Thank you for that nice introduction, Vicki We are going to talk about water, talk about power plants as they relate to the Missouri River. Well, as probably all of you know, the lower Missouri River runs from Gavin’s Point Dam down to the Mississippi River and its got a lot of beneficial uses. Its aquatic life support, of course is a main one. There is recreation, like your 340 mile river race There is also commercial navigation supported on this river And it is also a water supply for municipalities and industries But the largest withdrawer of water from the Missouri River are electric power generating facilities, and that is what I am going to talk about today So there are lots of power plants on the lower Missouri River and I am going to talk a little bit about why they use so much water, what are some of the regulations affecting their intakes and their withdrawals and how the changing river is affecting these power plants and to some extent, how the power plants do or don’t affect the river Well to start with, these are the power plants on the Missouri River. They start at Sioux City, Iowa and go almost all the way down to Saint Louis and the most concentrated area is right here in Kansas City where there are actually three between Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, Missouri proper So there are 14 active power plants. They range in size from relatively small at 46 megawatts up to gigantic, 2,400 megawatt plants. Ten of these are coal-fueled units. One of them was a coal-fueled unit and was recently converted to natural gas. And three of them use uranium, in other words, they are nuclear power plants. The one thing they have in common though, is that they are all called “steam electric” power plants. And what does that mean? Well, this is a very brief primer on what a steam electric cycle is You burn fuel, boil water in a boiler, and make steam. That is pretty much 18th century technology. The steam then turns a turbine which is connected to a generator which produces electricity Now after the steam has done its thing in the generator, there still has some excess heat in it and this heat needs to be removed, and it is done so in a condenser where the steam gets turned back into water when the heat is removed It has the additional advantage of, when the steam goes from a gas and turns back into water, its volume contracts considerably and it actually helps create sort of a vacuum that actually helps pull steam through the turbine as well as getting pushed. So the steam gets turned back into water and the water goes back to the boiler and round and round it goes So there are two ways you can remove that remaining heat from the steam, and the easiest way is to pull water out of a river, like the Missouri river, transfer that heat from the steam into that water and then put the water back into the river. Of course, the water now, has absorbed some heat and so its temperature has risen A slightly less easy way is to use a recirculating condenser cooling water system, where the water that goes through the condenser just goes around in a circle, but that water passes through an evaporative cooling tower and basically this allows through evaporation to transfer the excess heat out of the steam, goes into the cooling water, and then ends up via the cooling

tower, up into the atmosphere. Now there is some water involved in this that gets pulled out of the river, gets sprayed down through the cooling tower. A lot of it gets evaporated and you have to pull in some extra water to keep the total dissolved solids from concentrating and you have to discharge some of that water constantly, sort of a continuous flushing process. But there are advantages and disadvantages to each one of these systems. The “once through” system, as it is called, is really more efficient, whereas the “closed cycle” system, takes a lot of energy to run some of these extra pumps and especially to run the fans that help move air through the cooling tower and the cooling towers themselves, are kind of expensive And the cooling towers do not really do as good a job as cooling off the steam. There is an energy penalty and a parasitic load from cooling towers, that for an equivalent-sized plant would reduce your overall net generation, the amount of electricity you could put out on the grid, somewhere by 3 to 5%. So there is a cost associated with that Now another good thing about once-through cooling is that all the water you take out of the river basically gets turned around and put back in. But with a closed-cycle system, about 75 to 90% of the water that is removed actually gets evaporated So there is a significant consumptive use. And the downside, once through cooling, not only pulls in a lot of water, but it can also pull in a lot of organisms along with it and by a lot of water, we mean roughly for every megawatt that a power plant has, it is pulling roughly, this is very rough, about 1 million gallons per day of water. So if you have a 100 megawatt power plant, it is going to have an intake rate of roughly 100 million gallons per day and that is a lot of water. So that is why power plants are the big dogs in terms of water withdrawal Now on closed-cycle cooling, the cooling tower uses a lot less water, like 95% less, because it is just going in to replace the water that is evaporating and maintaining the salinity in the cooling towers. Now relatively speaking a once-through plant is, sort of the baseline. If there is