MACROIN VERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARRRESERVOIR …LAKE MONTICELLO NEAR THE YC SUMMER NUCLEAR...

MACROIN VERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARRRESERVOIR ANDLAKE MONTICELLO NEAR THE YC SUMMER NUCLEAR ýSTATION

,OPERATED, BY SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY,FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

I

JUNE 2008

/./

Submitted To.

'SOUTH CAROLINA ELE'CTRIC AND GAS COMPANYFairfield County, South Caiolina

CARNAGEY.,BIOLOGICAL SERyICtS,,LLC

MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARR RESERVOIR ANDLAKE MONTICELLO NEAR THE VC SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION

OPERATED BY SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY,FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

JUNE 2008

Submitted To:

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANYFairfield County, South Carolina

Submitted By:

CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC636 Westwood Drive

Lexington, South Carolina 29073803-233-6952

SCDHEC Laboratory Certification No. 32572

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLES H1

LIST OF FIGURES iii

I SUMMARY 1

II INTRODUCTION 2

III DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 2

IV MATERIALS AND METHODS 4

A. Field Procedures 4

B. Laboratory Procedures 4

C. Data Analysis 4

1. Bioassessment Metrics 4

2. Regression Analyses 5

V RESULTS-Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis 5

VI DISCUSSION 8

VII REFERENCES 9

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functionalfeeding groups (FG) for two Parr Reservoir stations near the VC SummerNuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008. 10

2 Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functionalfeeding groups (FG) for three Lake Monticello stations near the VC SummerNuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008. 13

3 Bioassessment metrics for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the VCSummer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008. 16

4 Bioassessment metrics for the three Lake Monticello stations near the VC 17Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008.

5 Results of the single factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness,total abundance, EPT index, EPT abundance, NCBI, and percentage of thedominant taxon among sampling stations for the petite Ponar data collectedon Parr Reservoir, near the VC Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County,South Carolina, 18 June 2008. 18

6 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richnessbetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 19

7 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundancebetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 19

8 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage ofthe dominant taxon between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 19

9 Averages of the logio(x+l) transformed percentage of the dominant taxondata in Lake Monticello, listed in ascending order. 19

10 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage ofthe dominant taxon between the Control and Water Treatment Intakestations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 19

11 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Indexvalues between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 20

12 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPTAbundance values between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 20

13 Averages of the log, o(x+l) transformed EPT Abundance data in LakeMonticello, listed in ascending order. 20

ii

LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED

Table Page

14 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPTAbundance values between the Water Treatment Intake and Raw WaterIntake stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 20

15 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI valuesbetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 20

16 Averages of the loglo(x+l) transformed percentage of the NCBI data in LakeMonticello, listed in ascending order. 21

17 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI valuesbetween the Control and Raw Water Intake stations in Lake Monticello, 18June 2008. 21

18 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHECBioclassification values between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 21

19 Averages of the logjo(x+l) transformed percentage of the SCDHECBioclassification data in Lake Monticello, listed in ascending order. 21

20 Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHECBioclassification values between the Control and Raw Water Intake stationsin Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008. 21

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from LakeMonticello and Parr Reservoir, near the VC Summer Nuclear Station,Fairfield County, South Carolina. 3

iv

1

I. SUMMARYOn August 17, 2007, personnel from ýScana Services, Inc. collected petite Ponarmacroinvertebrate samples from Lake Monticello and Parr Reservoir near the VCSummer Nuclear Station. The collected macroinvertebrates were identified and the datawere analyzed by CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC (SC DHEC LaboratoryCertification No. 32572). The objective of this assessment was to determine the conditionof the macro invertebrate community at the proposed water treatment intake in LakeMonticello, the proposed new raw water intake in Lake Monticello, relative to a controlstation up lake of these stations. A second objective of this assessment was to determinethe condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed new cooling towerblowdown discharge in Parr Reservoir, relative to the control conditions at a controlstation located upstream.

The Parr Reservoir stations showed a number of significant differences. The proposedblowdown discharge station had significantly better SCDHEC bioclassification andNCBI scores as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. In addition, the proposedblowdown discharge station had significantly higher total macroinvertebrate abundance.

