# Basin Electric Power Cooperative Bismarck, North Dakota

316(b) Proposal for Information Collection Leland Olds Station

ENSR Corporation November 2005 Document Number: 10735-002November, 2005 i Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... ...............1-1

1.1 Goals, Process, and Timing of the Rule ................................................................................1-3

1.2 CDS Schedule................................................................................................................... .....1-4

1.3 Specific Goals of this PIC..................................................................................................... ..1-4

1.4 Review of Document Organization ........................................................................................1-4

2.0 SOURCE WATER BODY INFORMATION .....................................................................................2-1

2.1 Source Water Body Phys ical Description and Fl ow Information ...........................................2-1

3.0 TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATIONAL, AND RESTORATION MEASURES ....................................3-1

3.1 In-place Tech nologies, Operati onal Measur es ......................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Review of Existing Technologie s and Operational Measures ....................................3-1

3.1.2 Restoration M easures .................................................................................................3-6

3.1.3 Performance Estimates...............................................................................................3-6

3.2 Potential Technologies, Operational Measures, and Re storation Measures ........................3-6

3.2.1 Review of Technologies ..............................................................................................3-6

3.2.2 Review of Operati onal Measures..............................................................................3-10

3.2.3 Review of Restorat ion Measures ..............................................................................3-10

3.2.4 Estimate of Technology and Operational Measures Costs and Effectiveness.........3-11

3.2.5 USEPA’s Appraisal of Technologies.........................................................................3-11

3.3 Selection of Proposed Tech nologies, Operational and Restoration Measures...................3-11

4.0 HISTORICAL STUDY REVIEW.................................................................................................... ...4-1

4.1 Historical Biological and Physical Data..................................................................................4-1

4.2 Assessment of Data Sufficiency.............................................................................................4-4

5.0 AGENCY CO NSULTATI ONS ....................................................................................................... ..5-1

### CONTENTS (Cont’d)

November, 2005 ii Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 5.1 Section 316(b)-Specific Consultations...................................................................................5-1

5.2 Other Relevant Co nsultations ................................................................................................5-1

6.0 PROPOSED COMPLI ANCE APPR OACH .....................................................................................6-1

6.1 Outline of CD S Activities ...................................................................................................... ..6-1

6.2 Review of CDS Approach ......................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Schedule.................................................................................................................................6-2

7.0 SAMPLING PLAN .............................................................................................................. .............7-1

APPENDIX A TECHNOLOGY REVIEW .............................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B EPA COST ESTIMATE ...............................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C SAMPLING PLAN ........................................................................................C-1

APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES USED FOR SOURCE WATER BODY REVIEW ...D-1

APPENDIX E AGENCY CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION .............................................E-1November, 2005 iii Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Summary of the Circumstances at LOS ......................................................................3-2

Table 3-2 Estimated CWIS Performance ......................................................................................3-6

Table 3-3 Primary Assessment of Mitigation Measures .............................................................3-7

Table 4-1 Assessment of Data Sufficiency ..................................................................................4-5



### LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Site Location Map ..........................................................................................................2-3

Figure 2-2 Close-up View of Cooling Water Intake Structure Locations ...................................2-4

Figure 3-1 Photographs of Cooling Water Intake Structure ........................................................3-3

Figure 3-2 Cooling Water Intake Structure ....................................................................................3-5

Figure 4-1 Fish Species Identified in the Garrison Reach ..........................................................4-2

Figure 4-2 Summary of Fish Collected by NDG&F at Stanton Station 1997-2004 ....................4-3November, 2005 ES-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin) Leland Olds Station (LOS) is subject to the impingement mortality performance goals under the Section 316(b) Phase II Rule (rule). This Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) is developed as part of Basin’s obligations under the Phase II rule.

The Leland Olds Station operates two generating units that draw cooling water directly from the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River. Unit #1, which started operation in 1966, is rated for 216 megawatt (MW) and has the capacity to draw 105 million gallons per day (MGD) from the river for cooling water and other purposes. Unit #2, which was built in the early 1970s and began commercial operation in 1975, is rated at 440 MW with a design intake capacity of 225 MGD. The Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWISs) are cons tructed flush with the river bank and draw water through trash racks into concrete forebays. Each CWIS is equipped with dual pumps, dual 3/8-inch traveling screens with automatically-started 125 psi spray wash, and a common sluice to return screen wash water to the river. Reduction in entrainment is not a performance goal for these intakes since the intake rate is below 5 percent of the mean daily flow of the Missouri River at this location, the regulatory applicability
threshold.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identif ied the Leland Olds Station as being a facility that had to comply with both impingement and entrainment reduction requirements. USEPA has estimated that fine-mesh wedgewire screens install ed near the shoreline will be effective at reducing impingement mortality cons istent with the rule’s goals. USEPA also has assumed that entrainment reduction would be necessary and estimated that the screens could be installed at a total capital cost of $2.99 million for both units. Howe ver, USEPA’s guidance states that if a facility determines it must only comply with impingement re duction requirements, the corresponding USEPA estimated cost can be calculated by dividing USEPA’s or iginal cost estimate by 2.148. Dividing $2.99 million by 2.148
results in an USEPA cost estimate for Leland Olds of $1.39 million. This is the cost estimate that should be used for comparison and cost-cost/cost-benefit analyses.

This PIC provides a focused review of availabl e mitigation technologies and concludes that no reasonable measure exists to mitigate impingement mortality cost-effectively beyond that provided by the current configuration. In particular, each technology 

### has either been found to be of limited feasibility and effectiveness or of “significantly greater ” cost than the benefit to local fisheries that could be realized by its installation and operation.

For this reason, Basin proposes to pursue the rule’s Compliance Alternative 5 based on the Cost-benefit test. Basin proposes to use existing data collected from the Missouri River and its environs as well as data currently being collected through an Impingement Mortality Study to support the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS). Ba sin believes that the application and outcome of
the Cost-benefit test will demonstrate that the cost of installation of any of the available technologies would be significantly higher than any benefit that might result to the local fishery.November, 2005 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final ES-2 The proposed component elements of the CDS are listed and a tentative schedule for the CDS completion and the North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES) permit renewal
are defined within this PIC for LOS.November, 2005 1-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Leland Olds Station operates two generating units that draw cooling water directly from the Missouri River. Unit #1, which began operation in 1966, is rated for 216 MW and has the capacity to draw 105 MGD from the river for cooling water and other purposes. Unit #2 was constructed in the early 1970s and began commercial operation in 1975. This second unit is rated at 440 MW with a design intake capacity of 225 MGD. Because of the to tal intake capacity of the Leland Olds Station, an evaluation of impingement potential and reduction alternatives is required. Reduction in entrainment is not a performance goal for these intakes since the inta ke rate is below 5 percent of the mean daily flow
of the Missouri River at this location 1

.

The goals of this PIC for LOS include the following:

• Address the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Section 125.95(b)(1); and

• Facilitate the compliance process by explaining Basin’s proposed approach.

40 CFR Section 125.95(b)(1) describes the PIC requirements as follows:

You must submit to the Director for review and comment a description of the information you will use to support your Study. The Proposal for Information must be submitted prior to the start of information collection activities, but you may initiate such activities prior to receiving comment from the Director. The proposal must include:

(i) A description of the proposed and/or implemented technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures to be evaluated in the Study;

(ii) A list and description of any historical st udies characterizing impingement mortality and entrainment and/or physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures and their relevance to this proposed Study. If you propose to use existing data, you must demonstrate the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate q uality assurance/quality control procedures;

(iii) A summary of any past or ongoing consultations with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies that are relevant to this Study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultations; and

1 The mean average daily flow at the Bismarck USGS gauging station is 22,490 cfs. Five percent of the mean average

daily flow is 1,125 cfs which is more than twice the intake capacity of the LOS CWIS, which is 330 MGD or 508 cfs.November, 2005 1-2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final (iv) A sampling plan for any new field studies you propose to conduct in order to ensure that you have sufficient data to develop a scientifica lly valid estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment at your site. The sampling plan must document all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for sampling and data analysis. The sampling and data analysis methods you propose must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and include
consideration of the methods used in other st udies performed in the source waterbody. The sampling plan must include a description of the study area (including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure(s)), and prov ide a taxonomic identification of the sampled or evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish).

The following tabulation provides the section of t he PIC where each of the above mentioned regulatory requirements are presented.

Regulatory Requirement PIC Section § 125.95(b)(1)(i) – Review of Measures and Technologies 3.0 §125.95(b)(1)(ii) – Historical Studies 4.0 § 125.95(b)(1)(iii) – Agency Consultations 5.0 § 125.95(b)(1)(iv) – Proposed Sampling Plan 7.0

The Phase II Rule allows for significant discretion by the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) during the implementation process. In fact, the Rule allows for flexibility in the compliance approach taken at a facility by including se veral specific criteria associated with assessing compliance including:

• Which species and life stages to base the compliance assessment;

• Whether to base the assessment on numbers of individuals or biomass;

• The specifics of estimating the Calculation Baseline condition;

• The averaging period to use in estimating the Calculation Baseline or assessing compliance;

• The ability to discount “unavoidable, episodic impingement or entrainment events” in the assessment of performance;

• The specific design parameters (e.g., slot size) for the CWIS;

• The need for, and nature of, peer review for assessment of restoration and/or monetized benefits;

• The need for additional information collection to support the CDS;

• The nature of the Technology Installation and Operation Plan;

• The nature of Approved Technology (i.e., Compliance Alternative 4);

• The definition of “significantly greater” under site-specific Best Technology Available (BTA) (Compliance Alternative 5); and

• The timing of the component reports of the CDS.

Basin believes that this level of discretion allows NDDH to oversee a focused and efficient compliance program to:

• Assess the current performance of the CW IS and operation/restoration measures;November, 2005 1-3 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final • Review the alternative measures to determine those that are feasible and cost effective;

• If appropriate, implement cost-effective measures; and

• Develop a CDS within the context of one of the Rule’s Compliance Alternatives.

Toward this end, Basin has prepared this PIC that both addresses the requirements of the Rule and defines Basin’s recommended Phase II compliance program for the Leland Olds station.

1.1 Goals, Process, and Timing of the Rule

The EPA has produced final regulations under Cl ean Water Act Section 316(b) that establish performance standards for existing CWISs for electricity generators using in excess of 50 MGD. The so-called Phase II Rule was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2004, and became effective on September 7, 2004.

The Phase II Rule calls for a 60 to 90 percent reduction in entrainment and an 80 to 95 percent reduction in impingement mortality from the “calcula tion baseline,” which is essentially the entrainment and impingement mortality rates at a similarly sized once-through shoreline CWIS with no impingement and/or entrainment reduction controls at the same location. These rates of protection are deemed by USEPA to be “commensur ate with closed cycl e cooling.” There is no requirement for power plants to adopt closed-cycle cooling. The Rule also provides for site-specific BTA in the event that site specific costs of compliance are “significantly greater” than either the costs estimated by
USEPA for the station or for the monetized b enefits of compliance at the station.

The Rule allows for five different means of demo nstrating compliance with the requirements of the
Rule.

• Compliance Alternative 1: Flow Reduction. Under Option 1(a) the facility owner can demonstrate that it uses closed-cycle cooling to show compli ance with the Rule. Alternatively, if the throughscreen velocity can be shown to be less than or equal to 0.5 ft/s, the performance goals relative to impingement mortality will be deemed to be met under Option 1(b). This latter approach does not address the potential entrainment performance goals, if applicable.

• Compliance Alternative 2: Demonstrate that the current system achieves the relevant goals. Through the execution of a CDS, the plant can show that it is currently meeting the performance goals through some combination of technologies as well as operation and restoration measures.

• Compliance Alternative 3: Demonstrate that a newly installed and operated system (i.e., technology and operation/restoration measures) will meet the goals. Again, through development of a CDS, the plant can design and implement a set of controls estimated to achieve the performance goals.November, 2005 1-4 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final • Compliance Alternative 4: Install and operate an approved technology. As part of the Rule, USEPA designated wedge wire screens in a riverine environment as an approved technology. Proper installation and operation of this technology will meet the goals of the Rule. NPDES Permit Directors have the ability to designate other technologies as “Approved.”

• Compliance Alternative 5: Site-Specific BTA. Under this option, the facility can show that the actual costs of compliance are “significantly greater” than either the costs or benefits assumed by USEPA. Under this option, the plant is still re quired to pursue “cost-effective measures.”

These various options are each associated with differing requirements relative to the CDS. Under Option 1(a), no CDS is required for assessment of impingement mortality, while under some of the other options, relatively extensive analyses may be required along with submittal of several
documents.

1.2 CDS Schedule

The Leland Olds Station’s current NDPDES permit, permit number ND-0025232, expires on December 31, 2006. Thus, the NDPDES permit renewal application and, potentially the CDS, will be filed on or before June 30, 2006. Given that Basin’s on-goi ng Impingement Monitoring Study will not be concluded until August 2006, it will not be possible to complete the CDS so that it can be submitted by June 30, 2006. The rule allows for request of a compliance schedule that partly decouples the NDPDES permit application and the CDS. Basin will request a compliance schedule that allows delay in the submission of the CDS to as late as January 7, 2008.

1.3 Specific Goals of this PIC

The Leland Olds Station is affected by the imping ement mortality performance goals of the Phase II Rule. The goal of this PIC is to provide the info rmation necessary to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the rule.

1.4 Review of Document Organization

Data on the physical configuration, flow, and water quality of the Missouri River are presented in Chapter 2.0. Discussion of existing and potential additional technologies and measures to mitigate impingement mortality are presented in Chapter 3.0. The nature of historical studies and the resulting data are summarized in Chapter 4.0. The potential utility of these data to support the CDS is also discussed. Chapter 5.0 presents a review of re levant agency consultations. Basin’s proposed compliance approach is summarized in Chapter 6.0. Chapter 7.0 discusses the approved sampling workplan.November, 2005 1-5 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final The PIC document is also supported by appendices that:

1. Provide a general review of impingement mortality mitigation measures (Appendix A); 2. Present USEPA’s estimated cost of compliance as summarized in the Phase II rule (Appendix B); 3. Provide a copy of the Sampling Plan for the on-going monitoring program that is taking place at LOS as well as two other neighboring power plants (Appendix C); 4. Provides a bibliography of sources used for a review of the fisheries of the Missouri River including the station-specific data (Appendix D); and 5. Provide copies of relevant written agency consultations (Appendix E).November, 2005 2-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 2.0 SOURCE WATER BODY INFORMATION

This PIC provides NDDH with information regarding the circumstances that affect operation and performance of the current Leland Olds Station CWIS s, the potential additional measures to reduce impingement mortality, and the compliance approach that Basin proposes to pursue. All three of these issues can be affected by the source water body flow rate as well as the physical configuration of the source water. Basin believes it may be very productive to consider these issues as part of the PIC; the rule anticipates their discussion either as a separate part of the CDS (i.e., the Source Water Body Flow Information – 40 CFR 125.95(b)(2)) or the NDPDES application itself (i.e., the Source Water Body Physical Data Report - 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2)). In orde r to facilitate NDDH evaluation of this data, Basin has slightly expanded the scope of the PIC to include the discussion here.

The Phase II rule requires, as part of the NDPDES permit application submission, the following information to support Phase II compliance:

1. A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by your facility, including aerial dime nsions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports your de termination of the waterbody type where each CWIS is located;

2. Identification and characterization of the source waterbody’s hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as methods you used to conduct any physical studies to determine your intake’s area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies; and

3. Locational maps.

2.1 Source Water Body Physical De scription and Flow Information

The Phase II rule requires consideration of Sour ce Water Body Flow Information (40 CFR 125(b)(2))
under two circumstances:

1. The CWIS is on a river or stream and the proportion of river flow taken in by the CWIS is an important potential threshold for the performance goals; and

2. The CWIS is on a lake or reservoir and a prop osed expansion of the CWIS flow might adversely impact the stratification of the water body.