an amount of air pollution that is going to be generated, this is the baseline. Now a closed-cycle plant, however, actually will generate a little more air pollution because the water vapor itself that comes out of the cooling towers, actually has, when it finally, all that water, evaporates, what is left is a lot of very fine particulate matter that used to be dissolved in the water but no longer is, so there is this particulate matter, air pollution from a cooling tower. And also, if you want to maintain the same amount of net generation, they are going to have to burn a little more fuel in order to get the same amount of power out of the power plant So of these 14 power plants that are associated with Missouri, 13 of them use once-through cooling. The exception is the Callaway Facility there in Central Missouri. It has a great big, as you can see in this picture, a great big hyperbolic cooling tower Well here is a typical intake, what we call a cooling water intake structure for a once-through cool facility This happens to be the one for the Nierman Creek plant on the Missouri River, sort of across the river from Parkville. You can see that it is located on the river bank and when you look at what is sort of the interior, you find that right outside the river, there are these big trash racks. These keep out the logs and the big stuff, maybe a body here or there, who knows…and then behind those trash racks, there is another set of screens. These are usually called traveling screens, because they travel. And they have a mesh that is usually about 3/8 of an inch and these are designed to keep the smaller stuff out and the fish and stuff like that and then behind that, are the actual pumps. The traveling screens are important because you don’t want big stuff

going in through your water system because there are lots of tiny spaces in the condenser and you don’t want that to get plugged up, so that is why it is important to sort of filter the water as it goes into the power plant Finally yes, there are the big pumps. They are not sort of like the sump pump you have in your basement. They have motors that sit up here on the top right here, and the pump is actually a propellor that sits down here and this motor spins a propellor and it pulls the water up through I am going to dwell a little bit on traveling screens because they are getting a lot of attention these days in the utility world. They are like a vertical conveyor belt Water flows in through the front here, and then out through the back. They can be rotated around big cogs or gears, so then what happens is the debris that gets caught on the front of the screens is rotated up and out of the water, and then there are these high-pressure sprays across the top that basically back flush or back wash the screens to get the debris. That spray water, the debris, then goes into a trough and in most cases, it goes back into the river Now there is a section of the Clean Water Act, section 316-B and it has been around since the Clean Water Act has been around, which I believe is 1970 something. And it requires cooling water intakes to use the best technology available to minimize the adverse impacts to aquatic environment and what adverse impact has really come to mean over the years is, mortality of aquatic organisms and this can happen in two ways There is impingement and entrainment. Impingement is when organisms get trapped on the traveling screens in this case, but the force of the water that flows through them. Entrainment is where you have the small early life stages of eggs and larvae, aquatic organisms that actually pass through the screens because they’re really tiny, and then through the cooling system. And both of these activities are not necessarily in the aquatic organisms’ best interest. Now previously versions of the 316-B study, and there have been at least three, because it has been a long tortured story of regulations get proposed, regulations get challenged in court, regulations get tossed out, and that has happened at least twice, and we are sort of on the third version now, of some of this stuff. But these regulations, in the last go-round, required plants with once-through cooling to conduct impingement characterization studies to find out how much, what kind of fish and how many they were actually impinging, and I have been involved with five such of those studies here on the Missouri River that were done in the mid to late 2000s These studies lasted a year, so every other week, you go out there and collect all the fish that were coming off the traveling schemes for 24 hours. We found, up and down the Missouri River, and a number of other rivers like the Mississippi as well, that almost 90% of the fish that we got, were gizzard shad. And if you know what a gizzard shad is, it is a herring, pretty much a filter feeder It is a very popular prey fish for other fish in the rivers and lakes. We have found that we get a big spike of these guys in the winter and it turns out that what is happening with these gizzard shad is that they are not very cold tolerant and in the winter, they get stressed out and a lot of them will just perish and a lot of them will just go into a stupor and they get very pulled in sometimes in great quantities, into the power plants But fortunately, gizzard shad are very fecund, and reproduce very rapidly. So I thought I would just touch on a few in my impingement gallery so to speak, of some of the more interesting fish that we have caught over the years. The first one here is a shovel-nose sturgeon, a very iconic fish for the Missouri River