The Lake Monticello stations showed significant differences in four of .the metricsmeasured as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. The percentage of the dominanttaxon at the proposed raw water intake station was significantly lower than at either thecontrol station or at the proposed water treatment intake station. The EPT abundance atboth, the proposed water treatment intake station and the proposed raw water intakestation, were significantly greater than at the control station. The proposed watertreatment intake station had significantly better SCDHEC bioclassification and NCBIscores than did the raw water intake station or the control station.

2

II. INTRODUCTIONOn June 18, 2008, a benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment was conducted onLake Monticello (6,800 acres) and Parr Reservoir (4,400 acres) near the VC SummerNuclear Station located Fairfield County, South Carolina. Fairfield Pumped StorageFacility connects the two impoundments allowing for daily fluctuations in water levels atboth impoundments. SCE&G has filed a license application with the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission for the right to construct two new nuclear units. The two new units willwithdraw water from Lake Monticello and discharge cooling tower blowdown and otherliquid waste into Parr Reservoir._The objective of this assessment was to determine thecondition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed water treatment intake inLake Monticello, and the proposed new raw water intake in Lake Monticello, relative to acontrol station up lake of these stations. A second objective of this assessment was todetermine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community at the proposed new coolingtower blowdown discharge location in Parr Reservoir, relative to the control conditions atan upstream control station. This assessment is part of a larger study to document themacroinvertebrate community in and around the VC Summer Nuclear Plant.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREACollections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made from five sampling locations inLake Monticello and Parr Reservoir near the VC Summer Nuclear Station (Figure 1).

Parr Reservoir Control was located above Hellers Creek, approximately 9.0 kilometersabove the Parr Shoals dam. The substrate at this station consisted mainly of sand.

Parr Reservoir New Blowdown Discharge was located at the location of the proposednew cooling tower blowdown discharge from the proposed two new nuclear units at theVC Summer Nuclear Station, and approximately 1.0 kilometers above the Parr Shoalsdam. The substrate at this station consisted mainly of sand.

Lake Monticello Control, was located on the western side of the lake approximately 5.0kilometers north of the VC Summer Nuclear Station. The substrate at this. stationconsisted mainly of sand and clay.

Lake Monticello New Water Treatment Intake was located at the proposed intake pointfor the water treatment plant. The substrate consisted mainly of clay and sand.

Lake Monticello Raw Water Intake was located at the proposed intake point for the VCSummer Nuclear Plant. The substrate consisted mainly of clay and sand.

3

Figure 1. Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from LakeMonticello and Parr Reservoir, near the VC Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County,South Carolina.

4

IV. MATERIALS AND METHODSA. Field Procedures--Petite Ponar Grab SamplesQuantitative sampling of the benthic macroinvertebrate communites of Lake Monticelloand Parr Reservoir was performed using a petite Ponar grab sampler, as described inmethod 10500 (APHA, 1995). Five random replicate (15 X 15 cm) Ponar grab samples ofsediment were collected from the lake at each location. Replicates were sieved in thefield with a U.S. Standard No. 35. sieve (0.500 mm mesh), then placed individually inplastic bags, preserved with 85% ethanol, and transported to the laboratory for analysis.

B. Laboratory ProceduresUpon return to the laboratory, all samples were washed over a U.S. Standard No. 35 sieveand organisms were sorted, from the remaining material using forceps and the aid of astereomicroscope. The organisms were retained in 70% ethanol, and identified to thelowest positive taxonomic level. All specimens will be maintained by CarnageyBiological Services, LLC, in a voucher collection for five years, or placed into thepermanent reference collection.

C. Data AnalysisTo obtain the most information possible from the data, several types of analysis wereperformed. Bioassessment metrics allowed comparison of stations based on their overalltaxonomic composition. A single factor ANOVA was used to detect trends inmacroinvertebrate community composition between the two stations.