Historically, the Missouri River was a wide, meandering system, with abundant shallow channel borders, side channels, and back waters. Shifting sand bars and abundant 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 eliminated sandbars and continuity with side channels and backwaters. In the upperNovember, 2005 2-2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Missouri, reservoir construction has created a series of deep-water habitats connected byinter-reservoir reaches that are significantly different in structure and ecology than the preimpoundment system. The Garrison Dam was closed in April of 1953, forming Lake Sakakawea, which is the largest of the Missouri River mainstem reservoirs. At maximum surface elevation of 1,855 feet (above mean sea level), Lake Sakakawea has a stor age capacity of approximately 24.7 million acres feet and covers 385,615 (surface) acres. The section of the Missouri River located downstream of Lake Sakakawea and upstream of Lake Oahe is known as the Garrison Reach.

The LOS intakes are located on the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River, approximately 20 miles
downstream of the Garrison Dam. The location of the Leland Olds station relative to the Garrison Dam is presented on Figure 2-1 . A close-up view of the LOS CWIS location and the CWISs of other nearby power plants is provided on Figure 2-2 . Flow in this stretch of the rive r is totally regulated and will vary dependent on release rates from the dam. The closure of Garrison Dam, the fifth largest earthen dam in the United States, triggered a shift in the nature of the Missouri River downstream 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 dam intake is located approximately 160 feet below the lake’s surface (at full pool). The water entering the Missouri River is therefore much colder than historic conditions, and remains cold even during the hottest summer months. Maximum water temperatures in the channel usually do not exceed 20oC (68oF) at Bismarck (70 miles downstream of Garrison Dam).

The formation of Lake Sakakawea also resulted in a change in the sediment transport of the Missouri River. Historically a very silt-laden system, much of the bed load of fine material is now deposited in the upper reaches of Lake Sakakawea. Since the dam’s closure, approximately 37 percent of the reservoir’s gross storage capacity has been lost to sedimentation. Sedimentation has decreased below
Garrison Dam and water cl arity has increased.

The main tributaries of the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River are the Knife and Heart Rivers and Painted Woods and Square Butte Creek. The Knife River joins the Missouri River from the west, only a short distance 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. Since construction of the dam, annual average flow has remained somewhat near this historical mean, though average monthly flows can vary widely due to release rates from the dam which vary dependent on hydro- power considerations and attempts to balance or unbalance Lakes Sakakawea and Oahe, the next downstream reservoir.R i v e r d a l e

U n d e r w o o d

S t a n t o n P i c k C i t y C o l e h a r b o r



# S I T E L O C A T I O N M A P

C o m b i n e d 3 1 6 b C o m p l i a n c e P r o j e c t S a m p l i n g P l a n B a s i n E l e c t r i c M i n n k o t a P o w e r C o o p e r a t i v e I n c

. G r e a t R i v e r s E n e r g y 

# F i g u r e 2

- 1

U S G S 1 5 M S a t e l l i t e P h o t o 0 1

- 0 1

- 2 0 0 0 M c L e a n
, M e r c e r
, a n d O l i v e r C o u n t i e s D r a w n b y : M G 

#  ̄ 0 2 4 6 1 M i l e s G a r r i s o n D a m

G a r r i s o n D a m T a i l r a c e N D G & F S a m p l i n g L o c a t i o n

M
i s s o u r i R

i v e r

K n i f e R i v e r C o n f l u e n c e S t a n t o n S t a t i o n N D G & F S a m p l i n g L o c a t i o n

L e l a n d O l d s S t a t i o n M i n n k o t a R i v e r I n t a k e 

## L a k e S a k a k a w e a

# .

0 1

, 5 0 0 3

, 0 0 0 7 5 0 M e t e r s

0 2 5 0 5 0 0 1 2 5 M e t e r s S t a n t o n S t a t i o n

L e l a n d O l d s S t a t i o n

M i l t o n R

. Y o u n g S t a t i o n M i s s o u r i R i v e r C W I S

S t a n t o n S t a t i o n C W I S

L

. O

. S

. C W I S

Y o u n g S t a t i o n C W I S

0 5 0 1 0 0 2 5 M e t e r s S c a l e 1 : 6

, 0 0 0 S c a l e 1 : 2 4

, 0 0 0 S c a l e 1 : 4 5

, 0 0 0

N D G & F S a m p l i n g P o i n t 

# C l o s e - U p V i e w o f C W I S L o c a t i o n s

C o m b i n e d 3 1 6 b C o m p l i a n c e P r o j e c t S a m p l i n g P l a n B a s i n E l e c t r i c M i n n k o t a P o w e r C o o p e r a t i v e I n c

. G r e a t R i v e r s E n e r g y 

# F i g u r e 2

- 2

U S G S B / W 1 M A e r i a l s 0 9 / 1 6 / 1 9 9 7 O l i v e r C o u n t y
, N D F o r t C l a r k Q u a d r a n g l e D r a w n b y : M GNovember, 2005 3-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 3.0 TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATIONAL, AND RESTORATION MEASURES

This section will review current and potential future techno logies, operational, and restoration measures relative to their potential to meet the performance goals of the rule for Leland Olds Station cost-effectively.

3.1 In-place Technologies, Operational Measures

This section describes the current CWIS as well as its apparent performance relative to the performance goals of the Rule.

A concise summary of the Leland Olds station, its CWIS, and the available data is provided in
Table 3-1 . The details described in this table are presented in more detail below.

3.1.1 Review of Existing Technol ogies and Operational Measures

The Leland Olds Station operates two generating units that draw cooling water directly from the Missouri River. Unit #1, which started operation in 1966, is rated for 216 MW and has the capacity to draw 105 MGD from the river for cooling water and other purposes. Unit #2, which was built in the early 1970s and began commercial operation in 1975, is rated at 440 MW with a design intake capacity of 225 MGD. Photos of the CWIS structures are presented as Figure 3-1

.

Each of the units that comprise the CWIS includes two short concrete forebays (total of four forebays) that are flush with the river bank ( Figure 3-2 ). Spray nozzles are mounted on pipes across the base of the openings to the forebays to wash accumulated s ilt back into the river and prevent blockage of the inlets. The spray nozzles are activated at least tw ice per day to remove silt deposits. The spray nozzles are also used in the winter to reduce ice build-up and some of the warm water that has passed through the plant is returned to the forebays to raise the temperature of the incoming water and prevent ice formation. Also, during winter 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, by four cooling water pumps, two per unit and one for each for ebay. The trash racks are mechanically cleared of excessive debris when necessary. Prior to entering the pump wetwell, the water passes through traveling screens that screen out smaller debris. T he 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens are cleaned with 125 psi wash sprays when the operator determines from visual evaluation that build-up is occurring. The screens also are equipped with pressure drop instrumentation – when the pressure drop across the screens exceeds a setpoint, the wash sprays are automatically operated. Wash water is sprayed through the screens and material that is washed off the screens flows to a sluiceway that returns the collected material directly to the river. A fish/debris collection basket has been fabricated and placed in the sluiceway for fish collection as part of the impingement mortality study currently underway.November, 2005 3-2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Table 3-1 Summary of the Circumstances at LOS

Setting Missouri River Capacity Factor N/A, Intake volume is < 5% of normal river flow Performance Goals Impingement Mortality only Summary of CWIS Two shoreline intakes located on the bank of the Missouri River; Unit #1 105 MGD, Unit #2 225 MGD Water is drawn from the river water surface Traveling screens with 3/8-inch screens in place; pass-through velocity at screens - Unit #1 1.4 fps, Unit #2 2.3 fps (calculated) High pressure screen wash to trash collection baskets and flow return to river. Number of Units 2 Relationship to Baseline Condition Similar Availability of Historical Data No recent site-specific IM data; river fisheries studies; ND G&F fish collections since 1991 Applicability of Historic Data Significant amount of recent and historic data collected by ND G&F nearby identifies the species and numbers of fish expected in the area of the CWIS USEPA Compliance Cost and Technology Estimates Installation of cylindrical wedgewire screens near shoreline for a total capital cost of $2.99 million and annualized cost of $23K/yr (a djusted cost for impingement only is $1.39 million)No vemb er, 20 05 3- 3 Basi n E l ec tri c, L O S
PIC Fin a l 

### Figu re 3-1 Pho t og ra ph s of Cooli n g Wa te r In take Struc t u r e

Front of int a k eNo vemb er, 20 05 3- 4 Basi n E l ec tri c, L O S
PIC Fin a l Fig u r e 3- 1 ( C onti n ue d )

Tras h rack

Typica l tr a v el in g scre e n ( 2 pe r u n it )No vemb er, 20 05 3- 5 Basi n E l ec tri c, L O S
PIC Fin a l 

### Figu re 3-2 Coo lin g Wa ter In take Stru ctu r e

Un i t 1 (2 1 6 M W 105 MG D ) Un i t 2 (4 4 0 M W 225 MG D ) 

## a b a b C o lle ct i o n Ba s k e t Mi s s ou r i R i v e r

Slu i c e w a y

Fi g u r e 3

- 2

C o o lin g W a t e r In t ake S t r u ct u r e F o r e ba y s a t B a s i n E l e c tr i c Le l a nd O l d s S t at io n Tr a s h Ra c k s

For e ba y s

Pu m p W e tw e lls T r a v e lin g Sc r e e n s Wa s h Wa t e r

C ool i n g Wa t e r Pu m p s S p r a y N o zzl e H e a der P i p eNovember, 2005 3-6 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 3.1.2 Restoration Measures

No restoration measures have been performed.

3.1.3 Performance Estimates

Estimates of performance relative to the rule’s goals are contained in Table 3-2 . The following paragraphs provide discussion of data used to estimate the performance based on the CWIS’s
differences from the Calculation Baseline.

Table 3-2
Estimated CWIS Performance
Performance Goal: 80 to 95 Percent Re duction in Impingement Mortality (IM)

Estimated Reduction in IM IM - Difference from Baseline (%) Basis Notes Traveling screens 10 Engineering judgment High pressure wash and debris return, but not designed as fish return system Total IM Reduction 10 Not meeting goal

3.2 Potential Technologies, Operational Measures, and Rest oration Measures

A summary of general technologies and operational measures available to address impingement mortality are presented in Table 3-3 . This table presents the technology, estimated effectiveness in addressing impingement mortality, estimated technology cost, and notes on why or why not the technology was retained for further feasibility analysis. Appendix A provides a more in-depth general analysis of each technology and operational measure considered in Table 3-3 . A listing of those technologies that were considered most promising fo r the Leland Olds Station is provided in Section

3.2.1.

3.2.1 Review of Technologies

The following criteria are used to assess the technologies and operational measures presented in
Table 3-3 :

• Technical feasibility and reliability;

• Effectiveness in meeting the Rule’s performance goals;

• Costs relative to USEPA estimate developed as part of the Rule-making; and

• Potential for other adverse effects.November, 2005 3-7 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Table 3-3 Primary Assessment of Mitigation Measures

Construction and Operation Issues 2

BTA Alternative Cost (Capital plus O&M) 1 Power Plant Efficiency Impact 2 Station Outage with Construction Navigation Effects Potential Clogging Potential Adverse Environmental Effects 2 IM Benefits/ Effectiveness E Benefits/ Effectiveness

Traveling Screen Modifications Modified traveling

screens (dual flow) 3 0 ** 0 0 0 IM reduction if through screen velocity is reduced. None if standard screen mesh is used.

Modified traveling screens (Ristroph Screens) 2 0 ** 0 0 0 Effective IM reduction for many species. May not be effective for sensitive species None, if std. mesh size.

Fine Mesh Screens on traveling screen system. 6 0 ** 0 ** 0 Effective with adequate fish handling system Potential entrainment reduction, but survivability uncertain even with fish handling system.

Angled and modular inclined

screens 3 0 ** 0 0 0 Potential impingement reduction for some

species given effective fish return none

Fixed Screening Devices

Wedgewire

Screens 2.5 0   **  * Effective impingement reduction if through screen velocity is

appropriate. Potential for E reduction may depend on slot size, cross-flow current,

productivity of surrounding area.

Perforated Pipes not estimated 0 * * ** 0 Some benefit possible because of absence of a confined channel in

which fish can become trapped. none

Barrier Net 0.5 0 0 ** * 0 High if properlyinstalled and wintertime impingement is low. None

Aquatic Filter Barrier (e.g., Gunderboom) 8 0 0 ** ** * IM reduction for all species E reduction for all species

Porous Dike / Leaky Dam 4 0 * ** ** * High if through-dike velocities are low and/or behavior

measures to

minimize. Variable depending on size of gaps

New Intake location

Offshore Intake Structure (with

wedgewire

screen) 4 0 ** ** * * Potential reduction for some species,

depending on population density differences Potential reduction for some species,

depending on population density differences Fish Diversion and Avoidance

Diversion Devices: Louvers and Bar Racks 1 0 0 * * 0 Potential impingement reduction for some

species given effective by-pass None

Velocity cap on offshore intake 2 0 ** ** 0 0 Potential reduction for some species,

depending on population density differences Potential reduction for some species,

depending on population density differences Behavioral Barriers: Strobe Lights, acoustic deterrent, bubbles, chains 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 or * Potential impingement reduction for some species NoneNovember, 2005 3-8 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Table 3-3 (Continued)

Power Construction and Operation Issues 2 Potential

BTA Alternative Cost (Capital plus O&M) 1 Plant Efficiency Impact 2 Station Outage with Construction Navigation Effects Potential Clogging Adverse Environmental Effects 2 IM Benefits/ Effectiveness 3 E Benefits/ Effectiveness 4

Flow Reduction

Variable Speed Pumps 2 * * 0 0 * IM reduction proportional to flow reduction. E reduction proportional to flow

reduction, more effective during spawning period

Capacity Factor

Reduction variable ** 0 0 0 0 IM reduction proportional to flow reduction. E reduction proportional to flow

reduction, more effective during spawning period Evaporative Cooling Towers 42 ** ** 0 0 * IM reduction for all species E reduction for all species
Dry Cooling Tower 60 ** ** 0 0 * IM reduction for all species E reduction for all species Increased Fish Population

Restoration 0.05 to 1 0 0 0 0 0 Requires site-specific analysis Requires site-specific analysis

Notes:

1 Costs do not include: a) thermal effici ency reduction or b) out age for construction.

2 Adverse effects: 0 = Negligible * = Significant ** = Potentially severe

3 IM = Impingement Mortality of Aquatic Organisms

4 E = Entrainment of Aquatic OrganismsNovember, 2005 3-9 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Site-specific technologies considered for the Leland Olds Station included:

• Alternative 1 – Traveling Screen Modifications

- 1a – Dual Flow Screens (Impingement)

- 1b – Ristroph Screens (Impingement)

- 1c – Fine Mesh Screens (Impingement and Entrainment)

- 1d – Angled and modular inclined screens (Impingement)

• Alternative 2 – Fixed Screening Devices

- 2a – Wedgewire Screens (Impingement and possibly Entrainment)

- 2b – Perforated Pipes (Impingement)

- 2c – Barrier Net (Impingement)

- 2d – Aquatic Filter Barrier (Impingement and Entrainment)

- 2e – Porous Dike / Leaky Dam (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 3 – Offshore Intake (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 4 – Fish Diversion and Avoidance

- 4a – Louvers and Bar Racks (Impingement)

- 4b – Velocity Cap (Impingement)

- 4c – Strobe lights, acoustic deterrent, bubbles, chains (Impingement)

• Alternative 5 – Flow Reduction

- 5a – Variable Speed Pumps ( Impingement and Entrainment)

- 5b – Capacity Factor Reduction (Impingement and Entrainment)

- 5c – Evaporative Cooling Towers (Impingement and Entrainment)

- 5d – Dry Cooling (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 6 – Restoration (Impingement and Entrainment)

In Table 3-3 , the capital costs for technology installation have been estimated for planning purposes. These costs are approximate but they do accoun t for a number of site specific aspects. Table 3-3 also provides a qualitative discussion of potential oper ation and maintenance costs. Costs associated with facility downtime during construction are also likely but have not been esti mated here due to the uncertainty in construction timing and the need to su spend operations at a given unit. In the execution of the Cost-benefit test, all of these issues will be revisited in a more formal fashion and their results expressed consistent with the requirement of the rule.

