The number of fishes collected from a nylon net placed in the screen wash discharge troughs at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 are tabulated by species. The most common species (90% of the total) found in the impingement samples were Anchoa mitchilli, Leiostomus xanthurus, Trinectes maculatus, Brevoortia tyrannus and Micropogonias undulatus. Although several of the same species were dominant in both impingement and trawl samples, the impingement samples contained greater numbers of species from habitats poorly sampled by trawling. A number of typically freshwater and estuarine species were captured in impingement samples but not in trawl samples.
Survival studies showed high survival rates among blue crabs, flounders, cyprinodontids, gobies and blennies. Herrings, anchovies and silversides typically showed intermediate rates of survival and perciforms showed variable but generally lower survival rates.
The impingement samples and survival estimates were used to estimate total impingment of fish and impingement mortality by CCNPP for the period 1975–1983. In general, impingement mortality was small relative to the mortality rates from commericai fishing.
KeywordsNylon Fishing Paral Balt
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Burton DT (1976) Impingement studies: II: Qualitative and quantitative survival estimates of impinged fish and crabs. In: Semi-annual environmental monitoring report for the Colvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, March 1976. Baltimore, MD: Balt Gas and Elec Co: pp 11.2-1 to 11.2-49.Google Scholar
- Cochran WG (1977) Sampling techniques: 3rd ed. NY: John Wiley: 428 pp.Google Scholar
- Gallaway BJ and Strawn K (1975) Seasonal abundance and distribution of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the discharge area of the P.H. Robinson Generating Station, Galveston Bay, Texas. Texas J Sci 26:185–201.Google Scholar
- Hirshfield MF, Hixson JH III and White JD (1980) Impingement Studies. In: Non-radiological environmental monitoring report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, January–December 1979. PA: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and The Acad of Nat Sci of Phila: pp 9.1-1 to 9.2-28.Google Scholar
- Hirshfield MF and Hixson JH (1981) Impingement. In: Assessment of thermal, entrainment and impingement impacts on the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of the Colvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. PA: Acad Nat Sci Phila: ppV-1 to V-13.Google Scholar
- Hixson JH III and White JD (1979) Impingement studies: In: Non-radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, Colvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. January–December 1978. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and The Acad Nat Sci of Phila: pp 11.1-1 to 11.1-23.Google Scholar
- Hixson JH III, Hirshfield MF and Hepner DJ (1983) 1982 impingement studies at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. PA: Acad Nat Sci Phila.Google Scholar
- Hixson JH III, Morin RP and Gallagher RP (1985) 1983 impingement studies at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. PA: Acad Nat Sci of Phila.Google Scholar
- Moore C (1975) Impingement studies. In: Semi-annual report —1975 biological and chemical investigations in the vicinity of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. PA: Acad Nat Sci Phila: pp 11.2-1 to II2-42.Google Scholar
- Moore C (1977) Impingement studies. In: Non-radiological environmental monitoring Report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, July–December 1976. MD: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company: pp 11.1-to 11.55.Google Scholar
- Moore C and Martin D (1976) Impingement studies. In: Semi-annual Environmental monitoring report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. MD: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company: pp 11.1-1 to 11.55.Google Scholar
- Naiman RJ, Hixson JH HI and Wilson B (1978) Impingement studies. In: Non-radiological environmental monitoring report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. January–December 1977. PA: Baltimore Gas and Electric Co and Acad Nat Sci Phila: pp 11.1 to 11.33.Google Scholar
- Rothschild BJ, Jones PW and Wilson JS (1981) Trends in Chesapeake Bay fisheries. In: Improving management of Chesapeake Bay. Trans 46th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conf. Washington DC: Wildlife Management Institute: pp 284–298.Google Scholar