1. Bioassessment MetricsComparisons of the macroinvertebrate communities were based on changes in taxonomiccomposition between sampling sites and on the known tolerance levels and life historystrategies of the organisms encountered. Changes in taxonomic composition weredetermined using the metrics outlined in Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III of Rapidbioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers (Plafkin et al. 1989). These metricsinclude the following:

a) Taxa richness - The number of different taxa found at a particular location is anindication of diversity. Reductions in community diversity have been positivelyassociated with various forms of environmental pollution, including nutrient loading,toxic substances, and sedimentation (Barbour et al., 1996; Fore et al., 1996; Rosenbergand Resh, 1993; Shackleford, 1988).

b) EPT Index - EPT Index is the number of taxa from the insect ordersEphemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera found at a station. These three insect ordersare considered to be intolerant of adverse changes in water quality, especiallytemperature and dissolved oxygen, and therefore, a reduction in these taxa is indicative ofreduced water quality (Barbour et al., 1996; Lenat, 1988).

c) Chironomidae taxa and abundance - The Chironomidae are a taxonomicallyand ecologically diverse group with many taxa which are tolerant of various forms ofpollution. The chironomids are often the dominant group encountered at impacted orstressed sites (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).

d) Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae abundance - The relative abundance of thesefour indicator groups is a measure of community balance. When comparing sites, good

5

biotic conditions are reflected in a fairly even distribution among. these four groups(Plafkin et al., 1989). The value of this ratio is reduced by impact due to the generalreduction of the more sensitive EPT taxa and an increase in the more tolerant chironomidtaxa.

e) Ratio of scraper/scraper and filtering collectors - When comparing sites, shiftsin the dominance of a particular feeding type may indicate a community responding to anover-abundance of a particular food source or toxicants bound to a particular food source(Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).

f) Percent contribution of dominant taxon - This measures the redundancy andevenness of the community structure. It assumes a highly redundant community reflectsan impaired community because as the more sensitive taxa are eliminated, there is often asignificant increase in the remaining tolerant forms (Barbour et al., 1996; Shackleford,1988).

g) North Carolina biotic index (NOBI) - NCBI = TViNi/N where TVi is the

tolerance value for the ith taxon, Ni is the abundance of the ith taxon, and N is the total

abundance of all taxa in the sample. This index utilizes a pollution tolerance valuedeveloped over a wide range of conditions and pollution types and taxon abundance toassess the amount of impact (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health andNatural Resources, 1997). The values range from 0-10, increasing as water qualitydecreases. This metric appears to be adversely affected by the combination of low taxarichness and low abundance, often indicating better conditions than actually exist.

2. Regression AnalysesTo detect differences in the two bodies of water, single factor ANOVA analyses wereperformed on the data. Data were loglo(x+l) transformed prior to analyzing taxa richness,total abundance, percentage of the dominant taxon. EPT index, EPT abundance, NCBIvalues, and SCDHEC bioclassification

V. RESULTS--Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis

From Parr Reservoir, a total of 400 specimens representing 26 taxa were collected fromthe two stations on 18 June 2008. The number of specimens collected, their NCBI

tolerance values, and functional feeding groups are presented in Table I for each sample.Bioassessment metrics for each sample are presented in Table 3.

The bioassessment metrics indicated some differences between the stations. TheSCDHEC bioclassification values for the blowdown discharge point were somewhathigher than at the control. The control had two "poor" ratings and three "fair", while theblowdown discharge point had five "fair" ratings. The control was dominated by scrapersin two of the replicates and by collector-filterers in three. The blowdown discharge pointwas dominated by collector-filterers in all five replicates.

Single factor ANOVA analysis of the data are given in Table 5. There was no significantdifference in percent of the dominant taxa (p-value = 0.5970), EPT Abundance (p-value =

6

0.3466), EPT index (p-value = 0.3466), or taxa richness (p-value = 0.1436). SCDHECbioclassification (p-value = 0.0482) and NCBI rating (p-value = 0.0333) weresignificantly better at the blowdown discharge point than at the control. Total abundance(p-value = 0.0032) was significantly higher at the blowdown discharge point.

From Lake Monticello, a total of 341 specimens representing 27 taxa were collected fromthe three stations on 18 June 2008. The number of specimens collected, their NCBItolerance values, and functional feeding groups are presented in Table 2 for each sample.Bioa'ssessment metrics for each sample are presented in Table 4.