The cost estimates for the various technologies were prepared by using the following resources:

• USEPA Technical Development Document for the Fi nal Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, February 12, 2004. (EPA-821-R-04-007)

• USEPA Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 31 6(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Proposed Rule, Apr il 2002. (EPA-821-R-02-003).

• Cost estimates and/or installed costs for similar equipment obtained by ENSR from vendors and other operating facilities.November, 2005 3-10 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Available costs were adjusted to account fo r size/capacity differences as follows:

• Proportionally for components/equipment whose costs were judged to be proportional to size (e.g., pipe length); and

• By the 6/10ths rule for those components whose costs were judged to not be directly proportional to size (e.g. pumps).

The following factors were applied, where appropriate:

• 10 percent Allowance for Indeterminants (AFI), a contingency on costs of the items included.

• 30 percent Contingency, to address unforeseen items, especially with regard to a facility retrofit.

• Escalation based on the time frame of the basis cost estimate. Since the basis cost year varied, estimated costs were escalated based on 3 percent annual rate of inflation.

3.2.2 Review of Operational Measures

Two operational measures are considered for the Leland Olds Station: more frequent rotation of the traveling water screens in order to reduce impingement mortality and flow reduction. These options are discussed fully in Appendix A

.

Evaporative cooling towers and dry cooling are much more costly than USEPA’s estimate for compliance and, therefore, will not be considered further. However, for reference, costs for these options are presented in Table 3-3

.

3.2.3 Review of Restoration Measures

Restoration can be a very cost-effective measure for mitigating loses of aquatic organisms. Under some circumstances it may be possible to effect one-to-one replacement of important species or otherwise improve the ecosystem by an “out-of-kind” restoration, allowed by the rule. Examples of restoration methods generally include; fish restocking programs, habitat creation, habitat enhancement, and support of a state-sponsored restoration program.

Of the available restoration measures, Basin favors those that have a direct impact on the species of concern [i.e., collaborative stocking programs with North Dakota Game & Fish (NDG&F)] rather than habitat restoration which has a more tenuous connection to fisheries populations and is likely to be more costly. A more detailed discussion of restoration options is presented in Appendix A

.
At this time, the status of restoration under the rule is uncertain given pending court review. The final program costs as well as its effe ctiveness are also uncertain. Ho wever, given the relatively low expected levels of impingement mortality based on data collected to date through the Impingement Mortality study being conducted by Basin, restorati on is an attractive mitigation measure that should
be retained for further evaluation.November, 2005 3-11 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 3.2.4 Estimate of Technology and Operat ional Measures Costs and Effectiveness

The estimated costs and effectiveness of the eval uated technologies and operational measures are
summarized in Table 3-3

.

3.2.5 USEPA’s Appraisal of Technologies

As part of the Rule making process, USEPA develope d an estimate of the cost of compliance with the Phase II Rule at each of the affected plants. These data are provided for the Leland Olds Station, with some slight modification to their presentation, as Appendix B

.

In the final Rule, USPA does not present facility-spec ific estimates of the benefit of compliance to area fisheries. Instead, USEPA requires that the benefits of potential technologies and measures be estimated based on likely technology effectiveness and those benefits expressed as a monetized value using procedures defined in the Rule. The monetized value will be compared to the costs of the potential technology or measure. Under the Rule, if the costs are “significantly greater” than the estimated benefits, a site-specific BTA can be issued.

USEPA identified the Leland Olds Station as being a facility that had to comply with both impingement and entrainment reduction requirements. USEPA has estimated that fine-mesh wedgewire screens
installed near the shoreline will be ef fective at reducing impingement mort ality consistent with the rule’s goals. USEPA also has assumed that entrainment reduction would be necessary and estimated that the screens could be installed at a total capital cost of $2.99 million including both units (see Appendix
B ). However, USEPA’s guidance stat es that if a facility determines it must only comply with impingement reduction requirements, the corresponding USEPA estimated cost can be calculated by dividing USEPA’s original cost estimate by 2.148. Dividing $2.99 million by 2.148 results in an USEPA cost estimate for Leland Olds of $1.39 million. This is the cost estimate that should be used for comparison and cost-cost/cost-benefit analyses.

3.3 Selection of Proposed Technologies, Operational and Restoration Measures

Several technologies have the potential to be effective at reducing impingement mortality. These range in complexity and cost from behavioral barr iers to installation and optimized operation of Ristroph-type buckets on the traveling screens. A total of six alternatives that included eighteen options have been screened based on their technical f easibility, effectiveness and relative costs. This
evaluation is included as Appendix A and is summarized on Table 3-3

.November, 2005 3-12 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Based on this screening assessment, the following potential technologies or measures are proposed
for further evaluation in the CDS:

• Alternative 1 – Traveling Screen Modifications

- 1a – Dual Flow Screens (Impingement)

- 1b – Ristroph Screens (Impingement)

• Alternative 2 – Fixed Screening Devices

- 2c – Barrier Net (Impingement)

• Alternative 4 – Fish Diversion and Avoidance

- 4c – Strobe lights, acoustic deterrent, bubbles, chains (Impingement)

• Alternative 5 – Flow Reduction

- 5a – Variable Speed Pumps ( Impingement and Entrainment)

- 5b – Capacity Factor Reduction (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 6 – Restoration (Impingement and Entrainment)

Two technologies are likely to be relatively cost effective: behavioral barriers and a restoration program. These technologies have demonstrated pe rformance and are relatively simple and reliable, although a combination of technologies or measures may be required to achieve the impingement reduction goal.November, 2005 4-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 4.0 HISTORICAL STUDY REVIEW

Relevant historic impingement and entrainment studies have not been conducted at LOS or at other, similar power stations in the area. An impingement mortality study is currently underway at LOS and two other nearby power stations and is expected to be completed in July 2006. The multi-station impingement mortality study work plan is provided in Appendix C . Several studies of the Missouri River have been completed and are described in t he following sections. The ability of the combined data set to support the requirements of the Phase II rule, in particular the Impingement Mortality Characterization Study (IMCS), is discussed in Section 4.2. Basin does not propose to collect additional source water body data.

4.1 Historical Biological and Physical Data

The LOS CWIS is located on the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River. This reach has been studied thoroughly with regard to aquatic species for many years by Federal and State agencies as well as other independent researchers. Twenty reports on various aspects of the status of the fishery along the Garrison Reach have been researched during the development of this PIC (a bibliography of these sources is provided in Appendix D ). Most significantly, North Dakota Game and Fish Department has conducted fish population studies in the Garrison Reach since 1991. These studies involved biannual
fish collection at seven locations in the Garrison Reach. One of these collection locations is offshore of the Great River Energy (GRE) Stanton Station coolin g water outfall, which is located just downstream of the Stanton CWIS and upstream of the LOS CWIS, and which is in a similar river regime as the Milton R. Young Station river CWIS, 4 miles downstream. The location of the North Dakota Game and Fish Stanton sampling point is identified on Figure 2-1

.

Figure 4-1 presents a complete list of all the fish species identified in the Garrison Reach from 1991 through 2003 2

. Figure 4-2 presents the number of each species identified at the Stanton Station by North Dakota Game and Fish during sampling events in summer and in fall from 1997 through 2004. The second condition listed above will be addressed by the data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish since it is likely that fish populations and movem ent were at their highest levels in the months that were sampled. The impingement characterization study will provide additional species occurrence data for the entire year. The existing data have been used to identify the species of fish likely to be found during the impingement characterization study and will be utilized to analyze the potential impact of impingement in the study report and during completion of the CDS. Additional data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish and other organizations will be incorporated into the study as soon as they are
made available.

2 North Dakota Fisheries Investigations, Aquatic Investigations of the Missouri Mainstream in North Dakota, by Jeff

Hendrickson, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, March 2004.No vemb er, 20 05 4- 3 Basi n E l ec tri c, L O S
PIC Fin a l Figur e 4

- 2 Summar y o f Fish Colle c t ed b y N D G & F at S t an ton Sta t ion 1 9 9 7

- 2 00 4

Tota l Numb er of Eac h Fi s h Spe c i e Prese nt a t Sta n ton Sampling Site N D G & F Sam p ling 1 997

– 2004 Summer Fall Bigmo u th Buffalo 15 160 Black Bul l he ad 0 0 Black Cra ppi e 0 0 Blue gil l 0 0 Blue Suck er 15 8 Bro w n T r out 2 25 Brook Stickle b a ck 0 0 B u r b o t 1 6 Common C a rp 84 125 Cha nne l Catfis h 11 7 C i s c o 0 7 Common S h in er 9 0 Cutthroat T r out 16 5 Emeral d Shin e r 39 142 Chin ook Sa lmo n 15 7 F a thead Mi nn o w 0 1 F r esh w ater Dr um 5 5 Golde y e 1 1 8 Golde n Shi ner 0 0 John n y Darter 4 39 Larg e mout h Bass 0 0 Lon gn ose Dac e 0 1 Lon gn ose Suc k er 100 103 Norther n Pike 25 8 Orange Sp otte d Sunfish 0 0 Padd l e f i s h 3 0 Rain bo w Sm elt 3 14 Rain bo w T r out 1 4 River Car p suc k er 330 295 Smallmouth Buffalo 8 43 Saug e r 3 8 3 4 Shorthe ad R e d horse 140 65 Smallmo u th Ba ss 9 7 Shortnos e Gar 3 7 Shove l nos e Sturge on 4 7 Spottail Sh in er 0 3 W a lle y e 2 6 4 2 0 3 W h ite Bass 50 38 W h ite Sucker 389 409 W e stern Silver y Min n o w 0 1 Yell o w Perch 0 3 T o t a l s 1
, 5 9 4 1
, 7 9 0November, 2005 4-4 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final The data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish as well as other researchers provide a relevant and ongoing characterization of the biological conditi ons and populations in the river near the intake structure of 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 described in this PIC will comply with the third condition listed above and will complete the data set required by the rule. The IM study work plan is included in Appendix C

.

In 1974 and 1978, studies were conducted by Dr. Joe Neel with the University of North Dakota at the request of Basin Electric. The studies were intended to determine the temperature, chemical and biological effects of the water withdrawal and dischar ge from the station. The 1978 study, “Life in the Missouri River with Warming by 676 Megawatts Gross Steam Generated Power Production”, conducted fish sampling at the intakes, at the screens and wash water return and downstream of the discharge. Observations and sampling were mainly conducted in the late spring and summer months. Fifteen species of fish were observed or captured and the text of the report states that primarily bullhead fingerlings were found in the intakes and on the intake screens. The data presented in the report indicated that during fifteen days of sampling the traveling screens, 56 fish were recovered from intake screen washings and 44 of these fish were black bullheads. River temperatures were slightly elevated in the vicinity of the discharge but the report st ates that they were not as high as temperatures found naturally in other stretches of the river. The repo rt states that “the intake does not appear to pose a great threat to adult fish, but is more hazardous to young, particularly to schooling bullheads.”

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 Dakota” (Everett, Scarnecchia and Ryckman, 2004) indicated that, in recent sampling studies of the Missouri River in the vicinity of the station, there were no chubs of ei ther species collected. The authors of the study concluded that this was probably due to significantly deeper, faster and clearer water than was found in the other river segments studied.

4.2 Assessment of Data Sufficiency

Among the requirements of the CDS is the perfor mance of a study of impingement mortality. The results of this study may be used to assess the perfo rmance of the current CWIS as well as evaluate additional potential technologies and measures. The Rule sets out specific requirements for this study and addressing these goals is an important aspect of the PIC. The Rule anticipates that it may be possible to base the CDS completely or in part on existing data. For these reasons, Table 4-1 presents the specific data requirements for the study and re views the relevance of available data to these requirements. The table also comments on the potential necessity of additional field data.November, 2005 4-5 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Table 4-1 Assessment of Data Sufficiency

Rule Citation Requirement Historical Data Source Notes Additional Data Proposed? 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; Regional Literature Surveys of extant populations and reference materials can be used to assess historical trends

and current populations in the

area. No

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; Regional Literature Surveys of extant populations and reference materials can be used to assess historical trends

and current populations in the

area. No

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 Historic rates of impingement mortality have not been quantified. Yes

In summary, Basin believes that the wealth of data available on the Missouri River and its environs will support the goals of the Rule in general and the IMCS in particular.November, 2005 5-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 5.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS

The Rule requirements for the PIC ask for a summary of any past or ongoing consultations with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wild life agencies that are relevant to this Study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultations. Basin believes that the goal of this summary is to provide NDDH with full perspective on the historical permitting of the CWIS as well as any potential concern by relevant fisheries management or other natural resources agencies. Copies of correspondence with the agencies are presented in Appendix E

.

5.1 Section 316(b)-Specific Consultations

A draft of the Impingement Mortality Sampling Plan was submitted to NDDH and the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish (NDDG&F) in May 2005 and discussed in a meeting later that month. Comments were received and incorporated into the Plan. An approval from NDDH was received in September 2005 and is provided in Appendix E

.

5.2 Other Relevant Consultations

Basin has communicated on several occasions with NDDG&F relative to impingement of fisheries at LOS and the status of the Missouri River fishery in the general area of LOS. Basin has also consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with regard to Threatened or Endangered species in the vicinity of the LOS CWIS. These consultations we re taken into account in the formulation of the Impingement Mortality Sampling Plan that is described in Section 6 and presented in Appendix C

.November, 2005 6-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 6.0 PROPOSED COMPLIANCE APPROACH

Basin’s proposed approach to Phase II Rule compliance is a BTA determination based on Compliance Alternative 5 – actual costs of compliance are “significantly greater” than the benefit to be gained from installation of any of the appropriate technologies.

6.1 Outline of CDS Activities

According to 40 CFR Section 125.95(b), the “Compreh ensive Demonstration Study is to characterize impingement mortality and entrainment, to describe the operation of your cooling water intake structures, and to confirm that the technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures you have selected and installed, or will install, at your facility meet the applicable requirements of §125.94.” As outlined in Section 125.95(b), a CDS intended to support Compliance Alternative 5
based on the Cost/Benefit test must include:

• Proposal for Information Collection (PIC)

• Source Waterbody Flow Information

• Impingement Mortality and/or Entrainment Characterization Study (as appropriate)

• Technology Installation and Operation Plan (TIOP) (if appropriate)

• Restoration Plan (if appropriate)

• Information to support site-specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact

o Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study

o Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing IM&E

o Site-Specific Technology Plan

• Verification Monitoring Plan

Basin will prepare each of these documents and submit them to NDDH for review.

6.2 Review of CDS Approach

The CDS approach for the LOS includes providing the required information and submittals so that:

• Rates of impingement mortality will be quantified for 1 year.

• The Impingement Mortality Characte rization Study will summarize the full range of available data in order to estimate the extent of mitigation from the Calculation Baseline as well as estimate the
current losses.

Existing technologies and operational measures to achieve the impingement mortality goal will be described and their effectiveness estimated based on currently available data. The assessment will consider the feasibility and reliability of the techno logy as well as its likely effectiveness and cost.November, 2005 6-2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final • Alternative technologies or measures to control impingement mortality will be evaluated for effectiveness, feasibility, and costs. Basin believ es that each alternative technology and measure will be shown to be significantly more costly than the USEPA estimate of compliance costs at LOS. For this reason, the site-specific BTA (i.e., Compliance Alternative 5) will be pursued on the basis
of the Cost/Benefit test.

• The technology assessment and discussion of the installation and operation of selected measures will be presented in the Site-Speci fic Technology Plan, and/or the Restoration Plan, as appropriate.

• The nature of the proposed ongoing compliance activities including their timing will be outlined in the Technology Installation and Operation Plan.

6.3 Schedule

The following is a tentative schedule for the LO S CDS: A compliance schedul e will be requested to postpone submittal beyond NDPDES permit renewal, as allowed by the regulations.

