Prepared for:

Basin Electric Leland Olds Station, North Dakota



# Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study (IMECS) Basin Electric – Leland Olds Station, ND

ENSR Corporation September 2008 Document No.: 10735-003Prepared for:

Basin Electric Leland Olds Station, North Dakota



# Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study (IMECS) Basin Electric – Leland Olds Station, ND

_______________________________________ Prepared By: David Pillard, Ph.D.

_______________________________________ Reviewed By: Jean Decker

ENSR Corporation September 2008 Document No.: 10735-003Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 i 

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................

................................................... ................................................... ..vi

Conformance with IM Performance Goals..............

................................................... ................................ vi Implications for Technology Review and Compliance S trategy............................................ ................... vii

1.0 Introduction...................................

................................................... ................................................... ...... 1-1

1.1 Review of Facility and CDS .........................

................................................... ................................ 1-1

1.2 Statement of IMECS Goals...........................

................................................... ............................... 1-1
1.2.1 Suspension of 316(b) Phase II Rule .................

................................................... ............. 1-2
1.2.2 Strategy to Address the Rule’s Requirements........

................................................... ....... 1-2
1.2.3 Support Issues Specific to Compliance Option .......

................................................... ...... 1-3

1.3 Document Organization ..............................

................................................... ................................. 1-3

2.0 Habitat Review.................................

................................................... ................................................... ... 2-1

2.1 Plant Location and CWIS Description ................

................................................... ......................... 2-1

2.2 Habitat Summary....................................

................................................... ...................................... 2-2

3.0 Review of Historic and Sampling Study Data .....

................................................... .............................. 3-1

3.1 Historical Biological and Physical Data ............

................................................... ........................... 3-1

3.2 Literature Review..................................

................................................... ........................................ 3-2

3.3 Site-Specific Impingement Mortality Study..........

................................................... ........................ 3-2
3.3.1 Study Plan and Sampling Protocol ...................

................................................... ............. 3-2
3.3.2 Results of Sampling at LOS .........................

................................................... .................. 3-2
3.3.3 Results of Sampling at Minnkota Power and Great Riv er Energy................................... 3-4

3.4 Characterization of Susceptible Species............

................................................... ......................... 3-4
3.4.1 Dominant and Incidental Species....................

................................................... ............... 3-4
3.4.2 Handling Tolerance.................................

................................................... ........................ 3-6
3.4.3 Swimming Speeds....................................

................................................... ...................... 3-6

3.5 General Conclusions................................

................................................... .................................... 3-7
3.5.1 Life Stage and Taxonomy Data for all Species in the Garrison Reach are Well Understood.

................................................... ................................................... ...................................... 3-7
3.5.2 Life Stage and Taxonomy Data for all Species Collec ted in the Impingement Survey are Well Understood. ...................................

................................................... ......................... 3-7
3.5.3 The Species that are Most Commonly Impinged are Abu ndant in the Garrison Reach and Rare Species are Not Impinged......................

................................................... ............... 3-8
3.5.4 Impingement Rates at LOS are Low and Impingement Mo rtality will have no Long-Lasting Consequences on the Populations of Impinged Species ................................................. 3- 8

3.6 Assessment of Data Sufficiency .....................

................................................... ............................. 3-8Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 ii 4.0 Data Interpretation ............................

................................................... ................................................... . 4-1

4.1 Overview...........................................

................................................... ............................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Taxonomic Identifications..........................

................................................... ..................... 4-1
4.1.2 Characterization of Lifestages.....................

................................................... ................... 4-1 4.1.2.1 Size of Impinged Organisms.........................

................................................... .. 4-1

4.1.2.2 Temporal Variations in IM ..........................

................................................... ..... 4-1

4.1.2.3 Seasonal Variation .................................

................................................... ......... 4-2

4.1.2.4 Diel Variation .....................................

................................................... .............. 4-2

4.1.3 Correlation Analysis...............................

................................................... ......................... 4-3
4.1.4 Documentation of Current IM Rates ..................

................................................... ............ 4-3

4.2 Definition of Performance Basis ....................

................................................... .............................. 4-5
4.2.1 Target Species.....................................

................................................... ........................... 4-5
4.2.2 Calculation Baseline - Numbers vs. Biomass.........

................................................... ....... 4-5

4.3 Conclusions ........................................

................................................... .......................................... 4-6
4.3.1 Calculation Baseline - Abundance ...................

................................................... .............. 4-6
4.3.2 Calculation Baseline - Species Richness ............

................................................... .......... 4-6

5.0 References .....................................

................................................... ................................................... ..... 5-1Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 iii 

# List of Appendices

Appendix A November 15, 2007 Letter from NDDH
Appendix B Literature Review Bibliography Appendix C Summary of Data Collected through June 2006Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 iv 

# List of Tables

Table 1. Complete List of Fish Species Collected b y North Dakota Game and Fish from 1997 to Summer 2006 at the Stanton Collection Site in the Garri son Reach

Table 2. Species and Number of Fish Collected at L OS

Table 3. Species and Number of Fish Collected at G RE

Table 4. Comparison of Survival of Some Fish Speci es on Screens with Continuous Versus Intermittent

Rotation (from EPRI 2003)

Table 5. Large Fish Collected at LOS CWIS and Calc ulation of Hypothetical Burst Speed

Table 6. Assessment of Data Sufficiency

Table 7. Fish Collected by NDG&F in the Garrison R each and Number Collected During One-Year IM

Study at LOSReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 v 

# List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Leland-Olds Station Relative to Garrison Dam

Figure 2. Close-Up View of LOS CWIS Location and C WISs of Nearby Power Plants

Figure 3. Photographs of LOS CWIS

Figure 4. Total Number of Fish Collected by ND Gam e and Fish 1997 to Summer 2006

Figure 5. Totals on Each Sample Collection Date fo r the Three Most Abundant Fish Collected at Leland

Olds

Figure 6. Generalized Model of Burst Speed of Larg e Fish as it Relates to Total Length. From Wolter a nd

Arlinghaus 2003

Figure 7. Generalized Model of Burst Speed of Smal ler Fish ( ≤ 50 mm) as it Relates to Total Length.

1)Wolter and Arlinghaus Model, 2)Wardle (1975), 3)W akeling et al. (1999) for carp, 4) Flore. Et al.(2001) for Nose Carp and Garner (1999) for 5) Ro ach and 6) Dace.

Figure 8. Average Total Length of Adults and YOY C ollected at the LOS CWIS

Figure 9. Relationship Between Number of Fish Col lected (all data) and Air Temperature

Figure 10. Relationship Between Fish Biomass (All D ata) and Plant Intake Volume

Figure 11. Relationship Between Number of Fish Coll ected (Excluding High Biomass Events) and Plant

Intake Volume

Figure 12. Relationship Between Fish Biomass (Exclu ding High Biomass Events) and Plant Intake Volume

Figure 13. Number of Fish Collected by NDG&F at Sta nton Each SeasonReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 vi 

## Executive Summary

This Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characte rization Study (IMECS) is a biological report that was part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) required by the previously promulgated Phase II of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Even though significant sections of Phase II were remanded by a recent court decision, resulting in the suspension of the regulations for Phase II facilities, the rul ing did not change preexisting requirements that permit authori ties use best professional judgment to set conditio ns for cooling water intake structures. The North Dakota D epartment of Health (NDDH) still requires submittal of impingement characterization study data (see Novemb er 15, 2007 NDDH letter in Appendix A of this repor t). Information contained in this report is, therefore, still relevant and necessary.

The IMECS required three primary items: 1) taxonomi c identification of all fish and shellfish with pot ential to be impinged or entrained (if required); 2) a character ization of the life stages of these species; and 3) an estimate of the current impingement and/or entrainment rates at the plant. This report focuses on the impingem ent data at Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin Electr ic) Leland Olds Station (LOS), located near Stanton , North Dakota.



### Conformance with IM Performance Goals
Basin Electric’s proposed approach to Phase II Rule compliance was to demonstrate that no additional c ontrol technology to reduce impingement mortality would be likely to be cost effective. The strength of the argument relative to the current system’s performance and co st effectiveness of additional controls lies with t he demonstration in this IMECS, based on impingement d ata collected from June 2005 through June 2006 and the existing literature, that

• the number of fish impinged is low relative to the total population densities in the Missouri River proximal to the intake structure; and

• the species that are impinged are overwhelmingly sm all, forage (nongame) fish.

The sampling plan was reviewed and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Dakota Game and Fish (NDG&F). Results and conclusio ns were clearly shown during the 12-month impingement mortality (IM) investigation, the desig n and results of which were critically reviewed by a wellknown North Dakota fisheries professional and were presented to North Dakota state officials, includin g North Dakota Game and Fish, as well as USFWS fisheries sc ientists. Specifically, the Impingement Mortality S tudy can be summarized as follows:

• The study was conducted for a full year from mid-J une 2005 through late June 2006.

• Samples were collected every two weeks for 24 hour s from the operating units of the LOS Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS).

• During each sampling episode, a morning sample was collected and an evening sample were collected, both consisting of all fish impinged on the CWIS screens during the previous 12-hour period

.

• All debris was collected in a specially-constructe d basket having the same screen size as the CWIS screens themselves; all debris was sorted and fish were removed.

• All fish were identified and weight and length dat a were collected.

• Any taxonomic questions were directed to a fisheri es expert at NDG&F.

• All data were consolidated and entered into a proj ect database for analysis.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 vii • Additional physical and chemical data were collect ed concurrently with the fish.

Analysis of the collected data demonstrated that:

• Small species, such as emerald shiner, gizzard sha d and rainbow smelt dominated the impinged population, with the latter being the most abundant throughout the collection period.

• Overall, the assemblage of impinged fish was consi stent, although density and diversity showed substantial seasonal variability, with the highest numbers being found in the late autumn and early winter. During the first three months of sample co llection, rainbow smelt and emerald shiners were consistently the most common fish collected at the CWIS, although total numbers were low. In August 2005, the emerald shiner disappeared from the colle ction basket and gizzard shad were first collected. The greatest number of fish during a single collect ion episode was recovered on November 30, 2005; the vast majority of those fish (121 out of 127, or over 95%) were gizzard shad. Four more gizzard shad were collected in the evening sample on Decemb er 14, 2005, and then this specie was absent from the collection basket for the remainder of the study. The appearance of gizzard shad in the autumn of 2005 was also documented by North Dakota Game and Fish when they were conducting an electroshocking survey near their Stanton collec tion site in September 2005. The “run” of gizzard shad in autumn/early winter appears to be consisten t with population trends observed for this species in other rivers

• Sport fish collected from the CWIS included walley e (1 specimen), freshwater drum (3 specimens) and channel catfish (6 specimens). A total of sixteen s pecies were collected during the 12-month study.

• Typically only 2 to 3 species were collected durin g any single collection episode. On only one date were 4 species collected.

• Mean (total) lengths of fish were low, ranging bet ween 6 and 8 centimeters (cm) on nearly all dates. On occasion, the mean length was pushed higher by t he collection of a very few large individuals. On February 22, 2006, for example, a single channel ca tfish measuring 42 cm long and 761 grams (g) was recovered; this was the largest fish collected during the study.

• Mean weight was also low and relatively consistent , in most cases fluctuating between approximately 1.5 and 4 g. As with length, higher mean weights we re driven by the recovery of a few large fish.

• The maximum size of rainbow smelt showed a general upward trend through February 2006, suggesting growth of the young-of-the-year cohort. However, minimum size did not generally change. Collection of all other species was too sporadic to identify size trends.

• There were no strong correlations between any of t he collected independent variables (e.g., water temperature) and either number of fish collected or biomass.

• No state or federally listed species were collecte d. The LOS CWIS, therefore, is not likely to significantly impact any species of concern.



### Implications for Technology Review and Compliance S trategy
In January 2007, the Second Circuit Court issued a decision on EPA’s Phase II Rule which significantly impacted the current course of implementation of te chnologies for fish protection under 316(b). The co urt ruling invalidated much of the existing rule. Pursu ant to that court ruling, EPA suspended requirement s for CWISs at Phase II existing facilities until it has had the opportunity to address the Court’s remand. At this time, permit requirements for CWISs at Phase II facilitie s will be established on a case-by-case basis by th e permitting agency using best professional judgment (BPJ).Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 viii The Garrison Reach of the Missouri River is a uniqu e location – historically, it was a wide, meanderin g channel with abundant habitat for warm water fishes. Howev er, after the construction of the Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea in 1953, flow in the river became highly regulated and water temperature decreased significa ntly due to bottom release of water from the reservoir. In addition, sediment loading dropped significantl y with a corresponding increase in water clarity. Seasonal effects (such as icing and debris loading), navigat ional effects and water velocities are all significant fa ctors in the technology review. Although some tech nologies have been proven to reduce IM, few technologies are potentially effective for intakes located on the m ain channel of the Missouri River, where extreme cold, ice buildup and large debris loads may severely lim it the application and effectiveness of some IM-reduction strategies.Report No. 10785-004-0600 September 2008 1-1 

# 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Review of Facility and CDS
The purpose of this Impingement Mortality and Entra inment Characterization Study (IMECS) was to evalua te fish and shellfish species that were impinged at th e Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) Leland Olds Station (LOS) near Stanton, North Dakota. The plant is located at approximately river mile 1371, on the southwest bank of the Missouri River, approximately 10 miles east of Stanton, ND. Under the original P hases II rule, the cooling water intake structure (s) (CW IS) were not subject to the entrainment performance standards since they withdrew less than 5% of the m ean daily flow of the Missouri River at this locati on. Five percent was the regulatory applicability threshold for entrainment reduction.

The Leland Olds 1 & 2 CWISs withdraw water directly from the Missouri River through two short concrete forebays per unit that are flush with the river ban k. The moderate water velocities withdrawn by LOS and sparse fish populations of the river minimize the f ish that enter the plant’s cooling water system. M uch of this IMECS focuses on the results of the year-long impin gement mortality (IM) study that was conducted at L OS and at two other power plants in the immediate vici nity.

In the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC), B asin Electric proposed to pursue Compliance Option 5 and demonstrate to the Director that the cost of instal lation of any of the available technologies would b e significantly higher than any benefit that might re sult to the local fishery. EPA’s recent suspension of the Phase II rule following the ruling by the Second Ci rcuit Court of Appeals has halted, for the time bei ng, the use of a cost-benefit analysis for compliance purposes (see Section 1.2.1). Given this development, there is no basis at this time to pursue Compliance Option 5 or any compliance option that has been remanded and m ay be omitted from revised regulations. Despite the re cent court decision regarding several aspects of EP A’s proposed compliance approach, the biological assess ment in this IMECS is necessary to evaluate the potential effectiveness of new technologies at the CWIS and to assist in evaluating actual impacts to local fish populations.

The Rule allowed the use of historical data and dat a from “like” facilities to meet the objectives of the rule if the data are representative of the current operation of the facility, and of the current biological condit ions in the source waterbody. In addition to impingement data collected at the LOS Station, impingement data was also collected at two other open-cycle power generation plants located on the Garrison Reach of the Missour i River. These data are discussed in this report as the data are relevant to the selected compliance ap proach. The data set reviewed within this IMECS also includ es data from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDG&F) who have sampled ambient fish po pulations in a nearby location for a number of year s.

Through literature and data review, Basin Electric has concluded that there have been no significant c hanges in the Garrison Reach fisheries (density or diversi ty) in recent years and there are no anticipated ch anges for the foreseeable future. Therefore, Basin Electric believes the historic and collected impingement dat a are representative of current, and future, conditions.