The bioassessment metrics indicated some differences between the stations. TheSCDHEC bioclassification values for the control were somewhat lower than at the othertwo stations. The control had two "poor" ratings and three "fair" ratings. The Raw Intakepoint had five "fair" ratings. The Water Treatment Intake point had three "fair" and two"good-fair" ratings. The control was dominated by collector-filterers in four of thereplicates and scrapers in one of the replicates. The Raw Water Intake point wasdominated by collector-gatherers in four of the replicates and predators in one of thereplicates. The Water Treatment Intake point was dominated by collector-filterers in allfive of the replicates.

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to 'detect differences in taxa richness among stationsin Lake Monticello are presented in Table 6. There was no significant difference(p=0.10814) in taxa richness between stations.

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundance amongstations in Lake Monticello are presented in Table 7. There was no significant difference(p=0.19358) in total abundance between stations.

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of dominant taxonamong stations in Lake Monticello are presented in Table 8. There was a significantdifference (p=0.0 1879) in percentage of dominant taxon between stations.

In order to determine which station had significant differences in percentage of dominanttaxon, a multiple comparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAswas performed. The averages of the logIo(x+l) transformed percentage of dominant taxondata are listed in ascending order in Table 9. Since raw intake had the lowest averagelogio(x+l) transformed percentage of dominant taxon, an ANOVA was performedwithout that station's data. The results of this ANOVA showed no significant differencein percentage of dominant taxon among the control station and the water treatment intake(p = 0.44235, Table 10).

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Index values amongstations in Lake Monticello are presentedin Table 11. There was no significant difference(p=0.l 1010) in total abundance between stationsl

7

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT abundance amongstations in Lake Monticello are presented in Table 12. There was a Significant difference(p=0.04360) in EPT abundance between stations.

In order to determine which station had significant differences in EPT abundance, amultiple comparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAs wasperformed. The averages of the logio(x+l) transformed EPT abundance data are listed inascending order in Table 13. Since control had the lowest average loglo(x+l) transformedEPT abundance, an ANOVA was performed without that station's data. The results ofthis ANOVA showed no significant difference in EPT abundance among the controlstation and the water treatment intake (p = 0.! 9444, Table 14).

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences iri NCBI values among stationsin Lake Monticello are presented in Table 15. There was a significant difference(p=0.04624) in NCBI values between stations.

In order to determine which station had significant differences in NCBI values, a multiplecomparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAs was performed.The averages of the loglo(x+1) transformed NCBI values data are listed in ascendingorder in Table 16. Since water treatment intake had the lowest average logjo(x+l)transformed NCBI values, an ANOVA was performed without that station's data. Theresults of this ANOVA showed no significant difference in NCBI values among thecontrol station and the raw water intake (p - 0.64589, Table 17).

Results of a single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHEC bioclassificationvalues among stations in Lake Monticello are presented in Table 18. There was asignificant difference (p=0.0 1450) in SCDHEC bioclassification values between stations.

In order to 'determine which station had significant differences in SCDHECbioclassification values, a multiple comparison procedure consisting of additional single-factor ANOVAs was performed. The averages of the logio(x+l) transformed SCDHECbioclassification values data are listed in ascending order in Table 19. Since watertreatment intake had the highest average logjo(x+l) transformed SCDHECbioclassification values, an ANOVA was performed without that station's data. Theresults of this ANOVA showed no significant difference in SCDHEC bioclassificationvalues among the control station and the raw water intake (p = 0.42904, Table 20).

8

VI. DISCUSSIONThe Parr Reservoir stations showed a number of significant differences. The proposedblowdown discharge station had significantly better SCDHEC bioclassification andNCBI scores as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. In addition, the proposedblowdown discharge station ha'd significantly higher total macroinvertebrate abundance.

The Lake Monticello stations showed significant differences in four of the metricsmeasured as indicated by single factor ANOVA analysis. The percentage of the dominanttaxon at the proposed raw water intake station was significantly lower than at either thecontrol station or at the proposed water treatment intake station. The EPT abundance atboth, the proposed water treatment intake station and the proposed raw water intakestation, were significantly greater than at the control station. The proposed watertreatment intake station had significantly better SCDHEC bioclassification and NCBIscores than did the raw water intake station or the control station.