• Submit PIC to NDDH by November 9, 2005;

• Meet with NDDH to discuss PIC by November 22, 2005;

• Receive approval of PIC from NDDH by December 31, 2005;

• Submit NDPDES permit renewal application and request 316(b) compliance extension to NDDH by June 30, 2006;

• Develop Impingement Mortality Characterization Study Report by September 30, 2006;

• Submit the Technology Installation and Oper ation Plan (TIOP) and Restoration Plan (if appropriate) by December 31, 2006;

• Submit information to support the site-specific best technology available (BTA), including the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study (CCES), Valuation of Monetized Benefits of reducing IM, and the Site-Specific Technology Plan (SSTP) by December 31, 2006;

• Meet with NDDH to discuss submittals and proposed BTA by March 31, 2007;

• Submit the Verification Monitoring Plan to NDDH by May 31, 2007;

• Approval of Verification Monitoring Plan by NDDH by July 31, 2007;

• Implement Verification Monitoring Plan by September 30, 2007;

• Receive modified NDPDES permit from NDDH by December 31, 2007.

Basin notes that this schedule is an approximation but expects to achieve full compliance well before
the extension deadline of June 2009.November, 2005 7-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 

### 7.0 SAMPLING PLAN

The Sampling Plan that was implemented at the Leland Olds Station in June 2005 is included as Appendix C to this PIC. It was submi tted to NDDH as a separate document in May 2005 for preliminary approval. Approval was provided by NDDH in August 2005. A copy of the approval letter is provided in Appendix E

.November, 2005 A -1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final APPENDIX A
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

General Technology Overview

This section provides a general review of a comp rehensive list of potential mitigation methods to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment. The nature of the technology is briefly reviewed and its approximate costs 3 are presented. The effectiveness under the co nditions at the Leland Olds station is discussed and factors affecting performance, reliabili ty, and other environmental issues are reviewed. In addition to CWIS technologies, facility operation and restoration measures are considered.

The following list of CWIS alternatives have been evaluated in this screening assessment:

• Alternative 1 – Traveling Screen Modifications

− 1a – Dual Flow Screens (Impingement)

− 1b – Ristroph Screens (Impingement)

− 1c – Fine Mesh Screens (Impingement and Entrainment)

− 1d – Angled and modular inclined screens (Impingement)

• Alternative 2 – Fixed Screening Devices

− 2a – Wedgewire Screens (Impingement and possibly entrainment)

− 2b – Perforated Pipes (Impingement)

− 2c – Barrier Net (Impingement)

− 2d – Aquatic Filter Barrier (Impingement and Entrainment)

− 2e – Porous Dike/Leaky Dam (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 3 – Offshore Intake (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 4 – Fish Diversion and Avoidance

− 4a – Louvers and Bar Racks (Impingement)

− 4b – Velocity Cap (Impingement)

− 4c – Strobe lights, acoustic deterrent, bubbles, chains (Impingement)

• Alternative 5 – Flow Reduction

− 5a – Variable Speed Pumps (Impingement and Entrainment)

− 5b – Capacity Factor Reduction (Impingement and Entrainment)

− 5c – Evaporative Cooling Towers (Impingement and Entrainment)

− 5d - Dry Cooling (Impingement and Entrainment)

• Alternative 6 – Restoration (Impingement and Entrainment)

3 This report presents estimates of the capital costs of potential mitigation measures as a means of illustrating their

potential cost-effectiveness. The estimates should be considered approximate and final costs may vary by as much as factor of two or more. Cost estimates for mitigation measures do not account for facility down-time associated with construction or operation/maintenance. These costs will be estimated with input from Basin and included in the final CDS document especially in the information to support the Site-specific BTA. Costs will be annualized according the procedures defined in the rule.November, 2005 A -2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Alternative 1 – Traveling Screen Modifications with Fish Removal and Return System

• 1a – Dual Flow Screens

Description:

With dual-flow, single-exit screen, incoming water is filtered with both the upward and downward moving parts of the screen, and the water flows toward the pump from the interior through the open side of the screen. The screen faces are oriented parall el to the direction of flow. If space is available, the screen length can be extended outward such that the area of the screens can be greater than the area of a conventional flow-through screen in the same location. Therefore, the dual-flow design has the potential to reduce through-screen velocity compared to flow-through (single entry, single exit) design.

The dual-flow design also provides an advantage of eliminating the potential for debris that is stuck on the screen to be dislodged in the downstream side of the screen. This feature has an added benefit of lower wash water pressure requirements.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

For retrofit applications, the space available to inst all may be limited by the existing structure (trash racks upstream and pump vault downst ream) and water body constraints (navigation). Such limitationsmay limit the ability to increase screen surface area, thereby limiting the ability to reduce throughscreen velocity.

Hydraulic issues with a dual-flow screen are commonly encountered. One of the common limitations with dual-flow screens is the flow disruption that is caused by the two 90-degree turns that cooling water must undergo to pass through the system. Thes e issues can be minimized (but not eliminated) by proper hydraulic analysis and design.

Dual flow screen are commercially available and have been in use for years.

For the site-specific evaluations, the dual-flow screens with conventional mesh are assumed to provide adequate screen area to reduce thro ugh-screen velocity to 0.5 feet pe r second (ft/s). Otherwise, there would be no advantage to changing from a through-flow screen to a dual-flow screen. In some cases, the required screen area may result in the need for additional new intake structures to accommodate
the screens.

Cost Considerations:

The cost of dual-flow screens is expected to be up to 20% higher than comparable through-flow

screens.November, 2005 A -3 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Effectiveness:

Dual flow screens have the potential to reduce through-screen velocities and therefore impingement mortality, with the addition of an appropriate fish handling and return system. However, depending on the proximity of other screens and structures, the full screen area may not be effectively used, and through screen velocities on parts of the screen may be substantially higher than design, thereby reducing the potential to reduce impingement. In fact, if dual-flow screens are placed in relatively narrow intake bays, the approach velocity to the screen will likely increase and the impingement rate could increase. In general, space constraints may limit effective application of this technology.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

An intake structure that is reconstructed to accommodate a larger dual-flow screen may interfere with navigation.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Installation of dual-flow screens could result in a reduction of impingement mortality but would notreduce entrainment. However, in order to reduce through-screen velocity to 0.5 fps, installation of dualscreens would require significant expansion of the existing intake structure. The potential cost of this expansion and installation would need to be compared to the benefit to be gained from the improvement based on the results of the on-going IM study. This technology is recommended for further study.

• 1b – Ristroph Screens

Description:

This alternative would involve modification of the traveling screens so that fish which are impinged on the screens could be removed and returned to the source water body with minimal stress and mortality.

A range of measures could be pursued to optimize fish handling and return. This might include more frequent rotation of the screens, re-fitting the screen with fish buckets, institution of low-pressure wash, replacement of the fish return trough, and rerouting of the fish return to a more suitable location. A complete refurbishment might consist of the following measures: A low-pressure spray would be used for fish removal prior to the high- pressure debris removal spray wash. Fish would be carried in fish buckets – i.e. water-filled lifting buckets designed such that they will hold approximately 2 inches of water once they have cleared the surface of the water during the normal rotation of the traveling screens. The fish bucket would be designed to hold the fish in water until the screen reaches the point where the fish are washed by the low pressure spray onto a sluiceway. The modified traveling screensNovember, 2005 A -4 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final would be operated continuously during periods when fish are being impinged. Removed fish would be returned to the source water body by a sluiceway with a smooth surface and sides that retain water such that organisms are gently returned to a location removed at least 100 feet from the intake structure such that the potential for re-impingeme nt would be minimized. All surfaces of the fish handling and return system would be smooth to minimize abrasion damage to organisms.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

The technology proposed for this alternative is we ll known and has been implemented for numerous power plants. However, a separate collection and piping system may need to be constructed to provide a separate return path for fish to the river or lake. This piping system woul d have to be constructed within the existing power plant footprint which could present engineering, construction, and logistics problems. Routine maintenance, primarily consisting of inspection and cleaning of the fish handing and return system, would be required but not expected to be extensive. Maintaining the system during icing conditions is likely to be complicated. The modified fish troughs extend farther out from the screens than conventional troughs. Therefore, space limitations may affect the cost and feasibility of installation.

Cost Considerations:

The retrofit of a fish removal and return system should consider complete replacement of the existing traveling screens. Installation of an effective fish return system can be complex and expensive. Operation and maintenance activities include frequent, if not continuous, screen operation and power
costs for screen and wa ter spray operation.

Effectiveness:

Modified screens and fish hand ling and return systems have been used to minimi ze impingement mortality at a wide number of facilities through out the United States. St udies have demonstrated survival of impinged fish over a wide range. Survival rates of 70-80% are typically achieved for some species. It is notable that many small schooling species (e.g., anchovies) suffer from high mortality at traveling screens even those with Ristroph-type modifications.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

No adverse effects are expected from this alternative.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Modification to traveling screens would likely result in a reduction of impingement mortality. However, installation of Ristroph Screens would require signif icant expansion of the existing intake structure at considerable cost. Because this modification has the potential to reduce IM, it merits further study during the CDS process.November, 2005 A -5 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final • 1c – Fine Mesh Traveling Screens

Description:

Typical vertical traveling screens, with mesh sizes ranging from 1/8-inch to 3⁄4-inch, are not designed to screen ichthyoplankton or eggs from the intake wate r. This alternative would involve replacement of the existing traveling screens with fine mesh screens having mesh spacing as small as one millimeter. This mesh spacing would result in a reduction of en trainment of fish eggs and larvae. In addition, an intake approach ve locity of 0.5 ft/s or less would be nec essary to minimize physical damage to plankton that would be impinged on the fine mesh screens.

Because of flow area for a screen with one-mm (about 1/32-inch) mesh is approximately two thirds that of a 3/8-inch mesh, the screen area would have to be increased by nearly 50 percent to maintain the same through-screen velocity. For most stations, the screen area would have to be further increased to maintain a 0.5 ft/s velocity to reduce mortality of im pinged fish or shellfish. In most cases, the area around the existing pump house/screen house structure is not sufficient to allow for the increased
number of fine mesh screens without substantial modification to the facilities. The screens would be operated continuously to prevent excessive accumulation of debris and organisms.

The fine mesh screen structure would include curtain walls to protect against floating debris, bar racks to prevent submerged debris from damaging the fine mesh screens, and a screen wash and marine biota removal and open sluice biota return system (similar to that described for the Ristroph screen).

Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

The technology and construction techniques required for this option have been used at a limited number of power plants, often with limited reliabil ity. At two power stations, Millstone and Brayton Point, the fine mesh screens were replaced with standard screen mesh after clogging incidents. Based on the available information, it is concluded that th ere is a relatively high potential for fouling of the intake screens and that extensive maintenance would likely be required.

In conclusion, because of the potentially large increase in screen area required, site-specific conditions may preclude the installation of a modified intake structure of sufficient size.

Cost Considerations:

The capital cost of the fine mesh screen alternative should include any necessary modifications to the intake structure, as well as construction of an effective fish return system to handle the more sensitive species or life stages of fish and shellfish. Oper ation and maintenance costs include one maintenance episode (6 days) each year, replacement parts, syst em monitoring by station staff (10 hours per week), and power costs.November, 2005 A -6 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Effectiveness:

Fine mesh screens, with a low pressure wash and return system, have not been demonstrated to result in consistent effectiveness in reducing mortalit y at early life stages. This is a significant concern because organisms that are entrained and discharged may have a far greater chance of survival than if such organisms are impinged and subsequently washed back to the receiving water. Therefore, even though entrainment reductions of 50% to over 90% have been achieved at number of power stations using fine mesh screens, compliance with the impingement mortality performance standard could be in jeopardy. Because the calculation baseline levels of entrained organisms are typically far greater than the levels of impinged organisms, the reduction in impingement mortality will likely need to be nearly 100% for the early life stages to meet the 80-95% performance standard.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

The major potential adverse effect associated with t he technology is the pote ntial unreliability of the cooling water flow associated with clogging events.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Fine mesh screens can meet performance requirements for entrainment, but impose a relatively high potential for operational issues associated with scr een clogging. Mortality of ichthyoplankton removed from the screens is likely to be high. The cost of the screen panels, as well as the cost of a revamped intake structure to accommodate the additional screen area required, is extremely high. Space limitations may preclude the installation of adequate screen area. This technology is designed primarily for entrainment reduction and is far too cost ly a remedy for IM reduction, therefore it is not recommended for further study.

• 1d – Angled and Modular Inclined Screens

Description:

Angled and inclined screens use standard flow-through traveling screens set at an angle to the incoming flow. With these screens, the angle causes the fish to move toward the end of the screen, where a bypass facility returns the fish to the water body.

Technical Feasibility/Reliability

Angled screens have been used at Brayton Point. The installation requires considerably more space than conventional screens. Retrofit applications would likely require substantial modifications to the existing intake structure. The fish handling and return system requires independently induced flow, adding to the complexity of the system.November, 2005 A -7 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Cost Considerations:

Retrofit of angled or inclined screens should include the need to revamp the intake structure, as well as the installation of an effective fish return system.

Effectiveness:

Brayton Point has had mixed results with both diversion and latent survival, depending on fish species. EPA reports survival efficiency ranging from 0.1 percent for bay anchovy to 97 percent for tautog. The difference in effectiveness between angled screens and conventional screens with fish return is not
evident.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

The bypass flow can be substantial, resulting in additional operating costs.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Angled or inclined screens are in limited use. Although they may be effective in reducing impingement mortality, it is not clear whether their performance differs from a conventional screen. Because there is no apparent advantage, angled or inclined screens are not considered further in this analysis.

Alternative 2 – Fixed Screening Devices

• 2a – Wedgewire Screens

Description:

Wedgewire screen is constructed of wire of triangular cross section such that the surface of the screen is smooth while the screen openings widen inwards. Fine mesh screens have slot spacing of less than 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) and are typically less than 3 mm. Slot size for coarse mesh screens is 9.5 mm or greater. The cylindrical screen design has been used at several power station applications. However, most of these applications have been for closed-cycle cooling systems.

A typical installation would include an array of tee shaped cylindrical screens. If one-mm slot size were required, a station with a 500 MGD cooling water flow would require approximately 15 7-foot diameter by 23-foot long screens. The screens would be placed in the intake water body at a depth such that it would not present a hazard to navigation.

The screens would be cleaned periodically with an automatic compressed air system when located near shore. A large plenum structure would be added to the front of the intake structure to distributeNovember, 2005 A -8 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final the flow from the intake array. The existing intake structure would remain intact and functional. It could be used as a backup to the wedgewire screen system. The plenum structure would have openings that would allow flow to pass in case of screen clogging. Alternatively, wedgewire screen must be sized to minimize clogging and is subject to periodic manual cleaning.

For far-offshore applications, a compressed air cleani ng system is not practical. Under such conditions, the reliability of fine mesh screens is uncertain, and only coarse mesh wedgewire screens should be
considered.

Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

Wedgewire screens have been widely used for hydropower diversion structures. The cylindrical screen structures have been used successfully for many years for water withdrawals up to 100,000 gpm. Withdrawals of larger quantities are rare. The wedgewire cylindrical screens have been implemented at only two relatively large power plants with once-through cooling systems: Campbell Unit 3 on Lake Michigan, and Eddystone Unit 1 on the Delaware River. The high number of wedgewire screens required for many plants is higher than has been previously used and likely poses impractical logistical issues associated with placement in the bay or river.

The long-term reliability of the wedgewire screens of the one-millimeter size is unknown. Although some vendors have proposed construction materials which would prevent mussel or other biological growth on the screens, the requirements for biofouling control are uncertain and could be substantial. The automatic backflushing would reduce screen fouling from both biological growth and suspended particulate matter. However, to be effective for screen cleaning, this system requires an ambient current to transport the removed particles from the vicinity of the screens. In waters with minimal current, debris accumulation may be excessive and backwashing ineffective. Small or negligible currents in the intake water body could make wedgewire screens impractical, especially fine-mesh

screens.

In addition, if the screens were to be located at a distance from the shore, considerable length of large diameter piping would be necessary to connect the screens to the existing cooling water system. Installation of such a system will result in signific ant cost as well as potential disruption of the site and the water body.