One of the ancient fish, they compare it to a dinosaur, because the sturgeons have been around for that long And then there is its more illustrious and probably well-known sister species, the pallid sturgeon. And this one was caught in a power plant—impinged in a power plant in Iowa and you will notice we have circled here, it says, “pit tag” location. That is because any pallid sturgeon you find in the river that is of this size, and this guy is only a couple feet long, have been stocked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service They have been raised in a hatchery and put into the river Each one of them gets a pit tag installed in it for identification as well as a few other markers. This pit tag is exactly the same kind of tag that you would put in your dog or your cat In fact, we had to go out and get one of those readers so that we could scan these fish and report the information back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was very interesting when we got these fish and the Fish and Wildlife Service seemed to be kind of delighted to know what was happening to the fish that they had reared and stocked in the river. And they also came to the realization that, “you know, maybe we shouldn’t stock these fish into the river a mile upstream of a power plant” because you know, it is really easy for this new fish that got stocked to get sucked into the power plant. We had one poor pallid sturgeon who got pulled into one plant and he did not look too great and we put him back in the river and the next day, we got him at the power plant a mild downstream and I’m afraid he didn’t make it that time. It was a bad day for him Now, here is some Esoterica, impingement gallery factoid. How to tell the difference between a pallid and a shovel-nose sturgeon Well you’ve got to turn them over and you look at their barbells If they are arranged in a chevron fashion, like shown here, that blue chevron, that’s a pallid. If they are straight across, that is a shovel-nose Another iconic fish that we have collected from the Missouri River that has been impinged, is the paddle fish. Fortunately, we are not going to get the huge ones. This one is actually relatively small. Fortunately, they are not endangered on the endangered species list like the pallid is Here is another weird fish that most people don’t probably recognize. It is called a gold eye, and it has a cousin called a moon eye. They are a weird kind of fish. They are not quite a herring, but they are kind of unusual looking They have, you might notice on this one, some of the scales are a little bit damaged in this area and that possibly from the high-pressure wash that knocked this guy off the traveling screens Another more run-of-the-mill fish, white sucker We get all kinds. Again, there is some more damage, perhaps, from the high-pressure sprays. We think that is the most injurious part of these traveling screens, is when they get his with this spray that is like 100 pounds per square inch Here is another interesting critter. This one I think is on some of the state-endangered species lists. It is called a chestnut lamprey. It is a very primitive fish. It does not really have a real mouth. It has a sucker here. And here is the cool thing This guy got kind of chewed up a little bit on his way to our bend. This is this purple stuff right here…that is actually its blood. They have purple blood And one more species that is usually pretty rare, looks like a regular old minnow, but it is actually called a silver chub. I think it is threatened in Kansas, for instance The only way you can tell really it is a chub, is this little tiny thing sticking down off the corner of its mouth and sometimes it is really hard to see. This one actually looks kind of bad because he was actually preserved before we were able to identify him So now, there are new regulations enforcing 316-B and they are going to require some of these larger ones through power plants to conduct and entrainment characterization studies. These are supposed to last for two years of sampling There have not been

any done on the Missouri River yet, because under the previous rules, certain power plants on big rivers did not have to do that, but now it is a new requirement and I expect to be doing some of these next year, in fact, at least a couple power plants here on the Missouri River. Now stereotypically, we have found the annual impingement of the fish on the Missouri River can range anywhere from 1000 to 10,000 a year, and that may sound like a lot, but then again, most of them are this very reproductively-blessed gizzard shad that were dead or dying from cold stress when they got impinged anyway One of the things that we believe keeps a lot of fish out of cooling water intakes is the high-velocity of the flow in the river itself, where the water flowing past the front of a cooling water intake can be going maybe three feet per second, which is actually faster than the water being drawn into the intake. So the fish are more likely to get swept past the intake than necessarily get pulled into it and the other thing is, these intakes are not usually just located anywhere willy nilly on the river They are usually sited on an outside bend where the river has carved the deepest channel, the shoreline is deepest, and that is where their flow is really the greatest. And