9

VII. REFERENCES

Barbour, M.T.; J. Gerritsen; G.E. Griffith; R. Frydenborg; E. McCarron; J.S. White; andM.L. Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams usingbenthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society15:185-211.

Death, R.G. 1995. Spatial patterns in benthic invertebrate community structure: productsof habitat stability or are they habitat specific. Freshwater Biology 33: 455-467.

Death, R.G. and M.J. Winterbourn. 1995. Diversity patterns in stream benthicinvertebrate communities: the influence of habitat stability. Ecology 76(5): 1446-1460.

Fore, L.S.; J.R. Karr; and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses tohuman activities: evaluation of alternative approaches. Journal of the NorthAmerican Benthological Society 15:212-232.

Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collectionmethod for benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North AmericanBenthological Society 7: 222-233.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1997.Standard operating procedures. biological monitoring. State of North Carolina.Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment, Healthand Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 65 pp.

Plafkin, J.L.; M.T. Barbour; K.D.. Porter; S.K. Gross; and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapidbioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. US EPA Assessment andWatershed Protection Division, Washington, D.C. EPA/444/4-89/00 1.

Rosenberg," D.M. and V.H. Resh (eds.) 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthicmacroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 488pp.

Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid bioassessment of lotic macroinvertebrate communities:Biocriteria development. Biomonitoring Section, Arkansas Department ofPollution Control And Ecology Little Rock, AR 45pp.

Valentin, S.; J.G. Wasson; and M. Philippe. 1995. Effects of hydropower peaking onepilithon and invertebrate community trophic structure. Regulated Rivers: Researchand Management 10: 105-119.

Ward, J.V. and J.A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystemsand its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management11: 105-119.

0 0

10

Table 1. Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for the two Lake Murray stationsnear the VC Summer Nuclear Station community marina location, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008.

Control New Blowdown DischargeSeq Taxon TV FG RepI Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 RepI Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5

Annelida

Hirudinea

Rhynchobdellida

Glossiphoniidae

1 Helobdella stagnalis 8.63 P 8

Oligochaeta

Lumbriculida

Lumbriculidae

2 Lumbriculidae Genus species 7.03 SC 1 1 3

Tubificida

Tubificidae

3 ý Tubifex tubifex 10.00 SC 14 2 1 8 1 6 7 9 3

Arthropoda

Crustacea

Amphipoda

Talitridae

4 Hyalella azteca 7.75 OM 1

Isopoda

Asellidae

5 Caecidotea sp. 9.11 SC 2Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH shredder

0 0 0

11

Table 1. Continued.


Hexapoda

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

6 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 6.86 P 2 2

Chironomidae

7 Ablabesmyia annulata 2.04 P 1

8 Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.19 P 1

9 Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 7 6 10 6 5

10 Clinotanypus sp. P

11 Cryptochironomus sp. 6.40 P 1 1 1

12 Cryptotendipes sp. 6.19 CG

13 Dicrotendipes sp. 8.10 CG

14 Fissimentum sp. A CG 2

15 Microtendipes sp. 5.53 CF 3 2

16 Paracladopelma undine 4.93 CG 2 117 Polypedilum halterale gr. 7.31 SH 118 Procladius sp. 9.10 P 4 2 7

19 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 5.89 CF 1 1

20 Tanytarsus sp. 6.76 CF

21 Tribelos sp. 6.31 CG 1 1 1ru~c~t~I ~iig lup.~r- UI~LU-I1~Ii 1A uIcLu-dIt1, .4IV - icf1V1ý CL1 I- I u AA.FunCHonal iceding groups: Cr = collector-HILerer, Cj co;I I ILorUI-ga~LI 1re1 0l = omn~ -- U~IVUIore pre Mor, scraper, s e er

0 a S

12

Table 1. Continued.


Ephemeroptera

Ephemeridae

22 1 Hexagenia limbata 4.90 CG 3

Odonata

Gomphidae

23 I Gomphus sp. 5.80 P 1Mollusca

Bivalvia

Unionoida

Corbiculidae

24 I Corbicula fluminea 6.12 CF 5 4 3 5 3 72 31 18 13 97

Gastropoda

Limnophila

Physidae

25 |Physa sp. 8.84 SC 1Planorbidae

26 Promenetus exacuous SC 2 1 1Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder

0 0 0

13

Table 2. Macroinvertebrates, their NCBI tolerance values (TV) and functional feeding groups (FG) for three Lake Monticellostations near the VC Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008.