Cost:

The cost for the wedgewire screen alternative should consider the distance offshore, needed piping, and air-burst cleaning system. Operation and maintenance costs include two maintenance dives (6 days each) each year, replacem ent parts, and system monitoring by facility staff (10 hours per week).November, 2005 A -9 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Effectiveness:

Wedgewire screens have been demonstrated to essentially eliminate impingement and, for smaller slot sizes, reduce larval entrainment. The 1-mm slot size has been demonstrated to reduce entrainment by over 80 percent at some facilitie s. However, achievement of such results is dependent on the presence of relatively high ambient currents that can sweep the plankton along and past the screens.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

The primary adverse effect associated with this altern ative is the potential for obstruction to navigation caused by multiple submerged structures in the water body near the plant. In addition, the presence of rock rip-rap around a large number of screen structures can result in a “reef effect,” causing the fish population density to increase in the vicinity of the screen structure. This phenomenon is more likely in cases where there is very little spawning habitat near the intake location.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

The Missouri River does not provide sufficient depth near the LOS CWIS to allow installation of wedgewire screens. Installation of any in-river technologies would pose a significant hazard to navigation. Additionally, extreme cold conditions during winter could cause excessive ice formation on the screens reducing their ability to provide cooling water to the station. The cost of this alternative is high and is strongly dependent on the number of screens needed and the length of new pipeline
construction needed to interconnect all of the screen s and to build a common tunnel to the shoreline. Installation of wedgewire screens is not recommended for further study.

• 2b – Perforated Pipes

Description:

With perforated pipes, water is drawn through perforations or slots in a pipe located in the water body. EPA included this technology in its discussion of intake technologies. However, perforated pipes have been used only in small water withdrawal applications. It is also subject to clogging and fouling. It is also similar in principal to wedge wire screens. Therefore, this te chnology alternative will not be
discussed further.

• 2c – Barrier Nets

Barrier nets are wide-mesh nets that are placed in front of the intake structure entrance. The nets are sized to prevent the fish from passing through, and low velocities are maintained at the net to allow affected fish to swim away. Barrier nets would be mounted on a frame that would allow ease of cleaning or replacement.November, 2005 A -10 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

Barrier net systems involve technologies that are in widespread use especially in freshwater systems. Construction techniques that would be used for these systems are commonplace. Maintenance requirements include routine cleaning of debris and/or net replacement. Deployment is often limited to certain seasons because of the potential for winter damage from icing and storms. Finally, placement of a barrier net at the intake has the potential to adversely affect boat traffic. Placement typically involves suspension from existing pylons or wa lls. Creation of a new set of anchors, etc. will complicate installation and increase costs.

Cost Considerations:

For typical power plants, the estimated capital cost for installation of barrier nets is $0.5M to $1.5M. The estimated operation and maintenance cost is approximately $50,000 per year for freshwater deployments. Operation and maintenance costs include monthly changeout and annual deployment
and removal.

Effectiveness:

Barrier nets have been shown to be effective for impingement reduction at a number of facilities. Greater than 90% reduction in imping ement has been realized at a number of facilities. However, they are not effective in deterring fish eggs and larvae, or other planktonic organisms. There is the potential for clogging with debris; hence a routine cleaning operation is essential. Adequate area to allow low through net velocity (<0.5 ft/s, often <0.1 fps) is important to prevent clogging and collapse.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

This alternative could pose limitations on navigation in the vicinity of the intake.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

There have been a number of positive experiences with barrier nets for reduction in impingement, and the cost is very low compared to other technologies. However, considering the long, cold winter season in North Dakota, nets could only be deployed during warm months and removed each winter. The effectiveness of placing nets during warm mont hs would need to be investigated against the results of the on-going IM monitoring study to determine the effectiveness of this technology at LOS. This alternative is recommended for further study.November, 2005 A -11 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final • 2d – Aquatic Filter Barrier System

Description:

Aquatic filter barrier systems are designed to completely enclose an existing intake structure and essentially filter the water drawn through the fa bric to the intake structure. The best known manufacturer of aquatic filter fabric systems for power plant intake applications is Gunderboom. The Gunderboom system is a double panel, full water dept h fabric curtain suspended from flotation billets at the water surface and secured in place by an anchoring system. The system includes mooring lines, ballast chain, anchoring system and an automated compressed air cleaning system. Automatic alarms and monitors may be installed in an appropriate control room to monitor the fabric alignment and system operation.

The standard design hydraulic loading rate of the Gunderboom fabric is 3 to 5 gpm per square foot with a generally recommended maximum range of 10 to 12 gpm per square foot. At the recommended design hydraulic loading and an assumed water depth of 15 feet, a length of fabric of more than one mile would be required for a 500 MGD cooling water flow. Therefore at a minimum, this alternative would require that a large area around the intake structure be encompassed by the fabric for most large power stations with once-through cooling.

Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

The technology and construction techniques required for this option have been fully implemented only
at the Lovett Power Plant in New York State. Clo gging of the Gunderboom is a routine maintenance issue. The length of fabric required would encompass a large area around an intake structure. Aquatic filter barriers are not likely to withstand the icing conditions encountered in the Great Lakes region. A Gunderboom would require seasonal deployment, increasing the operation and maintenance costs.

Cost Considerations:

The estimated capital cost of the Gunderboom alternative is high compared to other near-shore technologies. The operation and maintenance costs include the mobilization and installation/demobilization and removal of the system each year. They also include regular underwater inspections of the filter curtain each month and one thorough underwater inspection each year.

Effectiveness:

Aquatic filter barriers have been demonstrated to be effective in substantially reducing larvae entrainment and fish impingement losses at power station intakes on the Hudson River. As a result, the New York State DEC is a strong advocate of this technology for entrainment and impingement reduction. However, clogging and ambient conditions can increase the risk of fabric failure, rendering the system ineffective.November, 2005 A -12 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

Because this aquatic filter barrier application would require closing off much of the waterbody near the plant, navigation would be restricted. The potential for aquatic organisms to be impinged in the fabric is

a concern.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Based on the logistical and potential navigation is sues associated with the extensive area of the waterbody that would be encompassed by the aquatic filter fabric, operational issues associated with potential clogging of the fabric, potential damage fr om floating debris, and th e costs associated with biannual installation and removal, it is not likely that this alternative would be practical in any once-through application with large flow rates, particularl y at LOS. Installation of aquatic filter barriers is not recommended for further study.

• 2e – Porous Dams/Leaky Dikes

Description:

Porous dams, also known as leaky dams or leaky di kes, are filters constructed of stones surrounding the cooling water intake. The core of the dike is co mposed of gravel or stone which allows water to be drawn through it. The exterior of the dike is armored with larger rocks. The dam serves as a behavioral and physical barrier to aquatic organisms. The reduced flow rate across the full face of the dam greatly reduces impingement, however, “hot spots” of high velocity may be present in local areas of high porosity, and its effectiveness in screening fish eggs and larvae is not well established.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

Because of its size, a porous dam constructed around an intake structure may not be practical in waterbodies of limited size, because of potential impacts to navigation.

Cost Considerations:

Because of its large size, a large part of the capital cost of a porous dam is materials (stone and gravel). Operation and maintenance would include routine maintenance and potentially heavy cleaning or dredging every 5 years.

Effectiveness:

If the surface area is sufficiently large, the porous dam intake structure could result in a lower impingement rate, but may not decrease the entrainment rate. The porous dam would decreaseNovember, 2005 A -13 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final impingement due to low intake velocity across the dam face and the physical barrier created by the
stones used in the dam. The dam structure would need to be located such that its construction does not impact known spawning beds. The presence of the stone could create spawning areas where there were none and could actually serve to increase entrainment. Alternatively, potential spawning areas created by the porous dam may act as a restoration measure and increase the production of fish in the water body.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

Significant biofouling could be expected due to algae and aquatic weeds (e.g., watermilfoil). Biofouling of the porous dam would reduce plant cooling wa ter intake rate. Frazil ice formation should be expected in the winter months and the dam itself wo uld be subject to structural damage from surface ice. The size of the porous dam is large, and it s construction has the potential to damage fish spawning areas. In smaller waterbodies, a dam of suffi cient size to effectively reduce intake velocity could impede shipping and boating.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

A porous dam will likely be effective for reduction in impingement if designed for low intake velocity. However, to achieve low intake velocity, the dam would have to be built well out into the river navigation channel making it impractical for this location. Installation of a porous dam is not recommended for further study.

Alternative 3 – Submerged Offshore Intake Structure

Description:

An offshore intake structure alternative would cons ist of a structure with velocity cap (or other technology such as wooden cribs or wedgewire screens), and a single pipeline into the station. The
size of the structures would be de signed to achieve a nominal intake velocity of 0.5 ft/s. The velocity cap on the structure provides horizontal flow that reduces the potential for fish impingement. The intake structures would be located in the water body at a water depth of at least 20 feet. The intake pipeline would be placed by either trenching or tunneling.

Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

The technology and construction techniques required for installation of submerged intake structures are well known and understood. Submerged intakes ha ve been constructed at several facilities and have been shown to be reliable in the long term. Considerations for designing and constructing the alternative include 1) technology associated with sub-surface placement of the pipe and potential impacts to the bottom along pipeline route, 2) the length of pipeline needed to reach sufficient depth,November, 2005 A -14 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final 3) prevention of fouling on the structure, 4) the potential for adverse impacts due to debris, and 5) the need to avoid obstruction of navigable waters.

Another technical consideration for the offshore intake structure alternative is that the intake water could have a reduced temperature which would potentially improve power plant performance.

Cost Considerations:

The estimated capital cost of submerged offshore intake is highly dependent on the length of new pipeline needed. One 6-day dive per year would be required for maintenance.

Effectiveness:

The offshore intake structures could result in a lower impingement rate if designed with low intake velocity and velocity cap. Suitable placement of the intake off-shore may reduce the density of eggs and larvae subject to entrainment relative to an on-shore location. The intake structure construction could impact spawning beds. The presence of the in take structure and associated anchor stone and rip-rap could create new spawning areas that did not previously exist and could actually act to increase
entrainment.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

The Missouri River does not provide sufficient depth near the LOS CWIS to allow installation of offshore intake structures. Installation of any in-river technologies would pose a significant hazard to navigation. Installation of an y offshore intake structure is not recommended for further study.

Alternative 4 – Fish Diversion and Avoidance

• 4a – Louvers and Angled Bar Racks

Description:

Diversion devices are physical structures intended to guide fish away from and out of the intake flow. Examples of such devices include angled bar racks and louvers, which are made of a series of evenly spaced, vertical slats placed across a channel at an angle leading to a bypass area. The louvers create localized turbulence that the fish detect and avoid. The louver systems have been tested at hydroelectric facilities on rivers.

Typically, angled bar racks and louvers would be in semicircular fashion around a shoreline intake or placed across the mouth of an intake canal. Louver s would be constructed of material compatible with the environment (for example, polyethylene slats for louvers and nylon for nets), and would be mounted on a stainless steel frame, approximately 12 inches apart.November, 2005 A -15 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

Louver systems involve technologies that are in widespread use. Construction techniques that would be used for these systems are commonplace. Maintenance requirements could be potentially
extensive. Divers will lik ely be required to routinel y clean and/or re place the bar racks or louvers. The potential for damage and clogging from ice and debris is real. Finally, placement of a louver at the intake has the potential to adversely affect boat traffic.

Cost Considerations:

The capital cost for installation of louvers should include consideration for debris loading and damage. Operation and maintenance costs include two 6-day dives per year to clean and maintain the louvers.

Potential Effectiveness:

These diversion devices are not effective in deterr ing fish eggs and larvae, or other planktonic organisms. Louvers have been tested only in rivers with a substantial current velocity along the bank. They are most effective in diverting migratory fish from intakes in confined river channels, and therefore would be less effective in lakeside applications.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

This alternative could pose limitations on navigation in the vicinity of the intake.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Louvers/bar racks can effectively reduce impingement of some species of fish, but would not be effective for reducing entrainment. This alternative has relatively high probability of clogging associated with ice, debris, and biological growth. Because this technology is a permanent installation which could not be removed each winter, it would be subject to damage from floating ice and subject to clogging from ice formation. This technology is not recommended for further study.

• 4b – Velocity Caps (installed on existing offshore intake)

Description:

A velocity cap is a cover placed on a vertical inlet of an offshore intake structure. The cover results in a horizontal flow to the intake, and may reduce impingement because fish tend to avoid rapid changes in
horizontal flow. Intake velocities of 0.5 to 1.5 ft/s are common.November, 2005 A -16 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

Installation of a velocity cap on an existing offshore intake may be limited because of water depth and potential interference with navigation. For some applications, a velocity cap may require routine inspection and maintenance to remove accumulated debris.

Cost Considerations:

Costs of installation of a velocity cap on an existing offshore intake should consider intake
modifications and materials of construction.

Potential Effectiveness:

Although velocity caps in new offshore intakes have been shown to result in reduced impingement, it is uncertain whether the reported reductions are due to the velocity caps or the new offshore locations. Velocity caps should be designed to minimize intake velocity through the intake structure openings; a maximum intake velocity of 0.5 feet per second should be considered to meet the Phase II intake velocity threshold. In some cases, additional measures (e.g. intake screen improvements, deterrent systems) may be needed to meet impingement performance goals. Velocity caps have no impact onentrainment, although the off-shore location may result in lower entrainment levels compared to an onshore calculation baseline intake configuration.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

The addition of a velocity cap to an existing intake may interfere with navigation.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Velocity caps are only practical for installation at existing in-river intake structures or as part of a new in-river intake structure. As with other in-river technologies, the hazard to navigation and potential for damage from floating ice make this an impractical technology for LOS. Velocity caps are not recommended for further study.

• 4c – Strobe Lights, Acoustic Deterrent, Bubbles, Chains

General Description:

Behavioral barriers are intended to cause fish to actively avoid entry into the intake flow. Examples include sound barriers, light barriers, air bubble cu rtains, chains and cables, and electrical barriers. They are often implemented in combination with other devices such as physical barriers (e.g., fish nets). The potential behavioral barriers are briefly described below.November, 2005 A -17 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Sound barriers consist of devices located at the intake structure, which create sound that repels the fish. Three types of underwater sound have been tested for this application: low-frequency infra-wave sound, low-frequency sound generated by pneumatic/mechanical devices, and transducer-generated sound covering a wide range of frequencies. Low frequency, high-intensity devices have been shown to be effective. High frequency (125 kHz) devices have been reported to be effective in the Great Lakes. Pneumatic impact devices, “poppers”, and “hammers” are examples of devices that have been effective in reducing impingement of some fish such as alewife at power plant intakes. There is some concern that pressure waves from pneumatic devices may be harmful to nearby organisms. In most cases, the use of high-intensity, multi-frequency sound has not been effective in repelling a wide range of fish species from intakes due to the diversity of species and sizes of species in the receiving water.

Light barriers consist of a series of underwater lamps that emit a constant or intermittent (strobe) beam of light. The effectiveness of light barriers as a deterrent has been variable, and even contradictory, in many studies. In some studies fish have been attracted to light while in others they have been repelled. Constant light has been more effective than strobe light in guiding young salmon whereas strobe light has been effective in repelling alewife and gizzard shad. Filtered mercury vapor light has been found to attract certain species of fish away from strobe lights in field studies in Europe. At the Nanticoke Generating Station on Lake Ontario, smelt, shad, white bass and shiner have been successfully guided away from intake trash racks us ing mercury vapor light. However, evidence of consistently reliable effectiveness for a wide range of fish species does not exist.

Air bubble curtains or screens consist of a series of diffuser pipes mounted on the base of the intake structure. The diffusers create a continuous, dense cu rtain of bubbles, which can repel fish. Generally, the air bubble screens have not been successful. They are not effective at night and in turbid water. In one case, at Indian Point Generating Station on the Hudson River, the air bubble screen actually attracted fish at night.

Chains or cables can be hung vertically from the top of the intake structure to form a physical, visible barrier to fish. The results of studies of this behavioral barrier have been contradictory. The effectiveness of chain barriers is dependent on flow velocity, turbidity and illumination. Debris buildup on hanging chains can disrupt hydraulic flow patterns at the intake.

Electrical barriers consist of a series of electrodes at either side of the intake structure. These barriers have had limited success and can present a safety threat.

