of 165 impingement and entrainment studies (EPRI, 20 11) that identifies species that are most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. The database was developed from studies conducted for compliance with the Phase II §316(b) Rule. The summarized data for small rivers such as the Ouachita River are pro vided in Figure 4 - 2. The most frequently impinged species included G izzard S had (88.4%) , F reshwater D rum (3.5%), T hreadfin S had (1.7%), C hannel C atfish (1.3%) and E merald S hiner (1.1%). All other species accounted for 3.9% of the impinged taxa. The site - specific impingement study that was conducted in 2006 at McClellan documented live and dead fish. Sampling was conducted over a 24 hour period every other week from January through December. Only six species of live or dead impinged fish were collected. Gizzard S had, a forage species, made up 87% of the impingement with only a single individual collected for the remaining species that included C hannel C atfish and F lathead C atfish (both recreational and commercial species), B lack C rappie (recreational spe cies), a Lepomis species (recreational species), a shiner (forage species) and one unidentified specimen (Table 4 - 1). The most commonly impinged species at McClellan, G izzard S had , is documented a s commonly impinged for small rivers in the EPRI report (20 11). Life stage or length data was not provided for impinged fish in the McClellan site - specific study.
42
§122.2 1(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
Figure 4 - 2 Most commonly impinged species in small rivers from EPRI database (EPRI 2011)
Generally, fish species impingement and entrainment vulnerability is a function of life history such as: habitat preference, water column distribution, reproductive behavior, or physical influences , such as waterbody hydraulics and is not a function of abu ndance or species present in the source waterbody. Th e number and species of fish impinged at McClellan is not indicative of the fish community inha biting the Ouachita River . At McClellan the presence of fish in the water body did not imply vulnerability to impingement , which can be seen by comparing numbers of various fish species in Table 4 - 3 to impingement numbers. S ite 4 (RM 327 - 325) fisheries data from Baker (1984) provides presence and abundance numbers for fish in the source water body near McClel lan ’s CWIS (RM 327.5 ) . Gizzard S had w ere numerically abundant in the impingement sample (88%) and rare in the Baker (1984) Site 4 water body sample (0.6%). T hreadfin S had was abundant at Site 4 (25%) and are known to be susceptible to impingement in gener al but w ere not impinged at McClellan . Taxonomic identification of G izzard/ T hreadfin S had especially those spawned in the current sample year also known as young - of - year ( YOY ) can be problematic. Numerically, cyprinids accounted for 62.3% of the Site 4 collections but only one unidentified “shiner” was impinged (Table 4 - 1).
Entrainment or egg and larval fish studies were not conducted at McClellan or for the CWIS source w ater body. The EPRI (2011) summarized data report for commonly entrained taxa for small rivers includes: unidentified Centrarchidae (32.4%), Clupeidae (27.2%), Cyprinidae
43
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
(9.8%), F reshwater D rum larvae and eggs (7.9%), G izzard S had (5.7%), Catostomidae (5 .7%), Percidae (1.9%), C ommon C arp (1.3%) and unidentified freshwater drum type eggs (1.2%) or 93% of the most commonly entrained freshwater fish species in small rivers (Figure 4 - 3).
The susceptibility of early life stages to drift and potential entrai nment depends in part on the reproductive strategies of the species in the vicinity of the intake structure. Table 4 - 6 provides the primary spawning and larval recruitment period, peak abundance, YOY habitat preference, spawning habit, and egg characteris tics for the species that were abundant in the impinge ment samples (Table 4 - 1) or numerically abundant in the source water body (Table 4 - 3) . In general, the spawning period for commonly impinged species is from early April to August. Freshwater drum spaw n semi - buoyant eggs in open water that can make them susceptible to entrainment as eggs or drifting larvae. The R iver C arpsucker broadcast eggs over sand/silt bottoms in calm to low flow waters making them susceptible to entrainment as eggs or drifting la rvae. Other commonly impinged species exhibit spawning habits and egg characteristics that limit their susceptibility to entrainment as eggs or larvae. The 2006 impingement studies indicated that the majority of fish impinged where YOY.
Figure 4 - 3 Most commonly entrained species for small rivers for facilities listed in EPRI entrainment database
44
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
Table 4 - 6 Life History Characteristics* of Select Taxa in the Ouachita River near McClellan Average YOY Spawn/Larval Peak Habitat Total Species Recruitment Abundance (YOY) Length Spawning Egg Gizzard Shad Early April - Late May - Shorelines 130 mm Water Surface in Adhesive Dorosoma May June protected bays and eggs sink and cepedianum inlets - calm water. attach to bottom. For 2 - days after hatch fry alternately swim upward then sink Threadfin April - June June - Shorelines 54 mm At morning Eggs adhesive Shad September twilight in very and hatch in Dorosoma shallow waters. three days petenense Mississippi June June - July Abundant 35 mm Calm waters over Non - adhesive Silvery pools and silt bottoms Eggs Minnow backwaters Hybognathus over silt nuchalis sand bottom Blacktail June - August June Areas of 27 mm Crevice spawner Adhesive Shiner current depositing eggs eggs Cyprinella with sand among roots, rock venusta gravel crevice, under bark bottom Steelcolor Late April - May - Upland Not given Crevice spawner Adhesive egg Shiner May August rivers with depositing eggs Cyprinella permanent logs/roots in whipplei strong flow moderate to swift current * Life history data obtained from Pflieger 1997.
The G izzard S had, a forage fish (Pflieger 1997) , was impinged at McClellan in very low numbers. Unknown is entrainment effect of the McClellan CWIS on the specimens in the vicinity of the CWIS. The EPRI (2011) and the White River (Kilgore et al. 1998) suggest that Cyprinids primarily forage taxa would be entrained. Recreationally important species were very rare in the McClellan impingement data samples and represented less than 1.8% of the larval drift in the White River that maybe subjected to entrainment.
McClellan ’s CWIS is located in a segment of the Ouachita River where commercial fishing is permitted (AGFC 2015). Fish that are designated as commercial species include: “ B owfin (over six inches), B uffalo, catfish, carp, drum, gar, paddlefish, suckers (except S ilver R edhorse), W hite A mur, and S hovelnose S turgeon.” The AGFC reports the commercial harvest of P addlefish and S hovelnose S turgeon roe from the Ouachita River; however , harvest locations were not provided. Data are not available for the other listed commercial fish that may be harvested from the Ouachita River. Two commercial species were collected during the 2006 impingement study – C hannel and F lathead C atfish. A leg al commercial catfish for harvest must be greater than 16 -
45
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological chara cterization Data
inches total length; although length data was not provided for the two impinged catfish, it is likely that both were small YOY or juvenile fish.
122.21(r)(4)(iv) - Ichthyoplankton studies have no t been completed in the Ouachita River in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS . Thus, site - specific reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak recruitment is not known for the CWIS. However, literature derived reproductive and larval recruitment pe riods are provided in Table 4 - 6 , and relevant taxa susceptible to impingement are listed in Tables 1, 3, and 4. The expected primary period for larval recruitment based on the literature is April to August for the more common species in the vicinity of th e CWIS. Gizzard S had is most susceptible to egg and larval drift and based on their relative abundance larval C yprinids and Catostomids can be expected to be entrained at McClellan. Species that build nests and/or provide parental care, such as catfish a nd sunfish, are likely to be entrained infrequently and in low numbers
122.21(r)(4)(v) – S ite - specific data on the s patial and temporal variation in the density and composition of larval, YOY , and adult fish in the vicinity of McClellan’s CWIS is not known. However, based on EPRI’s impingement and entrainment, the 2006 McClellan impingement study , and the Ouachita literature survey , likely species in the vicinity of McClellan’s CWIS and most l ikely subject to impingement and/or entrainment include : G izzard S had, T hreadfin S had, C hannel C atfish, F reshwater D rum , and Catostomidae Seasonal and daily activities such as feeding and migration for these fish are discussed as follows: Gizzard Shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum) The G izzard S had, a member of the Herring family, is a pelagic species found throughout Arkansas and most of North America in fresh as well as brackish water. They tend to swim in large schools and are often the most frequently imping ed and entrained species. Gizzard S had are planktivorous as larvae, primarily feeding on phytoplankton , and as they become older transition to a diet of zooplankton. Feeding primarily occurs during the day with little activity at night. Gizzard S had typically spawn between May and early June as water temperature increases. Spawning takes place during evening and early night hours with feeding beginning in three or four days. A two year old G izzard S had can lay up to 12,500 eggs while a four year old can lay up to 38,000. Gizzard S had are not considered a migratory species. Threadfin Shad ( Dorosoma petenense ) Threadfin S had are another member of the Herring family. They are frequently found in rivers, larger streams, reservoirs in both the south east and southwest , as well as estuaries. They are also a pelagic schooling species , and when present in a waterbody , can be a dominate species impinged and/or entrained by CWISs. They are more frequently found in moving than G izzard S had and are generall y not found in deeper water and can often be seen swimming on the surface at dusk and dawn. This species spawns when water temperatures reach the upper 60’s
46
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
(Fahrenheit) in spring and can have a secondary spawning season in the early fall. Some 2,000 to 24,000 eggs are laid by females. Both the young and adult T hreadfin S had feed on plankton and organic debris. They are also not considered a migratory species. Channel Catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ) Channel C atfish is one of the most common catfish specie s in North America and are prized as a recreational species. They are one of the more commonly impinged species, generally as young or the year , but generally not subject to entrainment due to their spawning and nesting behavior. This species is an omniv ore with a keen sense of smell. The diet of larval and young Channel C atfish can include invertebrates such as insects, crawfish and snails as well as algae and plants. As they become older the diet can include other fish and amphibians. The species is nocturnal and feeding takes place at night. Spawning generally occurs in late spring and early summer in a ne s t guarded by the male , who continues to guard the larvae after hatching. A study of C hannel C atfish movements in Beaver Reservoir (Northwest Ark ansas) found the longest distance traveled was 43.1 Km (Duncan and Meyers, 1978). Freshwater Drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens) Freshwater D rum are a recreational species and are also harvested commercially in some areas. The species is found in North America f rom Mexico to Canada and east to west from the western slope of the Appalachian Mountains to the Rockies. They remain in freshwater throughout their life. They prefer clear water but are tolerant of turbid water. They are susceptible to both impingement and entrainment. Their diet is mainly aquatic insects, freshwater bivalves, crayfish, small fish and dipterans. Spawning begins in April or May in open water. The eggs float until they hatch and larvae are pelagic , making early life stages subject to entrainment. Adult drum are benthic and tend to stay and feed on the bottom. It is a relatively long lived species and has been known to reach an age of 72 years. Catostomidae Catostomidae are commonly known as suckers or redhorse depending on the specie s. This family made up 5.7% of small river entrained species in the EPRI database and is occasionally impinged. The N orthern H ogsucker and Golden R edhorse were two dominate Catostomidae reported by Baker (Table 4 - 3). The diet ranges from bottom species , such as detritus and benthic invertebrates , but they also are known to eat surface insects and small fish. Spawning for the N orthern H ogsucker takes place in early May in shallow riffles in depressions in the gravel made by adults. The eggs are non - adhe sive and settle on the gravel. The G olden R edhorse also spawns on gravel , and after hatching , the young larvae may form schools. Both species live their lives in freshwater but migrate upstream to shallower streams for spawning.
122.21(r)(4)(vi) - T he Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) lists species that are federally and/or state listed as threatened and/or endangered (T&E) in Arkansas (ANHC 2016). State protected species are also referenced in the Rule under the requirements of the Entrai nment Characterization Study at §122.21(r)(9). Therefore, both federally - and state - listed species are identified here that are or may be present in the vicinity of the CWIS. A USFWS IPaC Trust Resource Report was also generated for the area near McClell an ’s CWIS , including Ouachita County, Arkansas where McClellan ’s CWIS is located and the Ouachita River , the station ’ s
47
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
cooling water source. The T&E species listed by the ANHC and USFWS are provided in Table 4 - 7.
Table 4 - 7 Federally and State of Arkansas Listed Threatened and Endangered Fish and Shellfish
Species Ouachita County Critical Habitat Ouachita Rock Pocketbook FE, SE No Arkansia wheeleri Spectaclecase FE, SE No Cumberlandia monodonta Pink Mucket FE, SE No Lampsilis abrupta Rabbitsfoot FT, SE Yes Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical Winged Mapleleaf FE, SE No Quadrula fragosa FE – Federally endangered FT – Federally Threatened SE – State Endangered ST – State Threatened
No fish species are listed in the vicinity of McClellan, but five freshwater mussel species are f ederally - listed as T&E for Ouachita County. Only one of the five species, Rabbitsfoot mussel ( Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical ), has designated critical habit at which extends from the Little Missouri River confluence (RM 358.5) downstream to U.S. Highway 79 Bridge (RM 332.4) at Camden, Arkansas (FR 2015). McClellan ’s CWIS is located downstream of the designated critical habitat at RM 327.5. During impingement monitoring at McClellan ’s CWIS, one mussel was impinged , but it was not identified.
Harris et al. (2009) completed a status review of the 75 freshwater mussels considered native to Arkansas and ranked 22 species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. The five mussels listed for Ouachita County are discussed below as is their potential occurrence in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS.
Ouachita Rock Pocketbook - Arkansai wheeleri . Status: FE and SE. Known to exist in approximately 111 river miles of the Ouachita River system in Oklahoma and Arkansas with recent observations noted as rare and widely separated. No observation references were made for Ouachita R ock P ocketbook in th e vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS.
Spectaclecase - Cumberlandia monodonta. Status: FE and SE. Known from five localities in the Ouachita River (segment/locale not provided) and a single live specimen record immediately downstream of the US Highway 79 Brid ge near Camden, Arkansas . The Highway 79 Bridge is approximately five river miles upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS.