again, these areas of high velocity are not where fish like to hang out. They do not want to waste their energy trying to fight the current They are more likely to go someplace else where the flow is not so hard and they do not have to fight to stay in one spot Now, based on a lot of other studies that have been done across the country in freshwater systems, the entrainment of fish eggs and larvae is probably on the order of 1000 times greater than the entrainment, just because there are just lots more fish eggs and larvae out there. But we’ve got to remember that we’re learning more and more these days, that roughly half of impinged and even entrained fish, these are the little eggs and larvae that go through the pumps, go through the condenser, get exposed to a 10 to 20 degree Fahrenheit rise in a matter of seconds, about 50% of them actually survive. So it is not a total wipeout And the other thing is that naturally, even without the power plants, only about 1 in 1000 of these eggs or larvae will actually have survived to be a one-year-old fish. So you see in some of the environmental, and I hate to use a word like propaganda, but it almost comes across like that, you see these very large numbers thrown around about how many fish that these power plants are killing, you know, in the billions. Well, I think most of that is probably actually eggs and larvae that are being counted as equivalent to an adult fish And let’s face it, there are some places where impingement and entrainment is a real problem, but it is not usually in freshwater rivers like the Missouri, the Mississippi, the Ohio. It is in estuarine situations that you find in coastal areas where you have these estuaries that are tremendous nursery and spawning areas for very valuable commercial fisheries Well, the new rules require that power plants install a new fish-friendly technology that is to reduce impingement mortality and these can be a traveling screen that’s got special sprays and buckets to transfer fish more gently out of the water, keep them in the water, return them nicely to the river instead of maybe dumping them on the shoreline which happens sometimes. Or you can have a different type of screen or an intake structure that is really very large and the through-screen velocity, the amount of force going through the screen is very low, less than half a foot per second and the EPA has determined that almost all fish could swim away from this low velocity, so that is one of the other ways to do it. The new rules give a variety of choices,

but those are probably the most common that we’re going to see The other way to handle entrainment though, is to convert to closed-cycle cooling. You go from once through, put in some cooling towers, and this is sort of the gold standard for reducing and training. Because now, you have actually minimized the amount of water that you are withdrawing and because these eggs and larvae have next to no locomotory capacity, they are just like particles in the water, the less water you withdraw, the less of these other organisms you will entrain as well There is a secondary option to install some sort of fine mesh screens on your intake structure. Like I said earlier, the typical mesh size on a traveling screen is 3/8 of an inch. But you can go less than that. The definition of fine mesh is 2 mm or less, and I have heard of some places where they have actually gone to half millimeter mesh screens, in order to keep eggs and larvae out of power plants Ultimately though, the Supreme Court weighed in on a ruling and allows the owners of utilities to decide that it may, in some of these entrainment reduction things, it may not be cost effective In other words, the cost of say, retrofitting your plant with cooling towers, may not be commensurate with the benefit and the rules have left this up to basically the states, who administer this program to decide what is the best technology that a plant must use to reduce entrainment, and it boils down to a cost benefit analysis. So that is sort of the summary here So on the lower Missouri River, my sort of conclusion, is that power plants are not the fish-killing monsters that they have been portrayed by, in this case, the Sierra Club, and I hate to say that, because I am actually a life member of the Sierra Club So I always get a little disturbed when I see organizations that are supposed to be basing their responses on science, and as a scientist, I obviously want to base my conclusions on science, so when you get sort of this emotional kind of stuff going on, it sort of bothers me a little bit Alright, let’s talk about the other side of the equation. This is what happens when, after the water has gone through the condenser and it is going back to the river The heat that is added to that water is actually considered a pollutant and it is regulated as such and there are water quality criteria. Criteria is basically a number. You know, it is a target to shoot for You know if you meet this criteria, you are protecting the uses of that water body. So in all the states on the Missouri River, that is Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, there are basically two water quality criteria. First, the temperature of the receiving stream, in this case, the Missouri River, cannot be raised more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit above ambient. And there is a limit, and secondly, you cannot go above 90 degrees Fahrenheit as the maximum. So if your water temperature is 70 degrees, you can raise it up to 75. If your water temperature is 88, you can only go up to 90. And we will talk no more about that Now these limits do not apply at the end of the pipe. They apply at the edge of something called a mixing zone And I will explain what that is here. It is an area of the river or a proportion of the flow of the river that is allotted for the assimilation of pollutants. So if you have heard “dilution is the solution to pollution”, this is it Mixing zones personify