Technical Feasibility/Reliability:

All of the behavioral barrier systems are technicall y feasible and reliable from the perspective of construction, operatio n, and maintenance. The behaviora l barrier systems that have been implemented with the greatest frequency are sound and light barrier type systems. Each of these potential alternatives would consist of a metal support structure constructed at the front of the intake,November, 2005 A -18 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final sound or light emitting devices mounted on the supports, a power supply, controllers, power cables and mounting hardware. The construction and technology used for these alternatives have been regularly applied. To ensure long-term reliability of these systems, ongoing maintenance will be required. Maintenance of the systems would include cl eaning and replacement of light bulbs (for light barrier systems) and prevention of corrosion of the supporting structure.

Cost:

The estimated capital cost of behavioral barriers (e.g., a strobe light barrier system) is generally lower than other technologies. Operation and maintenance costs include items such as the replacement of strobe lights each year using divers, and 10 hours per week of on-site monitoring by station staff. Costs for other behavioral barrier systems would be similar.

Effectiveness:

Because these barriers rely on the ability of the organism to respond to a stimulus, they are not effective in protecting fish eggs and larvae, or othe r planktonic organisms. In addition, the effectiveness of these barriers varies among species and across age groups within species. These barriers are most effective when a single species of fish of the same size and age is to be protected. Many the behavioral barriers have not been field-tested so their effectiveness has been extrapolated from laboratory studies. None of these devices has been demonstrated to be consistently reliable in obtaining an avoidance response from a wide range of fish species. Therefore, installation of
behavioral barriers would not result in reduction of entrainment, and a reduction in impingement is possible but uncertain.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

A potential adverse effect of the behavioral barrier alternative is a slight potential for increased
attraction of fish to the intake st ructure. Also, any structure installed near the intake has the potential to disrupt navigation.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

Behavioral barriers may effectively divert specific fish species and therefore could be a component of an overall impingement mortality reduction. Based on site- and species-specific variation in response, pilot testing is likely to be necessary. One or more of the behavioral barrier systems may merit further study after completion of the on-going IM study.November, 2005 A -19 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Alternative 5 - Flow Reduction

• 5a – Variable Speed Pumps

Description:

Variable speed cooling water intake pumps are potentially useful for reducing cooling water flow and the associated entrainment and impingement during pe ak periods of biological activity. The decrease in cooling water flow results in an increase in plant condenser delta T (temperature increase through the condenser) and discharge temperature. Therefore, variable speed pumps are most appropriate during cold water periods of the year (winter and spring) in temperate climates where an increase in discharge temperature will not cause a significant increase in biological effects or cause discharge temperatures in excess of maximum acceptable levels.

For other facilities, this alternative was considered with the assump tion that variable speed pumps would be installed to decrease the cooling water flow by 25% during periods of potentially high entrainment and impingement. This alternative would require replacement of existing single speed drives with adjustable speed drives (ASD) on the circulating water pumps. An on-line condenser tube cleaning system is included in this alternative to alleviate tube fouling which could potentially occur
because of lower water flow rates.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

The replacement of the existing single speed drives with ASDs is a technically feasible and reliable alternative. However, under full power production conditions using the existing condensers for the units, this alternative, specifically a 25 percen t reduction in flow, could reduce the reliability and efficiency of the entire system. Specifically, the reduction in flow through the condensers could cause operational difficulties (i.e., condenser tube fouling), cause decreased thermal efficiency in the turbines, limit or reduce maximum power production, require condenser replacement, and alter the thermal plume effects at the discharge.

Cost:

The estimated capital cost of the variable speed pump alternative is $0.5M per cooling water pump. This capital cost assumes that replacement of the existing condensers would not be required. Operation and maintenance costs are difficult to estimate without input from the individual stations regarding thermal efficiency as well as market rates. It should be noted that costs associated with loss of thermal efficiency are likely to be partially offset by the gain in not operating the pumps at full capacity. This cost assumes that the plant could be operated at full capacity during reduced cooling
water flow.November, 2005 A -20 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Effectiveness:

The use of variable speed pumps to decrease the flow of cooling water through the intake would effectively reduce the entrainment and impingement in the system; however, the resulting increase in temperature in the discharge could increase thermal plume effects. The alternative would amount to a relatively small reduction in flow – and corresponding reduction in impingement and entrainment effects – of approximately 25 percent for the entire plant during periods of time when the ASDs are in operation. Since the ASDs would not be used during the entire year, the overall reduction in impingement and entrainment would be substantially less than 25 percent.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

As noted above, reduction in cooling water flow du ring normal station output would result in an increased discharge ∆ T value which could, in turn, cause altered thermal plume effects.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

By itself, this alternative will not likely achieve performance goals for impingement and entrainment reduction, though it may be considered as one co mponent of an overall compliance plan. However, any reduction in intake volume would likely result in an increase in discharge temperature and risk exceeding temperature limits set in the NPDES perm it under Section 316(a). This alternative is recommended for further review during preparation of the CDS.

• 5b – Capacity Factor Reduction

Description:

A power plant can reduce impingement and entrainment by reducing cooling water requirements through reduced capacity factor of the facility. This approach would require a commitment on the part of the facility to limit cooling water flow to a level below the design flow rate. Unless a very low capacity factor is intended, this approach will likely be used in conjunction with other technologies to meet performance goals.

There is the potential that regulatory agencies will limit the applicability of this approach for facilities with historically low capacity factor. Although the calculation baseline is based on design capacity, the commitment to set a capacity factor limit by a facilit y with historically low capacity factor may be viewed as an inappropriate approach to meeting the performance goals unless a restriction is included in the plant NPDES permit.

Technical Feasibility and Reliability:November, 2005 A -21 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Reduced water flow rate will limit the power production rate based on thermodynamics as well as the thermal discharge limits for the facility.

Cost Considerations:

Reduction on capacity of a facility will have very la rge financial impact on the ability of a facility to generate revenue. The capital cost to implement this approach could involve installation of equipment to limit operations; however, recordkeeping may be all that would be required to demonstrate the flow
reduction achieved.

Effectiveness:

A capacity factor reduction and resulting reduced flow rate should at least reduce impingement and entrainment in proportion to flow reduction. Seasonal differences in density of aquatic life would need to be considered to determine the overall annual reductions in impingement and entrainment from the
calculation baseline.

Potential for Other Adverse Effects:

This approach reduces power generation capacity, which would have to be made up elsewhere.

Overall Assessment of Alternative:

If acceptable to the regulating agencies, this alternative may be a component of compliance. This alternative is recommended for further study during development of the CDS.

• 5c – Evaporative Cooling Towers

Description:

The existing cooling water systems use river or lake water pumped through a steam condenser and discharged back to the source water body. These systems are generally referred to as open cycle or once-through cooling system because the wate r simply passes throu gh the condenser (no recirculation) where heat is transferred from the steam to the cooling water prior to discharge. Closed cycle systems recirculate the cooling water in a closed piping system. The heated water from the condenser is cooled down in each cycle using evaporative cooling. This cooled water is then
recirculated to the condenser to cool and condense the steam from the turbine. In the mechanical draft-cooling tower, fans are used to circulate air that flows against the heated water sprayed inside the
tower. Cooled water is collected in the tower basin and returned to the condenser. Water must be introduced into the system at regular intervals to make up for losses due to blowdown and evaporation. The closed cycle evaporative cooling systems requir e a water withdrawal rate that is about 3 to 5 percent of the amount of water required in once-through cooling systems.November, 2005 A -22 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final The makeup water flow for a mechanical draft-cooling tower is typically less than 5 percent of the flow required for once-through cooling. The makeup flow would be pumped to the circulating water system from the current intake structure. Blowdown would be discharged from the tower basin to the discharge
canal.November, 2005 A -23 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Technical Feasibility and Reliability:

The technology proposed for this alternative is well known and has been implemented for similar power plants. However, this alternative requires substantial open space, consumes a substantial amount of electricity, and reduces the thermal efficiency of the syst em. In addition, the ability of the existing condensers to handle the higher pressures associated with the recirculating system is uncertain and could have a large effect on the costs for this alternative.

Costs:

The capital cost of the mechanical cooling tower alternative is very high. Operation and maintenance costs are typically estimated to be in the millions of dollars per year, primarily due to additional fan and pump power demands and water treatment requirements. Finally, the increased temperature of cooling
water in the steam condensers will re sults in both efficiency and capacity loss for the generating units. During the hottest summertime conditions when el ectricity demand is highest, the efficiency and capacity losses could be as high as 10 percent. This will result in the need to purchase replacement power at a premium because a pub lic utility has an obligation to serve its customers and will be required to bear that expense.

Effectiveness:

The mechanical draft cooling tower alternative would effectively reduce both impingement and entrainment in proportion to the flow reduction, typically 95% or more. This technology meets both the impingement mortality reduction and entrainment reduction performance standards set by the 316(b) Phase II rule for existing facilities.

Other Potential Adverse Effects:

The primary adverse effects for the mechanical draft cooling tower alternative are associated with increased water vapor content in the immediate area of the cooling towers. This will result in a visible plume for some periods and has the potential to result in fogging impacts. To reduce the potential for these effects, a plume abatement system would be employed. Because cooling tower drift cannot be eliminated completely, the tower would be located as far as possible from electrical equipment, off-site receptors, and sensitive vegetation. Space limitations may make it difficult to locate the cooling towers to minimize these effects. A cooling tower also imposes noise and aesthetic impacts. Another significant environmental effect is that the decrease in efficiency means that more fuel is burned per unit of electrical energy output. Therefore, a plant with cooling towers will have more emissions than a plant utilizing an open cycle system. The increase in emissions will be proportional to the decrease in plant efficiency. Depending on the weather conditions, the negative effect on efficiency could be anywhere from 1 to 10 percent.November, 2005 A -24 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Overall Assessment of Alternative:

A cooling tower alternative would be effective fo r reduction of both entrainment and impingement mortality; however, due to the very high costs and limited space available for construction, this
alternative is not considered as a part of the compliance.

• 5d – Dry Cooling

Description:

With a dry cooling system air is used as a heat sink to condense steam in the system. Cooling water is essentially eliminated. However, a dry cooling system requires a large cooling surface, many cooling fans, and a more sophisticated steam ducting system, which would require extensive modifications to an existing facility. In addition, an annual average ther mal efficiency penalty of 2 to 5 percent is likely for the power plant. During the hottest summertime conditions when electricity demand is highest, the efficiency and capacity losses could be well over 10%. Because of these high costs, dry cooling is not considered a part of the compliance for any existing facility.

Alternative 6 – Restoration

Description:

The USEPA 316(b) regulations allow the use of miti gation strategies for enhancing fish and aquatic biota populations to offset impingement and entrainment losses. These strategies typically involve habitat restoration methodologies, particularly the creation and improvement of important habitat types that support aquatic biota, as well as spawning and nursery areas. Alternatively, ENSR is aware of several fish-stocking efforts in the southern United States that are viewed as successful by all parties involved. Ideally, the restoration activity should result in mitigating the types of species that are affected by entrainment and impingement at the plant and re sult in quantifiable benefits near the station. Alternatively, the rule allows for “out-of-kind” restoration, which might be simpler to institute and
monitor.

NDG&F operates a fish hatchery nearby for the purposes of providing stock to the Missouri River and tributaries. Various additional fish and habitat restoration strategies could be considered for the Missouri River in association with the NDG&F and NDDH including wetland creation or habitat
creation.

The restoration process would involve the following activities: 1) evaluation of impingement data to assess target species and associated habitat restoration strategies; 2) selection of the most appropriate restoration strategies and areas for restoration; 3) implementation of selected restoration strategies; and 4) coordination with relevant resource agencies (e.g., NDDH, NDG&F, U.S. Fish and Wildlife) to gain approval.November, 2005 A -25 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Technical Feasibility/Reliability

Each of the potential restoration methods has been used with success in a number of applications. Each of the restoration methods would require an assessment of whether any conditions in the river would preclude long-term success. The potential for court-remanding of the restoration measures also
should be considered.

Cost

Annual costs associated with fish stocking (assumed to continue for ten years) range from $20,000 to $100,000.

Effectiveness

There is little existing quantitative information on using increases in biological production at habitat areas to offset impingement and entrainment losses. However, restored habitat areas have been demonstrated to result in an increase in biota and spawning. Alternatively, a well-designed stockingprogram may be able to provide a more direct replacement of important species on an adultequivalency basis. It should be noted that restoration does not reduce the rate of impingement mortality at CWISs.

Other Adverse Effects

There are no likely adverse effects of the restoration alternative.

Overall Assessment of Alternative

This alternative is technically feasible, has comparat ively moderate costs, and is likely to be effective (though at this point it is difficu lt to quantify the degree of mitigation that would be obtained). The alternative also would provide an overall environmental benefit to the Missouri River. This alternative is recommended for more detailed analysis.November, 2005 B-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final APPENDIX B
EPA COST ESTIMATETable B-1:US EPA-Estimated Compliance Costs based on the Model Facility Approach for the Section 316(b) Phase II Final RuleSource: Appendices A and B of the Final Rule in the Federal Register, July 9, 2004.Column 1Facility NameColumn 2Facility IDColumn 3Intake IDColumn 4EPAAssumedDesign IntakeFlow, gpm(xepa)mgd Column 5Capital CostColumn 6BaselineO&M AnnualCostColumn 7PostConstructionO&M AnnualCostColumn 8AnnualizedCapital + NetO&M UsingEPA DesignIntake Flow2(yepa)Column 12PerformanceStandardson whichEPA CostEstimatesare BasedColumn 13EPAModeledTechnology5Column 14DesignFlowAdjustmentSlope (m)1Leland Olds DUT0062 1 72,917105$1,069,902$8,527$48,944 $192,747 I&E 4 2.5787Leland Olds DUT0062 2 156,250225$1,922,088$14,312$56,483 $315,834 I&E 4 2.57877. Relocation of existing intake to a submerged offshore location with passive fine-mesh screen inlet with mesh width of 1.75 mm8. Addition of a velocity cap inlet to an existing offshore intake.3. Addition of a new, larger intake with fine-mesh screens and fish handling and return system in front of existing screen.4. Addition of passive fine-mesh screen system (cylindrical wedgewire) near shoreline with mesh width of 1.75 mm.5. Addition of fish net barrier system.6. Addition of an aquatic filter barrier system.Note: Depending on the data provided, some facilities with multiple intakes were costed separately for each intake. In such cases, the facility should calculated the costs considered by EPA foreach intake using the steps below and sum. Note that some costs (e.g., construction downtime) are assigned evenly to each intake for convenience.5EPA Technology Codes:1. Addition of fish handling and return system2. Addition of fine mesh screens to an existing traveling screen system.1The design flow adjustment slope (m) represents the slope that corresponds to the particular facility using the technology incolumn 3.2Discount rate = 7%.3Amortization period for capital costs = 10 years.4Amortization period of downtime and pilot study costs = 30 years.November, 2005 C-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final APPENDIX C
SAMPLING PLAN

### Impingement Monitoring Plan 2005-2006

Basin Electric, Leland Olds Station Great River Energy, Stanton Station Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., Milton R. Young Station

Prepared for:

Basin Electric Great River Energy Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc

.

Prepared by:

ENSR 1601 Prospect Parkway

Fort Collins CO 80525

Project Number 10735-002-400

May 200510735-002-400 August, 2005 

### i 

### CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. ........1-1

2.0 STATION DESCRIPTIONS .....................................................................................................2 -1

3.0 SOURCE WATER BODY INFORMATION.............................................................................3-1

4.0 FIELD AND LABORA TORY PROCEDURES ........................................................................4-1

5.0 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. .......5-1

5.1 Fish Data ...................................................................................................................... .5-1

5.2 Plant Operating Data.....................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Impingement Estimates ................................................................................................5-2

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALI TY CONTROL PROCEDURES..........................................6-1

6.1 Mobilization ................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Sample Collection .........................................................................................................6 -2

6.3 Recording Data ............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.4 Datasheets ................................................................................................................. ...6-2

6.5 Container Labeling........................................................................................................6 -3

6.6 Safety Precautions........................................................................................................6 -3

6.7 Collection of Biological Data .........................................................................................6-3

6.8 Deviations from QA/QC Plan or SOP...........................................................................6-4

6.9 Data Management ........................................................................................................6-5

6.10 Sample Tracking ........................................................................................................... 6-5

7.0 STUDY REPORT .............................................................................................................. .......7-1

APPENDIX A – BIBLIOGRAPHY10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### ii LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Site Location Map.............................................................................................................. .....2-2
3-1 Fish Species Identified in the Garrison Reach ......................................................................3-3
3-2 Summary of Fish Collected at Stanton Station 1997-2004 ...................................................3-4

4-1 Impingement Collection Basket .............................................................................................4-2

4-2 Proposed Schedule of Sampling Events ...............................................................................4-4
4-3 Impingement Study Team......................................................................................................4-510735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 1-1 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This impingement monitoring plan has been developed to facilitate the collection of aquatic organisms from the intakes of three operating power plants that draw water from the Missouri River. The three power plants are Basin Electric’s Leland Olds Station, Great River Energy’s Stanton Station, and Minnkota Power’s Milton R. Young Station. These stations withdraw water from the Missouri River for cooling purposes and are subject to compliance with the requirements of Phase II of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. This impingement monitoring plan is one component of the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) that will be submitted separately for each facility.