Pink Mucket - L ampsilis abrupta. Status: FE and SE. Known from the Ouachita River upstream of its confluence with the Caddo River approximat ely 75 river miles upstream of McClellan ’s CWIS. No observation references were made for P ink M ucket in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS.
48
§122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological characterization Data
Rabbitsfoot - Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical. Status: FT and SE. Known to be relatively widespread but never exc eptionally abundant. Species distribution map locates specimens collected from the Ouachita River; however, n o observation references were made for Rabbitsfoot in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS , and its critical habitat in the Ouachita River is upstream of the station.
Winged Mapleleaf - Quadrula fragosa. Status: FE and SE. Known from the Ouachita River but n o observation references were made for W inged M apleleaf in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS. 122.21(r)(4)(vii) - Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation has not engaged in consultations with f ederal fish and wildlife agencies or public agencies relative to the Rule for McClellan. 122.21 (r)(4)(viii) - No new source waterbody field studies were conducted for McCle llan. Rather, the data source for characterizing the biology in the vicinity of McClellan ’s CWIS was limited and sourced from a historical impingement report, Master Theses, The Lower Ouachita Work Group, State agencies: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, and Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. 122.21(r)(4)(ix) – This provision simply contains a statement of clarification and does not call for any specific information. The information provide d in subsections (r)(4)(i) through (xii) is provided for the existing units at McClellan. 122.21(r)(4)(x) - There have been no protective measures and stabilization activities performed by AECC near McClellan ’s CWIS that would either provide a benefit to or affect fish and shellfish. 122.21(r)(4)(xi) - EPA defines a fragile species of fish or shellfish at §125.92(m) as either one of 14 listed species or as those that have an impingement survival rate of less than 30 percent to ensure that a facility’s per formance in reducing impingement mortality would only reflect effects of its improvements to the CWIS technology and not be biased by effects of data collection that are not caused by impingement . One listed “fragile ” species, G izzard S had ( Dorosoma ceped ianum ) , was collected during the 2006 impingement study. Forty - five dead and two live G izzard S had accounted for 89 percent of the live and dead fish impinged during a one - year study conducted at McClellan (Table 1). 122.21(r)(4)(xii) - This part is not applicable to the McClellan because it does not hold an incidental take exemption or authorization from the USFWS.
49
5 § 122.21( r )(5) COOLING WATER S YSTEM DATA
The Rule at 122.21(r)(5) requires AECC to pr ovide the following cooling water system data for McClellan : (i) A narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to cooling water intake structures; the proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the syst em; the number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal changes in the operation of the system, if applicable; the proportion of design intake flow for contact cooling, non - contact cooling, and process uses; a distribution of water reuse to include cooling water reused as process water, process water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling; a description of reductions in total water withdrawals including cooling water intake flow reductions already achieved through minimized process water withdrawals; a description of any cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling, including other recycled process water flows; the proportion of the source waterbody wit hdrawn (on a monthly basis);
(ii) Design and engineering calculations prepared by a qualified professional and supporting data to support the description required by paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section; and
(iii) Description of existing impingement and e ntrainment technologies or operational measures and a summary of their performance, including but not limited to reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment due to intake location and reductions in total water withdrawals and usage.
The data presen ted in this section is used in determining the appropriate BTA standards that would apply to McClellan .
Cooling Water System Operation
McClellan consists of one electrical generating unit with a once - through cooling system. The intake for this cooling system withdraws water from the Ouachita River. After circulating through the condensers, the warmed water is discharged back into the Ou achita River approximately 400 feet downstream of the CWIS.
The annual pump hours of operation for the last 5 years (2011 - 2015) are provided in Table 3 - 1 . When either one or both of the circulating water pumps are operated the cooling water system is operating.
50 §122.21(r)(5) Cooling Wate r system data
Proportion of Design Intake Flow for Contact Cooling, Non - contact Cooling, and Process Uses
McClellan employs a once - through system that consists of a condenser for a single generating unit. No flow reduction or flow recirculation measures are used. All but 0.77 MGD of the non - contact cooling water is returned to the Ouachita River. The 0.77 MGD is lost to evaporation in a side - stream spr ay pond.
The two river water pumps are used during normal operations providing a flow of 102.5 MGD (158.6 cfs) of water to the plant. All of this water is for the condensers with 0.77 MGD sent to the side - stream spray pond for evaporation.
McClellan is an electrical generating facility and does not use any water for manufacturing processes.
Proportion of Source Waterbody Withdrawn
McClellan has two cooling water pumps with a combined capacity of 158.2 cfs (71,000 gpm) that withdraw water from the Ouachi ta River. McClellan is a peaking facility and only operates when there is a high energy demand; therefore, the actual intake flow varies greatly through the year. The actual intake flow as a proportion of the monthly river flow from 201 1 through 201 5 is provided in Table 5 - 1 . The maximum percent of river flow withdraw n by McClellan during from 201 1 to 201 5 was 23 %, occurring in October 2011 , while the average was 2.0 %.
51
Table 5 - 1 Percent of River Flow Withdrawn on a Monthly Basis Monthly Monthly Withdrawal River Flow Percent Month (Millions of (Millions of Withdrawn Gallons) Gallons) Jan - 2011 1,457.31 16,647 8.75% Feb - 2011 1,410.36 40,920 3.45% Mar - 2011 - 46,186 0.00% Apr - 2011 1,577.40 371,721 0.42% May - 2011 2,184.26 580,275 0.38% Jun - 2011 2,141.40 248,589 0.86% Jul - 2011 2,042.90 58,088 3.52% Aug - 2011 1,897.20 46,025 4.12% Sep - 2011 1,693.20 30,075 5.63% Oct - 2011 2,045.07 8,658 23.62% Nov - 2011 1,545.00 117,157 1.32% Dec - 2011 1,075.08 281,321 0.38% Jan - 2012 1,452.50 163,623 0.89% Feb - 2012 1,257.90 258,485 0.49% Mar - 2012 111.20 478,687 0.02% Apr - 2012 415.00 164,802 0.25% May - 2012 1,432.40 34,684 4.13% Jun - 2012 2,325.30 25,189 9.23% Jul - 2012 1,874.20 25,046 7.48% Aug - 2012 1,478.50 30,717 4.81% Sep - 2012 1,435.30 38,937 3.69% Oct - 2012 597.00 25,728 2.32% Nov - 2012 - 29,675 0.00% Dec - 2012 655.90 31,879 2.06% Jan - 2013 1,508.90 114,913 1.31% Feb - 2013 1,363.50 94,924 1.44% Mar - 2013 920.80 85,058 1.08% Apr - 2013 1,106.70 206,899 0.53% May - 2013 1,478.40 77,183 1.92% Jun - 2013 1,488.90 463,439 0.32% Jul - 2013 1,352.20 74,017 1.83% Aug - 2013 1,180.00 81,972 1.44% Sep - 2013 1,272.80 60,557 2.10% Oct - 2013 776.40 18,130 4.28% Nov - 2013 609.70 103,311 0.59% Dec - 2013 834.20 311,777 0.27%
52 §122.21(r)(5) Cooling Water system data
Table 5 - 1 (Continued)
Monthly Monthly Withdrawal River Flow Percent Month (Millions of (Millions of Withdrawn Gallons) Gallons) Jan - 2014 476.52 202,976 0.23% Feb - 2014 - 205,775 0.00% Mar - 2014 61.54 194,841 0.03% Apr - 2014 790.40 295,515 0.27% May - 2014 121.53 206,182 0.06% Jun - 2014 929.07 217,952 0.43% Jul - 2014 1,100.55 90,808 1.21% Aug - 2014 1,303.55 106,798 1.22% Sep - 2014 1,121.96 78,843 1.42% Oct - 2014 325.15 62,992 0.52% Nov - 2014 - 36,828 0.00% Dec - 2014 54.68 56,240 0.10% Jan - 2015 1,005.33 182,312 0.55% Feb - 2015 - 115,491 0.00% Mar - 2015 - 961,730 0.00% Apr - 2015 1,593.30 453,033 0.35% May - 2015 - 801,355 0.00% Jun - 2015 1,439.10 369,969 0.39% Jul - 2015 1,447.08 249,818 0.58% Aug - 2015 1,327.42 67,635 1.96% Sep - 2015 1,284.60 30,997 4.14% Oct - 2015 1,026.10 24,728 4.15% Nov - 2015 - 173,824 0.00% Dec - 2015 - 642,034 0.00%
Intake Velocities
Velocities within the Ouachita River water intake were calculated under low water conditi ons (El. 75.33 feet) for two pump operations. The invert at the trash rack is El. 71 feet , and the invert at the traveling water screens is El. 62.9 feet. An open area of 91 % was estimated for the trash racks. The open area of the traveling water screen was assumed to be 44% based on information from s imilar screens . These open areas were used to calculate the through - screen velocities and are summarized in Table 5 - 2 . Example velocity calculations for two pump operation are provided in Appendix Error! Reference sourc e not found. .
53
Table 5 - 2 McClellan River Intake Velocities
Velocity (ft/sec)
Through Approaching Approaching Through Traveling Water Trash Traveling Trash Racks Screen Racks Water Screen
Two pump operations 1.7 1.82 0.65 1.47 (72000 gpm)
Existing IM&E Reduction Measures
McClellan employs standard through - flow traveling water screens that do not have fish protection features that reduce impingement mortality and entrainment ( IM&E ) . The actual intake flow over the last 5 years has been a maximum of 37 % of the design intake flow ; therefore , the oper ation of McClellan reduces IM&E by 60 % or more from maximum design operating conditions.
54 122.21(r)(6) chosen method of compliance with impingement mortality impingement standard
6 122.21( r )(6) CHOSEN METHOD O F COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MOR TALITY IMPINGEMENT STANDARD
The Rule at § 122.21(r)(6) requires AECC to discuss the chosen method of compliance with the impingement mortality standard for McClellan . Facilities must either select one of the seven alternatives at § 125.95(c)(1) through (7) unless the facilities qualify for an exemption or less stringent stand ard. The owner/operator must identify the chosen compliance method for the entire facility; alternatively, the applicant must identify the chosen compliance method for each cooling water intake structure at its facility . For impingement mortality reducti on BTA for the McClellan CWIS, AECC believes that McClellan qualifies for an exemption based on having a “ d e minimis rate of impingement” as discussed §125.94(c)(11) of the Rule. The Rule at §125.94(c)(11) states “ In limited circumstances, rates of impinge ment may be so low at a facility that additional impingement controls may not be justified. The Director, based on review of site - specific data submitted under 40 CFR 122.21(r), may conclude that the documented rate of impingement at the cooling water int ake is so low that no additional controls are warranted. For threatened or endangered species, all unauthorized take is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Notice of a determination that no additional impingement co ntrols are warranted must be included in the draft or proposed permit and the Director’s response to all comments on this determination must be included in the record for the final permit.” AECC initiated an impingement study at McClellan for the purpose of complying with the now remanded Phase II §316(b) Rule. The study was conducted during 2006 beginning on January 5 and concluding on December 19 , 2006. Sampling was performed over a 24 hour period every other week for a total of 2 5 impi ngement sampling events. As shown in Table 6 - 1 a total of five live impinged fish were collected over the one year study that weighted a total of 14.3 grams. Gizzard Shad was the dominant species collected and made up 40 % of the live fish impinged while only a single individual of the three other impinged live species w ere collected that included a B lack C rappie, a F lathead C atfish and a shiner that could not be identified to species. Based on actual 2006 cooling water flows annual impingement was estima ted to be zero “0” for live finfish. The reason for the zero live fish impingement estimate under actual intake flow is that on 15 of the 25 impingement sampling events, the facility was operating, while on the other 10 sampling events McClellan was not i n operation . T he only reason the cooling water pumps were turned on for the other 10 sampling events was for the purpose of collecting an impingement sample in order to estimate annual impingement under design flow conductions. The five live impinged fis h collected over the one year study were all collected when the cooling water pumps would not have been in operation.
55
120 )
D Baseline Flow A ctual Flow
G 100 M ( 80 e t a
R 60
w
o 40 l F
e 20 k a t 0 n I 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1
Figure 6 - 1 McClellan cooling water flow during the 2006 impingement study
In addition to live fish, a n estimated total of 41 dead on arrival fish (DOA) were impinged (Table 6 - 1) . They consisted of 38 Gizzard Shad, one Channel Catfish, a sunfish and a species of fish that could not be identified. The Bailey CWIS may or may not hav e contributed to their mortality. Of the 41 DOA fish collected, assuming McClellan’s CWIS did contribute to their mortality, the annual estimate of impingement under actual intake flow operations would be nine (9) fish per year or 0.75 finfish per month .
Table 6 - 1 Species and numbers of fish collected at Bailey over the one year impingement study conducted in 2006
Number of Total Number of Live Number of Dead Impinged Impinged Species Impinged % All Fish Fish Fish Fish Collected Collected Collected 2006 2006 2006 Gizzard Shad 38 2 4 0 87 . 0% Channel Catfish 1 1 2.2 % Lepomis sp. 1 1 2.2 % Unidentified 1 1 2.2 % Black Crappie 1 1 2.2 % Flathead Catfish 1 1 2.2 % Shiner sp. 1 1 2.2 % Total Fish 4 1 5 46 100. 2 0%
56 122.21(r)(6) chosen method of compliance with impingement mortality impingement standard
A total of 410 shellfish were also collected during the study. The majority were two invasive bivalve species, Z ebra M ussel (49.3%) and Asian C lam ( 48.3 %) that together accounted for 97.6% of the impinged shellfish (see Section 3.2.3 of Burns and McDonnell 2007) . The estimated number of shellfish impinged under normal operations was 1,475. However, t he definition of “all life stages of fish and shellfish” at §125.92(b) of the Rule s tates :
“ … means eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults. It does not include members of the infraclass Cirripedia in the subphylum Crustacea (barnacles), green mussels (Perna viridis), or zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). The Director may determine that all life stages of fish and she llfish does not include other specified nuisance species.”