that little slogan. So because within the mixing zone, you are actually allowed to exceed some water quality criteria. You can be warmer than 5 degrees above ambient. You can be above 90 degrees. But by the time you get to the edge of that zone, you are supposed to be back to the water quality standards for criteria. Now, the proportion of the flow that is used almost universally in determining what size of a mixing zone is, is 25% of something called a 7Q10. And that is the seven day average low flow with a recurrent interval of once in 10 years. So that is one week out of 520 weeks. So it is a pretty rare event. It is a fairly low flow. It is not the lowest that you can get in a river, but it is pretty close. That is the flow down to which water quality criteria apply. A lot of states, if the flow gets lower than that, water quality criteria are waived and I think part of the feeling is that that is not going to happen very often, nor will it happen for very long. So they allow for a waiver under those low-flow conditions. And it is a basis for how your agencies determine what the discharge limit for a facility would be. They figure if we can set a limit on how much heat your plant can discharge, and if it will meet the mixing zone requirements down at the 7Q10, it should obviously meet the limits at any greater flow Now, they define the limits or the proportion of flow. This 25% is a real default position, but most of the state regulations also will define a mixing zone by its actual physical dimensions Length, width, and/or cross-sectional areas are also ways that you can limit the mixing zone in three-dimensional space Typically, they allowed a width up to 50% of the river. It can be that wide. But the cross-sectional area is pretty much limited to 25%, which is coincidentally, that same proportion of the flow that is used. The reason that it is wider than you might think than the cross-sectional area would indicate, is thermal plumes in particular, tend to float And they will float over the surface and then they will come back towards the shoreline, and that is shown a little bit here. This is an actual cross section, although not from the Missouri River, of a thermal plume. See here, it sort of extends out into the river more along the surface. And the idea of limiting the width is to recreate a zone of passage here, so that organisms that are either floating or swimming up and down the river, can pass by this discharge without having to go through it Now the length of these mixing zones actually varies considerably among the states. In Kansas, you are allowed only 300 meters, which is about 1000 feet. In Iowa, it is 2000 feet. In Nebraska, it can be up to 5000 feet which is darn near a mile, and in Missouri, there are no length limits for thermal discharges. So power plants get a pass on how long their discharge can be, provided that their mixing zone does not overlap another thermal mixing zone or a municipal water supply or a tributary mouth. So there are some restrictions But the point here is that it varies from state to state Now here is the problem with thermal. The river has been getting warmer, and I know one of our audience members knows more about that than I do, so I hope I don’t insult his intelligence too much. This is temperature data from the Missouri River at

Nebraska City from a USGS gauging station It starts back in 1951 which is longer than I started, so it is about 65 years’ worth of history here. And you can see the annual fluctuations, which you normally would expect. The dark line across the top is the water quality criteria of 90 degrees, although it is in Celsius. But the more interesting thing is this dash line. This is the long-term trend line and you can see that it is going up, and in fact when you look at the spikes here, you can see a lot more of them are getting closer to that 90 degrees than they were back in this time, and it looks like if you go from here to there, that is about a 3 ½ degree centigrade rise over the 65 year period Well, I will editorialize a little bit here I think this is an ironic problem. I think that the river temperature increase is probably a result of the global warming that we have been experiencing over the past many years, and the ironic part is that global warming is caused, in part, by the fossil fuels that are burned by power plants. So in some respects, some of the use of fossil fuels is coming back to be a little bit haunting And the other object here is, when the river temperature gets real close to this line, remember we said, you can’t go over that line so that makes it much more difficult for power plants that are discharging heated water to comply with water quality standards because they have very little room left to raise the temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing zone So in the last seven years or so, states have been issuing new discharge permits and a lot of them have had, remarkably, in