Control New Water Treatment Intake New Raw Intake

Q 04 4. W. Q. Q Q

Seq Taxon TV FG 0 9 0 0 z 9 0 9 W z 9 9 9 9

Annelida

Hirudinea

Rhynchobdellida

Glossiphoniidae.

1 Helobdella stagnalis 8.63 P 2 1

Oligochaeta

Lumbriculida

Lumbriculidae

2 Lumbriculidae Genus species 7.03 SC 2Tubificida

Tubificidae3 Tubifex tubifex 10.00 SC 18 8 2 4

Arthropoda

Crustacea

Cladocera

Daphnidae

4 |Daphnia sp. CF CFCyclopoida

Cyclopidae

5 Eucyclops agilis OM 1 2 1 2 3

* Ostracoda

6 FOstracoda Genus species CF IFunctional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder

0 0 0

14

Table 2. Continued.


Seq Taxon TV FG 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 9 P9

Hexapoda

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

7 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 6.86 P 1 1Chaoboridae

8 1 Chaoborus sp. 8.50 P 2

Chironomidae

9 Ablabesmyia annulata 2.04 P 1

10 Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2

11 Clinotanypus sp. P 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 Cryptochironiomus sp. 6.40 P 5 1 1 4 1 1 1

13 Cryptotendipes sp. 6.19 CG 1 1. 114 Dicrotendipes sp. 8.10 CG 1

15 Fissimentum sp. A CG 1 1 2

16 Microtendipes sp. 5.53 CF 1 1 1 1 117 Paracladopelma undine 4.93 CG 7 1

18 Polypedilum halterale gr. 7.31 SH 1 3 1 1

19 Procladius sp. 9.10 P 3 3 1 1 2 4 1 4

20 Pseudochironomus sp. 5.36 CG 2

21 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 5.89 CF 1 122 Tanytarsus sp. 6.76 CF 4 1 _4 41

Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder

0 0

15

Table 2. Continued.


Seq Taxon TV FG 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Ephemeroptera

Ephemeridae

23 1 Hexagenia limbata 4.90 CG 4 2 5 3 2 2 4 2 7 5 5

Trichoptera

Hydroptilidae

24 Orthotrichia sp. 8.29 SC 1Mollusca

Bivalvia

Unionoida

Corbiculidae

25 Corbicula fluminea 6.12 CF 20 18 19 5 4 5 5 5 10 9 7 10 5 5

Unionidae

26 1 Elliptio complanata complex 5.14 CF 7 1 1 1

Nematoda

27 Nematoda Genus s ecies 6.02 OM 1Functional feeding groups: CF = collector-filterer, CG = collector-gatherer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SC = scraper, SH = shredder

16

Table 3. Bioassessment metrics for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the VCSummer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008.

StationControl New Blowdown Discharge

Metric ---- Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep_1 Rep 2 Rep-77Jý. 7 = -- , - Rep2 Repl Rep2 Repl Rep2