Thus , the definition specifically allows Z ebra M ussels to be excluded from the number of shellfish impinged. The adjusted shellfish impingement number with zebra mussels excluded is 590 under n ormal operations. AECC also requests that ADEQ designate Asian Clams as a nuisance species since they are an exotic invasive species that compete with native freshwater bivalves for food and habitat and have been known to clog condenser tubes and cause ou tages in power plants. If Asian C lams are excluded , then under normal facility operations , zero (0) shellfish were entrained at McClellan.
Actual McClellan water flow during the 2006 study was 12,390 million gallons. This is directly comparable to McCl ellan’s average annual facility flow of 12,281 million gallons over the past five years (see Table 3 - 1 in Chapter 3) , and therefore , the study is representative of current operations.
None of the finfish collected in the 2006 study were federally threate ned or endangered species. As noted in the §122.21(r)(4)(vi) information in Chapter 4, t he USFWS website and other resources were checked for the presence of f ederally protected threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. No federal ly threatened and endangered finfish or their designated critical habitat were identified for the Ouachita River. However , five species of federally protected freshwater mussel species were identified as being potentially present in the vicinity of McClellan that included: Ouachita Rock Pocketbook ( Arkansia wheeleri) – Endangered Spectaclecase ( Cumberlandia monodonta) – Endangered Pink Mucket ( Lampsilis abrupta) – Endangered Rabbitsfoot ( Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical) – Threatened Winged Maplelea f ( Streptanthus hyacinthoides) – Endangered
For four of the five species (Pink Mucket, Ouachita R ock P ocketbook, Rabbitsfoot and Winged Mapleleaf) , the literature survey found no observation reference that any of these four species were found in the vicin ity of McClellan. For the Spectaclecase mussel, a single individual was reported collected approximately five miles upstream of McClellan. Designated critical habitat for the Ouachita River was listed for only the Rabbitsfoot. That designated critical habitat extends from the confluence of the Little Missouri River with the Ouachita River at RM 385 downstream to RM 332.4. McClellan’s CWIS is located almost five miles downstream of that at RM 327.5. During impingement monitoring at the McClellan CWIS, only one mussel was impinged , but it was not identified.
57
Based on the following consideration , it is expected that no more than minor detrimental effects to f ederally - listed species and designated critical habitat are likely to occur as a result of the operation of the McClellan CWIS. This is supported by: no impingement of finfish , eliminating risk of any f ederally protected species glochidia attached to the gills of impinged fish, no impingement of shellfish, including any f ederally protected shellfis h, t he small percentage of water withdrawn from the Ouachita River flowing past the CWIS (i.e., average is 1.8%) , and current operations over the past five years have average d approximately a third of the maximum design flow.
To inform the §316(b) Rulema king , EPRI conducted a study of annual impingement levels and collected the results of 165 impingement studies conducted for compliance with the Phase II Rule ( Technical Report 1019861, July 2011 ). Table 6 - 2 provides the distribution of annual fish impingement for those studies. For the 5% of facilities with the lowest annual impingement , the estimated annual impingement was 1 , 045 finfish/year. Based on the estimated annual impingement under current operations and no significant risk posed to f eder ally protected threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat , McClellan should qualify for the low level impingement exemption at §125.94(c)(11) , and no additional controls should be warranted. The complete report on the 2006 impingement stu dy is provided as Appendix A
Table 6 - 2 Impingement level distribution in percentage of number of impinged fish annually for 165 facilities in EPRI database No. of Fish % of No. of Impinged Facilities Facilities 1045 0% - 5% 10 1772 5% - 10% 8 8079 10% - 25% 25 59,318 25% - 50% 41 262,602 50% - 75% 40 1,622,137 75% - 90% 24 >90% 17
58 122.21(r)(7) Entrainment performance studies and Director Requirements at 125.98(f)
7 122.21( r )(7) ENTRAINMENT PER FORMANCE STUDIES AND DIRECTOR REQUIRE MENTS AT 125.98(F)
This Chapter provides the §122.21(r)(7) entrainment performance stud y information . Entrainment Performance Studies at §122.21(r)(7) The Rule at 122.21(r)(7) requires AECC to discuss entrainment performance studies for McClellan , if applicable. The §122.21(r)(7) information (i.e., Entrainment Performance Studies) is not considered “applicable” for McClellan , since the entrainment information is not required as the AIF is <125 MGD ( McClellan ’s design intake flow is 102 MGD) , and i t is not listed as required for the impingement mortality BTA determination in the Rule (see Table VIII - 2 of the Rule preamble on page 48362 of the Rule). However, AECC is providing this information. Specifically , the Rule requires , “ The owner or operator of an existing facility must submit any previously conducted studies or studies obtained from other facilities addressing technology efficacy, through - facility entrainment survival, and other entrainment studies. Any such submittals must include a descrip tion of each study, together with underlying data, and a summary of any conclusions or results. Any studies conducted at other locations must include an explanation as to why the data from other locations are relevant and representative of conditions at yo ur facility. In the case of studies more than 10 years old, the applicant must explain why the data are still relevant and representative of conditions at the facility and explain how the data should be interpreted using the definition of entrainment at 40 CFR 125.92(h). ” AECC has never conducted entrainment performance studies at McClellan , nor has it ever been required to do so . EPRI conducted a §316(b) supplemental project that included conducting a literature survey of all impingement and entrainment p erformance studies that could be located in the U.S . The final report for th is literature survey is titled “ Narrative Descriptions of Impingement and Entrainment Survival Studies” ( EPRI 2014). This study identified 16 entrainment survival studies, some o f which were through plant survival studies and some of which were survival after collection on fine - mesh traveling water screens. However, 13 of the studies were conducted at facilities located on oceans and estuaries where species are not representative of the San Juan River . Two of the studies were conducted on the Great Lakes and the other on the Missouri River , and the species listed in those studies are also not considered representative of Ouachita River species .
59
8 122.21( r )(8) OPERATIONAL STA TUS
The Rule at § 122.21(r)(8) requires th at AECC discuss M cClellan’s operational status. Specifically, “the owner or operator of an existing facility must submit a description of the operational status of each generating, production, or process unit that use s cooling water, including but not limited to: (i) For power production or steam generation, descriptions of individual unit operating status including age of each unit, capacity utilization rate (or equivalent) for the previous 5 years, including any extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data for flow, impingement, entrainment, or other factors, including identification of any operating unit with a capacity utilization rate of less than 8 percent averaged over a 24 - month block c ontiguous period, and any major upgrades completed within the last 15 years, including but not limited to boiler replacement, condenser replacement, turbine replacement, or changes to fuel type;
(ii) Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled uprat es and Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing status of each unit at nuclear facilities;
(iii) For process units at your facility that use cooling water other than for power production or steam generation, if you intend to use reductions in flow or cha nges in operations to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 125.94(c), descriptions of individual production processes and product lines, operating status including age of each line, seasonal operation, including any extended or unusual outages that significantl y affect current data for flow, impingement, e ntrainment, or other factors, any major upgrades completed within the last 15 years, and plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacement of process units or production processes and product lines;
(iv) F or all manufacturing facilities, descriptions of current and future production schedules; and
(v) Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years.”
The section provides information on the operation of the McClellan uni t as required by §122.21(r)(8) .
Operating Status
McClellan is an electrical generation facility owned and operated by AECC . The single generating unit at McClellan is rated to produce 134 MW of power. The steam gene rators operate on either gas or oil. The single unit was commissioned in 1972 . For economic reasons , McClellan is considered a peak load facility – which means it should only operate on a limited number of days , primarily during periods of peak energy demand in the summer . The unit is typically shut down and unavailable for operation for two weeks in the spring and two weeks in
60 122.21(r)(8) Operational status
the fall for scheduled maintenance. The average annual capacity factor for McClellan over the past 5 years was 14.24% and is summarized in Table 8 - 1 .
Table 8 - 1 Average Annual Capacity Factor for McClellan Generating Station (2011 - 2015)
Year Unit 1
2011 19.57% 2012 16.98% 2013 18.38% 2014 10.01% 2015 6.25% Average 14.24%
Major Upgrades in Last 15 Years
There were no struct ural upgrades done to the McClellan CWIS in the last 15 years and n o major structural or operational changes are planned for the next 5 years.
Other Cooling Water Uses
The McClellan is a steam electric generating facility and does not use water for manufacturing purposes. Plans or Schedules for New Units within Five Years
There are no plans for new units at the McClellan in the next 5 y ears.
61
9 REFERENCES
316B ICR MCCLELLAN (2000) Questionnaire No: D - UT - 1094, Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures: Traditional Steam Electric Utilities, U.S. E.P.A. Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C. Arkansas Department of Environmental Qu ality (ADEQ). 2013a. Water Division - Water Quality Planning Branch. http://www2.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/default.htm#General
ADEQ. 2013b. Fish Coll ection and Habitat Data Files. Water Division – Water quality Planning Branch. http://www2.adeq.state.ar.us/water/data_fish/fish.aspx
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2015. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Code of Regulations – Commercial Fishing, Turtling, Turtle Farmer and Closure Regulations, Code 30.0, 34.0, and 38.0. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2016. Department of Arkansas Heritage. Av ailable online at: http://www.naturalheritage.com/ . Accessed January 2016.
Baker, J.A. 1984. Fish Studies of the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita Rivers. Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas. Aquatic Habita t Group. Environmental Laboratory. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Burns & McDonnell. 2005. Section 316(b) Proposal for Information Collection for the John L. McClellan Generating Station. Prepared for: Arkansas Electric Cooperat ive Corporation, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Burns & McDonnell. 2007. Section 316(b) Impingement Mortality Characterization Study for the John L. McClellan Generating Station. Prepared for: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Little Rock, Arkansas.
B urns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell ). 2009. Section 316(b) 40 CFR 122.21(r) In formation for the John L. McClellan Generating Station. Prepared for: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation. Report #: 38661. January 2009 Dun can, T.O. & Myers, M.R. Jr. 1978. Movements of Channel Catfish and Flathead Catfish in Beaver Reservoir, Northwest Arkansas. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol XXXII.
62 REFERENCES
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2011. National and Regional Summary o f Impingement and Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish Based on an Industry Survey of Clean Water Act §316(b) Characterization Studies. Technical Report 1019861. July, 2011
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2014. Narrative Descriptions of Impingement and Entrainment Survival Studies. November, 2014
Federal Register (FR). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Neosho Mucket and Rabbitsfoot; Final Rule. Volume 80 (83): 24748 - 24749.
Harris J.L., W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, J.L. Farris, S. Rogers Oetker, J.N. Stoeckel, M. Scott Barnett, H.C. Martin, M.W. Matthews, J.H. Seagraves, N.J. Wentz, R. Winterringer, C. Osborne, and A.D. Christian. 2009. Unionoida (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Union idae) in Arkansas, Third Status Review. Environmental Division, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.
Killgore, Jack, K. Jan Jeffrey Hoover, James P. Kirk, and Larry G. Sanders. 1998. Effects of Grand Prairie I rrigation Project on Fishes of the White River and Tributaries. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. April 1998.
Link - Belt Manual: Models 45A and 46A Traveling Water Screens, FMC Corporation Li nk - Belt Engineering Group, Chicago, IL
Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. 372 pp.
Posey, William, R., John L. Harris, and George L. Harp. 1996. An Evaluation of the Mussel Community in the Lower Ouachita River. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. August 1996.
Raymond, L.R. 1975. Fishes of the Hill Province Section of the Ouachita Ri v er, from Remmel Dam to the Arkansas - Louisiana Line. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Louisiana University, Mo nroe, Louisiana.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Navigation Charts; Ouachita and Black Rivers. Camden Arkansas to Red River, Louisiana. Mile 332 to Mile 0 P.P.R.M. USACE Vicksburg, MI
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U SEPA). 2014. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities; Final Rule.
63
United States Fish and Wildl ife Services. 2016. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ . Accessed January 2016.
Wise, J., S. Filipek, J. Giese, Bill Keith, and D. Turman. 1993. A surv ey of the fish community in the lower Ouachita River. Arkansas. Lower Ouachita River Group. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
64
A SECTION 316(B) IMPIN GEMENT MORTALITY CHARACTERIZATION STU DY FOR THE JOHN L. MCCLELLAN GE NERATING STATION
A - 1
Section 316(b ) Impingement Mortality Characterization Study for the John L. McClellan Generating Station
Prepared for
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
August 200 7
Section 316(b) Impingement Mortality Characterization Study for t he John L. McClellan Generating Station
Prepared for: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Little Rock , Arkansas
Prepared by:
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Engineers - Architects - Consultants Kansas City, Missouri
38661
A ugust 2007
COPYRIGHT © 200 7 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC . John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arkansas Electri c Cooperative Corporation of Little Rock, Arkansas , owns and operates the John L. McClellan Gen erating Station ( McClellan), which is located near Camden , Arkansas , on the southwest bank of the Ouachita River. This 134 - megawatt generating station uses onc e - through cooling with the Ouachita River as the source and receiver of cooling system circulating water. The McClellan has one, gas - and oil - fired steam electric unit and two circulating water pumps with a total design intake capacity of 71 ,000 gallons per minute or 102 million gallons per day . The common intake structure is equipped with two, ⅜ - inch mesh traveling screens.
An impingement mortality characterization study was conducted to determine the Section 316(b) calculation baseline for the McClellan ’s cooling water intake structures as req uired by the Phase II regulations issued in July 2004. Soon after issuance, these regulations were challenged by numerous environmental organizations and some states. These challenges were consolidated in the U nited S tates Second Circuit Court of Appeals as Riverkeeper, Inc v. EPA , Inc v. EPA , Nos. 04 - 6692 - ag(L) et al. (2d Cir. 2007) , now known as Riverkeeper II. The decision for Riverkeeper II was published on January 25, 2007. Many aspects of the Phase II rules were remanded or ruled impermissible . As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suspended the Phase II Rule (§ 125 Subpart J) on March 20, 2007. The following impingement study was conducted under the Phase II regulations prior to the court decision. While the future of the regul ation is unknown at this time, the data presented in this report will likely be useful in determining compliance with revised Secti on 316(b), Phase II regulations.
The basic procedure s for impingement monitoring were to collect , separate, and record the fi sh and shellfish in the traveling screen wash water over a period o f 24 hours. Sampling was performed every other week over 1 2 months resulting in a total of 2 5 sampling events. Annual impingement rates were estimated for the actual operation of McClella n during the study period and for “ baseline ” full - load operations. Because McClellan is capable of base - load operations, the latter annual impingement rate was considered to be the calculation baseline.
Twenty - five impi ngement samples were obtained during the study resu lting in the collection of five fish from the McClellan intake that were considered to be alive when impinged . The estimated annual impingement rate under baseline operations during the 25 sampling events amounted to 41 fish . The to tal biomass of fish collected from the McClellan intake was 14. 3 gram s ( g) . Annual estimat ed biomass impingement for baseline operations was 124 g. Four species of fish were impinged . Gizzard shad made up 40 .0 percent of the ca tch, followed by black crappie at 20.0 percent, flathead catfish at 20.0 percent, and shiner species at 20.0 percent . All impingement of live fish occurred in January and March .
i John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 - 1 1.1 SECTION 316( b ) REGULATIONS ...... 1 - 1 1.2 HISTORICAL STUDIES ...... 1 - 3 1.2.1 FISH STUDIES OF THE OUACHITA RIVER BASIN - 1984 ...... 1 - 3 1.2.2 LOWER OUACHITA RIVER GROUP STUDY - 1993 ...... 1 - 5 1.2.3 FISHERIES BASELINE CHARAC TERIZATION STUDY – OCTOBER 1998 ...... 1 - 6 1.2.4 EVALUATION OF THE MUSSEL COMMUNITY IN THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER - 1996 ...... 1 - 7 2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 2 - 1 2.1 IMPINGEMENT SAMPLING ...... 2 - 1 2.2 CALCULATION OF IMPIN GEMENT RATES AND TOT ALS ...... 2 - 2 2.3 OUTAGES AND PUMP ADJ USTMENTS ...... 2 - 2 2.4 OTHER SITE - SPECIFIC DATA ...... 2 - 3 2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QU ALITY CONTROL ...... 2 - 4 3.0 RESULTS ...... 3 - 1 3.1 INTAKE RATES ...... 3 - 1 3.2 IMPINGEMENT ...... 3 - 1 3.2.1 Live Fish ...... 3 - 1 3.2.1.1 Species Composition ...... 3 - 2 3.2.1.2 Biomass ...... 3 - 3 3.2.2 DOA Fish ...... 3 - 4 3.2.3 Shellfish ...... 3 - 5 3.3 PHYSICAL DATA ...... 3 - 6 3.3.1 Temperature ...... 3 - 6 3.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen ...... 3 - 7 3.3.3 River Flow ...... 3 - 8 4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 4 - 1 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 5 - 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page Figure 1 - 1 Location of the John L. McClellan Generating Station ...... 1 - 1 Figure 3 - 1 Baseline and Actual Intake Rates During the Impingement Study Period ...... 3 - 1 Figure 3 - 2 Impingement of Live Fish by Sampling Date ...... 3 - 2 Figure 3 - 3 Estimated Daily Live Fish Impingement ...... 3 - 2 Figure 3 - 4 Species Composition of Live Fish Impinged ...... 3 - 3 Figure 3 - 5 Biomass Impinged by Sampling Date ...... 3 - 3 Figure 3 - 6 Estimated Daily Biomass Impingement ...... 3 - 4 Figure 3 - 7 Species Composition of Biomass Impinged ...... 3 - 4 Figure 3 - 8 Estimated Daily DOA Impinge ment ...... 3 - 5
ii John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Figure 3 - 9 Species Composition of DOA Fish Impinged ...... 3 - 5 Figure 3 - 10 Species Composition of Shellfish Impinged ...... 3 - 6 Figure 3 - 11 Estimated Daily Shellfish Impingement ...... 3 - 6 Figure 3 - 12 Water and Air Temperatures and Fish Impingement ...... 3 - 7 Figure 3 - 13 Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Impingement ...... 3 - 7 Figure 3 - 14 River Flow and Fish Impingement ...... 3 - 8
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page Table 1 - 1 Fish Collections from the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of the McClellan Generating Station ...... 1 - 4 Table 1 - 2 Native Freshwater Mussel Species in the Lower Ouachita River ...... 1 - 7 Table 2 - 1 Typical Op eration of Circulating Water pumps Under “Baseline” Full Load Conditions ...... 2 - 3 Table 3 - 1 Live Species Impinged ...... 3 - 2 Table 3 - 2 DOA Species Impinged ...... 3 - 4
APPENDICES Appendix A Impingement Data
Appendix B Water Quality Measurements
Appendix C A ctual Daily Intake Rates
iii John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
1.0 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) of Little Rock, Arkansas owns and operates the John L. McC lellan Generating Station ( McClellan), which is located near Camden , Arkansas , o n the southwest bank of the Ouachita River ( Figure 1 - 1). This 134 - megawatt generating station uses once - through cooling with the Ouachita River as the source and receiver of cooling system circulating water. McCle llan has one , gas - and oil - fired steam electric unit and two circulating water pumps with a total design intake capacity of 71 ,000 gallons per minute (gpm) or 102 million gallons per day (MGD). The common intake structure is equipped with two , ⅜ - inch mesh traveling scree ns .
Figure 1 - 1 Location of the John L. McClellan Generating Station
1.1 S ECTION 316 ( b ) REGULATIONS In July 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Phase II regulations implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. These rules established national performance standard s for existing electric generating facilities that with draw 50 MGD or more from waters of the United States for cooling. The Phase II rules stated that facilities must reduce impingement mortality of fish and shellfish 80 to 95 percent from the calculatio n
1 - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
baseline (40 CFR 125.94(b)(1)). Facilities that also withdraw water from an ocean, a tidally influenced waterbody, a Great Lake, or take more than five percent of the average annual flow of a freshwater river or stream must also reduce entrainment of fi sh and shellfish early life stages by 60 to 90 percent of the calculation baseline (§ 125.94(b)(2)). The calculation baseline is either the facility’s actual impingement mortality and/or entrainment, or the predicted impingement mortality and/or entrainme nt assuming the facility had a shoreline intake with standard ⅜ - inch mesh traveling screens and no other controls to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment (§ 125.93).
The average annual flow in the Ouachita River at the site is approximately 7,249 c ubic feet per second (cfs) ( 4,679 MGD) based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 07362 000, Ouachita River at Camden, Arkansas, from 1994 through 2003. McClellan’s design intake rate is 2.2 percent of the river’s average annual flow. As a result , the facility is only subject to the Section 316(b) Phase II impingement mortality reduction standard.
The Section 316(b), Phase II rules provided numerous options to compl y with the national performance standards for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment. The impingement and entrainment standards could be met by reducing the design intake rate to that commensurate with closed - cycle cooling (§ 125.94(a)(1)(i)). Re ducing intake through - screen velocity to no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) was also deemed to comply with the impingement mortality standard (§ 125.94(a)(1)(ii)). Other technological, operational, or restoration measures could also be used to provide compliance with the applicable performance standards demonstrated (§ 125.94(a)(2), (3), (4)). The regulations also allowed for a reduction of the performance standards if the site - specific cost of compliance was “significantly” greater than the mone tary benefits to the natural resources (cost/benefit test, § 125.94(a)(5)(ii)). Similarly, a reduction in the performance standards was allowed if the actual cost of compliance was “significantly” greater than the facility - specific compliance cost estimat ed by the EPA during development of the rules (cost/cost test, § 125.94(a)(5)(i)).
Soon after issuance, these regulations were challenged by numerous environmental organizations and some states. These challenges were consolidated in the U nited S tates Seco nd Circuit Court of Appeals as Riverkeeper, Inc v. EPA , Inc v. EPA , Nos. 04 - 6692 - ag(L) et al. (2d Cir. 2007) , now known as Riverkeeper II. The decision for Riverkeeper II was published on January 25, 2007. Many aspects of the Phase II rules were remanded or ruled impermissible. A dominant theme in the ruling was the inconsistency of the rules with the concept of b est t echnology a vailable (BTA) that was used in the Section 316(b) statute. Under this concept, the cost of compliance can only be considered in determining BTA if the cost would produce an undue burden on the industry as a whole. The impact of cost on individual facilities is not a permissible consideration. The court concluded that the ranges in the performance standards would allow individu al facilities to use compliance measures that were not truly BTA . The court also found that the development of the performance standards seemed to have been aimed at allowing facilities to use compliance measures that were less costly than the accepted BT A of reducing intake rate to that commensurate with closed - cycle cooling (i.e., retro - fitting cooling towers). The court remanded the performance standards back to the EPA , thereby nullifying the bulk of the Phase II provisions. Based on the concept of B TA, the court also found that the cost/benefit test for a site - specific determination of BTA was impermissible. The use of restoration as a compliance measure was ruled impermissible because the statute requires the design, operation,
1 - 2 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
and location of the intake structure to mini mize impacts to aquatic life. Finally, t he court also remanded the cost/cost test for determining site - specific BTA because the EPA cost estimates were not included in the draft rules that were provided for public comment. The court also suggested the cost/cost test might also not comply with the BTA concept.
As discussed above, most of the Section 316(b), Phase II regulations were remanded or deemed impermissible by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals . As a resul t, the EPA suspended the Phase II Rule (§ 125 Subpart J) on March 20, 2007. The following impingement study was done under the Phase II regulations prior to the court decision. While the future of the regulation is unknown at this time, the data presente d in this report will likely be useful in determining compliance with revised Section 316(b), Phase II regulations
1.2 HISTORICAL STUDIES A summary of the historical fisheries studies conducted for McClellan i s required by § 125.95(b)(1)(ii). The following is a summary of the historical fisheries studies conducted for or in the vicinity of McClellan . These data alone , however, do not provide the necessary detailed information on species composition and temporal abundance from the immediate v icinity of the intake necessary to estimate the calculation baseline for McClellan .
1.2.1 FISH STUDIES OF THE OUACHITA RIVER BASIN - 1984 Baker (1984) describes the species composition and relative abundance of the fish communities in the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita r ivers. N ine sites were sample d on the Ouachita River, of which eight were between Remmel Dam and above the Louisiana state line (Table 1 - 1) . Site s 4 and 5 were located near McClellan . Site 4 was located five to seven miles downstream of Camden, Arkansas. Site 5 was located on the Ouachita River at the confluence with the Little Missouri River. The e mphasis of this study was on determining the status of game fish populations. This study also provide d descriptions of sam ple sites, condition factors of select species, catch per unit effort for number and weight, and a diversity index for each site. Fish were collected using a boa t - mounted electroshocker, experimental gill nets, hoop nets, seines an d a backpack electroshocker. At S ites 4 and 5, three samples were collected using experimental gill nets , six samples were collected using a boat electroshocker, six samples were collec ted with 3 - foot diameter hoop nets, and six samples were collected using a 15 – foot long, ⅛ - inch mesh seine.
A total of 2 6 species were collected at Site 4 and 3 0 species were collected at Site 5. The most common species found at Site 4 were the blacktail shiner, threadfin shad , and steelcolor shiner. The most common species at Site 5 were blacktail shiner, steelcolor shiner, and bigeye shiner.
1 - 3 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Table 1 - 1 Fish Collections from the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of the McClellan Generating Station Study Raymond (1975) 1 Baker (1984) 1 Wise et al. 1993 Year 1972 - 1975 1984 1984 1991 2 1992 3 1992 3 1991 2 1992 3 Scientific Name Common Name Site 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring 1 1 Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass 5 Ammocrypta vivax Scaly sand darter 16 2 3 1 2 Anguilla rostrata American eel 2 3 2 2 2 2 Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch 8 2 Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 4 1 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 296 4 1 6 2 1 Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker 1 2 Carpoides cyprinus Quillback 2 Crystallaria asprella Crystal darter 13 1 Cyprinela venustus Blacktail shiner 422 61 135 50 1 4.5 4 2 5 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 Cyrpinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 1593 20 69 20 3 4 8 3.5 4 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 6 3 6 4 7 3 4 4 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 51 118 6 2 2 Elassoma zonatum Banded pygmy sunfish 1 Erimystax x-puntatus Gravel chub 1065 2 7 Esox americanus Grass pickerel 1 1 2 Etheostoma asprigene Mud darter 2 Etheostoma bennioides Greenside darter 9 Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose darter 9 1 Etheostoma collettei Creole darter 10 1 Etheostoma histrio Harlequin darter 11 2 5 Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly darter 16 1 Etheostoma stigmaeum Speckled darter 95 1 1 Etheostoma whipplei Redfin darter 34 Etheostoma zonale Banded darter 158 8 Fundulus catenatus Northern studfish 2 Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow 1 1 6 Fundulus notatus Blackstripe topminnow 2.5 Fundulus notti Southern starhead topminnow 2 Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted topminnow 16 2.5 2 4 2 6 Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish 111 1 9 2 1 3 Hiodon tergisus Mooneye 1 Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi silvery minnow 31 1 58 4 7 2 Hypentelium nugricans Nothern hog sucker 25 1 4 1.5 Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish 2 2 Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead 1 Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish 31 2 16 2 2 2 2 2 Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo 1 1 2 2 Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo 2 3 2.5 Ictiobus niger Black buffalo 3 Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside 351 11 14 2 4 2.5 5 Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar 1 3 2.5 2 3 5 Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 3 1 5 2 1 2 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 3 Lepomis macrohirus Bluegill 28 2 1 3 3 4.5 4 2 4.5 Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 534 1 4 3 5 8 4 5.5 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 1 2 3 2 Lepomis miniatus Redspotted sunfish 1.5 2 2 Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon shiner 1 Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin shiner 6 1 Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver chub 7 Menidia beryllina Inland silverside 2 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 4 1 - 4 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Table 1 - 1 Fish Collections from the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of the McClellan Generating Station (continued) Study Raymond (1975) 1 Baker (1984) 1 Wise et al. 1993 Year 1972 - 1975 1984 1984 1991 2 1992 3 1992 3 1991 2 1992 3 Scientific Name Common Name Site 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 46 2 13 5 3 3.5 7 2.5 4.5 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 8 1 3 2.5 5 4 3 3.5 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 3 2 3 2 Morone chrysops White bass 2 Mosostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse 115 5 4 2.5 6 2.5 2 Moturus miurus Brindled madtom 106 Moxostoma carinatum River redhorse 7 2 4 Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail redhorse 5 3 2 4 2 2.5 2 Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner 2 2 Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 423 22 11 2 3 2 1 2.5 Notropis boops Bigeye shiner 4585 10 20 4 Notropis chrysocephalus Common shiner 4 Notropis rubellus Rosyface shiner 19 Notropis texanus Weed shiner 2 Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner 35 Noturus eleutherus Mountain madtom 16 5 Noturus nocturnus Freckled madtom 1 Opsopeodus emiliae Pugnosed minnow 16 1 Percia caprodes Logperch 21 3 2 2 Percian maculata Blackside darter 2 1 Percina copelandi Channel darter 575 2 2 5.5 Percina sciera Dusky darter 8 2 1 Percina uranidea Stargazing darter 5 Percina vigil Saddleback darter 3 Pimphales notatus Bluntnoseminnow 437 4 5 Pimphales vigilax Bullhead minnow 154 9 2 4 4.5 Polyodon spathula Paddlefish 1 Pomoxis annularis White crappie 1 2 1 2 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 Pylodictus olivaris Flathead catfish 1 3 2 2 Stizostedion vitreum Walleye 9 Total Number of Species 86 71 11 26 30 39 25 34 26 31 1 Values are number of specimens collected 2 Values are relative abundance scores with 1 = rare, 2 = present, 3 = common, and 4 = abundant 3 Values are the combined relative abundance scores of young and subadults plus adults
1.2.2 LOWER OUACHITA RIVER GROUP STUDY - 1993 Wise et al. (1993) summarized work on the lower Ouachita River by Raymond (1975) , Baker (1984) , and by the Lower Ouachita River Work Group conducted in 1991 and 1992. The Lower Ouachita River Work Group members belong to state and federal agencies, universities, and private consulting firms. The group was formed to help discover possible problems conc erning the river’s health and to find solutions to these problems.
The Lower Ouachita River Work Group sampled fish along nine s ites of the lower Ouachita River in Arkansas. T hree of the sample sites (4 , 4a, and 5) bracketed Camden. Site 4a, located down stream of the Little Missouri confluence and closest to McClellan , was sampled in August of 1992 using two boat electro shockers and a backpack electro shocker with a seine. S ite 4b was at Camden, 2.4 to 4.8 k ilo m eters above the Arkansas State Highway 7 Bri dge . This site was
1 - 5 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
sampled in July of 1991 using one boat electro shocker and a backpack electro sho cker and again in J uly of 1992 using two boat electro shockers and a backpack electro shocker with seine. Site 5 , located just below the confluence of West Tw o Bayou , was sampled in July 1991 and July 1992. The s ampling gear used at Site 5 include d a boat electro shocker, backpack electro shocker with seine, and gill nets.
Relative a bundance s core s w ere determined for each species at each sampling site and year . Relative a bundance s cores are a numerical ranking with “1” equal rare; “2” equal present; “3” equal common; and “4” equal abundant. This scale was used in 1991 for young, subadults, and adults combined. In 1992, two scores were determined, one for you ng and subadults and one for adults. The two scores were then added together to create an eight - point scale.
For Sites 4, 4a, and 5, 54 species were collected during the two years of sampling (Table 1 - 1). A t S ite 4 , 39 species were collected in 1991 and 25 were collected in 1992. The 1992 sample had more threadfin and gizzard shad and less diversity than the previous year. In general, the most common species at Site 4 were central stoneroller, steelcolor shiner, gizzard shad, Mississippi silvery minnow, and golden redhorse. Thirty - four species were collected at Site 4a in 1992. Abundant species at this site were steelcolor shiner, gravel chub, banded darter, longear sunfish, and spotted bass. At Site 5, a total of 36 species were collected over the tw o years of sampling. Steelcolor shiner, gizzard shad, and longear sunfish were the most abundant species at this site.
The collections by Baker (1984) and Wise et al. (1993) had roughly comparable levels of sampling effort. Species richness at t he sites in the vicinity of McClellan ranged from 25 to 39 and averaged 30. This relatively tight range of species richness occurred despite the fact that sampling efforts were not identical, the sample sites were not identical, and the samples were collected 10 y ears apart. The species richness at Raymond’s (1975) Sites 13 and 14 were 71 and 11, respectively, and differ considerably from Baker (1984) and Wise et al. (1993) (Table 1 - 1). This difference was likely a result of sampling effort and habitat. Site 13 was sampled 11 times while site 14, which was in a backwater, was only sampled twice.
1.2.3 FISHERIES BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY – OCTOBER 1998 This study (Burns & McDonnell 1998) was done to characterize the fish community and structure that could be impac ted by the Carpenter - Remmel hydropower facility that is located on the Ouachita River and owned and operated by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Ninety data sets were compiled from 67 different locations in the study area that included the Ouachita River, the Salin e River, and Lakes Hamilton and Catherine and their tributaries. Twelve of the sample sites were located on the main stem of the Ouachita River.
The study also characterized distributions of threatened or endangered species, state species of concern, species richness and lake stock densities. The upstream sites on the Ouachita River had lower species diversity and the lower downstream sites had th e highest. The study suggested that the Remmel D am and lake system did not have a major impact on fisheries downstream in the Ouachita River.
1 - 6 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
1.2.4 EVALUATION OF THE MUSSEL COMMUNITY IN THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER - 1996 This study (Posey 1996) characterize d the mussel species composition in the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam to the Louisiana s tate l ine. Searches were performed by a diver and were aimed toward finding locations where densities were 10 mussels per square meter or higher. Sixty - one mussel beds were located on the lower Ouachita River. Thirty - six species were collected during the survey (Table 1 - 2) . Of these species, t he southern mapleleaf had not been recorded in the Ouachita River since 1918, and the pink mucket, Ouachita rock pocketbook, and winged mapleleaf are currently federally endangered species.
Table 1 - 2 Native Freshwater Mussel Species in the Lower Ouachita River Species Scientific Name Federal Status Bankclimber Plectomerus dombeyanus Black sandshell Ligumia recta Bleufer Potamilus purpuratus Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata Deertoe Truncilla truncata Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis Fluted shell Lasmigona costata Fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis Giant floater Pyganodon grandis Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria Louisiana fatmucket Lampsilis hydiana Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Monkeyface Quadrula metanevera Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina Ouachita kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita rock pocketbook Arkansia wheeleri Endangered Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Pink papershell Potamilus ohiensis Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Plain pocketbook Lampsilis cardium Southern mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata Winged mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Pyramid pigtoe Pleurobema pyramidatum Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Spike Elliptio dilatata Squawfoot Strophitus undulatus Threehorn wartyback Obliquaria reflexa Threeridge Amblema plicata Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava Wartyback Quadrula nodulata Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Western fanshell Cyprogenia aberti Yellow sandshell Lampsilis teres Source: Posey (1996)
1 - 7 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 2.1 IMPINGEMENT SAMPLING The purpose of the impingement mortality characterization stud y was to determine the Section 316(b) calculation baseline for the cooling water intake structure at McClellan .
The basic procedure s for impingement monitoring was to collect , separate , and record the fish and shellfish in the traveling screen wash water o ver a period o f 24 hours. Sampling started on 5 January 2006 and w as performed every other week (bi - weekly) over 12 months , except during the scheduled maintenance outage in mid - October for a total of 25 sampling events. During 12 of the sampling events , mainly in winter and spring, McClellen was not generating electricity and the circulating water pumps were run only so impingement sampling could be conducted .
Immediately prior to each sampling even t, the traveling screens were operated through one compl ete cycle to remove the previously accumulated debris, fish, and shellfish. After the initial screen wash, the debris collection basket was placed into the screen wash debris path in such a manner that all screen wash debris was intercepted. The debris c ollection basket was made with ⅜ - inch mesh wir e screen similar to that used in the traveling screens . During the 24 - hour sampling period, the traveling screens operated normally . At the end of the 24 - hour sampling event, the screens were operated through one complete cycle , the collection basket w as removed and emptied , and the fish and shellfish were sorted from the debris.
Each fish was identified to species and counted. A fish board was used to measure total length to the nearest mill imeter ( mm ) (Murphy 1996). Mass was measured using spring scales or a digital scale. Mass was rounded to the nearest gram (g). For fish weighing less tha n 1 g, a weight of 0.5 g was recorded .
Fish collected during impingement sampling that were determin ed to have been dead before being impinged (i.e., “dead on arrival” or DOA) were weighed and measured if still intact; however, these fish we re not included in the impingement rates for McClellan . Fi sh considered to have been DOA exhibit ed cloudy eyes, pa le gill filaments, emaciation, extensive fungal growth, and/or advanced decomposition. In the rare occurrence that partial or dismembered fish that d id not exhibit these characteristics were recovered in the debris basket, heads were matched with tails to prevent over - counting. Because of the difficulty of characterizing impinged fish as moribund (dying) versus healthy before impingement but damaged by impingement, a designation of dead or alive (not moribund) upon impingement was given to each fish. The condition of the fish that were presumably alive when impinged was also noted.
Because freshwater mussels are benthic dwelling organisms, their impingement was considered purely incidental. A ll collected mussels and crayfish , h owever, were counted during each sampling event. The c ondition s of the impinged mussels and shellfish were noted upon collection. Empty shells were not counted .
Voucher specimens for each species of fish and shellfish were collected over the course of the monitoring study . Fish specimens that could not be readily identified in the field were preserved and returned to the laboratory for identification. These specimens , along with the voucher specimens, were retained and preserved in four percent formaldehyde solutio n .
2 - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
2.2 CALCULATION OF IMPIN GEMENT RATES AND TOT ALS In the event that the duration of a sampli ng event deviated from 24 hours , the number of fish collected was prorated to estimate a 24 - hour sampling duration. Impingements totals on days between sampling event s were extrapolated from the nearest observed impingement rate and adjusted for daily intake rate. Impingement rates we re calculated based on the daily flow rate in MGD as :
Impingement r ate (fish/MGD) = T otal number of fish impinged during sample I ntake r ate (MGD)
This baseline was then applied to daily intake rates for one - half of the days before and after the sampling event to estimate the number of fish impinged on the days between sampling events. The estimated annual impingement rate is the sum of the daily estimated impingements from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 200 6 . The Section 316(b) , Phase II impingement performance standard is based on impingement mortality. At McClellan , screen wash debris is not returned to the river ; t herefore, impingement mortality is 100 percent.
The size class distributions and seasonal impingement values were not analyzed for any species of impinged fish because the impingement numbers were too low to evaluate in detail.
2.3 OUTAGES AND P UMP ADJUSTMENTS McClellan is an intermediate to peak load facility and does not operate on many days because of lack of demand for electricity. McClellan can also be shut down for planned maintenance or forced off - line because of malfunctions. A nnual imp ingement rates were calculated for t hree scenarios:
1. A ctual cooling water intake operations that occurred during the study period, including times when the intake was operated solely for the im pingement and entrainment study 2. Operational cooling water intake operations that occurred during the study period, which ex cluding times when the intake was operated solely for the impingement and entrainment study 3. F ull load at all times except for planned outages. Th is operating scenario wa s considered the “baseline practice” for purposes of estimating the impingement mortality calculation baseline (§ 125.93). Typical b aseline cooling water intake operations vary during the year and are defined in Table 2 - 1. The baseline circulating water rates defined in Table 2 - 1 do not necessarily represent the maximum possible intake rate in any given month.
2 - 2 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Table 2 - 1 Typical Operation of Circulating Water pumps Under “Baseline” Full Load Conditions Circulating Intake rate Months water pumps (MGD) January 1 35.14 February 1 35.14 March 1 35.14 April 1 35.14 May 2 70.28 June 2 70.28 July 2 70.28 August 2 70.28 September 2 70.28 October 2 70.28 November 1 35.14 December 1 35.14
2.4 OTHER SITE - SPECIFIC DATA At the end of each sampling event, the total volume of water that passed through the traveling screens during the 24 - hour sampling event was retrieved from plant operating data. In addition, temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the s ource water near the intake were measured during the sampling event with a DO meter ( Oakton Model 3 00 ) and probe.
McClellan is located near Camden , Arkansas . River f low data recorded the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 07362000, Ouachita River at Camden, Arkansas, w ere obtained for the study period. B ased on data from 1994 through 200 3 , t he average annual flow in the Ouachita River at the site wa s approximately 7, 249 cubic feet per second (4, 679 MGD) . Historically, gage heights and di scharge rates were reported up to October 10, 2006. After October 10, 2006 only gage heights were reported. Historical discharge rates were plotted against gage heights and the following relationship was calculated :
y = 0.2107 x 4 - 11.977 x 3 + 228.29 x 2 - 768.35 x
where y equals the estimated discharge rate and x equals the reported gage height . T his equation was used to estimate discharge rates from the reported gage heights from October 11, 2006 through December 31, 2006 .
Daily air temperatures and historical daily ave rage temperatures for the local areas ( El Dorado , Arkansas and Camden , Arkansas ) were obtained from www.weatherunderground.com and www.weather.com .
2 - 3 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CO NTROL The following quality assurance/quality control procedures were implemented for impingement monitoring:
Voucher specimens were retained and preserved for impingement samples ; i f taxonomic identification of a species comes into que stion, the voucher specimen was submitted to an outside expert for verification
All field and laboratory collected data were recorded on site - specific data sheets designed to maximiz e the possibility that required data were collected
Raw data in the electr onic database was back - checked against the original data sheets t o assure accurate transcription
2 - 4 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
3.0 R ESULTS 3.1 INTAKE RATES Daily intake rates at McClellan during the 1 2 - month imping ement study period varied from 0 to 97.12 MGD (Figure 3 - 1) and totaled 1 2, 390 million gallons , of which 11,674 million gallons w ere actually used for cooling . Under baseline conditions , the total cooling water intake would have been 18 , 238 million gallons . Baseline flow conditions of 0 MGD reflect regularly scheduled outages (Figure 3 - 1) .
120 )
D Baseline Flow A ctual Flow
G 100 M ( 80 e t a
R 60
w
o 40 l F
e 20 k a t 0 n I 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1
Figure 3 - 1 Baseline and Actual Intake Rates During the Impingement Study Period
3.2 IMPINGEMENT 3.2.1 Live Fish Twenty - five im pi ngement samples were collected during the study r esu lting in the collection o f five fish from the McClellan intake that were considered to be alive when impinged during the 1 2 - month study period (Figure 3 - 2). Impingement rates were low during the entire study. Impingement occurred only in January and March 2006 when McClellan was offline . The estimated numbe r s of live fish impinged at McClellan annually under o perational and baseline operations were zero and 41 fish , respectively (Figure 3 - 3) .
3 - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
10 Impinged Fish Collected: 5 8 s l
a 6 u d i v
i 4 d n I 2
0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / 5 1 8 8 5 3 0 8 5 2 4 1 9 / 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1 Figure 3 - 2 Impingement of Live Fish by Sampling Date
Figure 3 - 3 Estimated Daily Live Fish Impingement
3.2.1.1 Species Composition Four species of fish considered to be alive when impinged were collected at the McClellan intake (Table 3 - 1). No threatened or endangered species were collected, dead or alive, during the 2 5 sample events. During the 12 - month long study, gizzard shad made up 4 0 .0 percent of the catch, followed by black crappie , flathead catfish, and shiner species at 20.0 percent each (Figure 3 - 4).
Table 3 - 1 Live Species Impinged Common Name Scientific Name Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Flathead catfish Pylodictic olivaris Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Shiner species
3 - 2 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Black crappie 20.0%
Flathead catfish 20.0%
Gizzard shad Shiner 40.0% species 20.0%
Figure 3 - 4 Species Composition of Live Fish Impinged
3.2.1.2 Biomass The total biomass of fish collected from the McClellan intake was 14. 3 g (Figure 3 - 5) over the 12 - month study period . The estimated annual biomass impinged during actual operati ons was 0 g. The estimated annual biomass imp inged assuming baseline operations was 124 g (Figure 3 - 6). Impingement rates based on biomass were highest on March 2 8 , 2006 .
1 5 Impinged Biomass 1 2
) Collected: 14.3 g g
(
s 9 s a m 6 o
i
B 3
0
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / 5 1 8 8 5 3 0 8 5 2 4 1 9 / 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1
1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1 Figure 3 - 5 Biomass Impinged by Sampling Date
Flathead catfish comprised 62.1 percent of the mass sampled and g izzard shad equaled 20.7 percent (Figure 3 - 7) . Black crappie made up 13 .8 percent of the biomass sample followed by shiner species at 3 . 4 percent.
3 - 3 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Figure 3 - 6 Estimated Daily Biomass Impingement
Flathead Gizzard catfish shad 62.1% 20.7%
Black Shiner crappie species 13.8% 3.4%
Figure 3 - 7 Species Composition of Biomass Impinged
3.2.2 DOA Fish During the study, four different species of DOA fish were collec ted at the McClellan intake (Table 3 - 2 ). The estimated annual impinge ment for DOA fish during baseline operations was 21 9 fish (Figure 3 - 8). The actual estimated annual DOA impi ngement during the study when McClellan was operating was 9 fish. The most com monly imping ed DOA species was gizzard shad (Figure 3 - 9). Other species impinged included channel catfish, Lepomis species and one unidentifiable fish .
Table 3 - 2 DOA Species Impinged Common Name Scientific Name Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Lepomis species Lepomis spp. Unidentified
3 - 4 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Figure 3 - 8 Estimated Daily DOA Impingement
Gizzard shad 92.7%
Channel catfish 2.4% Lepomis Unidentified species 2.4% 2.4%
Figure 3 - 9 Species Composition of DOA Fish Impinged
3.2.3 Shellfis h At McClellan , a total of 410 shellfish (includi ng crayfish, native mussels, Asian clams , sna ils and zebra mussels ) were impinged during the 12 - month study. Of these , one w as a native mussel , and eight were crayfish . The majority of shellfish impi nged were non - native species. Z ebra mussels and Asiatic clams made up 97 . 6 percent of the total catch (Figure 3 - 1 0 ). The estimate d annual shellfish impingement under the actual and baseline operating con ditions was 2,058 and 4,979 individuals , respectively (Figure 3 - 1 1 ).
3 - 5 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Asian clam Fi 48.3%
Zebra mussel Crayfish Native 49.3% Snail 1.9% freshwater 0.2% mussel
0.2%
gure 3 - 10 Species Composition of Shellfish Impinged
Figure 3 - 11 Estimated Daily Shellfish Impingement
3.3 PHYSICAL DATA 3.3.1 Temperature Water temperatures on sampling dates ranged from 52 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F ) (Fi gure 3 - 1 2 ) and tended to be above the average daily air temperature 1 . The average air te mperature during the study at El Dorado , Arkansas was 64.8 °F. Air temperature s ranged from 25 to 89 ° F and were near the historical average for the entire year - long study. I mpingement was low throughout the entire study and had no apparent correlation with temperature (Figure 3 - 1 2).
1 Daily a verage air temperature is the average of the daily high and low temperatures.
3 - 6 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
120 Historical Average Daily Air Temperature 0.06 2006 Average Daily Air Temperature 2005-2006 Water Temperature 100 Actual Facility Impingement Rate 0.05 F i ) s h F o
( I
80 0.04 m e r p u i n t
a 60 0.03 g r e e d p / M
m 40 0.02 G e T D 20 0.01
0 0.00 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 8 8 7 7 / / / / 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 / 3 4 5 / / / / / / / / 1 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1 Figure 3 - 12 Water and Air Temperatures and Fish Impingement
3.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen Low DO concentrations can result in fish kills, depletion of zooplankton as a food source for fish, and may increase or decrease plankton and algal blooms. Seasonal changes in DO levels are expected because an inverse relationship exists between the solub ility of oxygen in water and water temperature. During the study period, DO concentrations in the river were generally above those considered adequate for fish (Figure 3 - 13) . On the March 14 sampling event, however, DO was measured at only 3.3 milligrams per liter because of a broken membrane on the DO meter.
12 0.06 DO 10 Impingement 0.05 F i s h ) 8 0.04 l /
I m g p m 0.03 ( 6 i n O g
D 4 0.02 e d
2 0.01
0 0.00 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / 4 1 9 5 1 8 8 5 3 0 8 5 2 / 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1 Figure 3 - 13 Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Impingement
3 - 7 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
3.3.3 River Flow The estimated f low in the Ouachita River at Camden , Arkansas during the impingement study ranged from 631 to 32,500 cfs (Figure 3 - 1 4) and averaged 2, 899 cfs. Impingement rates d id not appear to corre late with the estimated river flow (Figure 3 - 1 4) .
35,000 0.7 F i
30,000 River Flow (cfs) 0.6 s ) h s f Actual Facility Impingement Rate I
25,000 0.5 m c (
p w 20,000 0.4 i n o l g F e 15,000 0.3 r d e / M v
i 10,000 0.2 G R 5,000 0.1 D 0 0.0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 1 1
Figure 3 - 14 River Flow and Fish Impingement
3 - 8 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
4.0 DISCUSSION The calculation baseline for 2006 was 41 fish and 4,979 shellfish. Fifteen of the impingement sampling events occurred when McClellan was generatin g electricity. For the other 10 sampling events, the circulating water pumps were operated solely for measuring impingement so that the calculation baseline could be determined. No fish were impinged during sampling events when the McClellan was online generating electricity. Low impingement rates are expected during summer because fish swimming speed, and resulting ability to evade impi ngement, is proportional to water temperature (Hoar and Randall 1978). The true impingement rate under actual, online, operating conditions in 2006 for the McClellan , therefore, is zero because no fish were impinged when the plant was online generating el ectricity. This impingement rate represents a 100 percent reduction from the calculation baseline. Should McClellan’s operational schedule continue to be the same as in 2006, then McClellan would be in compliance with Section 316(b), Phase II rules for i mpingement mortality reduction as issued in July 2004 .
4 - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
5.0 LITERATURE CITED Baker, J.A. 1984. Fish Studies of the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita Rivers. Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas. Aquatic Habitat Group. Environmental Laboratory. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Burns & McDonnell, Inc. 1998. Fisheries baseline characterization study. Carpenter - Remmel Project. Burns & McDonnell, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri.
Hoar, W.S. and D.J. Randall. 1978. Fish Physiology . Volume VII. Academic Press. New York, New York.
Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries Techniques , second edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Posey, W.R. II. 1996. An evaluation of the mussel community in the lower Ou achita River. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Raymond, L.R. 1975. Fishes of the Hill Province Section of the Ouachita Rier, from Remmel Dam to the Arkansas - Louisiana Line. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe, Louis iana.