Phase II of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires plants that withdraw 50 million gallons a day (MGD) or more of cooling water from surface water bodies to reduce entrainment and/or impingement of aquatic organisms to specific minimum levels through retrofit or restoration, or demonstrate that such measures are not beneficial or are prohibitively expensive. A component of the initial phase of this compliance demonstration is to document or determine the baseline entrainment/impingement rates to support the selection of a compliance strategy and ultimately quantify and confirm its effects.

Implementation of the Phase II program and subsequent demonstration of compliance by individual plants are administered under federal and state NPDES programs. The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) has primacy for the administration of the state’s NPDES program and is responsible for overseeing and approving compliance activities.

These three stations all withdraw more than 50 MG D from surface water bodies and are subject to Section 316(b) requirements. Leland Olds Station and Stanton Station are located on the Missouri River, and the Milton R. Young Station has a cooling water intake structure (CWIS) on the Missouri River, though the station is located 13 miles south on Nelson Lake. Since each station withdraws less than 5 percent of the mean annual river flow, they are not subject to requirements to reduce entrainment. However, they are subject to the impingement reduction requirements. There are no historical or current data for impingement rates at any of the station intakes. Because North Dakota Game and Fish conducts biannual sampling of the river in the vicinity of the power plants, there are reliable and recent data on fish populations in this segment of the
Missouri River.

Because of the lack of impingement data, Basin Electric, Great River Energy, and Minnkota Power have decided to support a joint impingement monitoring study whose data can be utilized for all three stations. This plan provides the detailed procedures for the field, laboratory, and data10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 1-2 analysis components of this year-long study. Its purpose is to ensure consistent and reliable data collection and analyses.

The overall purpose of this impingement monitoring study is to collect reliable and site-specific data on the rate of impingement of aquatic organisms at the cooling water intakes of these three power plants. The data will then be analyzed to determine the potential impact of impingement losses to resident populations of organisms in this segment of the Missouri River. The results of these analyses will be utilized to select the appropriate strategy for compliance with Section 316(b) requirements at each station.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 2-1 

### 2.0 STATION DESCRIPTIONS

All three stations have relatively similar intake configurations. Their locations on the Missouri River are presented in Figure 2-1 . The stations and intakes are briefly described below.

Leland Olds Station (LOS)

LOS has two operating units that generate approx imately 656 MW and withdraw approximately 330 MGD during normal operation. Each unit has a CWIS that includes two short concrete forebay (total of four forebays) that are essentially flush with the river bank. A spray header in front of each of the forebays is used in the winter to reduce ice build-up and in the winter, some of the warm water that has passed through the plant is returned to the forebays to raise the temperature of the incoming water and prevent ice formation. Also, during winter operation, the warm water discharge is moved to a location upstream of the intake structures to help minimize ice build-up. A submerged spray header is used to wash sediments away from the front of the forebays, as

necessary.

Water is pulled into the forebay s and through trash racks that exclude large objects. At each CWIS, water then flows through dual vertical traveling screens and to dual pumps. The 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens are cleaned with 125 psi wash sprays when the operator determines from visual evaluation that build-up is occurring. The screens are also equipped with pressure drop instrumentation – when the pressure drop across the screens exceeds a setpoint, the wash sprays are automatically operated. Wash water is sprayed through the screens and material that is washed off the screens flows to a sluiceway that returns the collected material directly to the
river.

LOS represents an intake configuration that EPA considers “baseline” (as defined at 40 CFR 125.93), i.e., the intake is located flush and parallel with the shoreline, withdraws water from the surface and shallow depths of the river and has traveling screens with 3/8” mesh and no type of fish return system. References to a “baseline” configuration throughout this document refer to the
situation at LOS.

Stanton Station

Stanton Station has two operating units that generate approximately 172 MW and withdraw approximately 144 MGD during normal operation. Stanton Station’s intake design is very similar to LOS’s design except that each unit has a single concrete forebay and each of the forebays are somewhat longer, with a distance of approximately 40 feet from the river bank to the trash racks. In addition, the sluiceway from the traveling screens exits the pumphouse building and flows onto

# .

0 1

, 0 0 0 2

, 0 0 0 5 0 0 M e t e r s

0 2 5 0 5 0 0 1 2 5 M e t e r s S t a n t o n S t a t i o n

L e l a n d O l d s S t a t i o n

M i l t o n R

. Y o u n g S t a t i o n M i s s o u r i R i v e r C W I S

S t a n t o n S t a t i o n C W I S

L

. O

. S

. C W I S

Y o u n g S t a t i o n C W I S

0 5 0 1 0 0 2 5 M e t e r s S c a l e 1 : 6

, 0 0 0 S c a l e 1 : 2 4

, 0 0 0 S c a l e 1 : 4 5

, 0 0 0



# S I T E L O C A T I O N M A P

C o m b i n e d 3 1 6 b C o m p l i a n c e P r o j e c t S a m p l i n g P l a n B a s i n E l e c t r i c M i n n k o t a P o w e r C o o p e r a t i v e I n c

. G r e a t R i v e r s E n e r g y 

# F i g u r e 2

- 1

U S G S B / W 1 M A e r i a l s 0 9 / 1 6 / 1 9 9 7 O l i v e r C o u n t y
, N D F o r t C l a r k Q u a d r a n g l e D r a w n b y : M G N D G & F S a m p l i n g P o i n t10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 2-3 the ground adjacent to the building. The slope of this area allows water to flow approximately 30 feet back to the river. The majority of debris and material is collected on the ground and is periodically removed manually.

Milton R. Young Station

The Milton R. Young Station has two operating units that generate approximately 700 MW, and is located 13 miles south of the Missouri River on Nelson Lake. The station draws cooling water from Nelson Lake through two CWIS. Nelson Lake is provided make up water through a pipeline from a CWIS on the Missouri River, located approximately 5 miles downstream of LOS. The Missouri River CWIS has the capacity to withdraw 19.4 MGD with two pumps operating, but normally only operates one pump, which a capacity of 11.2 MGD. The Missouri River CWIS includes a single traveling screen that receives water through a covered forebay that is proportionally smaller than the LOS SWIS, and does not include warm water recirculation for winter operations. The screen wash return is through a sluiceway that empties directly back into
the river.

The sampling plan for the Nelson Lake CWIS will be addressed in a separate sampling plan
submittal to the NDDH.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 3-1 

### 3.0 SOURCE WATER BODY INFORMATION

The three power plant CWISs are located on the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River. This reach has been studied thoroughly with regard to aquatic species for many years by Federal and State agencies as well as other independent researchers. Over 17 reports on various aspects of the status of the fishery along the Garrison Reach have been researched during the development of this sampling plan (a bibliography of these sources is provided in Appendix A). Most significantly, North Dakota Game and Fish Department has conducted fish population studies in the Garrison
Reach since 1991. These studies involved biannual fish collection at seven locations in the Garrison Reach. One of these collection locations is offshore of the Stanton Station cooling water outfall, which is located just downstream of the Stanton CWIS and upstream of the LOS CWIS, and which is in a similar river regime as the Milton R. Young Station river CWIS, 4 miles downstream. The location of the North Dakota Game and Fish Stanton sampling point is identified

on Figure 2-1

.

Section 125.95(b)(3)(i)-(iii) of the Phase II Rule stipulates that the Impingement Characterization Study must include the following to support development of the CDS:

(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...”;

(ii)”A characterization of all life stages....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......These may include historical data that are representative of the current ope ration of your facility and of biological conditions at the site”;

(iii)”Documentation of the current impingem ent mortality.....of all life stages....and an estimate of impingement mortality....to be used as the calculation baseline...... Impingement mortality.....samples to support the calculations......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.”10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 3-2 Figure 3-1 presents a complete list of all the fish species identified in the Garrison Reach from 1991 through 2003 1



### . Figure 3-2 presents the number of each species identified at the Stanton Station by North Dakota Game and Fish during sampling events in summer and in fall from 1997 through 2004. The second condition listed above will be addressed by the data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish since it is likely that fish populations and movement were at their highest levels in the months that were sampled. The impingement characterization study will provide additional species occurrence data for the entire year. The existing data have been used to identify the species of fish likely to be found during the impingement characterization study and will be utilized to analyze the potential impact of impingement in the study report and during completion of the CDS. Additional data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish and other organizations will be incorporated into the study as soon as it is made available.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reportedly documented the occasional presence of the pallid sturgeon, an endangered species, in the Garrison Reach. While it is not expected that a pallid sturgeon specimen will be collected, it is possible. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be immediately contacted if such a specimen is collected and it will be provided to them for examination after it is documented for this study.

The data collected by North Dakota Game and Fish as well as other researchers provide a relevant and ongoing characterization of the biological conditions and populations in the river near the intake structures of the three power plants. 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 described in this Plan will comply with the third condition listed above and will complete the data set required by the rule. The applicants do not propose to collect additional source water body data.

1 North Dakota Fisheries Investigations, Aquatic Investigations of the Missouri Mainstream in North Dakota, by Jeff Hendrickson, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, March 2004.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 3-4 Total Number of Each Fish Specie Present at Stanton Sampling Site NDG&F Sampling 1997 – 2004
Summer Fall Bigmouth Buffalo 15 160 Black Bullhead 0 0 Black Crappie 0 0 Bluegill 0 0 Blue Sucker 15 8 Brown Trout 2 25 Brook Stickleback 0 0 Burbot 1 6 Common Carp 84 125 Channel Catfish 11 7 Cisco 0 7 Common Shiner 9 0 Cutthroat Trout 16 5 Emerald Shiner 39 142 Chinook Salmon 15 7 Fathead Minnow 0 1 Freshwater Drum 5 5 Goldeye 11 8 Golden Shiner 0 0 Johnny Darter 4 39 Largemouth Bass 0 0 Longnose Dace 0 1 Longnose Sucker 100 103 Northern Pike 25 8 Orange Spotted Sunfish 0 0 Paddlefish 3 0 Rainbow Smelt 3 14 Rainbow Trout 1 4 River Carpsucker 330 295 Smallmouth Buffalo 8 43 Sauger 38 34 Shorthead Redhorse 140 65 Smallmouth Bass 9 7 Shortnose Gar 3 7 Shovelnose Sturgeon 4 7 Spottail Shiner 0 3 Walleye 264 203 White Bass 50 38 White Sucker 389 409 Western Silvery Minnow 0 1 Yellow Perch 0 3 Totals 1,594 1,790



### Figure 3-2. Summary of Fish Collected at Stanton Station 1997-200410735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 4-1 

### 4.0 FIELD AND LABO RATORY PROCEDURES

Impingement sampling will begin in June 2005 and will continue for 1 year. For the first 3 months of the study, each of the three river intakes will be visited once every 2 weeks for collection activities. During each visit, two continuous (approximate) 12-hour biological samples will be
collected.

During each impingement sampling event, the operating vertical traveling screens will be rotated per each station’s standard operating procedures. Prior to the first 12-hour sampling period, plant operators will rotate and wash the screens and sluiceways to remove all existing debris and material. At the start of each sampling period, a metal basket with 3/8-inch square mesh will be placed in the sluiceway downstream of the traveling screens. The collection basket will be designed to fit precisely within the sluiceway so that all wash water containing fish and debris will travel through the basket and not around it, to ensure a complete sample. An approximate representation of the basket placement is shown in Figure 4-1 ; there will be slight variations of design and location depending on each station’s traveling screen operation. Plant operators will wash the traveling screens according to normal plant conditions. Because of the time needed to 1) wash the screens, 2) remove debris and fish fr om the collection baskets, and 3) travel between facilities, it will not be possible to collect samples representing exactly 12 hours. However, the total collection period will be approximately 24 hours and the actual collection times will be noted
on the field data sheets.

At the end of the first 12-hour period, screens will be rotated and washed, with debris being retained by the collection basket. As water passes through the basket, sampling personnel will remove fish. After the screens have been washed, any remaining debris in the basket will be examined for fish. The basket will be cleaned and put back in place for the second 12-hour collection period. At the end of the second 12-hour period, the screens need to be washed (due to excessive buildup of debris and subsequent pressure drop of the cooling water stream), prior to completion of the 12-hour period, wash water will be passed through the basket and examined for fish; the intermediate washing will be documented. If debris buildup is extremely heavy and it is not possible to intercept all of the wash water, the time the wash occurred will be noted and the actual collection time will be documented on the field data sheet. Plant personnel will be trained and utilized for collection of fish if intermediate washing is required. Specimens will be kept in coolers until sampling personnel return to the site.

Fish will be separated from the debris, placed on ice, and examined soon after collection or transported in coolers back to Bismarck for evaluation. Fish that are dead (no visible movement of gills or fins) at collectiojn will be noted on data sheets (placed in a separate container, if necessary). Fish that may have been dead long before impingement (e.g., advanced10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 4-3 decomposition, missing scales and eyes, excessive fungus, etc., as compared to other fish within a particular sample) will be noted on the laboratory data sheet. Fish will be identified by species, weighed (grams), and measured (minimum of total length in centimeters). All fish identifications will be conducted by experienced fisheries biol ogists, utilizing current taxonomic keys or publications. Since it is expected that the fish count for each collection event will be well below 100 individuals, each fish will be evaluated and counted. If there is an exceptionally large number of individuals of one or more species, and the total number of specimens collected exceeds 100, then subsampling will be allowed. For any one species, at least 20 individuals must be measured; these will be obtained in an unbiased fashion from the pool of available specimens. Unusually large or small specimens also will be measured. Biological metrics will not be collected on the remaining fish.

All fish from any given collection (i.e., from one plant during one collection period) will be digitally photographed (as a group) using a camera with a minimum resolution of 3.0 megapixels. All digital photographs will be stored on a CD and submitted with an annotated list at the end of the study period. A voucher collection will be made that will include at least one representative of each species. The representative specimen should be in good condition with little or no external damage. Voucher specimens may be frozen or stored in formalin/alcohol. Only one specimen from each species is needed in the voucher collection; all other collected fish can be discarded, unless they are being retained for quality assurance purposes (see Quality Assurance/Quality Control [QA/QC] Procedures). Unusual fish (fish with odd coloration, tumors, unidentified fish) will be kept in the voucher collection as well.

After three months of data are collected at the three intakes, the data among the stations will be compared for sample taxonomy, quantity, and general biological metrics. After the first quarter, the data will be presented to NDDH. If the data from the three stations are similar, a request will be made to NDDH to conduct biweekly sampling at one station for three more quarters with a single verification sampling event at the other two stations (conducted during the same week as the routine sampling event) once each quarter. At this time, it is proposed that the LOS be selected as the primary sampling location since its configuration is most similar to baseline. If the quarterly samples reveal a significant difference in quantity or taxonomy at either station, then biweekly sampling will be resumed at that station for the next quarter. The total study will encompass 26 sampling events or approximately one year. Figure 4-2 shows the proposed schedule of sampling events for the sampling year (dates shown are tentative and may be slightly modified due to weather or operating constraints).