### 1.2 Statement of IMECS Goals
The original requirements for the IMECS were found in Part 125 of the Clean Water Act, Rules 40 CFR Section 125.95(b)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii). To provi de context for this study, the following is the exc erpted portion of the rule (§125.95(b)(3)):

Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characteri zation Study

. You must submit to the Director an Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characteri zation Study whose purpose is to provide informatio n to support the development of a calculation baseline for evaluatin g impingement mortality and entrainment and to char acterize currentReport No. 10785-004-0600 September 2008 1-2 impingement mortality and entrainment. The Impinge ment Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study must include the following, in sufficient detail to supp ort development of the other elements of the Compre hensive Demonstration Study:

(i) Taxonomic identifications of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under F ederal, State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered spec ies) that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and are susceptible to impingement and entrainment;

(ii) A characterization of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal , State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered species) id entified pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this se ction, including a description of the abundance and tempor al and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of t he cooling water intake structure(s), based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variati ons in impingement mortality and entrainment (e.g., relate d to climate and weather differences, spawning, fee ding and water column migration). These may include histori cal data that are representative of the current ope ration of your facility and of biological conditions at the s ite;

(iii) Documentation of the current impingement mort ality and entrainment of all life stages of fish, s hellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal L aw (including threatened or endangered species) ide ntified pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section and an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainme nt to be used as the calculation baseline. The documentatio n may include historical data that are representati ve of the current operation of your facility and of biologica l conditions at the site. Impingement mortality an d entrainment samples to support the calculations required in par agraphs (b)(4)(i)(C) and (b)(5)(iii) of this sectio n must be collected during periods of representative operatio nal flows for the cooling water intake structure an d the flows associated with the samples must be documented.



### 1.2.1 Suspension of 316(b) Phase II Rule
On January 25, 2007, the U.S. Second Circuit Court issued a decision on EPA’s Phase II Rule (Riverkeep er vs. EPA). That decision invalidated several section s of the existing CWIS rules, while leaving others in place, including compliance deadlines. On July 9, 2007, th e EPA suspended the Phase II requirements pending review, consideration and resolution of the issues raised by the Court’s remand (Federal Register, Vol . 72, Number 130, July 9, 2007). The one compliance alter native that was not suspended was the use of a clos edcycle recirculating system, rather than a once-thro ugh cooling system.

Although the Phase II compliance alternatives (exce pt for a recirculating system) have been suspended for now, the January 8, 2008 deadline for submitting Co mprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) reports remai ns in effect, unless the state permitting agency relie ves the plant of this requirement. The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) has relieved Basin Elec tric (and the other Missouri River facilities) from submitting CDS reports. Further, NDDH, in a Novembe r 15, 2007 letter to Basin, proposed a modification of the existing NPDES permit to move the IMECS report submission date to January 7, 2009 (see Appendix A)

. NPDES permit requirements for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities will be establish ed by NDDH on a case-by-case basis using Best Professiona l Judgment (BPJ).



### 1.2.2 Strategy to Address the Rule’s Requirements
Basin Electric believes the three primary requireme nts of the original Phases II rule have been met by using the historical and impingement mortality study data sets. Taxonomic identification and life stages of species with potential for impingement are well understood. Additionally, the impingement rates established i n this IMECS were calculated using data collected year-rou nd to account for potential diel and seasonal effec ts.Report No. 10785-004-0600 September 2008 1-3 

### 1.2.3 Support Issues Specific to Compliance Option
The Second Circuit Court rulings puts into signific ant doubt the likelihood that several previously av ailable options will be acceptable for compliance to any fu ture Phase II, or equivalent, Rule. However, Basin Electric believes that the information presented in this doc ument will support the conclusion that the actual c osts of compliance are “significantly greater” than the ben efits to be gained by the local fishery. Based on this conclusion, Basin Electric believes that available technologies and operational measures are either in feasible or significantly more costly than the benefits to b e gained.



### 1.3 Document Organization
The remainder of this document is organized as foll ows:

Section 2 is a presentation of the habitat types in the Garr ison Reach of the Missouri River and the location o f the LOS intake structures relative to habitat types

.

Section 3 is an overview of the available information review ed for this report. A bibliography of the reviewed literature is provided in Appendix B.

Section 4 provides the major findings of the data assessment . This section is organized in accordance with the primary requirements of Rule 125.95(b) focusing on taxonomic identification, life-stage characteri zation, and current impingement mortality rates.

Section 5 is the list of references used for the IMECS analy sis.

Tables, Figures, and Appendices referenced in this document are provided at the end of the document.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 2

- 1 

# 2.0 Habitat Review

Historically, the Missouri River was a wide, meande ring system, with abundant shallow channel borders, side channels, and back waters. Shifting sand bars and a bundant debris provided ample habitat for numerous warm-water fishes and invertebrates, but also made navigation difficult or impossible in some areas. Channelization, particularly in the lower Missouri, has allowed commercial navigation but has eliminat ed many of the shifting sandbars and continuity with side c hannels and backwaters. In the upper Missouri, rese rvoir construction has created a series of deep-water hab itats connected by inter-reservoir reaches that are significantly different in structure and ecology th an the pre-impoundment system. The Garrison Dam was closed in April of 1953, forming Lake Sakakawea, wh ich is the largest of the Missouri River mainstem reservoirs. At maximum surface elevation of 1855 fe et (above mean sea level), Lake Sakakawea has a storage capacity of approximately 24.7 million acre feet and covers 385,615 (surface) acres.

The LOS intakes are located on the Garrison Reach o f the Missouri River, approximately 20 miles downst ream of the Garrison Dam. The location of the Leland Ol ds station relative to the Garrison Dam is presente d in Figure 1. A close-up view of the LOS CWIS locatio n and the CWISs of other nearby power plants are provided in Figure 2. Flow in this stretch of the river is totally regulated and will vary according to release rates from the reservoir. The closure of Garrison Dam, t he fifth largest earthen dam in the United States, triggered a shift in the nature of the Missouri River downstrea m of the dam. The average annual summer surface temperature in Lake Sakakawea is 19oC (66oF), which is colder than all other Missouri River mainstem reservoirs. The original dam intake is located appr oximately 160 feet below the lake’s surface (at ful l pool). In July 2005 the Corps of Engineers completed a tempor ary retrofit on the dam intake structure to allow w ater to be taken from higher in the water column, thus pote ntially increasing the temperature of the discharge water. Despite this recent change, however, the water ente ring the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River is st ill much colder than historic conditions, and remains cold e ven during the hottest summer months. Maximum water temperatures in the channel usually do not exceed 2 0oC (68oF) at Bismarck (70 miles downstream of Garr ison Dam).

The formation of Lake Sakakawea also resulted in a change in the sediment transport of the Missouri Ri ver. Historically a very silt-laden system, much of the bed load of fine material is now deposited in the u pper reaches of Lake Sakakawea. Since the dam’s closure, approximately 37 percent of the reservoir’s gross storage capacity has been lost to sedimentation. Th e sediment load of the Missouri River below Garriso n Dam has decreased dramatically, improving water clarity , but adversely affecting habitat for some fish spe cies.

The main tributaries of the Garrison Reach of the M issouri River are the Knife and Heart Rivers and Pa inted Woods and Square Butte Creek. The Knife River joins the Missouri River from the west, only a short dis tance upstream of the Leland Olds station. Local run-off into the Missouri River is sparse and seasonal so that the vast majority of flow through the Garrison Reach is due to release from the dam. Flow in the Garrison Reach has averaged 22,490 cfs from 1927 through 2001, as measured at the Bismarck USGS gauging station. Sin ce construction of the dam, annual average flow has re mained somewhat near this historical mean, though average monthly flows can vary widely due to releas e rates from the dam which vary depending on hydropower considerations and/or specific hydraulic and release requirements of Lakes Sakakawea and Oahe.



### 2.1 Plant Location and CWIS Description

The Leland Olds Station, located at approximately r iver mile 1371, operates two generating units that draw cooling water directly from the Missouri River. Uni t #1, which began operation in 1966, is rated for 2 16 MW and has the capacity to draw 105 MGD from the river for cooling water and other purposes. Unit #2, whi ch was built in the early 1970s and began commercial opera tion in 1975, is rated at 440 MW with a design inta ke capacity of 225 MGD. Photos of the CWIS structures are presented as Figure 3.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 2

- 2 Each of the units that comprise the CWIS includes t wo short concrete forebays (total of four forebays) that are flush with the river bank. In the winter, a spray h eader situated at the front of the forebays, is use d to recirculate some of the warm water that has passed through the plant to raise the temperature of the i ncoming water and prevent ice formation. Also, during winte r operation, the warm water discharge is moved to a location upstream of the intake structures to help minimize ice build-up.

Water is drawn into the forebays and through trash racks that exclude large objects (Figure 3b), by fo ur cooling water pumps, two per unit and one for each forebay. The trash racks are mechanically cleared of excess ive debris when necessary. Prior to entering the pump w et well, the water passes through traveling screens that capture and retain smaller bits of debris and fish (Figure 3c). The 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens a re cleaned with 125 psi wash sprays when the operator determin es, through visual inspection, that build-up is occ urring. The screens also are equipped with pressure drop in strumentation, whereby the wash sprays are automatically activated when the pressure drop acro ss the screens exceeds a setpoint. Wash water, and the debris it removes, is collected in a sluiceway that returns the collected material directly to the riv er.

This segment of the Missouri River, including Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, is considered a Class I st ream under North Dakota water quality standards and is f ully supported for primary contact recreation, seco ndary contact recreation, fish and wildlife propagation a nd drinking water supply.



### 2.2 Habitat Summary
The dominant habitat surrounding the intake structu re (based on conditions as determined during mean f low) can be characterized as mainstem river channel. A certain amount of bank stabilization has been insti tuted on the south/southwest river banks in order to prevent unacceptable lateral erosion. The north/northeast river bank, however, is generally not stabilized and incl udes some shallow water habitat which may be more s ubject to exposure and drying during low flows, in a manne r reminiscent of historical Missouri River hydrolog y. Near the intake structures, main channel characteristics include moderate river flows, relatively cool wate r temperatures, low to moderate turbidities, low to m oderate suspended and dissolved solids (except duri ng spring run-off), and mobile bed materials. Larger r ocks and cobble are more likely to occur in the cha nnel where flows are the highest. Shifting sandbars are present, depending on water flow, in the channel bo rder areas towards the north bank.

Agriculture is the predominant land use along the M issouri River near LOS and much of the Garrison Rea ch. Near-river riparian habitat, however, includes vege tated buffer zones of woodland and grasses where ma ny species are found. Several species of birds can be found along the Missouri River, including plovers, pipers, ducks, geese and raptors. Mammals may be less visi ble than birds, but nevertheless several species ar e common including whitetail deer, raccoon, fox and v arious weasel species. Most of these species depend on the Missouri River and the riparian landscape for w ater, food and shelter.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-1 

# 3.0 Review of Historic and Sampling Study Data

3.1 Historical Biological and Physical Data

The LOS CWIS is located on the Garrison Reach of th e Missouri River. This reach has been studied thoroughly with regard to aquatic species for many years by Federal and State agencies as well as othe r independent researchers. Twenty reports on various aspects of the status of the fishery along the Garr ison Reach have been researched during the development o f this IMECS (a bibliography of these sources is provided in Appendix A). Most significantly, NDG&F has conducted fish population studies in the Garris on Reach since 1991. These studies involved biannual f ish collection at seven locations in the Garrison R each. One of these collection locations is offshore of th e Great River Energy (GRE) Stanton Station cooling water outfall, which is located just downstream of the St anton CWIS and upstream of the LOS CWIS, and which is in a similar river regime as the Milton R. Young Stati on river CWIS, 4 miles downstream. The location of the NDGF Stanton sampling point is identified on Figure 1.

Table 1 presents a complete list of all the fish sp ecies identified in the Garrison Reach from 1991 th rough the summer of 2006 1 . The most common fish collected by NDG&F at the St anton Station from 1997 through the summer of 2006 was the white sucker, followed by th e river carpsucker (Figure 4). Using electrofishin g methods along a transect, NDG&F collected more spec ies than were impinged at the LOS CWIS. The proportion of certain species was also different in the NDG&F collections, and the fish collected by N DG&F were larger than those impinged at the LOS CWIS. T here was not a well-defined trend with regard to wh ich species were more prevalent in the summer versus fa ll. Bigmouth buffalo, common carp, emerald shiner a nd others have been more abundant in the fall collecti ons, while species such as river carpsucker and wal leye were more frequently collected in the summer.

The data collected by NDF&G, as well as by other re searchers, provide a relevant and ongoing characterization of the biological conditions and p opulations in the river near the intake structure o f the LOS power plant. The data are representative of current conditions and were collected using appropriate QA /QC procedures by agencies of the State of North Dakota . The Impingement Characterization Study as describ ed in this PIC will comply with the third condition li sted in Section 1.2 and will complete the data set required by the rule.

In 1974 and 1978, studies were conducted by Dr. Joe Neel with the University of North Dakota at the re quest of Basin Electric. The studies were intended to det ermine the temperature, chemical and biological eff ects of the water withdrawal and discharge from the station . The 1978 study, “Life in the Missouri River with Warming by 676 Megawatts Gross Steam Generated Power Produc tion”, included fish sampling at the intakes, at th e screens and wash water return and downstream of the discharge. Observations and sampling were mainly conducted in the late spring and summer months. Fif teen species of fish were observed or captured and the text of the report states that primarily bullhead f ingerlings were found in the intakes and on the int ake screens. The data presented in the report indicated that dur ing fifteen days of sampling the traveling screens, 56 fish were recovered from intake screen washings and 44 o f these fish were black bullheads. River temperatur es were slightly elevated in the vicinity of the disch arge but the report states that they were not as hi gh as temperatures found naturally in other stretches of the river. The report states that “the intake does not appear to pose a great threat to adult fish, but is more h azardous to young, particularly to schooling bullhe ads.”

1 North Dakota Fisheries Investigations, Aquatic Inv estigations of the Missouri Mainstream in North Dak ota, by Jeff Hendrickson, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, March 2004, and 2005/2006 summaries provided by Je ff Hendrickson.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-2 A review of a recent publication, “Distribution and habitat use of sturgeon chubs ( Macrhybopsis gelida ) and sicklefin chubs ( M. meeki ) in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, North Dak ota” (Everett et al. 2004) indicated that in recent sampling studies of the Mi ssouri River in the vicinity of the station, there were no chubs of either species collected. The authors of the stu dy concluded that this was probably due to signific antly deeper, faster and clearer water than was found in the other river segments studied.

The existing data have been compared to the results of the impingement mortality study and the dataset s are consistent in represented species and specimen size when considering the differences in collection met hods. The datasets have also been evaluated by Dr. Steven Kelsch, a professor at the University of North Dak ota and a recognized expert in North Dakota fisheries, and he concurs that the recently collected data are consistent with other data from the Garrison Reach and known information on population densities and behaviors.



### 3.2 Literature Review
Twenty reports on various aspects of the status of the fishery along the Garrison Reach have been rese arched during the development of this IMECS. A bibliograp hy of these sources is provided in Appendix C. As stated in the previous section, quantitative data and anec dotal information concerning the status of the fish ery since the closure of the Garrison Dam are consistent with the results of the impingement mortality study, gi ven differences in collection methodologies.



### 3.3 Site-Specific Impingement Mortality Study

3.3.1 Study Plan and Sampling Protocol
The study plan and sampling protocol for conducting the site-specific impingement mortality study was developed by Basin Electric and ENSR and reviewed b y the North Dakota Department of Health and Dr. Steven Kelsch. The plan and protocol were also pres ented to USFWS and NDG&F for their review and input

. Appropriate comments and suggestions were incorpora ted and station-specific procedures were finalized. Following preparation and applicable training (incl uding health and safety planning), the field study was initiated in mid-June 2005.



### 3.3.2 Results of Sampling at LOS
Appendix C provides the full report for the year-lo ng impingement mortality study conducted at LOS and two other nearby power plants, Minnkota Power’s Milton R. Young Station and Great River Energy’s (GRE’s) Stanton Station. The methodology of the study can be summarized as follows:

• Samples were collected at two-week intervals unless interrupted by weather from June 15, 2005 through June 28, 2006. All fish impinged over a 24 hour period were collected at 12 hour intervals.

• The evening before the collection day, screens were rotated, washed and then left in place until the following morning. At that time, the screens we re washed and all debris, including fish, was caught in a collection basket. The screens were aga in left in place and the same activities were repeated in the evening.

• Debris in the collection basket was sorted and all fish were removed. The fish were placed in a bag or cooler for later measurement.

• Additional data were collected at each facility, in cluding water and air temperature, water velocity in the forebays (using a General Oceanics Flow Mete r) and plant output (in megawatts).Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-3 • Weight of the fish was recorded to the nearest 0.5 g and total and standard length of each fish was measured. It was also noted whether the fish w ere alive or dead when they were removed from the basket.

• Operating data and fish data were maintained in a d atabase - all raw data were also maintained.

• A voucher collection was made; representative speci mens of most species are included.

• To evaluate any relationship between conditions at the facility/CWIS and the number of fish collected, stepwise regression analysis was conduct ed using Statistix (Analytical Software 2003).

The results of the impingement mortality study for LOS can be summarized as follows:

• Sixteen species were collected; the total number of fish collected was 397 (Table 2). Total biomass collected was 5,418.7 grams or an average o f 13.6 grams per fish.

• Throughout the entire collection period, morning sa mples tended to yield more fish than the evening samples, although there were exceptions.

• Over the collection period, substantial species shi fts were seen. From June 2005 through February 2006, the rainbow smelt was, with a couple exceptions, the most common species collected. From June through August 2005 the emeral d shiner was the second most common species collected.

• Gizzard shad appeared in August 2005 and were the m ost abundant fish collected for five collection episodes (24-h period). On November 20, 2005, over 95% of the fish collected were gizzard shad. This species disappeared from the col lection basket after December 14, 2005.

• The total number of fish was low in February and e arly March, but in late March, emerald shiners emerged as the dominant species in the coll ection basket and remained the most common fish for the rest of the study period, on so me dates being the only species collected.

• Weight and length of the three most common species (rainbow smelt, emerald shiner and gizzard shad) was relatively consistent over the en tire study period. Mean fish size (weight and length) did appear to rise slightly in late 2005 an d early 2006, but too few fish were collected to suggest a shift in the size of fish being sampled. Weights and lengths decreased again in spring 2006. Small fish have the greatest potential for i mpingement.

• Total fish biomass showed considerable temporal var iability and was often influenced by large specimens; total biomass was consistently low after February 2006.

• There were no strong correlations between any of th e collected independent variables and either number of fish or biomass. The best single-variable correlations for number of fish or biomass (when all of the fish collection data were included ) were with air temperature (for number of fish,

r 2 = 0.14) and plant intake water volume (for biomass, r 2 = 0.12).

• When the collection events with high biomass were e xcluded form the dataset, plant intake volume explained the most data variation for number of fish and biomass (r 2 = 0.21 for both metrics).

• Using stepwise regression to analyze the full datas ets, only air temperature and plant intake volume were retained as significant independent var iables for number of fish and biomass,Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-4 respectively. Excluding high-biomass events, water temperature and flow (GPM) were retained as significant independent variables explaining fis h biomass (r 2 = 0.31).

• No specimens of threatened or endangered species we re collected.

• The species collected were not of special concern, as defined by the USFWS or NDG&F. Of the three most commonly impinged species, rainbow smelt was introduced into the Upper Missouri River system as forage food for introduced salmonid game species and gizzard shad is a peripheral species in this section of the Missouri River, probably near the northern limits of its range, which does not extend into Lake Sakakawea.



### 3.3.3 Results of Sampling at Minnkota Power and Gre at River Energy
As previously explained, the year long impingement mortality study included biweekly sampling at two o ther nearly stations, Minnkota Power’s Milton R. Young S tation (MRY) and Great River Energy’s (GRE’s) Stant on Station. Their results are summarized in the follo wing sections.

Milton R. Young Station

From June 2005 through August 2005, no impinged fis h were found at the MRY river intakes and screens. With approval from the North Dakota Department of H ealth (NDDH), collection frequency was reduced – it was agreed that if the number of fish impinged increase d significantly at the other two stations during a collection event, that a sample would be scheduled at MRY. Th ere was one such event in April 2006 but no fish we re found at the MRY screens.

No impinged fish were found on the MRY screens duri ng the entire year of collection events.

GRE, Stanton Station

Fourteen species, totaling 474 fish, were collected . Total biomass collected was 2,815 grams or an ave rage of 5.9 grams per fish. Table 3 provides the species li st and the total count for each species.

Species and number of fish collected were very simi lar to the results at LOS – collection days that ex perienced larger numbers of fish occurred at both stations. A gain, there were no strong correlations between any of the collected independent variables and either number o f fish or biomass. More detailed data for GRE can be found in Appendix C.



### 3.4 Characterization of Susceptible Species
The following is a brief summary of the dominant sp ecies impinged at LOS over the year long impingemen t mortality study. Handling tolerances and swimming speeds are also discussed.



### 3.4.1 Dominant and Incidental Species
The three dominant species that were impinged (90% of individuals collected) were rainbow smelt, gizza rd shad and emerald shiner. General information on th ese species is presented below.

Rainbow Smelt

Rainbow smelt ( Osmerus mordax ) were introduced into Lake Sakakawea in the early 1970s to provide a prey species for larger game species, including Chinook salmon, that were released into the lake in 1976. S melt are small, slivery fish that can reach lengths of 4 to 8 inches as adults. This species prefers cooler wat er, and has been found in deep waters of various freshwater lak es. In the spring, smelt migrate up smaller tributa ries toReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-5 spawn over sandbars having moderate currents that m aintain adequate oxygen levels (Pflieger 1997). Rainbow smelt that have passed out of Lake Sakakawe a likely maintain populations in the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River, thanks to the colder water bein g released from the lake. Water levels and associat ed temperatures in Sakakawea probably influence smelt population densities. From 2001 to 2002, for exampl e, smelt populations decreased in the lake from an est imated 831,000 kg to 103,000 kg, respectively, as a response to warming temperatures (Lee 2003).

Gizzard Shad

Gizzard shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum ) occur primarily in freshwater and are most abunda nt in large rivers and reservoirs, avoiding high gradient streams. They a re relatively abundant in the lower Missouri River and are found in Lake Oahe, but their range probably does n ot extend into Lake Sakakawea (Galat et al. 2005). The species is most often found in large schools. Spaw ning generally takes place in late spring, usually in shallow protected water. Shad are prolific fish, with fema les laying in excess of 350,000 eggs annually, on a verage (Bodola 1966). Hatch occurs anywhere from 36 hours to one week after spawning, depending on temperatur e (Bodola 1966). Gizzard shad are planktivorous. The young feed on microscopic animals and plants, as w ell as small insect larvae, while adults feed by filtering small food items from the water using their long g ill rakers. Gizzard shad generally grow to 14 inches and provid e forage for most game species (Miller 1960), altho ugh rapid growth limits duration of susceptibility to p redators (Bodola 1966). Ross (2001) also noted tha t young gizzard shad tend to occur along shorelines in very shallow water, gradually moving offshore into deep water as they grow. Individuals older than age class 3 ra rely occur in shallow water (Bodola 1966). Gizzard shad have little commercial or recreational importance a lthough they likely serve as forage for game fish.

Emerald Shiner

Emerald shiner ( Notropis atherinoides ) is a small fish, reaching only about 2 to 3.5 inc hes in length as an adult. It has an overall silvery appearance, with an iride scent, light green dorsal surface. One of about 100 species within the genus Notropis in the Missouri River system, it is common through out the upper Missouri. A native of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, the emerald shiner is tolerant of a wide range of turbidities, bottom types and current velocities (Pflieger 1997). This species is characteristic of large, open channels i n medium to large rivers with sandy substrates (Cross and Colli ns 1995), making the Garrison Reach and ideal locat ion for this common fish. The emerald shiner generally spaw ns between July and August (Scott and Crossman 1973 ). Ideal temperature is 25oC (Campbell and MacCrimmon 1970), and therefore water temperature may affect t he spawning period, making it earlier or latter in the year. Females lay between 870 and 8700 eggs (Campb ell and MacCrimmon 1970) which hatch within 24 hours (S cott and Crossman 1973). Fish stay near shore unti l fall and then move into deep waters to overwinter. They feed on midge larvae, zooplankton, benthic microinvertebrates and algae (Campbell and MacCrimm on 1970).

The occurrence of rainbow smelt, gizzard shad and e merald shiner in the collection basket at LOS is il lustrated in Figure 5.

The remaining individuals collected consisted of sp ort fish and a few incidental species:

Sport Fish

Walleye is one of the predominant sport fish in the Upper Missouri River. Other species include perch, northern pike, catfish, smallmouth bass, sauger and sunfish. Introduced salmonid species (e.g., rainbo w trout) may also be found although warm-water species are t he dominant sport fish in the Missouri River downst ream of Garrison Dam. Only a few individual sport fish were collected during the impingement investigation at LOS, including walleye and channel catfish; seven sport fish or 1.8% of the total were collected.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Although the Garrison Reach is potential habitat fo r several threatened and endangered species such as the pallid sturgeon, no threatened or endangered specie s were collected in the impingement mortality study

.



### 3.4.2 Handling Tolerance
Table 4 presents data summarized by EPRI (2003) on the observed impingement survival of different fish species. This review does not include all species but does summarize an extensive set of studies for many important species. To support the assessment of po tential survival upon fish handling and return, the species that are common in the river and commonly impinged were assessed relative to the average and median ra te of survival following removal from traveling screen s.

EPRI (2003) indicated that the median extended surv ival for gizzard shad was 11% for intermittently ro tated screens and 9% for continuously rotated screens. T he other two dominant species are not represented i n this table but other similar species such as freshwater drum show limited extended survival (20%). This su ggests that any sort of fish handling and return system is not likely to achieve significant reductions in im pingement mortality for the three finfish species that domina te impingement at LOS. These trends will be evalua ted further relative to potential mitigation measures i n subsequent portions of the CDS.



### 3.4.3 Swimming Speeds
In the Preamble to the Rule, the US EPA states “int ake velocity is one of the key factors that can aff ect the impingement of fish and other aquatic biota”. In t he immediate area of the intake structure, the velo city of water entering a CWIS exerts a direct physical forc e against which fish and other organisms must act t o avoid impingement and entrainment. In addition, technolo gies (wedgewire screens and velocity caps) may redu ce or change CWIS velocities, and hence impingement.

Native fishes of the upper Missouri River are gener ally adapted to environments with relatively slow c urrent velocities (Bowen et al. 2003). Areas of high veloc ity are present, however, and seasonal rainfall and snow melt can result in rapidly rising river discharge a nd associated velocities which sweep many smaller f ish and invertebrates downstream. Manmade modifications to the river, primarily as a result of dam and hydroel ectric structures, also create environments of higher or l ower current velocities (Wlosinski and Supernant 20 01). The ecological habits of several species require high s ustained, or sudden, speeds. Northern pike, for exa mple, present a fast, fusiform cross-section and demonstr ate an “S”-start capability which allows very rapid , sudden movement to capture prey and escape predators (Schr ieder and Hale 2004). Similarly, gar are built for very fast movements to capture food, although sustained speeds are generally much lower. At the opening to forebays, fish must employee sudden, or burst, spee d to effectively move away from the CWISs. While ecological factors such as life stage (e.g., adult versus juvenile) and habitat preference (e.g., bent hic versus pelagic) play a role in individual vulnerability, t otal length appears to be particularly important to survival, with smaller fish more at risk than larger fish (Adam 20 04).

Burst swimming is defined as a short term (~20 seco nds) anaerobic muscular contraction used by fish to produce maximum acceleration (Wolter and Arlinghaus 2003). Burst swimming by fish is critical to avoid ing patches of unusually fast current such as those tha t might be found in the forebays. Burst swimming is related to several morphological traits such as body shape, fin size, and musculature, but is strongly correla ted with overall length (Wolter and Arlinghaus 2003, Figure 6). The relationships illustrated in the Figures 6 and 7 were shown to be reasonably applicable to most species a nd even to small representatives. Wolter and Arlin ghaus (2003) reported that salmonids exhibited the highes t swimming performance. Eels and sturgeons had a fa irly low burst speed relative to their length.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-7 To determine whether the larger fish collected at t he LOS should have been capable of escaping from th e CWIS forebays, the Wolter and Arlinghaus model (Fig ure 6) was applied, using fish total length as the independent variable. The resulting burst speed cal culations were compared to measured water velocitie s in the CWIS forebays, taken at the time of sample coll ection using a General Oceanics flow meter (Table 5 ).

All of the larger fish could, hypothetically, achie ve a burst speed that would allow them to escape fr om the forebays. In fact, using the same burst speed model from Wolter and Arlinghaus (2003), healthy fish lo nger than 5 cm should be able to escape from the forebay s, given the speeds listed in Table 5. However, th e water velocity measured at the time of sample collection may not be representative of overall forebay water velocity, particularly in deeper water. Eddies and microcurre nts created by the concrete walls of the forebay an d other underwater structures and barriers may yield signif icantly higher velocities as well as turbulent forc es that overwhelm a fish’s ability to escape. Another impo rtant factor is water temperature. Batty and Blaxte r (1992) found that the muscle contraction time for an escap e response decreased at lower temperatures, as did tailbeat frequency, which determines how fast a fish ca n swim. A similar response was found in goldfish an d killifish (Johnson and Bennett 1995). During colde r months, therefore, small fish in the Missouri Riv er may be more vulnerable to impingement, although such vulne rability is countered by overall lower activity.

Despite the significance of the Wolter and Arlingha us model (R 2 =0.77, p<0.001), the burst speeds of some of the species collected at LOS may fall below the res ponse curve. Catfish, for example, being generally benthic feeders, may have lower burst speeds than more stre amlined fish such as northern pike, gar and walleye

. Even considering other factors that influence burst speed, interspecies variability or the maximum for ebay intake velocity, the larger fish listed in Table 5 should have been able to escape. It is possible, th erefore, that these fish were not healthy at the time of impingem ent and did not have the energetic resources needed to move away from the forebay. Some of them may have b een dead prior to impingement (as is the likely cas e with some of the smaller fish as well).

Although a species’ swimming speed is a key element in determining its impingement potential, there ar e many factors that are important including individua l size, behavioral cues, feeding habits, preferred location within the water column and relative to the CWIS lo cation, and the tendency to school.



### 3.5 General Conclusions

3.5.1 Life Stage and Taxonomy Data for all Species in the Garrison Reach are Well Understood.
Fish species and populations in the Garrison Reach have been historically studied and continue to be evaluated several times annually by NDG&F. The inf ormation provided by NDG&F provides a good historic al record of the kinds and numbers of fish present in the river new LOS and the seasonal fluctuations tha t fish populations may experience. The fish species that w ere found to be impinged at the LOS CWIS represent a subset of all the species collected by NDG&F, indic ating that most species typical of the Garrison Rea ch are not routinely impinged. There did not appear to be any unusual or unexpected rates of impingement spec ific to one species or one operating scenario. During the year long impingement mortality study, there also w eren’t any unique flow, temperature or habitat anomalies i n this segment of the river.



### 3.5.2 Life Stage and Taxonomy Data for all Species Collected in the Impingement Survey are Well Understood.
All collected specimens were readily identified as to species and life stage. Most fish recovered from the collection basket were classified as dead, meaning that at the time of collection, there was no visibl e movement of the body, including gill covers, fins o r tail. This did not necessarily mean that a fish was dead when impinged. In many cases, the fish appear to be in good shape when collected which means it may ha veReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 3-8 been alive when impinged and subsequently died on t he screens. At other times, fish were decayed, whic h suggests death prior to impingement. All specimens were counted and identified.

Most collected specimens were identified as young o f the year, based on weight and length. The majori ty of specimens were identified as forage species.



### 3.5.3 The Species that are Most Commonly Impinged a re Abundant in the Garrison Reach and Rare Species are Not Impinged.
Throughout the sampling period, 16 species and a to tal of 397 individuals were collected; however, rai nbow smelt, gizzard shad and emerald shiners were the mo st common species, comprising a total of 359 fish o r 90% of all the fish collected. As noted previously , these three species are considered forage species and are represented in the fish collected by NDG&F.



### 3.5.4 Impingement Rates at LOS are Low and Impingem ent Mortality will have no LongLasting Consequences on the Populations of Impinged Species.
Extrapolated impingement rates, based on the actual data collected from June 2005 to June 2006, are discussed in Section 4. Impingement rates for all species are considered to be very low; the highest rates are associated with the three forage species, rainbow s melt, gizzard shad and emerald shiner. Because of their relative abundance in the river, the effects or imp acts of impingement losses from LOS on these popula tions has been, and will continue to be, negligible.



### 3.6 Assessment of Data Sufficiency
The results of this study may be used to assess the performance of the current CWIS as well as evaluat e additional potential technologies and measures. The original Rule set out specific data requirements f or a compliance demonstration study (Table 6). Even thou gh the Rule has been suspended, Basin Electric beli eves that the historical data available on the Missouri River and its environs plus the data from the site- specific impingement mortality study will support the goals of any future rule that may require characterizatio n.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-1 

# 4.0 Data Interpretation

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 Taxonomic Identifications
A list of the impinged species at LOS was presented in Table 2. As noted previously, 90% of the impin ged individuals were rainbow smelt, gizzard shad and em erald shiners. When compared to the fish data coll ected by the NDG&F, it is interesting to note that many o f the species collected by the agency never appeare d on the screens at LOS. One of the most common species, th e gizzard shad, was not found by NDG&F until the fa ll (September) of 2005 when a large number of gizzard shad were collected near the Stanton station. This was about the same time when gizzard shad were collecte d at LOS for the first time. This fall “run” of giz zard shad, therefore, was quantified by both the NDG&F and LOS CWIS data.

While quantitative comparisons are difficult, it is apparent that many species that dominate the ambie nt samples from the river proper are poorly or not rep resented in impingement samples collected at LOS. The white sucker comprised over 19% of all the fish col lected from 1997 to 2006 by NDG&F at the Stanton sampling location, while only 1 white sucker (0.3%) was collected at LOS. Similarly, while over 17% of the fish collected from 1997 to 2006 by NDG&F were river car psuckers, this species was not found at all during the impingement mortality study at LOS. The differences in composition and frequency of fish known to be common in the Garrison Reach and those observed in the impingement samples are likely to be due to hab itat preferences and/or escape potential. The collectio n methods and gear utilized in the ambient river st udies have the potential to bias the results of the sampl ing event, making inter-survey comparisons difficul t.



### 4.1.2 Characterization of Lifestages
The original Phase II rule called for the character ization of all stages that might be subject to impi ngement and, if appropriate, entrainment. This characterization may be necessary to ensure the full scope of any p otential impact is understood and that any implications for selection of mitigation measures are known. Basin Electric believes that the general literature and the result s of the impingement mortality study support an understanding of the potential impacts to all life stages. As importantly, the impingement mortality study was designed to facilitate understanding of diel and an nual variations.

4.1.2.1 Size of Impinged Organisms
Life stages subject to impingement include all stag es greater than the intake screen mesh size. The la rge majority of fish impinged at the LOS CWIS were smal l. More than 50% of the collected fish were classif ied as adults, based on their length and weight. The large st adult fish belonged to species of which very few were collected, such as channel catfish (6), cisco (1) a nd goldeye (1) (Figure 8). Adults of the most commo n fish were not substantially longer than young of the yea r (YOY), and generally did not exceed 10 cm in tota l length. Because of their inability to escape for forebays, small adults and YOY dominate those fish impinged o n traveling water screens. Due to the placement of t rash racks and debris screens on intake pipes, and due to their ability to out-swim intake approach velocitie s, larger organisms are not typically subject to im pingement.

4.1.2.2 Temporal Variations in IM
Temporal variations in IM are the result of both bi ological factors (e.g., spawning season, migrations , etc.) and non-biological factors (e.g., river stage, plant op erational status, etc.). Due to the multitude of f actors that can potentially affect impingement mortality at a given location, temporal variations are difficult to asc ertain. Specific knowledge of the waterbody, plant CWIS, an d the dominant species in the area can allow tempor al variations to be estimated. Much of this informati on is available from the literature. One obvious f actor thatReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-2 can affect impingement mortality, and which takes p recedent over biological factors, is the operationa l status of a plant. At LOS, typical water withdrawal does not vary with power demand. Pumping characteristics , such as suction and discharge head across the condensers , stimulates some variability in flow. In general, however, flow rates are constant over a wide range of electr ical generation. It should also be noted that the data were collected during normal operating conditions and, t herefore, do not reflect any bias associated with d ifferential plant operation.

Understanding of the temporal variations in impinge ment is important for two potential reasons:

• In order to characterize accurately impacts of imp ingement mortality. For example, if impingement events were more significantly common during the ni ght, failure to sample during both day and night would bias the daily estimates of impingement. Bas in Electric believes that the existing data sets address this issue by inclusion of sampling through out the year as well as both day and night conditions.

• In order to assess whether periodic flow reduction might serve as a mitigation measure. For example, if it can be demonstrated that impingement mortalit y occurs during a specific season and the plant can be idled or run with reduced cooling water flow dur ing that period, this might present an effective mitigation strategy. However, such a measure may pr ove to be wholly impractical from a load-serving requirement. At this point, Basin Electric is not able to commit to such operational measures.

4.1.2.3 Seasonal Variation Spawning season is one of the most important biolog ical factors affecting impingement mortality rates. Spawning times vary with species and are influenced by abiotic factors such as water clarity, total di scharge and temperature. The primary period of reproduction and peak abundance of most Missouri River taxa is during the months of spring (typically March throug h May). Walleye, for example, typically spawn in A pril and May. Other species, however, spawn in the summer, f all or even winter. Spawning time for the emerald s hiner is July to August; the cisco, of which only one spe cimen was found, spawns in November and December. Nevertheless, spring and summer remain the peak spa wning and incubation periods and therefore these seasons would theoretically appear to be the most i mportant seasons in regards to impingement as this is the time when larger populations would be present and s mall young would be hatched and locally present. M any of these organisms will be able to avoid entrainmen t later in the year as they grow larger and acceler ate their swimming speeds and avoidance capabilities. The s tudy data demonstrated that the greatest impingemen t rates occurred in the early winter months when cert ain species, e.g., gizzard shad, experienced “runs”

. Data collected during the one year study completed at LOS were evaluated to determine seasonal variati ons in impingement rates. As noted previously, the wint er months, from approximately mid November through the end of January, experienced the highest impingement rates for the three most common species.

Biomass was also analyzed for seasonal differences. Biomass was variable, however much higher values were observed in the winter period (mid-November th rough late January) compared to the rest of the yea r. Total abundance showed similar trends with higher r ates in the summer (mid-June through early August).

4.1.2.4 Diel Variation
The impingement study data was collected during bot h the day and night to enable an accurate assessmen t of the species and true impingement rates. However, m uch of the data were summarized on a daily 24-hour basis.

Diel variations observed are most likely caused by species-specific daily patterns associated with res t and feeding periods. Organisms are much more active an d mobile when feeding, and therefore have a higher chance of becoming impinged during these periods. Many invertebrates and vertebrates exhibit phototro pic responses, moving vertically in the water column in response to daylight intensity (Wetzel 1983). Fish alsoReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-3 demonstrate vertical and horizontal migration over a 24-hour period; in many cases this movement is a response to movement of food items. Emerald shiners , for example, tend to move into deeper waters duri ng the day (Campbell and MacCrimmon 1970). Increased l ocal fish migration often occurs in early morning a nd late afternoon and evening when food items are movi ng as well.



### 4.1.3 Correlation Analysis
As described in Section 4.1.2, there are several fa ctors that can influence the number and size of fis h impinged at LOS. Correlation analyses were conducte d to determine if variability in the number of fish , or fish biomass, could be related to, or explained by, inde pendent data obtained at the time of sample collect ion. Independent variables included plant load, air temp erature, water temperature, water velocity, water f low (GPM), intake water volume (MGD) and depth of water in the forebay. Single variable linear regression analyses were initially conducted, which showed tha t changes in the number of fish collected or the bi omass of those fish were not readily explained by any single variable. Most coefficients of determination (r 2 ) were less than 0.10. The best simple linear correlation for t he number of fish was with air temperature (r 2 = 0.14), which showed a negative relationship with the number of f ish (Figure 9); the best correlation for biomass wa s with intake water volume (r 2 = 0.12) (Figure 10).

To determine whether very high biomass, occurring b ecause of one or two exceptionally large fish or a large number of smaller fish, affected the outcome of the correlation analysis, data from nine events, when the biomass ranged from 272.5 to 763 g, were dropped fr om the dataset. Simple linear regression analysis w as again completed, indicating that intake volume was the best independent variable, resulting in r 2 values of 0.21 for both number of fish and biomass (Figures 11 and 12, respectively).

After running simple linear regression analyses, al l variables were examined using stepwise regression models, with forward selection and a selection crit erion of p=0.05. Using the full dataset, the linear models did not provide a substantially improved explanation of dependent factor variability; only one variable wa s retained for both number of fish (air temperature) and bioma ss (intake volume). Using the reduced dataset, the r 2 value for number of fish rose to 0.18, but again only ret ained intake volume. The biomass model using the re duced dataset retained both flow and water temperature as the best independent variables (r 2 = 0.31).

These analyses indicate that, while the amount of w ater passing through the forebay into the intake st ructure is probably the single most important variable affecti ng the number of fish impinged, even intake volume (daily or instantaneous) explains only a small portion of ove rall fish impingement variability.



### 4.1.4 Documentation of Current IM Rates
Upon evaluation of data distribution, it became app arent that because of occasional episodic events, t he calculation of impingement rate should be based on mean values, not median values. (See the attached distribution analyses.) The calculations of imping ement rate are as follows:

“As Built” Impingement Rate

The “as built” calculation baseline for the year-lo ng impingement study at LOS was based on extrapolat ing results from the 28, biweekly, 24-hour impingement sampling events conducted between mid June 2005 and the end of June 2006. Daily results were expanded based on actual circulating water flows to yield an impingement rate per million gallons and per 10,000 cubic meters (m 3 ). These rates were then used to calculate a total impingement rate for the year bas ed on actual water withdrawal.

Total number of fish impinged during sampling (i.e. , 28 days) = 397

Total weight of fish impinged during sampling = 11. 9 poundsReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-4 Total volume of water withdrawn during sampling = 8 319.4 million gallons

Total annualized water withdrawal (actual) = 109,84 1.4 million gallons

= 4.15 x 10 8 m 3

Mean number of fish impinged = 0.05 per million gallons

= 0.12 per 10,000 m 3

Mean gram weight of fish impinged = 0.58 grams pe r million gallons

= 1.54 grams per 10,000 m 3

Total estimated impingement, based on actual water withdrawal:

5,492 fish per year

63,708 grams fish per year or 140.4 pounds

Calculation Baseline by Design

This second impingement calculation baseline was ba sed on extrapolating results used to derive the “as built” study estimate except that the daily impingement ra tes were expanded using the rated capacity of circu lating water and service water pumps (330 MGD) rather than actual water use during the study period. This calculation approach results in the following:

Total annualized water withdrawal (design) = 120,45 0 million gallons

= 4.56 x 10 8 m 3

Mean number of fish impinged = .05 per million g allons

= .12 per 10,000 m 3

Mean gram weight of fish impinged = 0.58 grams pe r million gallons

= 1.54 grams per 10,000 m 3

Total estimated impingement, based on design water withdrawal:

6,023 fish per year

69,861 grams fish per year or 154 pounds

This calculation baseline estimate represents a 9.7 % increase over the “as built” study estimate in nu mbers and biomass. The relative contributions to the tot al estimate at the taxa level are essentially the s ameReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-5 between the “as built” and the design calculation b aseline. The larger calculation baseline estimates , which are based on maximum pumping rates, reflect the dif ference between the rated capacity and actual water use, which totaled 91% of rated capacity during the year -long study.

Impingement rates were estimated based on flow rate recorded during the study or by assuming the flow rate was at maximum plant capacity when flow rates were not available. Flow rates were standardized to 10, 000

m 3 of water flow to allow extrapolation over time and to allow plant comparisons. These rates appear reasonable when compared to other impingement studi es on large river systems.

Potential impact to the Missouri River fisheries ba sed on these rates is likely insignificant.



### 4.2 Definition of Performance Basis
The original 316 (b) Phase II Rule was specific in that it required an 80% reduction in IM from the Ca lculation Baseline. Although the rule was specific in that i t established a quantitative reduction in IM, it sh ould be noted that many NPDES permittees and regulatory agencies have historically taken more of an ecological appro ach in assessing performance basis as it relates to pot ential impact from CWIS.



### 4.2.1 Target Species
Some species have higher importance than others bas ed on commercial/recreational importance, ecologica l importance, and protected status. After reviewing all of the available data, it was determined that n o species warranted special attention. It is interesting to note that some species such as gizzard shad are oft en looked upon by the public, and sometimes the scientific co mmunity, as having limited value due to their ubiqu itous nature and rapid growth which make them unsuitable as a food source for some game species. Although t his species has ecological value and is a component to the food chain, population control of this species often occurs. Haines (2000), for example suggested biolo gical control of gizzard shad by using predator fis h species to manage and reduce impingement on cooling water intake screens. Similarly, gizzard shad are often targeted in freshwater lakes/reservoirs acros s the United States by fisheries agencies, via lake drawdown, to manage their populations.

For the purpose of this IMECS, however, all species were treated with equal importance in estimating t he performance basis.



### 4.2.2 Calculation Baseline - Numbers vs. Biomass
The 316(b) Phase II rule did not specify whether co mpliance with the IM performance standard should be based on a reduction in fish abundance or biomass. For this reason, both were evaluated.

The Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) for L OS proposed that the water/debris system provided approximately 10% potential “benefit” from EPA’s ba seline situation. Otherwise, the LOS intake is sim ilar to the EPA baseline situation. With a conservative es timate of an annual impingement rate of 6,023 fish and 69,861 grams (154 pounds), the calculation baseline for LOS becomes:

6,692 fish per year or

77,623 grams fish per year or 171 poundsReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-6 

### 4.3 Conclusions
A review of available fish collection data (by elec trofishing) from the North Dakota Game and Fish Dep artment (NDG&F) revealed that the most common species colle cted during the impingement investigation (rainbow smelt, gizzard shad, emerald shiner) are collected at lower rates during electrofishing studies, where species such as walleye, river carpsucker and white sucker are more common. This difference is likely due, in a large part, to differences in collection methodology as w ell as fish size. Fish collected via electrofishin g tend to be overwhelmingly larger (>20 cm in length) whereas im pinged fish are much smaller (<10 cm in length). Impingement results for LOS show that Missouri Rive r game species are seldom impinged and the most common impinged species are the small forage fish, many of which may originate from Lake Sakakawea. Th e small fish impinged at LOS, particularly rainbow sm elt which were introduced into the lake as forage f ish for salmonids, may be either dead, injured or weak when then reach the LOS CWIS, thus increasing the likel ihood of impingement. The impingement results, therefore, were consistent with the kinds of fish that would be most susceptible to impingement in the source waterbody.

The calculation baseline for LOS, based on a year l ong impingement mortality study and design withdraw al rates, is 6,692 fish per year . The species, numbers of individuals and biomass potentially impinged at LOS is likely to be insignificant.



### 4.3.1 Calculation Baseline - Abundance

Calculation Baseline - Abundance

Randall et al. (1995) summarized numeric density fo r 143 rivers around the world. Mean density was determined to be 75,665 fish per hectare for all ri vers combined and 132,247 fish per hectare for Nort h American rivers. There is, however, substantial va riability in fish production in North American rive rs and lakes. Wetzel (1983) reports that biomass productio n for individual species can vary from less than 10 kg/ha/yr to over 900 kg/ha/yr, with an average of approximat ely 500 kg/ha/yr for total fish production in North American streams.

Numeric density or biomass data for the channel bor der habitats of the Garrison Reach of the Upper Mis souri River are not available, although the electrofishin g data from NDG&F fish are (Table 1). It cannot be determined if the density for North American Rivers (132,000 organisms per hectare) (Randall et al. 19 95) is reflective of conditions in the Garrison Reach.

Reduction from Baseline - Abundance

Because quantitative data on baseline fish density of the Garrison Reach of the Upper Missouri River a re not available, an accurate estimate of reduction from a baseline value cannot be calculated. However, data gathered by NDG&F at their sampling site near Stant on can be examined to determine if any consistent t rends in abundance are apparent (Figure 13). Those data s how that, for the 9 years preceding the IM study, f ish abundance has been relatively stable. The large spi ke in abundance in the fall of 2005 was due to a la rge number of gizzard shad collected only at that time. These data do not indicate any negative impacts on fish abundance from the LOS CWIS.



### 4.3.2 Calculation Baseline - Species Richness
Calculation Baseline – Species Richness Fish collected by NDG&F at the Stanton sample locat ion in the Garrison Reach from 1997 to the summer o f 2006 are listed in Table 1. In addition to those 3 5 species, another 21 species have been collected b y NDG&F (through 2001) using electrofishing methods (NDG&F Fisheries Management Plan, Missouri River System 2002-2007) (Table 7). Of the 56 resident species fo und in the Garrison Reach, only some would be likel y to occupy the channel border area where the LOS CWIS i s located. As described earlier in this document, s omeReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-7 species prefer and/or spawn on shallow, sandy subst rates but then migrate to deeper channel waters fol lowing spawning. Other species may spend more time near sh allow, channel border areas, sand bars or in relati vely secluded, protected locations, such as small side c hannels. Therefore, of the 56 species that are, or are likely to occur, in the region of the Missouri River near the LOS CWIS, only a portion would be commonly foun d near the CWIS. The reduction in species in the main cha nnel and deeper channel border locations is due to several factors including the lack of suitable habi tat, a vast increase in water velocity, turbidity a nd depth, and a reduction in nutrients and food supply for most s pecies. In a study of the Mississippi River, Schra mm (2004) identified 31 species that were thought to inhabit the main channel, including lamprey, sturgeon, padd lefish, gar, shad/herring, central stoneroller, grass carp, plains minnow, pearl dace, shiners, creek chub, su ckers, smallmouth buffalo, redhorse, catfish, brook stickl eback, and striped bass. Many of these species are also found in the Missouri River in Garrison Reach.

Several species identified in the Garrison Reach wi ll probably not be found in the near-bank location of the LOS CWIS. Of those that are, many of these individu als were probably only incidentally impinged during the IM study (such as white sucker and cisco), due to l imited use of main channel habitat, or may have bee n dead prior to being impinged, as evidenced by their poor physical appearance at the time of recovery. It i s also likely that the morphology of the Missouri River at the LOS location may contribute to the number and type of fish impinged. LOS is located on the outside of a s ubstantial river bend as it changes direction from south to east. Current and inertia may carry small, injured and dead fish to the outside of the bend, near the western/southern bank, where they are more likely t o be carried into the CWIS forebays.

Since there are no quantitative data relative to th e species that would most likely be found in the ch annel border area near the LOS CWIS intake on the Missour i River, a value of 56 species – the number collect ed by NDG&F – was used for the Calculation Baseline (base d on species richness), representing the maximum number of species that could potentially inhabit th e shoreline or channel border near LOS CWIS. All sp ecies collected during the one-year IM study at LOS are r epresented in this list (Table 7).

Reduction from Baseline – Species Richness
In his study of the upper Mississippi River main ch annel Dettmers et al. (2001) determined the habitat was dominated by gizzard shad and freshwater drum (each represented 30% of the total), smallmouth buffalo (10%), channel catfish (9%), shovelnose sturgeon (5 %), mooneye (4%) and common carp (3%). These seven species account for over 90% of the fish in the Mis sissippi River main channel. Some species in the m ain channel of the Missouri River in the Garrison Reach are likely to be the same as in the Mississippi Ri ver, although electrofishing catches from the NDG&F at t he Stanton station were dominated by white sucker, river carpsucker, gizzard shad, walleye, emerald shiner, common carp and shorthead redhorse. The gizzard sha d was only collected once, in the autumn of 2005. Nu merically dominant Missouri River species, therefor e, appear to be demonstrably different than what is fo und in the Mississippi. While both represent very l arge lotic systems that have been significantly modified by da ms and flood control systems, the Mississippi is mu ch wider and deeper than the Missouri, especially the inter-reservoir segments of the upper Missouri. Wha t is consistent between the Mississippi River studies an d fish population data from the Missouri River is t hat both tend to be dominated by a relatively small number o f taxa.

Illinois Natural Heritage Survey (INHS) scientists, in collaboration with the USGS and the USACE, samp led the fishes in the main channel of the Mississippi River near Grafton, Illinois in 1996 with a specialized trawling vessel and 24 fish species were collected (INHS 199 7). Abundant species included freshwater drum, cha nnel catfish, gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, and carp . Other fishes caught less frequently in the main channel included the shovelnose sturgeon, lake sturgeon, an d blue sucker. The researchers note that many of t he fish use the main channel during the entire year such as gizzard shad, channel catfish, and smallmouth buff alo as they are suited for life in fast-flowing river cond itions. Many other fishes use the main channel onl y seasonally. The study’s most diverse catches occurred in Septem ber and October when the river was at its lowest an dReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 4-8 temperatures were moderate. In these conditions, f ish common to backwaters (e.g., bigmouth buffalo, shortnose gar and black crappie) can be found in th e main channel.

At the LOS 1 & 2 Plants, only three species represe nted over 90% of the organisms impinged 2005-2006. This suggests a significant reduction in species richnes s in the channel border areas near the CWIS compare d to the 56 (Calculation Baseline) potential species tha t may inhabit this area. Lack of a food source cou ld also play a factor in the spatial differences observed w ith the fisheries between habitats. Eggleton and S chramm (2004) compared feeding ecology and energetic relat ionships with habitat of blue catfish and flathead catfish. They concluded that caloric densities of consumed f oods for both species are generally greatest in flo odplain, intermediate in secondary river channels, and least in the main river channel.

Both the samples of fish impinged at the CWIS and t he NDG&F collections have also been dominated by a relatively small number of taxa. The reduction in richness of the fish impinged is likely related to size, health, ability to escape intake currents (burst speed) and habitat/food availability and preferences (leading to reduced densities in channel and channel border areas). All of these factors contribute to a situation where v ery few taxa are routinely available for possible impingeme nt in the CWIS, resulting in no significant impact on the richness of the fish populations in this section of the upper Missouri River.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 5-1 

# 5.0 References

Adam, B. 2004. Avoidance of damages on downstream m igrating fish by hydropower plants and inlet works. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift . 111(3):108.

Analytical Software. 2003. Statistix 8. Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL.

Batty, R.S. and J.H.S. Blaxter. 1992. The effect of temperature on the burst swimming performance of f ish larvae. J. Exp. Biol

. 170:187-201.

Bodola, A. 1966. Life History of the Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSeur), Western Lake Erie. Fishery Bulletin . 65:391-425.

Bowen, Z.H., K.D. Boveeand T.J. Waddle. 2003. Effe cts of flow regulation on shallow-water habitat dyn amics and floodplain connectivity. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . 132(4):809-823.

Campbell, J.S. and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1970. Biology o f the Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides Refinesque in Lake Simcoe, Canada. J. Fish Biol . 2:259-273.

Cross, F.B. and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes of Kansas . Univ. of Kansas Natural History Museum, Publ. Education Series No. 14, Lawrence, KS, 315 pp.

Dettmers J.M., S. Gutreuter S., D.H. Wahl and D.A. Soluk. 2001. Patterns in abundance of fishes in mai n channels of the Upper Mississippi River system. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 58:933-942.

Eggleton, M.A. and H. L. Schramm, Jr. 2004. Feedi ng Ecology and energetic relationships with habitat of blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatus, and flathead catf ish, Pylodictis olivaris, in the lower Mississippi River, U.S.A. Environ. Biol. Fishes 70: 107-121

. EPRI. 2003. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant O perations on Aquatic Communities: Summary of Impingement Survival Studies.

Everett, S.R., D.L. Scarnecchia and L. Fred Ryckman . 2004. Distribution and habitat use of sturgeon chubs ( Macrhybopsis gelida ) and sicklefin chubs ( M. meeki ) in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, North Dakota. Hydrobiologia

527:183-193.

Flore, L., H. Keckeis and F. Schiemer. 2001. Feedin g, energetic benefit and swimming capabilities of O + nase ( Chondrostoma nasus

L.) in flowing water: an integrative laboratory ap proach. Arch. Hydrobiol . Suppl. 135:409-424.

Galat, D.L., C.R. Berry, W.M Gardner, J.C. Hendrick son, G.E. Mestl, G.J. Power, C. Stone, M.R. Winston

. 2005. Spatiotemporal patterns and changes in Missou ri River fishes. Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Symposium. 45:249-291.

Garner, P. 1999. Swimming ability and differential use of velocity patches by 0+ cyprinids. Ecol. Fresh. Fish 8:55-58.

Haines, D.E. 2000. Biological control of gizzard sh ad impingement at a nuclear power plant. Environmental Science & Policy

3 S275-S281.

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 1997. Under standing Large-river Fish Communities. http://inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports/sep-oct9 7/rivers.htmlReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 5-2 Johnson, T.P. and A. F. Bennett. 1995. The thermal acclimation of burst escape performance in fish: an integrated study of molecular and cellular physiolo gy and organismal performance. J. Exp. Biol

. 198:2165-2175.

Lee, J. 2003. A Cold Connection. The Relationship o f Rainbow Smelt and Coldwater Habitat in Sakakawea. North Dakota Outdoors, April-May 2003:14-15.

Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and Biology of the G izzard Shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum ) and Related Fishes. Fishery Bulletin. 60:371-392.

Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missou ri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO, 372 p p.

Ross, S.T. 2001. Inland Fishes of Mississippi . Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Park s.

Schramm, H.L., Jr. 2004. Status and Management of Mississippi River Fisheries. Pages 301-333 in R. Welcomme and T. Petr, editors. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries. Volume 1 . FAO Regional Office for Asia and The Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2004/16.

Schrieder, J.E. and M. E. Hale. 2004. Strikes and s tartles of northern pike ( Esox lucius ): a comparison of muscle activity and kinematics between S-start beha viors. J. Exp. Biol . 207:535-544.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fis hes of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Can ., Bull. 184.

Wakeling, J.M, K.M. Kemp and I.A. Johnston. 1999. T he biomechanics of fast-starts during the ontogeny in the common carp Cyprinus carpio

. J. Exp. Biol. 202:3057-3067.

Wardle, C.S. 1975. Limit of fish swimming speed. Nature . 255:725-727.

Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology . 2 nd Edition. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia 767 pp + refs and index.

Wlosinski, J.H. and C. Suprenant. 2001. Fish passag e through dams on the Upper Mississippi River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report. January 2001

. Wolter, C. and R. Arlighaus. 2003. Navigation impac ts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Rev. in Fish Biol. and Fisheries . 13:63-89.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008



# TablesReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 1. Complete List of Fish Species Collected by North Dakota Game and Fish from 1997 to

Summer 2006 at the Stanton Collection Site in the G arrison Reach

Common Name Scientific Name Number of Years Collected Total

Number of Fish Collected Percent

of Total

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 10 183 3.8 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongates 8 40 0.8 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 4 28 0.6 Burbot Lota lota 5 8 0.2 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 10 253 5.3 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 8 30 0.6 Cisco Coregonus artedi 1 7 0.1 Common Shiner Notropis cornutus 1 9 0.2 Cutthroat Trout Salmo clarki 4 23 0.5 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 8 267 5.6 Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha 8 33 0.7 Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 1 1 <0.1 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 9 12 0.3 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1 640 13.4 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides 7 23 0.5 Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 5 61 1.3 Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 1 1 <0.1 Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus 9 244 5.1 Northern Pike Esox lucius 9 34 0.7 Paddlefish Polydon spathula 2 3 0.1 Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax 8 22 0.5 Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 5 6 0.1 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 10 818 17.2 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 6 56 1.2 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 10 95 2.0 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 9 259 5.4 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui 5 19 0.4 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 5 10 0.2 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 5 18 0.4 Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius 3 3 0.1 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 10 551 11.6 White Bass Morone chrysops 6 91 1.9 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 10 913 19.2 Western Silvery Minnow Hybognathus argyritis 1 1 <0.1 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 2 3 0.1 Totals 4765 100Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 2. Species and Number of Fish Collected at L OS

Species Total Number Collected

Gizzard Shad 177

Rainbow Smelt 132

Emerald Shiner 50

Longnose Sucker 13

Channel Catfish 6

Fathead Minnow 5

Freshwater Drum 3

Stonecat 2

Tadpole Madtom 2

Black Bullhead 1

Carpsucker 1

Goldeye 1

Walleye 1

White Sucker 1

Shortnose Gar 1

Cisco 1Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 3. Species and Number of Fish Collected at G RE

Species Total Number Collected

Rainbow Smelt 218

Gizzard Shad 128

Emerald Shiner 89

Fathead Minnow 11

Carpsucker 8

Longnose Sucker 7

Black Bullhead 4

Goldeye 2

Northern Pike 1

White Sucker 1

Channel Catfish 1

Saugeye 1

Stonecat 1

Yellow Perch 1Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 4. Comparison of Survival of Some Fish Speci es on Screens with Continuous versus Intermittent Rotation (from EPRI 2003)

Common Name % Survival (Intermittent Rotation) % Survival

(Continuous Rotation) Blue catfish 20 Threadfin shad 11 9 Bay anchovy 1 29 Freshwater drum 19 62 Gizzard shad 11 9 Skipjack herring 2 0 Channel catfish 20 Striped mullet 6 Black crappie 0 10 Largemouth bass 100 White shrimp 81 Brown shrimp 87 Blue crab 56 80 Gulf menhaden 14 Atlantic croaker 0 50 Sand weakfish 26 Hardhead sea catfish 47 Atlantic menhaden 8 0 Menhaden (combined) 8 9 Sticklebacks 0 Alewife 2 0Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 5. Large Fish Collected at LOS CWIS and Calcu lation of Hypothetical Burst Speed

Species Date/Event Total Length (in) Total

Length (cm) Calculated

Burst Speed (cm/s) Max Forebay

Water Velocity (cm/s)

Walleye 6/16/05 PM 16.54 42 158 66

Shortnose gar 7/13/05 PM 21.26 54 193 66

Goldeye 8/10/05 AM 13.58 34.5 136 50

Channel Catfish 11/16/05 AM 15.55 39.5 151 28

Cisco 2/8/06 PM 15.75 40 152 22

Channel Catfish 2/22/06 AM 16.54 42 158 21Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 Table 6. Assessment of Data Sufficiency

Original Phase II Rule Citation Requirement Historical Data Source Data from

Impingement Study Existing

Data Adequate?