some cases, lower discharge temperature limits for these power plants and frankly, some power plants would not be able to meet the discharge limits that the state was coming up with, and these were based on this very simple dilution formula, 25% of the flow mixed with the flow from the river, do a little weighted average calculation and you can back calculate what the discharge limit would be that would keep the combined mixing zone temperature under or at the water quality criteria. This formula does not really take into account the actual dynamics of a discharge plume or the fact that, you know, it has length and it has width. So one of the things that we have been doing a lot of for power plants is mixing zone studies. This is an alternative that can be used to the simple formulas that the state uses, and we do it by first, going out to a power plant. We actually map the discharge plume on the river and we use a hydrodynamic discharge model to then determine what that plume looks like and where the edge of the mixing zone are at the 7Q10 flow And the reason we have to use a model is because the 7Q10 flow only occurs like I said, one week out of 520 so the odds of us being able to go out in the river and actually measure a plume at that flow is pretty low. So that’s why we use modeling, to extrapolate to this condition which is considered regulatorily important So we have developed some techniques over the years for three-dimensional plume mapping, where we measure temperature versus depth. We have developed a data logger here, and it basically has these wings on it that allow it to take advantage of the flow in the river when the boat is anchored, to actually propel it up and down a cable which is anchored to the bottom of the river by a really heavy weight. So this thing can fly up and down and it records, we set it to record data about four times a second, so we get these very nice detailed pictures of how temperature varies with depth in the river and we go out and

measure what we call vertical profiles, at all kinds of transects, to see where these dots are across the discharge plume, and we also make sure we go upstream too, so we know what the background temperature is as well From that data, we can generate a plume map, sort of like a contour map of temperature. And here are a couple of examples Again, this is from up near Sioux City, IA Here is discharge coming out here and you can see it stretching down here. This blue is just one degree centigrade above ambient, so this plume here dissipates fairly quickly. This one is from near Omaha, and this one dissipates even faster, even though it is about the same-sized plant, but it is a function in this case, of how that water is actually discharge into the river, which can be important So what do we do with the plume maps, since it is not at any regulatorily-important condition, we use it to calibrate our plume model and we do this by looking at what is the temperature along the center line of the plume that we measured. And the center line is the hottest point in the plume for any given distance downstream of the outfall. And we find, very typically, that these discharge plumes will start out hot at the temperature of the discharge, drop very rapidly at first, and then level out This is a really common pattern, and we hope, which happened here, is that we enter all the data from that day that we were out there doing the mapping–we enter that into our model and low and behold, we get a model up that measures and puts out almost the exact same thing. So this is a good result Now that we have a calibrated model, we can then use it to determine what discharge limits the plant can have, based on compliance with, say in this case, mixing zone length, as opposed to some arbitrary flow rate, and we can find out at the low flow, what the regulators are interested in, and we can look at either, we can use the model to find the maximum discharge temperature that will not cause the river to exceed the allowable mixing zone, or we can check it simply by looking at, okay, this is the maximum discharge temperature of the power plant. Does that comply with the mixing zone. So there are a couple different ways that we can run the model But we do the model under worst case conditions It is done for each month because a lot of temperature changes each month and the regulators will set limits by each month So we look at the maximum river temperature. We look at the minimum flow which is that magic 7Q10. We look at the maximum power plant discharge rate—that is the volume of water that is going out, and what that maximum temperature is. So we try to say, “this is the worst case scenario—if we comply at this case, then we should comply at all the others” Well what we have found so far is that power plants on the Missouri River can meet the temperature criteria at the ends of their allowable mixing zone. How much longer that is going to continue to be the case, if that water temperature keeps going up the way it has been, it looks like the last few years, it has plateaued up a bit, and that remains to be seen Now, one more item I want to talk about too, that takes us onto the river, is called “river bottom degradation” And this is a result of the Missouri River being manipulated and channelized to support commercial navigation. All those wing walls, the corps affectionately terms as “training structures”, to train the river. Those are all about keeping the river flowing in a discrete channel, all the bank stabilizations that also get done All are a part of this. And what they have done is narrowed the river considerably, as you probably know, actually by a lot. That is why it has increased the river’s velocity, and that is definitely the reputation that the Missouri River has, as a very