Taxa Richness

Number of Specimens

EPT Index

EPT Abundance

Chironomidae Taxa

Chironomidae Abundance

EPT/Chironomidae Abundance

North Carolina Biotic Index

SCDHEC Bioclassification

6

28

0

0

3

7

.00 0

.15 61.0

4 3 3

8 5 8

0 0 0

0 0 0

2 0 2

2 0 3

'.00 - 0.00

p.85 7.08 6.04

1.5 1.5 2.0

3

12

0

0

11

0.00

7.81

1.0

11

94

0

0

5

82

0.00

6.66

1.5

5

46

0

0

3

43

0.00

5.84

2.0

4

36

0

0

3

35

0.00

6.11

2.0

3 16

28 135

0 1

0 1

3 7

28 116

0.00 0.01

5.84 6.35

2.0 2.0

0

8

.,.,..~,.>.,.. ... ~. rrr,~rrrrr I rrlnrrrrrr7

*7k i~t 77 ~ I t ~ ~4 it A

Percent Collector-Filterers

Percent Collector-Gatherers

Percent Omnivores

Percent Predators

Percent Scrapers

Percent Shredders

28.57 50.00

14.29 12.50

0.00 0.00

7.14 12.50

50.00 25.00

0.00 0.00

60.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

40.00

0.00

87.50

12.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

25.00

8.33

0.00

0.00

66.67

0.00

77.66 67.39 50.00 46.43

3.19 13.04 19.44 32.14

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.57 15.22 30.56 21.43

9.57 4.35 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74.07

4.44

1.48

4.44

9.63

5.93

Scraper/Scraper & Collector-Filterers 1.75 0.50 0.67 0.00 2.67 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.13

Percent Dominant Taxon 50.00 50.00 60.00 62.50 66.67 76.60 67.39 50.00 46.43 71.85

Number Of Dominant Taxa 6 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

17

Table 4. Bioassessment metrics for the two Parr Reservoir stations near the VC Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, SouthCarolina, 18 June 2008.

Station


Metric RepI Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 RepI Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5 Repi Rep2 Rep3 Rep4 Rep5

Taxa Richness 6 13 8 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 15 5 11 10

Number of Specimens 32 63 35 13 13 13 10 15 16 20 18 42 15 18 18

EPT Index 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

EPT Abundance 4 0 1 2 0 3 2 2 4 2 5 7 5 5 1

Chironomidae Taxa 3 9 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 7 2 8 6

Chironomidae Abundance 6 19 6 4 3 3 3 3 3 9 6 17 4 10 10

EPT/Chironomidae Abundance 0.67 0.00 0.17 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.33 0.22 0.83 0.41 1.25 0.50 0.10

North Carolina Biotic Index 6.58 7.46 7.12 5.83 8.05 5.58 6.40 6.30 5.16 6.27 6.47 6.36 7.08 6.62 7.36

SCDHEC Bioclassification 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.2 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5

Percent Collector-Filterers 62.50 47.62 60.00 46.15 30.77 46.15 60.00 66.67 56.25 55.00 27.78 33.33 33.33 22.22 33.33

Percent Collector-Gatherers 15.63 6.35 2.86 30.77 7.69 23.08 30.00 26.67 31.25 15.00 38.89 38.10 53.33 44.44 22.22

Percent Omnivores 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 11.11 9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Predators 21.88 14.29 2.86 7.69 .15.38 23.08 10.00 6.67 12.50 20.00 22.22 16.67 13.33 27.78 38.89

Percent Scrapers 0.00 28.57 25.71 15.38 46.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56

Percent Shredders 0.00 1.59 8.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.00 5.56 0.00

Scraper/Scraper & Collector-Scraer pe r 0.00 0.60 0.43 0.33 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17Filterers

Percent Dominant Taxon 62.50 28.57 54.29 38.46 30.77 38.46 50.00 66.67 56.25 35.00 27.778 23.81 33.333 27.778 27.778

Number Of Dominant Taxa 5 5 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 11 10

0

18

Results of the single factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richness, total abundance, EPT index, EPTabundance, NCBI, and percentage of the dominant taxon among sampling stations for the petite Ponar data collected onParr Reservoir, near the VC Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina, 18 June 2008.

Table 5.

ANOVA for Taxa Richness

SS df MS F P-value F-crit ý .' IlSource of Variation

ANOVA for EPT Abundance

SS df MSSource of Variation F P-value F-crit

Between Stations

Within StationsTotal

0.1079

0.3282A A241

1 0.1079 2.6291 0.1436

8 0.0410

5.3177 !Between StationsWithin Stations

L7 !:"Total

0.0091 1

0.0725 8

0.0816 9

0.0091

0.0091

1.0000 0.3466 5.3177

Total j.'JU1 Y

ANOVA for Total Abundance

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F-crit

Between Stations 1.2609 1 1.2609 17.2042 0.0032 5.3177

Within Stations 0.5863 8 0.0733

Total 1.8473 9

ANOVA for percentage of the dominant taxon




Total 0.0515 9 __

ANOVA for EPT Index


ANOVA for NCBI


Between Stations 0.0081 1 - 0.0081 6.5873 0.0333 5.3177


Total 0.0178 9

ANO VA for SCDHEC Bioclassification

ISource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F-crit



Total 0.0460 9



Total 0.0816 9

19

Table 6. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in taxa richnessbetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for Taxa RichnessSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.08822 2 0.04411 2.69272 0.10814 3.88529Within Stations 0.19658 12 0.01638Total 0.28480 14