125.95(b)(3)(i) Taxonomic identifications of all life stages of

fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered species) that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and are susceptible to impingement and entrainment. SiteSpecific (sampling by ND G&F); Regional Literature Data indicates

species most susceptible to impingement Yes

125.95(b)(3)(ii) A characterization of all life stages of fish,

shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered species) identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, including a description of the abundance and temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s), based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in impingement mortality and

entrainment. SiteSpecific(sa mpling by ND G&F); Regional Literature Year long study

with 24 hour collection periodsprovided sitespecific and comprehensive data on potential variations Yes

125.95(b)(3)(iii) Documentation of the current impingement

mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal Law (including threatened or endangered species) identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section and an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment to be used as the calculation baseline. Impingement mortality and entrainment samples to support the calculations required in Section 125.95(b)(4)(i)(C) and 125.95(b)(5)(iii) of the Rule must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure and the flows associated with the samples must be

documented. None Rates of impingement mortality have been quantified with the year long site-specific study. YesReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008

Table 7. Fish Collected by NDG&F in the Garrison Re ach and Number Collected During One-Year IM Study at LOS

Fish Collected by NDG&F in Garrison Reach Number Impinged at LOS CWIS Fish Collected by NDG&F in Garrison Reach Number Impinged at LOS CWIS

Banded Killifish Longnose Dace Bigmouth Buffalo Longnose Sucker 13
Black Bullhead 1 Northern Pike Black Crappie Northern Redbelly Dace Bluegill Orangespotted Sunfish
Blue Sucker Paddlefish Brassy Minnow Plains Minnow Brook Stickleback Pumpkinseed
Brown Trout Rainbow Smelt 132
Burbot Rainbow Trout Common Carp Red Shiner Channel Catfish 6 River Carpsucker 1
Cisco 1 Sand Shiner Common Shiner Sauger
Cutthroat Trout Shorthead Redhorse
Emerald Shiner 50 Shortnose Gar 1 Chinook Salmon Shovelnose Sturgeon
Fathead Minnow 5 Smallmouth Buffalo
Finescale Dace Smallmouth Bass Flathead Chub Spottail Shiner
Freshwater Drum 3 Stonecat 2 Gizzard Shad 177 Tadpole Madtom 2 Golden Shiner Walleye 1 Goldeye 1 White Bass
Iowa Darter White Sucker 1 Johnny Darter Western Silvery Minnow Lake Trout White Crappie Largemouth Bass Yellow PerchReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008



# FiguresReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 

### Figure 3. Photographs of LOS CWIS



### 3A. Front of Intake at LOS CWIS 3B. Trash Racks at LOS CWIS

3C. Traveling ScreensReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 

### Figure 4. Total Number of Fish Collected by ND Game and Fish 1997 to Summer 2006

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Bigmouth BuffaloBlack BullheadBlue SuckerBrown TroutBurbotCarpsuckerCommon CarpChannel CatfishCiscoCommon ShinerCutthroat TroutEmerald ShinerChinook SalmonFathead MinnowFreshwater DrumGizzard ShadGoldeyeJohnny DarterLongnose DaceLongnose SuckerNorthern PikePaddlefishRainbow SmeltRainbow TroutRiver CarpsuckerSmallmouth BuffaloSaugerSaugeyeShorthead RedhorseSmallmouth BassShortnose GarShovelnose SturgeonSpottail ShinerStonecatTadpole MadtomWalleyeWhite BassWhite SuckerWestern Silvery MinnowYellow Perch

SpeciesNumber of Fish

NDGF total NDGF Summer NDGF Fall



### Figure 5. Totals on Each Sample Collection Date for the Three Most Abundant Fish Collected at Leland Olds

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Ju n e 1 6

J une 29

J uly 13

J u ly 2 7 Aug 10 Aug 24 Sep t 7 Sept 2 1 O ct 10 O ct 1 9 Nov 2 No v 1 6 Nov 30 De c 1 4 De c 2 8 Jan 11
J an 2 5 Fe b 8
F e b 22 Ma r 8 Mar 22 A pr 5 Apr 19 May 3 Ma y 1 7 May 31 Ju n e 1 4 Ju n e 28



### Collection DateNumber of Fish

Rainbow Smelt
Emerald Shiner Gizzard ShadReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008

Figure 6. Generalized model of burst speed of large fish as it relates to total length. From Wolter a nd Arlinghaus 2003.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008

Figure 7. Generalized model of burst speed of smaller fish ( ≤ 60 mm) as it relates to total length. 1) Wolter and Arlinghaus model, 2) Wardle (1975), 3) W akeling et al. (1999) for carp, 4) Flore et al. (20 01) for nose carp and Garner (1999) for 5) roach and 6 ) dace



### .Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 

### Figure 8. Average total length of adults and YOY co llected at the LOS CWIS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Bl ac k bullhe ad Carpsuck er

C ha nne l C a t f ish Cis co Emerald S hiner Gizzard Shad Goldeye

Longn os e Suck e r

R ai nb ow Smel t Stonecat

Fres hw ater Drum Whit e S uc ker



### SpeciesTotal Length (cm)

Adult YOY



### Figure 9. Relationship between Number of Fish Colle cted (all

data) and Air Temperature

y = -0.2267x + 17.885
R 2 = 0.1419

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Air Temperature (F)Number of FishReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 

### Figure 10. Relationship between Fish Biomass (all d ata) and

Plant Intake Volume

y = 0.6748x - 90.911
R 2 = 0.1214

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Intake Volume (MGD)Biomass (g)



### Figure 11. Relationship between Number of Fish Coll ected (excluding high biomass events) and Plant Intake Vo lume

y = 0.0178x - 0.2252
R 2 = 0.2079

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Intake Volume (MGD)Number of FishReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 

### Figure 12. Relationship between Fish Biomass (exclu ding high biomass events) and Plant Intake Volume

y = 0.1105x - 9.4475
R 2 = 0.2081

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Intake Volume (MGD)Biomass (g)



### Figure 13. Number of Fish Collected by NDG&F at Sta nton each Season

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

1997 -S um 1997 -F all

1 9 9 8 -S u m

1 9 9 8 -Fa l l 1999 -S um 1999 -F all 2000-Sum

2 0 0 0 -Fa l l 2001 -S um 2001 -Fa l l 2002-Sum 2002 - Fall 2003 -S um 2003 -Fa l l 2004 - Sum 2004 -F all 2005-Sum

2 0 0 5 -Fa l l 2006 -S um

Sampling PeriodNumber of Fish

No DataReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008



# Appendix A

November 15, 2007 Letter from NDDHReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008



# Appendix B

Literature Review Bibliography

(Some references may be the same as in Section 5 of this report)Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008

Berry, C. R. and B. A. Young. 2001. Introduction to the benthic fishes study. Volume 1 of Population s tructure and habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missour i and lower Yellowstone rivers. U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, South Dakota St ate University, Box 2140b, Brookings, South Dakota 57007. charles_berry@sdstate.edu

. Berry, C. R., D. L. Galat, and M. L. Wildhaber. 200 1. Fish distribution and abundance. Volume 3 of Pop ulation structure and habitat use of benthic fishes along t he Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, South Dakota St ate University, Box 2140b, Brookings, South Dakota 57007. charles_berry@sdstate.edu

. Dieterman, D. J., M. P. Ruggles, M. L. Wildhaber, a nd D. L. Galat, editors. 1996. Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Along the Missouri an d Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 1996 Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832 to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Dieterman, D.J. 2000. Spatial Patterns in Phenotype s and Habitat Use of Sicklefin Chub, ( Macrhybopsis meeki ) in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. Doc toral Dissertation, University of MissouriColumbia, Columbia, MO 185 p.

Everett, S. R., D. L. Scarnecchia, and L. F. Ryckma n. 2004. Distribution and habitat use of sturgeon c hubs ( Macrhybopsis gelida ) and sickle-fin chubs (M. meeki) in the Missouri a nd Yellowstone Rivers, North Dakota. Hydrobiologia 527: 183-193.

Galat, D. L., M. L. Wildhaber, and D. J. Dieterman. 2001. Spatial patterns of physical habitat. Volume 2 of Population structure and habitat use of benthic fis hes along the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers

. U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, University of Missouri, 302 ABNR Bldg., Columbia, Missouri 65251-7240. galatd@missouri.edu

. Galat, D., R. White, C. Pierce, L. Sappington, D. S carnecchia, M. Ruggles. Missouri River Benthic Fish Study. http://wfs.sdstate.edu/units/fishes.html . 8 pp.

Hendrickson, J. C. 2004. North Dakota Fisheries Inv estigations. Aquatic Investigations of the Missouri Mainstem in North Dakota. Report of the North Dakot a Game & Fish Department, Bismarck, North Dakota: 85 pp.

Hesse, L. W., J. C. Schmulbach, J. M. Carr, D. D. K eenlyne, D. G. Unkenholz, J. W. Robinson, G. E. Mes tl. 1989. Missouri River Fishery Resources in Relation to Past, Present, and Future Stresses, p. 352- 371. In D.P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International L arge River Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106.

Hesse, L. W. and W. Sheets. 1993. The Missouri Rive r Hydrosystem. Fisheries 18(5): 5-14.

Neel, J. K. 1978. Life in the Missouri River with W arming by 676 Megawatts Gross Steam Generated Power Production. Prepared for Basin Electric Power Coope rative.

Pegg, M. A. 2000. Hydrological variation along the Missouri River and its effect on the fish community

. Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 141 pp.

Pierce, C. L., C. S. Guy, P. J. Braaten, and M. A. Pegg. 2001. Fish growth, mortality, recruitment, an d condition and size structure. Volume 4 of Populatio n structure and habitat use of benthic fishes alongReport No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008 the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. US. Geol ogical Survey, Cooperative Research Units, Iowa State University, Science Hall II, Ames, Iowa 50011

. cpierce@iastate.edu

. Power, G. 1993. The Missouri River System’s “Other” Fish. ND Outdoors, August, p. 6-9.

Power, G., J. C. Hendrickson, J. D. Lee, and F. Ryc kman. 1994. North Dakota Fisheries Investigations, Missouri River System Fishery Reference and Operati onal Management Document. NDG and F Dept., 100 North Bismarck Expressways, Bismarck, ND , 58501-5095. 72 pp.

Power, G. 1995. River Fish. ND Outdoors, March, p. 13.

Power, G. 1998. The Missouri River in North Dakota (Garrison Reach) – A Report to the Director, Offici al Department Position Papers, Game and Fish Departmen t, North Dakota: 7 pp.

Welker, T. L. 2000. Ecology and Structure of Fish C ommunities in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Ri vers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 232 p.

Young, B. A., T. L. Welker, M. L. Wildhaber, C. R. Berry, and D. Scarnecchia, editors. 1997. Populatio n Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes along t he Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 1997 Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Young, B. A. 2001. Intraspecific Variation among Em erald Shiners ( Notropis atherinoides ) of the Missouri River. Doctoral Dissertation, South Dakota State Un iversity, Brookings, SD. 140 p.Report No. 10735-003-0200 September 2008



# Appendix C

Summary of Data Collected through June 2006

# Fish Impinged at Basin Electric Leland Olds Station, GRE Stanton Station, and Minnkota M.R. Young Missouri River Station, Cooling Water Intake Structures

Final Data Summary (June 2005 to June 2006)

Prepared by ENSR Corporation

August 2006Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 1 

### Fish Impinged at Basin Electric Leland Olds Station , GRE Stanton Station, and Minnkota M.R. Young Missouri River Station, Coo ling Water Intake Structures

Final Data Summary (June 2005 to June 2006)

Collection Periods

Samples were collected from the cooling water intakes str uctures (CWIS) at two-week intervals unless interrupted by weather. For example, t he regular collection events of October 5, 2005 were cancelled because of snow; the sampl ing event was rescheduled for, and completed on, October 10, 2005. In some cases, circumst ances required that sampling be rescheduled at one site only.

Data collection at the Minnkota M.R. Young Missouri Ri ver intake was reduced after August 2005 because no fish had been collected at that CWIS. O n April 7, 2006 data were collected at the Minnkota M.R. Young CWIS because there was a n oticeable increase in the number of fish (36) collected on April 5 at Stanton and Lela nd Olds, relative to what had been collected on March 22 (12). As in all previous samplin g events, no fish were collected at the Minnkota M.R. Young CWIS.

June 13-14, 2005 (M.R. Young Missouri River only) June 15-16, 2005 June 28-29, 2005 July 12-13, 2005 July 17-18, 2005 (M.R. Young Missouri River only) July 26-27, 2005 August 9-10, 2005 August 23-24, 2005 September 6-7, 2005 September 20-21, 2005 October 9-10, 2005 October 18-19, 2005 November 1-2, 2005 November 15-16, 2005 November 29-30, 2005 December 13-14, 2005 December 16, 2005 (GRE pm sample only) December 27-28, 2005 January 10-11, 2006 January 24-25, 2006 January 25-26, 2006 (GRE am sample only) February 7-8, 2006 February 21-22, 2006 March 7-8, 2006 March 21-22, 2006 April 4-5, 2006 April 7, 2006 (M.R. Young Missouri River pm sample only) April 18-19, 2006 April 20-21, 2006 (GRE only) May 2-3, 2006 May 16-17, 2006 May 30-31, 2006 June 13-14, 2006 June 27-28, 2006Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 2 

### Collection Methods

On most collection dates, both morning (AM) and evening (PM) samples were obtained. The evening before the collection day (approximately 8 pm ), screens were rotated, washed and then left in place until the following morning. The screens were again washed and all debris, including fish, was caught in a collection basket. The scre ens were again left in place and the same activities were repeated again in the evening, ap proximately eight hours later.

Debris in the collection basket was sorted and all fish we re removed. The fish were placed in a bag or cooler for later measurement. Additional dat a were collected at each facility, including water and air temperature, water velocity in the forebays (using a General Oceanics Flow Meter) and plant output (in megawatts). W eight of the fish was recorded to the nearest 0.5 g and total and standard length of ea ch fish was measured. It was also noted whether the fish were alive or dead when they were removed from the basket.

Data Analysis

All data from each facility were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The total number and weight of fish collected during each event (each event consisting of a 12-hour collection period) and each episode (24-hour period) were deter mined. The mean weight, total length and standard length of each species were calculated for e ach event. As a measure or variance, the minimum and maximum weights and lengths o f each species from each event were also determined.