fast-flowing river. And these devices along the shorelines have really prevented erosion along the shoreline Normally a river will change its course, you know, it meanders back and forth It will cut a bend, and then it will eventually cut through it But that does not happen on the Missouri River, so all this fast-flowing water, the only place it has left to erode, is on the bottom. And as a result, the river bottom elevation has been dropping and so now for the same flow, you know, the 30,000 cubic feet 10 or 20 years ago, had a higher elevation than 30,000 cubic feet of flow does today. The problem is with the power plants, is that the cooling water intake structures are not changing along with the bottom elevation of the river and so what elevation they were built for and designed to run at 30 to 40 years ago, those conditions have changed, and in some cases, at very low flows, they cannot get enough water into the intakes to run their pumps. Their submergent steps will be too low and they will draw water down and they will end up sucking air, which is really bad news if you need that water in a condenser. So it can cause a plant to shut down. So there have been several facilities on the lower Missouri River now, that if it installed what are supplemental pumps, and to me, this is kind of kind of Rube-Goldberg, they have these pumps hanging off the front of the intake structure and when the river gets really low, they drop these things down in the water and pump water out of the river into the intake which then pumps water up to the power plant They are not very well protected, as you can see, they just have these little screens around the outside, and they are probably not very fish friendly at all And there is one example too, of what another power plant did—they had supplemental pumps for a while, but they finally just broke down and they put in cooling towers for their plant, and those are right here, and they run them when the liver is very low and their intake won’t work on the river, so they switch from once-through cooling to what we call closed-cycle cooling in the winter. And when they are on closed-cycle cooling, they are not using any river water at all. They are actually getting the water that goes into the cooling towers, from a municipal water supply, so they don’t use the river at all, but then when the river flows are higher, they will go back to once-through cooling, because that is much more efficient and economical for the power plant Well, we’ve been tracking river elevation for a couple of power plants, by doing bathometric mapping. We have a sonar unit that is integrated with a global positioning system that is pretty darn accurate and we can go out and run this system across the area we are interested in and collect all kinds of depth and location data and we can run it through some computer programs and they will generate these bathometric maps And here is just an example again, of a plant from Iowa. This is 2010, over here on the left. This is 2011. And this was actually mapped during that big flood event that we had in 2011, if you can remember back that far. We actually, my crew had to get special dispensation from the coast guard to actually say it was okay for us to go out on the river. Because otherwise, the Missouri River was closed at that time. But we can make these two maps and because it is all computer-based in a geographic information system, we can relatively easily come up with how that river bottom has changed between these two events, and you can see that, from 2010 to 2011, there is quite a bit of scouring in some areas where it got considerably deeper in front of the intake structures, and we have been doing that for several plants on the Missouri River

So that is what I have been doing on the Missouri River these last 15 years or so. You know in my final parting thoughts on this, is that power plants on the lower Missouri River, they do discharge heat, they do impinge and entrain fish. There is no doubt about that. But these impacts are probably reasonably local. You know the discharge plume is going to be limited to a fairly discrete area around the power plant, you know, a few thousand feet, and the fish that get impinged are generally local as well. Obviously, they got impinged at one particular spot But the Missouri River has bigger systemic problems. There is this pointless flow manipulation to support essentially non-existent commercial navigation. There is a channelization that went around along with this that has wiped out important habitat, and now we have invasive species coming in that compete with the native species. So in the end, you never hear anyone saying, “man if we could just get rid of these power plants, that would take care of the problems on the Missouri River”. You don’t hear that. What you hear about are these other issues. So we will see what the future holds in terms of the hoops that power plants have to jump through in these days So thank you for your time. By the way, you can’t talk about the Missouri River without having at least one flying carp picture, so I had to get that out of the way Questions please?