Table 7. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in total abundancebetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANOVA for Total AbundanceSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.15280 2 0.07640 1.88877 0.19358 3.88529Within Stations 0.48538 12 0.04045Total 0.63818 14

Table 8. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of the' dominant taxon between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for Percentage of the Dominant TaxonSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.13756 2 0.06878 5.63690 0.01879 3.88529Within Stations 0.14643 12 0.01220Total 0.28399 14

Table 9. Averages of the loglo(x+l) transformed percentage of the dominant taxon datain Lake Monticello, listed in ascending order.

Average Log (Percentage of the Dominant Taxon + 1)

Station Raw Intake Control Water Treatment Intake

Average 1.46152 1.62289 1.68964

Table 10. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in percentage of thedominant taxon between the Control and Water Treatment Intake stations inLake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for Percentage of the Dominant TaxonSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.01114 1 0.01114 0.65316 0.44235 5.31766Within Stations 0.13643 8 0.01705Total 0.14757 9

20

Table 11. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Index valuesbetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for EPT IndexSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.04833 2 0.02417 2.66667 0.11010 3.88529Within Stations 0.10874 12 0.00906Total 0.15707 14

Table 12. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Abundancevalues between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for EPT AbundanceSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.43168 2 0.21584 4.11342 0.04360 3.88529Within Stations 0.62967 12 0.05247Total 1.06135 14

Table 13. Averages of the logjo(x+l) transformed EPT Abundance data in LakeMonticello, listed in ascending order.

Average Log (EPT Abundance + 1)

Station Control Water Treatment Intake Raw Intake

Average 0.29542 0.54648 0.70772

Table 14. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in EPT Abundancevalues between the Water Treatment Intake and Raw Water Intake stations inLake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for EPT AbundanceSource of Variation SS df MS' F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.06499 1 0.06499 2.00577 0.19444 5.31766Within Stations 0.25922 . 8 0.03240Total 0.32421 9

Table 15. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI valuesbetween stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANOVA for NCBISource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.01060 2 0.00530 4.01487 0.04624 3.88529Within Stations 0.01585 12 0.00132Total 0.02645 14

21

Table 16. Averages of the logio(x+l) transformed percentage of the NCBI data in LakeMonticello, listed in ascending order.

Average Log (NCBI + 1)

Station Water Treatment Intake Raw Intake Control

Average 0.84038 0.89035 0.90153

Table 17. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in NCBI valuesbetween the Control and Raw Water Intake stations in Lake Monticello, 18June 2008.

ANOVA for NCBISource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.00031 1 0.00031 0.22785 0.64589 5.31766Within Stations 0.01097 8 0.00137Total 0.01128 9

Table 18. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHECBioclassification values between stations in Lake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for SCDHEC BioclassificationSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.03764 2 0.01882 6.15018 0.01450 3.88529Within Stations 0.03673 12 0.00306Total 0.07437 14

Table 19. Averages of the loglo(x+l) transformed percentage of the SCDHECBioclassification data in Lake Monticello, listed in ascending order.

Average Log (SCDHEC Bioclassification + 1)Station Control Raw Intake Water Treatment Intake

Average 0.39276 0.42362 0.51104

Table 20. Results of the single-factor ANOVA to detect differences in SCDHECBioclassification values between the Control and Raw Water Intake stations inLake Monticello, 18 June 2008.

ANO VA for SCDHEC BioclassificationSource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Stations 0.00238 1 0.00238 0.69379 0.42904 5.31766Within Stations 0.02746 8 0.00343Total 0.02984 9

MACROIN VERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARRRESERVOIR …LAKE MONTICELLO NEAR THE YC SUMMER NUCLEAR...

Documents

Transcript of MACROIN VERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF PARRRESERVOIR …LAKE MONTICELLO NEAR THE YC SUMMER NUCLEAR...