Wise, J. , S. Filipek, J. Giese, Bill Keith, and D. Turman. 1993. A survey of the fish community in the lower Ouachita River . Arkansas. Lower Ouachita River Group. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
5 - 1
APPENDICES
John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
APPENDIX A IMPINGEMENT DATA
Table A - 1 Live F ish I mpingement D ata h s s i e e f i i d t c a p a e h p c
p s a
r d s
d c a r
r e * e l k a h z a c n t i t z a a i l h l o
Sample Date B F G S T 1/5/2006 0 0 2 1 3 1/17/2006 0 0 0 0 0 1/31/2006 0 0 0 0 0 2/14/2006 0 0 0 0 0 2/28/2006 1 1 0 0 2 3/14/2006 0 0 0 0 0 3/28/2006 0 0 0 0 0 4/11/2006 0 0 0 0 0 4/25/2006 0 0 0 0 0 5/9/2006 0 0 0 0 0 5/23/2006 0 0 0 0 0 6/6/2006 0 0 0 0 0 6/20/2006 0 0 0 0 0 7/4/2006 0 0 0 0 0 7/18/2006 0 0 0 0 0 8/1/2006 0 0 0 0 0 8/15/2006 0 0 0 0 0 8/29/2006 0 0 0 0 0 9/12/2006 0 0 0 0 0 9/26/2006 0 0 0 0 0 10/24/2006 0 0 0 0 0 11/7/2006 0 0 0 0 0 11/21/2006 0 0 0 0 0 12/5/2006 0 0 0 0 0 12/19/2006 0 0 0 0 0 Total* 1 1 2 1 5 Average* 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.20 *Fish numbers not adjusted for samples other than 24-hours long
A - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corportation
APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Table B - 1 Water Q uality Data Temperature DO Sample Date (°F) (mg/L) 1/5/2006 54.9 7.52 1/17/2006 52.2 5.34 1/31/2006 58.8 11.42 2/14/2006 60.3 10.20 2/28/2006 61.0 8.87 3/14/2006 66.0 3.30 3/28/2006 63.1 4/11/2006 74.1 7.34 4/25/2006 74.5 11.24 5/9/2006 73.0 7.44 5/23/2006 77.0 8.42 6/6/2006 75.7 8.17 6/20/2006 85.8 7.65 7/4/2006 79.5 8.03 7/18/2006 83.8 8.08 8/1/2006 87.1 6.86 8/15/2006 88.5 6.90 8/29/2006 77.9 7.81 9/12/2006 77.2 7.80 9/26/2006 73.2 7.91 10/24/2006 66.9 8.60 11/7/2006 71.8 8.07 11/21/2006 73.8 7.50 12/5/2006 56.1 9.81 12/19/2006 68.9 8.31 Minimum 52.16 3.30 Maximum 88.52 11.42 Average 71.25 8.02
B - 1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Impingement Study Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
APPENDIX C ACTUAL DAILY INTAKE RATES
Table C - 1 Actual D aily I ntake R ates (MGD) 2006 Date January February March April May June July August September October November December 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.17 48.58 97.05 89.76 70.20 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.13 48.48 82.52 89.36 63.80 0.00 89.63 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.74 48.19 78.33 90.79 86.40 0.00 88.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.78 46.33 74.37 77.70 48.19 0.00 41.68 5 50.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.74 49.53 74.68 89.79 93.50 0.00 74.46 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.92 48.38 74.40 91.98 92.01 0.00 61.37 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.93 49.50 73.08 88.01 89.94 60.59 63.95 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.83 77.18 48.71 75.33 88.41 0.00 0.00 61.19 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.30 78.84 48.65 73.07 89.68 0.00 0.00 69.39 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.22 47.34 74.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.34 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.31 0.00 76.94 49.94 76.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.53 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.28 49.16 77.76 85.56 0.00 0.00 52.50 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.94 49.96 71.09 81.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 50.05 57.00 0.00 0.00 74.30 49.35 73.03 82.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.75 0.00 71.76 83.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 0.00 73.45 83.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 23.48 0.00 0.00 64.49 0.00 74.95 0.00 75.28 80.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.27 0.00 76.84 71.00 75.78 81.03 0.00 0.00 57.48 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.46 0.00 52.18 75.88 75.51 85.63 0.00 0.00 44.69 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.98 0.00 45.57 77.44 75.34 81.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.87 0.00 44.52 78.60 72.75 78.44 0.00 73.10 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.13 95.35 45.41 78.86 74.84 76.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.27 92.12 45.88 74.48 72.82 77.11 83.74 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.16 89.52 47.31 88.60 72.13 76.92 81.72 0.00 0.00 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.45 90.45 47.71 78.36 73.36 79.06 84.44 0.00 0.00 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.25 90.77 46.85 77.03 74.84 73.06 70.78 0.00 0.00 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.38 88.87 46.55 78.11 87.87 73.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 0.00 50.37 60.16 0.00 93.56 47.59 76.00 81.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.06 45.23 86.90 78.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.87 46.64 91.04 86.02 73.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 97.12 0.00 75.45 62.42 81.82 0.00 0.00
C - 1 B MCCLELLAN PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION
SECTION 316(b) PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION FOR THE JOHN L. MCCLELLAN GENERATING STATION
November 2005
SECTION 316(b) PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION FOR THE JOHN L. MCCLELLAN GENERATING STATION
Prepared for: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Little Rock, Arkansas
Prepared by: Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Engineers-Architects-Consultants Kansas City, Missouri
38661
November 2005
John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED COMPLIANCE MEASURES ...... 2
3 HISTORICAL FISHERIES REVIEW ...... 5 3.1 FISHES OF THE HILL PROVINCE SECTION OF THE OUACHITA RIVER - 1975 ...... 5 3.2 FISH STUDIES OF THE OUACHITA RIVER BASIN - 1984 ...... 5 3.3 LOWER OUACHITA RIVER GROUP STUDY - 1993 ...... 7 3.4 FISHERIES BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY – OCTOBER 1998...... 8 3.5 EVALUATION OF THE MUSSEL COMMUNITY IN THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER - 1996...... 9 4 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ...... 9
5 IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY CHARACTERIZATION STUDY...... 9 5.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY...... 9 5.2 DATA ANALYSIS...... 12 5.3 PLANT OPERATIONAL AND WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTION...... 12 5.4 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE ...... 12 6 REFERENCES...... 13
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Cost Summaries for the Most Feasible Compliance Alternatives ...... 4 Table 3-1 Fish Collections from the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of the McClellan Generating Station ...... 6 Table 3-2 Native Freshwater Mussel Species in the Lower Ouachita River ...... 10
i John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
1 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) of Little Rock, Arkansas, owns and operates the John L. McClellan Generating Station (McClellan Station) at Camden, Arkansas. The McClellan Station is a one-unit, coal-fired, steam-electric generating station with an output of 134 megawatts (MW). The facility uses a once-through cooling system with the Ouachita River as the source and receiver of cooling system circulating water. The McClellan Station is subject to the Phase II regulations implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. These regulations require existing generating stations with design cooling water intake rates of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or more to demonstrate how they currently or will meet national performance standards to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment of fish and shellfish. As required at 40 CFR 125.95(b)(1), this Proposal for Information Collection is submitted for the McClellan Station.
The McClellan Station has two cooling water pumps with a combined capacity of 71,000 gallons per minute (gpm) or 102 million gallons per day (MGD). Both of these pumps are located within a single intake structure on the shoreline of the Ouachita River. The average annual flow in the Ouachita River at the site is approximately 7,249 cubic feet per second (4,679 MGD) based on data from the U.S. Geological gaging station 07362000, Ouachita River at Camden, Arkansas, 1994 through 2003. The McClellan Station’s design intake rate is 2.2 percent of the river’s average annual flow. As such, the facility is only subject to the Section 316(b) Phase II impingement mortality reduction standard.
Each of the two cooling water intake pumps at the McClellan Station has its own traveling screen. Preliminary calculations indicate that the average through-screen velocity for the McClellan Station’s intake at the low water level is approximately 1.75 feet per second (fps). This velocity is higher than the 0.5 fps velocity that would put the intake in compliance with the impingement mortality reduction standard.
1 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED COMPLIANCE MEASURES This section responds to § 125.95(b)(1)(i). Many technical measures are available that could bring the McClellan Station into compliance with the Section 316(b) Phase II regulation. These include: • Install cooling towers • Expand or replace the existing intake to increase screen area and achieve a through- screen velocity of 0.5 fps or less (e.g., dual-flow screen conversion, adding bays, increasing traveling screen size) • Install cylindrical wedge-wire screens outside of the intake that would have a through- screen velocity of less than 0.5 fps • Install passive screen barriers in front of the intakes to reduce impingement (e.g., rigid screens, net, or filter fabric) that would have a through-screen velocity of less than 0.5 fps • Install new traveling screens equipped with a fish handling system • Offset impingement mortality by replacement (fish stocking) or by increasing aquatic life productivity through habitat restoration • Curtail operations at specific times to avoid episodic occurrences of high fish and shellfish density in the vicinity of the intake • Cease operations totally
Any of the above methods could be used to bring the McClellan Station’s intake into compliance with the Section 316(b) performance standards; however, the technical feasibility and cost- effectiveness of these measures varies greatly. Curtailing or ceasing operations are not viable options because of the prohibitive cost of replacement power. Converting the facility to closed- cycle cooling would have the cost-saving advantage of avoiding a Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) and verification monitoring; however, the costs associated with installation, operation, maintenance, and plant performance reduction would easily reach into the millions of dollars and overwhelm the cost savings.
Preliminary calculations indicate that a dual-flow screen conversion would not add adequate screen area to reduce the through-screen velocity to 0.5 fps or less, unless the intake structure was modified to allow increased screen area. Constructing a new intake or modifying the intake
2 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
by adding bays for more traveling screens could achieve a through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps or less, which would avoid the cost of the CDS and verification monitoring. However, our experience with designing a new intake for a 1,000-MW facility on the Missouri River suggests that intake construction or expansion would also cost millions of dollars.
Cylindrical wedge-wire screens were not considered to be a feasible alternative because of the shallow depth of the Ouachita River outside of the McClellan Station’s intake structure. Data received from AECC indicated the river depth at the intake is approximately 4 feet deep at low flow conditions. This depth is incompatible with the estimate that the McClellan Station’s intake would require two, 66-inch diameter cylindrical screens. This size of screen would require a minimum water depth of 11 feet. Without significant modifications to the river and the intake structure, this option does not appear to be feasible.
The rule also allows consideration of options such as habit restoration and fish stocking. Habitat restoration to increase fish productivity to offset impingement mortality was not considered to be a feasible alternative at this time for several reasons. Increasing spawning habitat through measures such as increasing aquatic vegetation would be the most viable habitat restoration measure; however, considerable uncertainty surrounds determining the amount of area that would need to be restored to offset impingement mortality. As such, long-term monitoring would likely be required to verify that off-setting production is occurring. This monitoring could reveal, many years after the initial habitat restoration, that more restoration is required. Also, at an estimated $5,000 to $25,000 per acre, implementing habitat restoration could be expensive if many acres were required.
For the McClellan Station, fish stocking should be considered as a compliance option. Stocking could also be considered as a “pro-active” compliance option which should have appeal to the public. However, the scope and costs associated with stocking to offset intake impingement cannot be determined until impingement studies have been completed.
Finally, fish stocking and habitat restoration are considered desirable options by some resource agencies. However, the availability of habitat restoration and fish stocking as compliance measures is being challenged in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, Attorneys General from six northeastern states, and others, which have been consolidated in the Second District Court of
3 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
Appeals. The use of restoration measures to comply with Section 316(b) was successfully challenged in the Phase I regulations for new facilities. Precedents, however, exist in the field of environmental law and regulation for treating existing facilities differently from new facilities. Unless and until the court rules otherwise, restoration for existing facilities is allowable under the existing rules and is an alternative that must be considered.
Of those alternatives involving a physical modification to the facility, the two following alternatives have been reviewed in greater detail: • Alternative 1 – Fish Handling System • Alternative 2 – Barrier Screen System Of the two feasible technology-based alternatives listed above, Alternative 1 (fish handling system) is the least expensive. This alternative has a capital cost of $671,500 and a net present value of $1,360,000 based on an annual operations and maintenance cost of $65,000, a 20-year life-cycle, and a return rate of 7 percent (Table 2-1). The capital cost of this alternative could be considered significantly higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) estimated Technology Upgrade Cost of $0 (69 FR 41678, facility ID DUT1154); therefore, AECC could pursue a site-specific determination based on the contention that the actual cost of compliance is significantly greater than the compliance cost estimated by EPA (§ 125.94(a)(5)(i)). After the impingement baseline is calculated, AECC may also evaluate possible compliance based on the outcome of a cost/benefit test or consider fish stocking to offset impacts (§ 125.94(a)(5)(ii)).
Table 2-1 Cost Summaries for the Most Feasible Compliance Alternatives Capital Cost
Present Value including Capital Costs and O&M
Note: Costs represent 2005 dollars.
If a site-specific determination is not accepted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and fish stocking is either not allowed or not economical, then Burns and
4 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
McDonnell recommends installing new fish handling traveling screens at the McClellan Station. The recommended fish handling system would not result in an average through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps. Consequently, an Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study and supporting plans and studies will be required as part of the CDS, and verification monitoring would be required after construction. Prior to implementation of a fish handling system, the results of the impingement and aquatic studies will be reviewed to determine the ability of the system to meet the performance criteria considering the types of fish being impinged at the McClellan Station.
3 HISTORICAL FISHERIES REVIEW The following is a summary of the historical fisheries studies conducted for or in the vicinity of the McClellan Station as required by § 125.95(b)(1)(ii).
3.1 FISHES OF THE HILL PROVINCE SECTION OF THE OUACHITA RIVER - 1975 A extensive survey of the summer fish community in the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam to the Louisiana state line was conducted in 1972 through 1975 (Raymond 1975). Sixty-two sampling trips were made to 25 different sites. Sampling gear consisted mostly of seines; hoop nets were used twice; and a boat-mounted electrofishing unit was used once. Two of the sampling sites were close to the McClellan Station (Sites 13 and 14). Site 13 was located on the Ouachita River at the mouth of the Little Missouri River and was sampled 11 different times. Site 14 was located in the backwaters of the Ouachita River at Camden, Arkansas and was sampled on two occasions.
For the entire study, 111 species were collected in the Ouachita River; 72 of these species were found at Sites 13 and 14 (Table 3-1). The most common species at Site 13 were steelcolor shiner, gravel chub, and bigeye shiner. The most common species found at Site 14 were blacktail shiner, bluegill, and steelcolor shiner.
3.2 FISH STUDIES OF THE OUACHITA RIVER BASIN - 1984 Baker (1984) describes the species composition and relative abundance of the fish communities in the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita rivers. Nine sites were sampled on the Ouachita
5 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
Table 3-1 Fish Collections from the Ouachita River in the Vicinity of the McClellan Generating Station Study Raymond (1975)1 Baker (1984)1 Wise et al. 1993 Year 1972 - 1975 1984 1984 19912 19923 19923 19912 19923 Scientific Name Common Name Site 13 14 4 5 4 4 4a 5 5 Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring 1 1 Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass 5 Ammocrypta vivax Scaly Sand Darter 16 2 3 1 2 Anguilla rostrata American Eel 2 3 2 2 2 2 Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch 8 2 Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum 4 1 Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller 296 4 1 6 2 1 Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker 1 2 Carpoides cyprinus Quillback 2 Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter 13 1 Cyprinela venustus Blacktail Shiner 422 61 135 50 1 4.5 4 2 5 Cyprinus carpio Common Carp 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 Cyrpinella whipplei Steelcolor Shiner 1593 20 69 20 3 4 8 3.5 4 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad 6 3 6 4 7 3 4 4 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad 51 118 6 2 2 Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish 1 Erimystax x-puntatus Gravel Chub 1065 2 7 Esox americanus Grass Pickerel 1 1 2 Etheostoma asprigene Mud Darter 2 Etheostoma bennioides Greenside Darter 9 Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose Darter 9 1 Etheostoma collettei Creole Darter 10 1 Etheostoma histrio Harlequin Darter 11 2 5 Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly Darter 16 1 Etheostoma stigmaeum Spekled Darter 95 1 1 Etheostoma whipplei Redfin Darter 34 Etheostoma zonale Banded Darter 158 8 Fundulus catenatus Northern Studfish 2 Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow 1 1 6 Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow 2.5 Fundulus notti Southern Starhead Topminnow 2 Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted Topminnow 16 2.5 2 4 2 6 Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish 111 1 9 2 1 3 Hiodon tergisus Mooneye 1 Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow 31 1 58 4 7 2 Hypentelium nugricans Nothern Hog Sucker 25 1 4 1.5 Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish 22 Ictalurus natalis Yellow Bullhead 1 Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish 31 2 16 2 2 2 2 2 Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo 1 1 2 2 Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth Buffalo 2 3 2.5 Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo 3 Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside 351 11 14 2 4 2.5 5 Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar 1 3 2.5 2 3 5 Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar 3 1 5 2 1 2 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 3 Lepomis macrohirus Bluegill 28 2 1 3 3 4.5 4 2 4.5 Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish 534 1 4 3 5 8 4 5.5 Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish 1 2 3 2 Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish 1.5 2 2 Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner 1 Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin Shiner 6 1 Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub 7 Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside 2 Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass 4 Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass 46 2 13 5 3 3.5 7 2.5 4.5 Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass 8 1 3 2.5 5 4 3 3.5 Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker 3 2 3 2 Morone chrysops White Bass 2 Mosostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse 115 5 4 2.5 6 2.5 2 Moturus miurus Brindled Madtom 106 Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse 7 2 4 Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse 5 3 2 4 2 2.5 2 Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner 2 2 Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner 423 22 11 2 3 2 1 2.5 Notropis boops Bigeye Shiner 4585 10 20 4 Notropis chrysocephalus Common Shiner 4 Notropis rubellus Rosyface Shiner 19 Notropis texanus Weed Shiner 2 Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner 35 Noturus eleutherus Mountain Madtom 16 5 Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom 1 Opsopeodus emiliae Pugnosed Minnow 16 1 Percia caprodes Logperch 21 3 2 2 Percian maculata Blackside Darter 2 1 Percina copelandi Channel Darter 575 2 2 5.5 Percina sciera Dusky Darter 8 2 1 Percina uranidea Stargazing Dater 5 Percina vigil Saddleback Darter 3 Pimphales notatus Bluntnose Minnow 437 4 5 Pimphales vigilax Bullhead Minnow 154 9 2 4 4.5 Polyodon spathula Paddlefish 1 Pomoxis annularis White Crappie 1 2 1 2 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie 2 1221332 Pylodictus olivaris Flathead Catfish 1 3 2 2 Stizostedion vitreum Walleye 9 Total Number of Species 86 711126303925342631 1Values are number of specimens collected 2 Values are relative abundance scores with 1 = rare, 2 = present, 3 = common, and 4 = abundant 3Values are the combined relative abundance scores of young and subadults plus adults
6 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
River, of which eight were between Remmel Dam and above the Louisiana state line. Sites 4 and 5 were located near the McClellan Station. Site 4 was located 5 to 7 miles downstream of Camden, Arkansas. Site 5 was located on the Ouachita River at the confluence with the Little Missouri River. The emphasis of this study was on determining the status of game fish populations. This study also provided descriptions of sample sites, condition factors of select species, catch per unit effort for number and weight, and a diversity index for each site. Fish were collected using a boat-mounted electroshocker, experimental gill nets, hoop nets, seines and backpack electroshocker. At Sites 4 and 5, three samples were collected using experimental gill nets, six samples were collected using a boat electroshocker, six samples were collected with 3- foot diameter hoop nets, and six samples were collected using a 15–foot long, ⅛-inch mesh seine.
A total of 27 species were collected at Site 4 and 31 species were collected at Site 5 (Table 3-1). The most common species found at Site 4 were the blacktail shiner, threadfin shad and steelcolor shiner. The most common species at Site 5 were blacktail shiner, steelcolor shiner, and bigeye shiner.
3.3 LOWER OUACHITA RIVER GROUP STUDY - 1993 Wise et al. (1993) summarized work on the lower Ouachita River by Raymond (1975), Baker (1984), and by the Lower Ouachita River Work Group conducted in 1991 and 1992. The Lower Ouachita River Work Group members belong to state and federal agencies, universities, and private consulting firms. The group was formed to help discover possible problems concerning the river’s health and to find solutions to these problems.
The Lower Ouachita River Work Group sampled fish along nine sites of the lower Ouachita River in Arkansas. Three of the sample sites (4, 4a, and 5) bracketed Camden. Site 4a, located downstream of the Little Missouri confluence and closest to the McClellan Station, was sampled in August of 1992 using two boat electroshockers and a backpack electroshocker with a seine. Site 4b was at Camden, 2.4 to 4.8 kilometers above the Arkansas Highway 7 Bridge. This site was sampled in July of 1991 using one boat electroshocker and a backpack electroshocker and again in July of 1992 using two boat electroshockers and a backpack electroshocker with seine. Site 5, located just below the confluence of West Two Bayou, was sampled in July 1991 and July
7 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
1992. The sampling gear used at Site 5 included a boat electroshocker, backpack electroshocker with seine, and gill nets.
Relative Abundance Scores were determined for each species at each sampling site and year. Relative Abundance Scores are a numerical ranking with “1” equal rare; “2” equal present; “3” equal common; and “4” equal abundant. This scale was used in 1991 for young, subadults, and adults combined. In 1992, two scores were determined, one for young and subadults and one for adults. The two scores were then added together to create an eight-point scale.
For Sites 4, 4a, and 5, 54 species were collected during the two years of sampling (Table 3-1). At Site 4, 39 species were collected in 1991 and 25 were collected in 1992. The 1992 sample had more threadfin and gizzard shad and less diversity than the previous year. In general, the most common species at Site 4 were central stoneroller, steelcolor shiner, gizzard shad, Mississippi silvery minnow, and golden redhorse. Thirty-four species were collected at Site 4a in 1992. Abundant species at this site were steelcolor shiner, gravel chub, banded darter, longear sunfish, and spotted bass. At Site 5, a total of 36 species were collected over the two years of sampling. Steelcolor shiner, gizzard shad, and longear sunfish were the most abundant species at this site.
The collections by Baker (1984) and Wise et al. (1993) had roughly comparable levels of sampling effort. Species richness at the sites in the vicinity of the McClellan Station ranged from 25 to 39 and averaged 30. This relatively tight range of species richness occurred despite the fact that sampling efforts were not identical, the sample sites were not identical, and the samples were collected 10 years apart. The species richness at Raymond’s (1975) Sites 13 and 14 were 71 and 11, respectively, and differ considerably from Baker (1984) and Wise et al. (1993) (Table 3-1). This difference was likely a result of sampling effort and habitat. Site 13 was sampled 11 times while site 14, which was in a backwater, was only sampled twice.
3.4 FISHERIES BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY – OCTOBER 1998 This study (Burns & McDonnell 1998) was done to characterize the fish community and structure that could be impacted by the Carpenter-Remmel hydropower facility that is located on the Ouachita River and owned and operated by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Ninety data sets were compiled from 67 different locations in the study area that included the Ouachita River, the
8 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
Saline River, and Lakes Hamilton and Catherine and their tributaries. Twelve of the sample sites were located on the main stem of the Ouachita River.
The study also characterized distributions of threatened or endangered species, state species of concern, species richness and lake stock densities. The upstream sites on the Ouachita River had lower species diversity and the lower downstream sites had the highest. The study suggested that the Remmel Dam and lake system did not have a major impact on fisheries downstream in the Ouachita River.
3.5 EVALUATION OF THE MUSSEL COMMUNITY IN THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER - 1996 This study (Posey 1996) characterized the mussel species composition in the Ouachita River from Remmel Dam to the Louisiana state line. Searches were performed by a diver and were aimed toward finding locations where densities were 10 mussels per square meter or higher. Sixty-one mussel beds were located on the lower Ouachita River. Thirty-four species were collected during the survey (Table 3-2). Of these species, the southern mapleleaf had not been recorded in the Ouachita River since 1918, and the pink mucket, Ouachita rock pocketbook, and winged mapleleaf are endangered species.
4 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES This section responds to § 125.95(b)(1)(ii). No consultations with state and federal agencies have occurred regarding Section 316(b)-related issues.
5 IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY CHARACTERIZATION STUDY 5.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY This section responds to §125.95(b)(1)(iv). The purpose of the impingement mortality study is to determine and quantify the impingement mortality associated with power station intake structure operations. These data will be used to develop the calculation baseline for the McClellan Station. The methods presented in this section have been developed to provide scientifically sound data and information to satisfy 40 CFR 125.95(b)(3).
The basic procedures for impingement monitoring are to collect the debris (including fish) in the traveling screen wash water over a period of 24 hours. Collections will be made every other
9 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
Table 3-2 Native Freshwater Mussel Species in the Lower Ouachita River Species Scientific Name Federal Status Bankclimber Plectomerus dombeyanus Black Sandshell Ligumia recta Bleufer Potamilus purpuratus Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata Deertoe Truncilla truncata Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis Fluted Shell Lasmigona costata Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria Louisiana Fatmucket Lampsilis hydiana Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Monkeyface Quadrula metanevera Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Rock Pocketbook Arkansia wheeleri Endangered Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium Southern Mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema pyramidatum Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica Rock Pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Spike Elliptio dilatata Squawfoot Strophitus undulatus Threehorn Wartyback Obliquaria reflexa Threeridge Amblema plicata Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava Wartyback Quadrula nodulata Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres Source: Posey (1996) week (bi-weekly) for twelve months. Sampling periods will be selected from Monday through Friday workdays and adjusted because of holidays, forced outages, etc.
Immediately prior to each 24-hour sampling event, the traveling screens will be operated through one complete cycle to remove previously accumulated debris and fish. A collection basket made of ⅜-inch mesh wire will then be placed in the screen wash discharge trough that leads from the
10 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
screens to the downstream edge of the intake structure. During the 24-hour collection period, the traveling screens will be operated normally, which could be once per shift, as needed based on water level differential across the screens, or continuously during periods of high debris loading. The basket will be checked periodically to make sure the basket has not become full or plugged and will be emptied as needed into holding containers. Any fish in the holding container will be kept moist by adding water to the container or by being covered with wet debris. At the end of the 24-hour collection period, the screens will be washed through one complete cycle and all debris in the basket will be transferred to the holding container.
As soon as possible after the end of the 24-hour collection period, the fish will be sorted from the debris. Each fish that was judged to have been alive when impinged will be identified to species and counted. Of these fish, up to 100 individuals of each species will be measured for length and mass, and the remainder will be counted and weighed as a group by species. All crews will be trained to readily identify endangered and threatened fish and shellfish in the field. If an endangered or threatened species is collected alive, data on that individual organism will be collected and the fish or shellfish will be returned to the water. The appropriate state agencies will be notified of the collection of dead or alive endangered or threatened species.
Intact fish collected during impingement sampling that are judged to have been dead before being impinged, will be weighed and measured; however, these fish will not be included when determining impingement rates. Fish will be considered to have been dead prior to impingement if they exhibit cloudy eyes, pale gill filaments, emaciation, and/or extensive fungal growth. In the rare occurrence that partial or dismembered fish that do not exhibit these characteristics are recovered in the debris basket, heads will be matched with tails to prevent over-counting. Because of the difficulty of characterizing impinged fish as moribund (dying) versus healthy before impingement but damaged by impingement, a designation of dead or alive (not moribund) upon impingement will be given to each fish. The condition of the fish that were presumably alive when impinged will be noted.
Voucher specimens for each species collected over the course of the monitoring study will be retained and preserved in four percent formaldehyde. Photographic vouchers will be taken of
11 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection threatened and endangered species. Questionable voucher specimens will be verified by an outside expert.
5.2 DATA ANALYSIS Data analysis will be conducted using data on all fish collected. At a minimum, the data will be analyzed for the following parameters on a bi-weekly and yearly and yearly basis: • species composition • total numerical impingement mortality • numerical impingement by most common species • total biomass impingement mortality • length distribution of impinged fish
5.3 PLANT OPERATIONAL AND WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTION Cooling water intake rate, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen for the sample period will be recorded. At the end of each sampling event, the total volume of water that passed through the traveling screens and the average inlet temperature during the 24-hour sampling event will be determined from plant operating data. In addition, dissolved oxygen concentration in the Ouachita River near the intake will be measured at the end of the sample event.
5.4 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE The following quality assurance/quality control procedures will be implemented for impingement monitoring: • Voucher specimens will be retained and preserved; if taxonomic identification of a species comes into question, the voucher specimen can be submitted to an outside expert for verification • Photographic vouchers will be taken of threatened and endangered species and the specimen will be returned to the river if alive • All field-collected data will be recorded on site-specific data sheets designed to maximize the probability that all required data is collected • Raw data in the electronic database will be back-checked against the original data sheets to assure accurate transcription
12 John L. McClellan Generating Station Proposal for Information Collection
6 REFERENCES Baker, J.A. 1984. Fish Studies of the Caddo, Little Missouri, and Ouachita Rivers. Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas. Aquatic Habitat Group. Environmental Laboratory. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Burns & McDonnell, Inc. 1998. Fisheries baseline characterization study. Carpenter-Remmel Project. Burns & McDonnell, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri.
Posey, W.R. II. 1996. An evaluation of the mussel community in the lower Ouachita River. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Raymond, L.R. 1975. Fishes of the Hill Province Section of the Ouachita Rier, from Remmel Dam to the Arkansas-Louisiana Line. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe, Louisiana.
Wise, J., S. Filipek, J. Giese, Bill Keith, and D. Turman. 1993. A survey of the fish community in the lower Ouachita River. Arkansas. Lower Ouachita River Group. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
13 C EXAMPLE VELOCITY CALCULATIONS
Formulas Used Approach Velocity Through Screen Velocity Data Used Flow (Q): 160.4 cfs Low water: El. 75.33 feet Trash Rack Number of Bays: 2 Bay Width: 11.2 feet Invert: El. 71 feet Open Area: 91% Traveling Water Screen Number of Screens: 2 Screen Width: 10 feet Invert: El. 62.9 feet Estimated Net Open Area: 44% Calculations
Trash rack 160.4 1.7 2 11.2 75.33 71
1.7 1.82 0.44
Traveling screen
160.4 0.65 2 10 75.33 69.2
0.65 1.47 0.44