To evaluate any relationship between conditions at th e facility/CWIS and the number of fish collected, stepwise regression analysis was conducted using S tatistix (Analytical Software 2003). In the initial analysis, all independent vari ables were used (e.g., air temperature, water temperature, plant load, volume, etc.) and all owed to be selected and eliminated by the analysis, depending upon significance. Nonlinear a nalysis was no more effective than linear analysis in reducing uncertainty. When the full datasets were used, the Coefficient of Determination (R 2 

### ) was low for all analyses. Air temperature and discharg e volume in million gallons per day (MGD) were the most significant indepen dent variables, explaining no more than 14% of variation in number of fish collected or i n fish biomass. When the datasets were subsampled, removing all large fish, the relationships i mproved slightly. For example, when flow (GPM) and water temperature were correlated to biomass (in grams) the R 2 

### was 0.31, which is still low.Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 3 

### Fish Collected

No fish were collected at the M.R. Young Missouri River Station during this study. Because of the absence of fish during the first three months of the study, collection efforts were reduced at this facility. Data were collected at the M .R. Young CWIS at the end of the year (Dec. 28, 2005), and no fish were found. No data were collected at the M.R. Young CWIS during the first quarter of 2006. On April 5, 2006, 36 fish were collected from Leland Olds and Stanton stations. While this isn’t an extremely lar ge number of fish, and no where near the number collected in late 2005, it did represent a substantial increase over the 12 fish collected on March 22. Because of this increase, a PM eve nt was scheduled at the M.R. Young Missouri River CWIS on April 7; no fish were coll ected. Additional collections in 2006 at the M.R. Young Missouri River CWIS occurred on Apr il 19 and June 14; no fish were collected on those dates.

After higher quantities of fish in June 2005, there wa s a drop in the number collected in the months of July and August at Leland Olds and Stanton S tations. Beginning in September 2005, the numbers of fish increased and, through the r est of 2005, were similar to what was first observed in June of that year, with one exception (Figure 1). That exception was on November 30, when the total number of fish collected i n the morning at Leland Olds and Stanton exceeded 140 (combined) and the number of fish collected in the evening at the two stations exceeded 100. Most of these fish were gizzard sha d ( Dorosoma cepedianum ). In January 2006, the number of fish collected at Leland Ol ds and Stanton was similar to what was observed in the last few months of 2005. The Januar y 11, 2006 event produced the second highest number of fish (after November 30, 2005 ), the majority of which were rainbow smelt ( Osmerus mordax ).

The number of fish collected at Leland Olds and Stanto n decreased substantially in February 2006. For the first time since July and August 2005, n o fish were collected during some events. On February 22, no fish were collected at Stan ton and on March 8 only one fish was collected, an emerald shiner ( Notropis atherinoides ) at Leland Olds in the evening. On April 5 a total of 36 fish were collected, which is a substant ial increase from the previous sampling events in March. Twenty-three of those fish were emera ld shiners collected from Stanton and only seven fish, also emerald shiners, were collected from Leland Olds. This was the largest number of fish collected in the second quarter of 2006.

Throughout the entire collection period, morning samp les tended to yield more fish than the evening samples, although there were exceptions. More f ish were collected at Stanton than at Leland Olds.

The maximum number of species collected in the second qu arter of 2006 was four. During the last three sampling events in late May and June 200 6 only two species were collected on any one date (Figure 2).Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 4



### Figure 1. Total Number of Fish Collected at Leland Olds and Stanton through June 2006

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ju n e 1 3-1 7

J u ly 1 2 -1 3

A ug 9 - 1 0

S ep t 6-7 Oct 9-10 Nov 1-2

N o v 29-30 De c 2 7 - 2 8 Jan 2 4 - 2 5, 25-26 Fe b 2 1- 22 Mar 2 1 -22

A pr 18-19, 20-21

M a y 16-17

Ju n e 1 3-1 4



### Sampling PeriodNumber of Fish

Leland Old AM Collection
Stanton AM Collection Leland Olds PM Collection Stanton PM Collection



### Figure 2. Number of Species Collected at Leland Old s and Stanton through June 2006

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ju n e 1 3-1 7

J u ly 1 2 -1 3

A ug 9 - 1 0

S ep t 6-7 Oct 9-10 Nov 1-2

N o v 29-30 De c 2 7 - 2 8 Jan 2 4 - 2 5, 25-26 Fe b 2 1- 22 Mar 2 1 -22

A pr 18-19, 20-21

M a y 16-17

Ju n e 1 3-1 4



### Sampling PeriodNumber of Species

Leland Olds AM Collection
Stanton AM Collection Leland Olds PM Collection Stanton PM CollectionFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 5 

### Nineteen species were identified in the collection bask ets at Leland Olds and Stanton over the entire collection period (Figure 3). One new speci es, a yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ), was found in the second quarter of 2006, on April 15 during the morning event at Stanton.

Figure 3. Species Collected at Leland Olds and Stan ton Stations through June 2006

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

S m elt Emeral d Shi ner Blac k Bul lhe ad

G iz z ar d Sha d Goldeye Carpsucker

T ad pole M a dt o m Walley e Nort he rn Pike White Sucker

Fat h ead Minnow

Sh ort no s e G a r Longnose Sucker

Fres hwa t er Dru m Channel Catfish

Saugeye Cisc o St o ne c at

Y ellow Perch



### SpeciesTotal Number of Individual Fish

Leland Olds AM Collection Stanton AM Collection Leland Olds PM Collection
Stanton PM Collection



### Over the collection period, substantial species shifts we re seen. From June 2005 through January 2006, the rainbow smelt was, with a couple except ions, the most common species collected. From June through August 2005 the emerald shi ner was the second most common species collected. Gizzard shad were first collecte d on August 24 (at the Leland Olds Station) and was found during all events through mid-December (Figure 4; note that the number of shad collected on November 30 [220] has been truncated in this figure to better illustrate the other values). Gizzard shad were most com mon at the Leland Olds Station in the evening events. During that same period, emerald shiners disappeared entirely from the collection baskets. On December 14, gizzard shad made it s last appearance at Leland Olds in the evening sample. On that same date, the emerald shiner reappeared at both Leland Olds and Stanton Stations in both the morning and ev ening sampling events.

In January 2006 emerald shiners were present in sample s from both Leland Olds and Stanton Stations. The total number of fish was low in February and early March, but in late March emerald shiners emerged as the dominant species in the collection basket and remained the most common fish for the rest of the study period. Fathead minnows tended toFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 6 

### be somewhat more common in the first quarter of 2006 a nd were the most common species in the June 14 sample.

All of the species collected at Leland Olds and Stanton are presented in Table 1.

Figure 4. Total Number of the Six Most Abundant Fis h Collected at

Leland Olds and Stanton

0 20 40 60 80 100 120June 16June 29July 13July 27Aug 10Aug 24Sept 7Sept 21Oct 10Oct 19Nov 2Nov 16Nov 30Dec 14/16Dec 28Jan 11Jan 25/26Feb 8Feb 22Mar 8Mar 22Apr 5/7Apr 19/21May 3May 17May 31June 14June 28



### Collection DateNumber of Fish Rainbow Smelt
Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad
Fathead Minnow Longnose Sucker
Channel Catfish (Actual value = 220)



### Fish Metrics

In the second quarter of 2006, gizzard shad were not c ollected and smelt were found only at Stanton on April 5, May 3 and May 17. Of the three most common study species, only the emerald shiner was collected at the Leland Olds Statio n. The mean total length of emerald shiners was consistent between 6 and 8 cm (Figure 5). Whi le the length of smelt showed an increase at Leland Olds in late December 2005 and early 2006, other species remained constant (Figure 5). The total length of fish collected at Stanton also remained fairly constant during the collection period, with most fish measuring between about 6 and 8 cm (Figure 6).

The mean weight of the three most common fish tended t o show more variability than length. As with length, the mean weight of smelt collected at Leland Olds also increased in late December 2005 and early 2006 (Figure 7). Mean weig ht of emerald shiners in 2006 was similar to what was observed in summer 2005, before th is species disappeared from theFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 7 

### collection basket. All mean weights of smelt and eme rald shiners collected in 2006 at Stanton were equal to or less than 4 g (Figure 8).

Table 1. Species and number collected

Species Leland Olds Stanton

Rainbow Smelt 132 218 Emerald Shiner 50 89
Black Bullhead 1 4 Gizzard Shad 177 128 Carpsucker 1 8 Goldeye 1 2 Tadpole Madtom 2 0 Walleye 1 0
Northern Pike 0 1 White Sucker 1 1
Fathead Minnow 5 11 Shortnose Gar 1 0 Longnose Sucker 13 7
Freshwater Drum 3 0 Channel Catfish 6 1 Saugeye 0 1 Cisco 1 0 Stonecat 2 1
Yellow Perch 0 1Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 8



### Figure 5. Mean total lengths of fish collected at L eland Olds Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14June 16, 2006June 29, 2006July 13, 2006July 27, 2006Aug 10, 2006Aug 24, 2006Sept 7, 2006Sept 21, 2006Oct 10, 2006Oct 19, 2006Nov 2, 2006Nov 16, 2006Nov 30, 2006Dec 14, 2006Dec 28, 2006Jan 11, 2006Jan 25, 2006Feb 8, 2006Feb 22, 2006Mar 8, 2006Mar 22, 2006Apr 5, 2006Apr 19, 2006May 3, 2006May 17, 2006May 31, 2006June 14, 2006June 28, 2006



### Collection DateTotal Length (cm)
AM - Smelt PM - Smelt AM - Emrld Shiner
PM - Emrld Shiner AM - Gizzard Shad PM - Gizzard Shad



### Figure 6. Mean total lengths of fish collected at S tanton Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14June 16, 2006June 29, 2006July 13, 2006July 27, 2006Aug 10, 2006Aug 24, 2006Sept 7, 2006Sept 21, 2006Oct 10, 2006Oct 19, 2006Nov 2, 2006Nov 16, 2006Nov 30, 2006Dec 14, 2006Dec 28, 2006Jan 11, 2006Jan 25, 2006Feb 8, 2006Feb 22, 2006Mar 8, 2006Mar 22, 2006Apr 5, 2006Apr 21, 2006May 3, 2006May 17, 2006May 31, 2006June 14, 2006June 28, 2006



### Collection DateTotal Length (cm)
AM - Smelt PM - Smelt AM - Emrld Shiner
PM - Emrld Shiner AM - Gizzard Shad PM - Gizzard ShadFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 9



### Figure 7. Mean weight of fish collected at Leland O lds Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12June 16, 2006June 29, 2006July 13, 2006July 27, 2006Aug 10, 2006Aug 24, 2006Sept 7, 2006Sept 21, 2006Oct 10, 2006Oct 19, 2006Nov 2, 2006Nov 16, 2006Nov 30, 2006Dec 14, 2006Dec 28, 2006Jan 11, 2006Jan 25, 2006Feb 8, 2006Feb 22, 2006Mar 8, 2006Mar 22, 2006Apr 5, 2006Apr 19, 2006May 3, 2006May 17, 2006May 31, 2006June 14, 2006June 28, 2006



### Collection DateWeight (g) AM - Smelt PM - Smelt AM - Emrld Shiner
PM - Emrld Shiner AM - Gizzard Shad PM - Gizzard Shad



### Figure 8. Mean weight of fish collected at Stanton Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14June 16, 2006June 29, 2006July 13, 2006July 27, 2006Aug 10, 2006Aug 24, 2006Sept 7, 2006Sept 21, 2006Oct 10, 2006Oct 19, 2006Nov 2, 2006Nov 16, 2006Nov 30, 2006Dec 14, 2006Dec 28, 2006Jan 11, 2006Jan 25, 2006Feb 8, 2006Feb 22, 2006Mar 8, 2006Mar 22, 2006Apr 5, 2006Apr 21, 2006May 3, 2006May 17, 2006May 31, 2006June 14, 2006June 28, 2006



### Collection DateWeight (g) AM - Smelt PM - Smelt AM - Emrld Shiner
PM - Emrld Shiner AM - Gizzard Shad PM - Gizzard ShadFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 10 

### In the second quarter of 2006 no large fish were collect ed. The heaviest and longest fish collected in the second quarter was the single yellow pe rch found at Stanton in the morning sample of April 5. It weighed 21 g and was 12.5 cm in length (total). The largest fish collected during the entire study period was a channel ca tfish ( Ictalurus punctatus , 761 g and 42 cm in total length), found in the collection bask et at the Leland Olds Station in the morning of February 22, 2006.

While the impingement of small fish on the screens at Le land Olds and Stanton was not unexpected, the occasional presence of large fish was som ewhat surprising since larger fish would be expected to swim against the current within the forebays. All fish have the capability of sudden, fast movements, often referred to as “burst speed”, to avoid predators, capture prey or escape underwater hazards. 

### While ecological factors such as life stage (e.g., adult versus juvenile) and habitat preference (e.g., benthic versus pelagic) play a role in individual capability for burst speed, total l ength appears to be particularly important to ability and survival, with smaller fish more at risk than larger fish. A review of scientific literature related to burst speed capabilit ies and factors that affect burst speed was completed and is included in Appendix A.

Burst swimming is related to several morphological trai ts such as body shape, fin size, and musculature, but is strongly correlated with over all length (Wolter and Arlinghaus 2003). To determine whether the larger fish collected at the Leland Olds and Stanton facilities should have been capable of escaping from the CWIS forebays, the Wolter and Arlinghaus model was applied. The resulting burst speed calculations were compared to measured water velocities in the CWIS forebays. All of the larger fish could have, hypothetically, achieved a burst speed that would allo w them to escape from the forebays. It is possible, therefore, that these fish wer e not healthy at the time of impingement and did not have the energetic resources n eeded to move away from the forebay. Some of them may have also been dead prior to impingement.

Minimum and maximum weights of smelt, emerald shiner s and gizzard shad were calculated and reviewed (Tables 2 to 5). The higher lengths and weights of smelt collected at Leland Olds Station and, to a lesser degree, Stanton Statio n in late 2005 and early 2006 are reflected in the minimum and maximum weights for that species shown in Tables 2-5. Maximum weights of smelt, in particular, were much high er in the morning samples collected from late December 2005 through early February 2006. The largest specimens reached nearly 20 g. Minimum weights of smelt also tended to be higher during that same period, compared to earlier in 2005. The few smelt collected at Stanton at the end of March and the second quarter of 2006 were relatively small and compar able to fish collected during the summer of 2005.Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 11 

### Because gizzard shad were not found in collection baske ts after mid-December 2005, weight and length data for 2006 are unavailable. The mini mum and maximum weights of the emerald shiners, which reappeared in December 2005 and dominated samples in the second quarter of 2006, do not suggest any demonstrable shift in the sample population size
or age.

Table 2. Changes in minimum and maximum weights (g) of the three most common species found at the Basin Leland Olds CWIS during the morning collection events

Rainbow Smelt Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad Collection Date Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Leland Olds AM Sample Collection

June 16, 05 2.5 7.1 7.0 7.5 June 29, 05 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 July 13, 05 July 27, 05 4.0 4.0 Aug 10, 05 1.5 1.5 Aug 24, 05 Sept 7, 05 1.5 3.5 Sept 21, 05 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 Oct 10, 05 0.5 5.0 4.0 6.0 Oct 19, 05 1.0 1.0 Nov 2, 05 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Nov 16, 05 3.0 4.5 4.5 9.0 Nov 30, 05 2.0 5.0 2.0 14.0 Dec 14, 05 1.0 2.5 1.5 2.5 Dec 28, 05 7.0 17.0 Jan 11, 06 2.0 16.0 3.0 3.0 Jan 25, 06 3.0 19.0 Feb 8, 06 5.0 11.0 Feb 22, 06 2.0 2.0 Mar 8, 06 Mar 22, 06 2.5 4.5 Apr 5, 06 2.5 6.0 Apr 19, 06 3.0 3.0 May 3, 06 2.5 2.5 May 17, 06 May 31, 06 3.5 3.5 June 14, 06 2.5 2.5 June 28, 06Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 12 

### Table 3. Changes in minimum and maximum weights (g) of the three most common species found at the Basin Leland Olds CWIS during the evening collection events

Rainbow Smelt Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad Collection Date Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Leland Olds PM Sample Collection
June 16, 05 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 June 29, 05 1.5 3.0 1.0 6.5 July 13, 05 3.0 3.0 July 27, 05 Aug 10, 05 Aug 24, 05 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 Sept 7, 05 3.0 6.0 1.5 2.5 Sept 21, 05 9.0 9.0 1.0 8.5 Oct 10, 05 2.5 8.5 3.5 5.0 Oct 19, 05 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 Nov 2, 05 0.5 3.0 2.5 6.0 Nov 16, 05 1.0 10.0 4.0 5.0 Nov 30, 05 1.5 1.5 3.0 12.0 Dec 14, 05 2.5 2.5 3.0 8.0 Dec 28, 05 3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 Jan 11, 06 3.0 16.0 Jan 25, 06 1.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Feb 8, 06 Feb 22, 06 9.0 9.0 Mar 8, 06 3.0 3.0 Mar 22, 06 5.5 5.5 Apr 5, 06 Apr 19, 06 1.0 2.5 May 3, 06 0.5 0.5 May 17, 06 May 31, 06 0.5 3.0 June 14, 06 2.0 2.0 June 28, 06 3.0 3.0Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 13 

### Table 4. Changes in minimum and maximum weights (g) of the three most common species collected at the GRE Stanton CWIS during th e morning collection events

Rainbow Smelt Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad Collection Date Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Stanton AM Sample Collection

June 16, 05 2.0 5.5 2.5 5.0 June 29, 05 3.0 4.5 July 13, 05 July 27, 05 3.0 3.0 Aug 10, 05 4.0 4.0 Aug 24, 05 2.0 2.0 Sept 7, 05 0.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 Sept 21, 05 0.5 10.5 Oct 10, 05 0.5 7.5 4.5 4.5 Oct 19, 05 0.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 Nov 2, 05 1.0 3.5 Nov 16, 05 1.5 4.5 4.0 8.0 Nov 30, 05 2.0 10.0 3.0 13.0 Dec 14, 05 2.0 10.0 0.5 2.5 Dec 28, 05 1.0 6.0 Jan 11, 06 1.0 16.0 1.5 3.0 Jan 25, 06 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.0 Feb 8, 06 3.0 3.0 Feb 22, 06 Mar 8, 06 Mar 22, 06 0.5 0.5 Apr 5, 06 1.0 1.5 1.0 4.5 Apr 21, 06 0.5 4.0 May 3, 06 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 May 17, 06 1.0 3.0 May 31, 06 1.0 1.0 June 14, 06 June 28, 06 4.0 4.0Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 14 

### Table 5. Changes in minimum and maximum weights (g) of the three most common species collected at the GRE Stanton CWIS during th e evening collection events

Rainbow Smelt Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad Collection Date Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Stanton PM Sample Collection
June 16, 05 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 June 29, 05 1.5 7.5 0.5 2.5 July 13, 05 4.5 4.5 July 27, 05 Aug 10, 05 2.5 6.0 Aug 24, 05 Sept 7, 05 0.5 8.5 2.5 2.5 Sept 21, 05 1.0 9.0 2.0 3.0 Oct 10, 05 1.5 8.0 Oct 19, 05 1.0 1.5 5.0 8.5 Nov 2, 05 0.5 2.5 Nov 16, 05 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 Nov 30, 05 3.0 9.0 3.0 15.0 Dec 14, 05 9.0 19.5 2.0 2.5 Dec 28, 05 0.5 2.0 Jan 11, 06 1.5 7.0 Jan 25, 06 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 Feb 8, 06 Feb 22, 06 Mar 8, 06 Mar 22, 06 4.0 4.0 Apr 5, 06 2.0 3.5 Apr 21, 06 1.5 3.5 May 3, 06 1.5 1.5 0.4 2.0 May 17, 06 1.0 6.0 1.5 7.0 May 31, 06 June 14, 06 June 28, 06



### Most fish recovered from the collection baskets were classif ied as dead, meaning that at the time of collection, there was no visible movement of t he body, including gill covers, fins or tail. This does not necessarily mean that a fish was d ead when impinged. In many cases the fish appear to be in good shape when collected which me ans they may have been alive when impinged and subsequently died on the screens. At other times fish are decayed, which suggested death prior to impingement.Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 15 

### Total Biomass of Impinged Fish

The weights of all collected fish were summed to determi ne the total biomass of impinged fish (Figure 9). From the Leland Olds Station, 5,418 .7 g of fish were collected; 2,815 g of fish were collected from the Stanton Station. There was subst antial temporal variation, with a pattern that was somewhat reflective of the number of fish collected (see Figure 1), although on occasion total biomass was greatly affected by the pr esence of one or more very large fish rather than a greater number of small fish.

Figure 9. Total biomass of fish from each collectio n date at Leland

Olds and Stanton Stations

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

J u n e 1 6, 2 0 0 5 June 29, 2005

Ju ly 13, 2005

Ju l y 27, 2005

A ug 10 , 20 0 5 Aug 2 4, 2005

S ep t 7 , 2005

S ep t 21, 2005

Oc t 10, 2 0 0 5

Oc t 19, 2 0 0 5
No v 2 , 2 0 05 Nov 1 6, 2005 Nov 3 0, 2005

De c 1 4&16, 2 0 05

De c 2 8, 2 00 5 Jan 1 1 , 2 0 06 Jan 25&26, 2006

F e b 8, 20 0 6

Fe b 2 2, 2 0 0 6
Ma r 8, 20 0 6
Ma r 22, 20 0 6 Apr 5 , 2006 Apr 21, 2006
Ma y 3 , 2 00 6

Ma y 1 7 , 2006

Ma y 3 1 , 2006 June 14, 2006



### Collection DateWeight (g)
Leland Olds Stanton



### Summary

• A total of 19 fish species were identified since the b eginning of the study in the combined Leland Olds and Stanton samples,

• No fish have been collected at the Minnkota M.R. Youn g CWIS,

• While very low numbers of fish were collected in the f irst quarter of 2006, the number of collected fish increased in the second quarter,

• Total fish biomass showed considerable temporal variabi lity and was often influenced by large specimens; total biomass was consistently low afte r February 2006,Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page 16 

### • In the second quarter of 2006, through mid-May, the collection basket at Stanton generally yielded more fish; in late May and June L eland Olds typically yielded more fish, although numbers from both facilities were low,

• Gizzard shad were not collected in 2006,

• Rainbow smelt were collected in low numbers only at S tanton,

• Emerald shiners were the most common species in the secon d quarter of 2006,

• Fathead minnows, though still present in low numbers, were more common in the second quarter of 2006, and

• There were no strong correlations between any of the collected independent variables and either number of fish or biomass.

Scientific Peer Review

The data collected during this 316b Impingement Investi gation were reviewed by Steven W. Kelsch, Ph.D., as assistant professor and Chair of the Bi ology Department at the University of North Dakota. He found that, over all, the data collection process was completed according to sound scientific standards, and this report app ropriately describes the data collected and work done for this study. He noted that t he species collected were not of special concern and that the most commonly impinged speci es – rainbow smelt – were introduced into the Upper Missouri River system (as fora ge food for introduced game species), and gizzard shad are a peripheral species in t his section of the river.

References

Analytical Software (2003). Statistix 8. Analytical Sof tware, Florida.



### Wolter, C. and R. Arlighaus. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Rev. in Fish Biol. and Fisheries

. 13:63-89Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-1 

### Appendix A

Consideration of Swimming Speed with Regard to Like lihood of ImpingementFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-2 

### Consideration of Swimming Speed with Regard to Like lihood of Impingement

Native fishes of the upper Missouri River are generall y adapted to environments with relatively slow current velocities (Bowen et al. 2003). Areas of high velocity are present, however, and seasonal rainfall and snow melt can result in rapidly rising river discharge and associated velocities which sweep many smaller fish and invertebrates downstream. Manmade modifications to the river, primarily as a resu lt of dam and hydroelectric structures, also create environments of higher or lower current velocities (Wlosinski and Supernant 2001). The ecological habits of several speci es require high sustained, or sudden, speeds. Northern pike, for example, present a fast, fusiform cross-section and demonstrate an “S”-start capability which allows very rap id, sudden movement to capture prey and escape predators (Schrieder and Hale 2 004). Similarly, gar are built for very fast movements to capture food, although sustain ed speeds are generally much lower. At the opening to forebays, fish must employe e sudden, or burst, speed to effectively move away from the CWISs. While ecologi cal factors such as life stage (e.g., adult versus juvenile) and habitat preference (e.g., b enthic versus pelagic) play a role in individual vulnerability, total length appears to b e particularly important to survival, with smaller fish more at risk than larger fish (Adam 2004).

Burst swimming is defined as a short term (~20 seconds) ana erobic muscular contraction used by fish to produce maximum acceleration (Wolter and Arlinghaus 2003). Burst swimming by fish is critical to avoiding p atches of unusually fast current such as those that might be found in the forebays. Burs t swimming is related to several morphological traits such as body shape, fin size, and mu sculature, but is strongly correlated with overall length (Wolter and Arlinghau s 2003, Figure A-1). The relationships illustrated in the Figures A-1 and A-2 we re shown to be reasonably applicable to most species and even to small representati ves. Wolter and Arlinghaus (2003) reported that salmonids exhibited the highest sw imming performance. Eels and sturgeons had a fairly low burst speed relative to the ir length.

To determine whether the larger fish collected at the Leland Olds and Stanton Stations should have been capable of escaping from the CWIS fore bays, the Wolter and Arlinghaus model (Figure A-1) was applied, using fish t otal length as the independent variable. The resulting burst speed calculations were comp ared to measured water velocities in the CWIS forebays, taken at the time of sa mple collection using a General Oceanics flow meter (Table A-1).Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-3 

### Figure A-1. Generalized model of burst speed of large fish as it r elates to total length. From Wolter and Arlinghaus 2003.



### All of the larger fish could, hypothetically, achieve a burst speed that would allow them to escape from the forebays. In fact, using the same burst speed model from Wolter and Arlinghaus (2003) , healthy 

### fish longer than 5 cm should be able to escape from th e forebays, given the speeds listed in Table A-1. Howeve r, the water velocity measured at the time of sample collection may not be representative of overall forebay water velocity, particularly in deeper water. Eddies and microcurrents c reated by the concrete walls of the forebay and other underwater structures and bar riers may yield significantly higher velocities as well as turbulent forces that overwhelm a fish’s ability to escape. Another important factor is water temperature. Batty and Bla xter (1992) found that the muscle contraction time for an escape response decreased at lowe r temperatures, as did tailbeat frequency, which determines how fast a fish can swim . A similar response was found in goldfish and killifish (Johnson and Bennett 19 95). During colder months, therefore, small fish in the Missouri River may be mor e vulnerable to impingement, although such vulnerability is countered by overall low er activity. 

## AFish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-4 

### Table A-1. Large fish collected at Leland Olds and Stanton and Calculation of Hypothetical Burst Speed

Plant Species Date/Event Total Length (in) Total

Length (cm) Calculated

Burst Speed (cm/s) Max

Forebay Water Velocity (cm/s) Leland Walleye 6/16/05 PM 16.54 42 158 66 Leland Shortnose gar 7/13/05 PM 21.26 54 193 66 Leland Goldeye 8/10/05 AM 13.58 34.5 136 50 Leland Channel Catfish 11/16/05 AM 15.55 39.5 151 2 8 Leland Cisco 2/8/06 PM 15.75 40 152 22 Leland Channel Catfish 2/22/06 AM 16.54 42 158 21 Stanton Goldeye 7/27/05 AM 15.94 40.5 154 25 Stanton Goldeye 9/7/05 AM 13.98 35.5 139 27 Stanton Saugeye 12/16/05 PM 8.66 22 95 25

a Accurate velocity readings not taken on this date; maximum value from other dates used



### Figure A-2. Generalized model of burst speed of smaller fish ( ≤ 60 mm) as it relates to total length. 1) Wolter and Arlinghaus model, 2) Wardle (1 975), 3) Wakeling et al. (1999) for carp, 4) Flore et al. (2001) for nose carp and Garner (1999 ) for 5) roach and 6) dace.Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-5 

### Despite the significance of the Wolter and Arlinghaus mo del (R 2 

### =0.77, p<0.001), the burst speeds of some of the species collected at Leland Ol ds and Stanton may fall below the response curve. Catfish, for example, being general ly benthic feeders, may have lower burst speeds than more streamlined fish such as gar and walleye.

Even considering other factors that influence burst speed , interspecies variability or the maximum forebay intake velocity, the larger fish liste d in Table A-1 should have been able to escape. It is possible, therefore, that these fish were not healthy at the time of impingement and did not have the energetic resources n eeded to move away from the forebay. Some of them may have been dead prior to i mpingement (as is likely the case with some of the smaller fish as well).

Literature Cited

Adam, B. 2004. Avoidance of damages on downstream migr ating fish by hydropower plants and inlet works. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift . 111(3):108.

Batty, R.S. and J.H.S. Blaxter. 1992. The effect of temperature on the burst swimming performance of fish larvae. J. Exp. Biol . 170:187-201.

Bowen, Z.H., K.D. Boveeand T.J. Waddle. 2003. Effe cts of flow regulation on shallowwater habitat dynamics and floodplain connectivity. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . 132(4):809-
823.

Flore, L., H. Keckeis and F. Schiemer. 2001. Feeding, energetic benefit and swimming capabilities of O+ nase ( Chondrostoma nasus L.) in flowing water: an integrative laboratory approach. Arch. Hydrobiol . Suppl. 135:409-424.

Garner, P. 1999. Swimming ability and differential use of velocity patches by 0+ cyprinids. Ecol. Freshw Fish 8:55-58.

Johnson, T.P. and A. F. Bennett. 1995. The thermal accl imation of burst escape performance in fish: an integrated study of molecular and cellular physiology and organismal performance. J. Exp. Biol . 198:2165-2175.

Johnson, G.E., J.B. Hedgepeth and J.R. Skalski. 2004. A Markov chain analysis of fish movements to determine entrainment zones. Fish. Res . 69(3):349-358.

Schrieder, J.E. and M. E. Hale. 2004. Strikes and star tles of northern pike ( Esox lucius ): a comparison of muscle activity and kinematics between S-st art behaviors. J. Exp. Biol

. 207:535-544.Fish Impingement Investigation

Final Data Summary on Fish Collection, June 2005 – June 2006 Page A-6 

### Wakeling, J.M, K.M. Kemp and I.A. Johnston. 1999. The biomechanics of fast-starts during the ontogeny in the common carp Cyprinus carpio

. J. Exp. Biol. 202:3057-3067.

Wardle, C.S. 1975. Limit of fish swimming speed. Nature . 255:725-727.

Wlosinski, J.H. and C. Suprenant. 2001. Fish passage t hrough dams on the Upper Mississippi River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report. January 2001.

Wolter, C. and R. Arlighaus. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Rev. in Fish Biol. and Fisheries

. 13:63-89.