Sampling will be conducted by WPC, a local environmental consulting firm and supervised by Dr. David Pillard, of ENSR. Dr. Steve Kelsch will be a technical advisor and will provide support for taxonomic identification and quality assurance. Figure 4-3 provides details on the sampling staff organization.IDTask Name1Meeting with NDDH2Sampling Plan Approval3Quarterly Data Evaluations8Sample and Data Collection9Leland Olds Station36Milton R. Young Station (first 3 months)44Milton R. Young Station57Stanton Station (first 3 months)65Stanton Station5/266/20%15222951219263101724317142128411182529162330613202741118251815222951219265121926291623307142128411182529162330JuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyA20052006Impingement Monitoring Study (Tentative)Page 1

### Study Leader

Dr. Dave Pillard (ENSR) Figure 4-3

Impingement Study Team

Sampling Team Leader

John Schulz (WPC)

Sampling Staff

Al Sandvol (WPC) Basin Electric Great River Energy Minnkota Power Cooperative Technical Advisor

Dr. Steve Kelsch University of North Dakota10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 5-1 

### 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 Fish Data

Field and laboratory data for each sample will be recorded on forms compatible for computer entry. Data will be entered into a spreadsheet after each collection event and will be compared against the hard copy laboratory data forms by a data analyst with experience in biological data collection. Errors will be corrected immediately. Since counts are expected to be low, there should be no need for data extrapolation. Data will be reviewed for consistency by QA/QC personnel at
ENSR. Data anomalies will be identified and in vestigated before being accepted as valid and
usable.

Summaries of the number for each species collected will be presented in the spreadsheet by sampling period and by station.

5.2 Plant Operating Data

For each sampling period, hourly data regarding the number of circulating water pumps in operation per unit, use of warm water recirculation, plant load (MW), and intake temperature will be collected from plant personnel. Hourly cooling water volumes will be calculated based on the number of pumps in operation for each unit and then summed across each 24-hour sampling period to determine the total vo lume sampled. Daily cooling wa ter volumes also will be obtained from plant personnel in order to calculate weekly cooling water volumes.

In addition, a velocity reading will be taken at each intake during each sampling event using a hand-held velocity meter. The meter will be positioned, if possible, near the front of the forebays for a prescribed interval of time and the velocity will be measured. If access to the forebays is not possible, than velocity will be measured at another accessible location, possible upstream of the screens. The river stage or depth of water at the screens will be recorded by plant operators or by the sampling team – this in formation will be used to evaluate impingement data.

Other operating data that will be collected include the number of wash events during the sampling period and the number of times the collection basket was emptied, if required to maintain adequate flow through the screens or to keep the basket from overflowing or plugging.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 5-2 5.3 Impingement Estimates

Species-specific impingement estimates will be ca lculated on a weekly basis using the following
formula:

Weekly Estimate = Number of Fish Collected x Weekly Cooling Water Volume Cooling Water Volume Sampled

Weekly impingement estimates (sampled on a biweekly basis) will be multiplied to determine a monthly total estimate. At the end of the study, monthly frequency distributions will be developed for each species sampled. Confidence intervals and limits will be determined at the end of the study using appropriate statistical and data evaluation methods.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-1 

### 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUA LITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

Prior to initiating monitoring, a detailed QA/QC Plan will be developed to ensure that accurate, consistent and traceable data are collected for the duration of the project. Elements of the QA/QC Plan can roughly be broken into five categories:

• Mobilization for Field Work;

• Sample Collection;

• Sample Processing;

• Data Management; and

• Sample Tracking.

6.1 Mobilization

Sampling will be conducted in accordance with the described biweekly schedule. A matrix will be developed showing target dates for conducting each component of the program. The matrix will include the time(s) of day sampling is to be performed. Designated plant contacts will be notified 1 week prior to each sampling event, with confirmation provided 24 to 48 hours in advance.

A Field Manager, Mr. John Schulz of WPC, Inc., in Bismarck, North Dakota, has been assigned to the project. It will be the responsibility of the Field Manager to ensure that all needed equipment and supplies are readied for each sampling event and that the gear is in proper operating condition. The Field Manager will develop a checklist of primary and backup equipment, supplies, datasheets, tools, field repair kits, safety equipment, and other necessary items for each type of sampling activity. Twenty-four hours prior to each sampling event, this gear will be assembled and verified against the checklist. To the extent practical, backup gear, replacement parts, and spare batteries will be included in the gear assembled for each sampling event.

The sampling team assigned by the Field Manager will review field safety issues and protocols prior to embarking on each trip. Each sampling team will be led and supervised by the Sampling Team Leader, who will be ei ther Mr. Schulz or Mr. Al Sandvol of WPC, Inc. The Sampling Team Leader (if different from the Field Manager for any given sampling event) will meet with the Field Manager and review procedures, target plants, and schedule. They also will review a list of plant personnel who will be on duty during the collect ion period. It is the responsibility of the Field Manager and sampling team to ensure that all assembled equipment is transported to the project site and properly stored and handled for the duration of the trip.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-2 Upon return from each sampling event, the Field Manager will ensure that all gear is cleaned, inspected, stored, repaired when necessary, and otherwise readied for the next event. Supplies will be restocked, as necessary.

6.2 Sample Collection

The Sampling Team Leader will be responsible for ensuring that all field activities are conducted in conformance with established standard operating procedures (SOPs) and safety procedures. The Sampling Team Leader will be responsible for ensuring that all mobile equipment and samples are returned in proper order to WPC for anal ysis. A Scientific Collection Permit will be obtained from North Dakota Game and Fish (NDGF) to allow the collection and transport of fish once they are removed from the bas kets at each facility. In the unlikely event that a threatened or endangered (T&E) species would be collected, the specimen will be retained for examination by NDGF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, no additional permit or plan is required relative to the possibility of encountering a T&E species.

6.3 Recording Data

Recorded data represent the results of long hours spent in the field and are the first step in a lengthy analytical process. All field and laboratory personnel will adhere to the basic rules for recording information as described below:

• Legible writing in black, waterproof ink only with no erasures, write-overs, or cross-outs;

• Correction of errors with a single strike-out line followed by the recorder’s initials and date;

• Initialed and dated footnotes at the bottom of each page if further explanation of any corrections is needed; and

• Cross-outs on incomplete pages with an initialed and dated diagonal line.

6.4 Datasheets

All data will be entered on pre-printed, standardized datasheets at the time of sampling. Datasheets will be water proof, “ Rite in the Rain ® 

### ” or equivalent. Generic information, such as date, type of sampling, field team members, and weather conditions, will be included at the top of the form. Site-specific conditions, such as time of collection, physical parameters, and sample ID, will be recorded at the beginning of sample collection. Upon completion of sample collection, any unusual conditions that might have affected the quality of the sample will be documented. An10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-3 explanation will be provided for any missing data. The datasheet will then be checked for accuracy by a second member of the field team prior to obtaining additional samples or moving to the next station. Any unusual physical conditions of the collection basket or area (e.g., broken basket) should be noted and documented with digital photographs.

6.5 Container Labeling

Biological samples will be placed in appropriate containers. Containers will be labeled with a sparate “stick-on” label or with a water-proof, felt-tip marker (e.g., Sharpie ® 

### ). The label will include, at a minimum the date and station ID (including Unit, if the plant has more than one unit), and whether fish were alive (visible movement) or dead at the time of collection. Additional information may include sample type, sample number, and sampler’s initials. If samples will need to be stored for several days before processing, than the latter information must also be recorded.

6.6 Safety Precautions

Appropriate safety gear will be worn and utilized for all field activities in accordance with plant safety rules and established safety plans.

6.7 Collection of Biological Data

At the lab, field samples will be logged in, sorted by date and type, and stored in a safe, secure location for processing. Appropriate reference li terature and electronic databases will be made available to assist in taxonomic determinations. At least once per month for the first quarter and once per quarter for the remaining project time, fish collected form at least one of the plants (no less than 20 fish or all fish if <20 collected) will be reviewed by a second qualified taxonomist to ensure consistency in identifications. Should ther e be disagreement between the two taxonomists, supporting confirmation from outside experts will be sought. Samples of all problematic taxa will be delivered to an independent expert for identification/verification.

Length measurements of fish will be made using a measuring board consisting of a linear metric scale secured to a flat wooden or plastic base with a fixed head piece. Fish will be measured by positioning the body on the right side, head facing the observer’s left, and fish mouth closed. Total length will be measured as the distance from the anterior-most portion of the head or jaws to the extreme tip of the caudal fin. If the caudal fin is bi-lobed, the lobes will be squeezed together and measured to the posterior most tip of the combined lobes. Standard length will be measured from the anterior-most portion of the head or jaws to the hypural plate (posterior most portion of the caudal region).10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-4 Representative specimens of problematic species will be identified to the lowest practicable taxon and preserved for more thorough identification. Freezing is adequate for short-term preservation, provided freezing will not distort the body as to make it difficult to identify. For longer-term storage, a chemical preservative is preferred. For fish greater than 150 mm that are being preserved chemically, an incision about 30 mm in length will be made along the abdominal body wall on the right side of the fish to ensure penetration of fixative into the body cavity. Fish will remain in buffered formalin (10 percent with CaCO 3 

### ) for several days to ensure adequate fixation of tissues.
After the fish have be en thoroughly fixed, the buffered formalin will be removed and the specimens soaked in fresh water for 48 hours with at least one change of water. After 48 hours all water will be discarded and 40-percent isopropyl alcohol or 70-percent ethanol added to the collection container for permanent preservation.

All data generated during the processing of samples will be recorded on standardized lab bench sheets. Prior to processing each sample, pertinent information on the container labels will be transferred to the bench sheet to ensure proper sample tracking. If the sample is to be reviewed as part of the project QA process, it be labeled with a discrete sample number and the name of the processing taxonomist and stored for QA purposes until the data for that sampling event can be evaluated. Once a QA review is conducted and the data are acceptable, the sample will be disposed of. If the data are not acceptable (e.g., due to errors or anomalies inconsistent with previous data), the QA reviewer and the original taxonomist will reexamine the data and determine the cause of any discrepancies. The QA reviewer will then document the discrepancy and steps taken towards resolution and prevention of the future errors. In addition, if data from any event are deemed unacc eptable, a sample from the next event will be retained for QA review, even if samples from that event were not scheduled to be examined by a second taxonomist. reexamination of a representative number of pr eviously identified samples will be made by a different taxonomist to verify previous identifications and numerical information. Greater than 5 percent discrepancy in taxonomic identification between initial and QA analyses will require reexamination of all samples from a particular sampling event. Discrepancies in numerical information (weight and length) will be interpreted in light of changes associated with storage methods (e.g., shrinkage due to preservatives). However, suspicious discrepancies in biological
metrics also will necessitate a r eexamination of all sa mples from that particular sampling event.

6.8 Deviations from QA/QC Plan or SOP

Examples of failures in sampling methods and/or deviations from sampling requirements include but are not limited to such things as sample container spillage or breakage, gear malfunction, equipment failure, and unusual site conditions that prevent sampling. Failures or deviations from the QA/QC Plan or SOP will be fully documented on the field datasheet and reported to the Project Manager. The Project Manager will determine if the deviation from established protocol10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-5 compromises the validity of the resulting data. The Project Manager will decide whether to accept or reject data associated with the sampling event based on his/her best professional judgment and will determine whether the absence of specific data will significantly affect analytical objectives of the project. In cases where missing data are likely to impact the ability of the project team to draw reliable inferences regarding plant effects, the Project Manager will require that sampling be repeated.

6.9 Data Management

Field datasheets and lab bench sheets will be placed in labeled folders for input into an electronic database maintained by the identification lab. Prior to study initiation, the Field Manager or assignee will review the forms for completeness and accuracy. If it becomes apparent early in the project that additional data need to be collected, the data sheets will be modified appropriately. Each form will have a signature an d date block to track data proce ssing. After the da ta have been entered into the database, the data forms will be signed, dated, and returned to the folder for verification. Printouts of entered data will be verified against corresponding field datasheets and lab bench sheets to ensure that all information has been accurately transferred. Missing
information will be added and inaccurate information corrected. The forms will be initialed and dated by the verifying par ty. Following data verifica tion, the original data forms will be segregated by sampling date and type and archived for the life of the project.

6.10 Sample Tracking

Proper sample handling and custody procedures are required to ensure the integrity of samples from sample collection through data analysis. For samples collected by field personnel, that do not leave the possession of field personnel/taxonomists, no custody documentation is required other than collection data documented on field and laboratory data sheets. However, if samples are retained for QA purposes and those samples are sent via courier to another location, a number of forms will be used for chain-of-custody document ation. Upon arrival at the laboratory for QA examination, all samples will be received and logged in using a Sample Receipt Log, which will include the following information:

• Project Name;

• Field Team Leader;

• Date of Collection;

• Time of Collection;

• Site Identification;

• Type of Sample;

• Name of collector(s);10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 6-6 • Name of Recipient; and

• Time/Date of Receipt.

The Project Manager or assignee will develop a master list of all samples, which will be used to track the progress of the field sampling program. Appropriate blocks for each sample will be checked off as each sample is collected, processed, analyzed, and the data entered into the computer. Each month, the Project Manager will review the master list and evaluate whether sample collection and processing is progressing in conformance with established schedules. Missing information will be reconciled and appropriate corrective measures taken, where
warranted.

All failures associated with sample receipt proced ures will be immediately reported to the Project Manager. These include but are not limited to things such as lost samples, deviations from SOP and/or QA/QC requirements, incomplete documentation, possible tampering of samples, and broken or spilled samples. The Project Manager will determine if these issues have compromised the validity of the resulting data or will impede analytical objectives. The Project Manager will decide how best to address identified problems. Possible courses of action include 1) document and proceed, 2) redo the entire sampling event, or 3) selectively analyze the samples. The effect(s) of all identified problems on project objectives and any related corrective measures will be documented in QA reports furnished to the client.10735-002-400 August, 2005 

### 7-1 

### 7.0 STUDY REPORT

When this study is completed, a report will be prepared which includes field and laboratory methodologies, raw data, monthly organism and operating data summaries, and detailed results and conclusions sections. This report will become part of each station’s Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) and will be used to support the stations’ selected compliance

program.November, 2005 D-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final APPENDIX D Bibliography of Sources Used for Source Water Body Review

Berry, C. R. and B. A. Young. 2001. Introduction to the benthic fishes study. Volume 1 of Population
structure and habitat use of benthic fishes al ong the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Resear ch Units, South Dakota State University, Box 2140b, Brookings, South Dakota 57007. charles_berry@sdstate.edu

.

Berry, C. R., D. L. Galat, and M. L. Wildhaber. 2001. Fish distribution and abundance. Volume 3 of Population structure and habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, South Dakota State University, Box 2140b, Brookings, South Dakota 57007. charles_berry@sdstate.edu

.

Dieterman, D. J., M. P. Ruggles, M. L. Wildhaber, and D. L. Galat, editors. 1996. Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Along the Missouri and 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 Ph enotypes and Habitat Use of Sicklefin Chub, ( Macrhybopsis meeki ) in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 185 p.

Everett, S. R., D. L. Scarnecchia, and L. F. Ryckm an. 2004. Distribution and habitat use of sturgeon chubs ( Macrhybopsis gelida ) and sickle-fin chubs (M. meeki) in the Missouri and 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 fishes 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. Scarnecchia, M. Ruggles. Missouri River Benthic Fish Study. http://wfs.sdstate.edu/units/fishes.html . 8 pp.

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

Hesse, L. W., J. C. Schmulbach, J. M. Carr, D. D. Keenlyne, D. G. Unkenholz, J. W. Robinson, G. E. Mestl. 1989. Missouri River Fishery Resources in Relation to Past, Present, and FutureNovember, 2005 D-2 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final Stresses, p. 352-371. In D.P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106.

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

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

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, and condition and size structure. Volume 4 of Population structure and habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. US. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, Iowa State Universi ty, 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. Ryckman. 1994. North Dakota Fisheries Investigations, Missouri River System Fishery Reference and Operational Management Document. NDG and F Dept., 100 North Bismarck Expressway s, 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, Official Department Position Papers, Game and Fish Department, North Dakota: 7 pp.

Welker, T. L. 2000. Ecology and Structure of Fish Communities in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 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. Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes along the 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 Emerald Shiners ( Notropis atherinoides ) of the Missouri River. Doctoral Dissertation, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 140 p.November, 2005 E-1 Basin Electric, LOS
PIC Final APPENDIX E
AGENCY CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION