ML18017B609

Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant 316(b) Demonstration.

ML18017B609
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/19/1977
From:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML18017B605	List: ML18017B604 ML18017B606 ML18017B607 ML18017B608 ML18017B609
References
NUDOCS 8202170497
Download: ML18017B609 (91)

Text

',8202f 70497 820208

,PDR ADOCK 05000400

'<A~,

~t ~~ad e ~

l3' PDR X, P8 0\L 1 Carolina Po~er & Light Company Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant 316(b) Demonstration September 19, 1977

L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables List of Figures 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Materials and Methods 2.1 Adult Fish Program Electrofishing Hoop (Fyke) Netting 2.2 Larval Fish Program 2.3 Plant Monitoring Program Impingement ll Entrainment 12 3.0 Results and Discussion 13 3.1 Adult Fish Program 13 General 13 Electrofishing 18 Hoop (Fyke) Netting 24 3.2 Larval Fish Program 29 3.3 Plant Monitoring Program 42 Impingement 42 Entrainment 49 4.0 Supplemental Programs 4.1 Fish Tagging 4.2 Rare and Endangered Species 61 5.0 Conclusions Literature Cited Appendix 64

I c

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Species list of fishes collected during the Cape Fear 316(b) study.

Table 2 Total catch for electrofishing collections 17 of the Cape Fear study.

Table 3 Total catch per transect for electrofishing 19 collections of the Cape Pear study.

Table 4 Total catch per month for electrofishing 22 collections of the Cape Fear study'.

Table 5 Total Hoop or Fyke net catch per 24 hrs. for 25 the Cape Fear study.

Table 6 Hoop or Fyke net catch per 24 hrs. for each 27 transect and station for the Cape Fear study.

Table 7 Total Hoop or Fyke net catch per 24 hrs. by 28 months for the Cape Fear study.

Table 8 Surface temperatures obtained at midchannel 31 during larval fish collections.

Table 9 Taxa list of larval fishes collected during 34 the Cape Pear study with occurrence in samples and sites collected.

Table 10 Statistical results for a Randomized Block 37 Design comparing meter net catches to 1/2 meter catches for both total number of 3

organisms per m and number of taxa.

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 11 Statistical results of a 5 x 2 x 2 factorial 38 arrangement of treatments in a Randomized Block 3

Design for total number of organisms per m and number of taxa per sample.

Table 12 Tributary larval tows (Nay 4) with number 40 3

per m and mean length for each taxa collected.

Table 13 Cape Fear Plant intake velocities, June 4, 1975.

Table 14 Flow through condensers at the Cape Fear Steam 44 Electric Plant million gallons per day (million cubic meters per day)

Table 15 Fishes impinged on Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant 45 Unit 5 and 6 intake screens.

Table 16 Species impinged at the Cape Fear Steam Electric 46 Plant, in decreasing order of occurrence.

Table 17 Fish entrainment at Cape Fear Steam Electric 50 Plant.

Table 18 Angler fish tag returns (39 total). 53 Table 19 Fish tag recaptures during Cape Fear study 54 (52 total).

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant 316(b) study area (from Buckhorn Dam to gust above confluence of the Deep and Haw rivers).

Figure 2 Electrofishing sampling transects. Collec-tions were made along both shorelines at each transect.

Figure 3 Hoop (Fyke) net sampling transects., Sets were made along both banks at each transect.

Figure 4 Larval fish sampling transects. Tows were taken 8 in midchannel and along the shoreline opposite the plant site at each transect.

/

Figure 5 Cape Fear River study area on which fish were 56 E

tagged, with transects where fish were released.

1. 0 Introduc tion The Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant (CFSEP) is located near Moncure, N. C., immediately below where the Cape Fear River is formed by the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers (Fig. 1). These two rivers are situated in the populated and industrialized Piedmont area of North Carolina, and drain 2,968 sq. mi. (4775.5 sq. km.) of land. The Haw River receives municipal and industrial sewage before it joins the Deep River, which receives some municipal waste and silt from local logging operations. Both the Haw and Deep Rivers were given a Sanitation Class C rating (Fish and Wildlife Propagation) upstream of the study area by state agencies during the 1960's. But the water has been biologically cleansed to be classified for a Class A-II rating (drinking wader, requiring complete treatment) by th'e time it reaches the North Carolina Highway 42 Bridge crossing the Cape Fear River. All three rivers were given an Ecological Classification of "Catfish-Sucker" in the study area by the Wildlife Resources Commission in the 1960's (W.

C. Carnes, et al., 1964 and D. E. Louder, 1963) showing a consistency expected with the habitat similarities existing above the Buckhorn Dam.

The CFSEP is located on a section of the Cape Fear River that was impounded in 1907, with the construction of Buckhorn Dam approxi-mately six miles (9.7 km.) below the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers. This dam was built for a hydroelectric generating plant of the Cape Pear Power Company and which merged with the Carolina Power and Light Company, This hydroelectric plant has since been decommissioned.

The discharge canal of the Cape Fear Plant was lengthened from two miles

7 l

5% lM

~ 1 Figure 1. CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 316(b) STUDY AREA (FROM BUCKHORN DAM TO.JUST ABOVE CONFLUENCE OF THE DEEP AND HAW RIVERS).

(3.2 km.) to six miles (9.7 km.) in 1954, when the plant's capacity was expanded. This was accomplished so that the heated water could cool sufficiently before entering the river. It now enters the river gust upstream of the Buckhorn Dam. In order to keep water quality to speci-fied levels in the Cape Fear River, the Cape Fear Plant was required to operate on a closed cycle cooling system (cooling towers) in 1974 for part of the year (June November 30) or when the flow of the river dropped below a specified volume (600 cfs). So, in effect, the CFSEP has a potential for influencing the river fish community only six months of the year (December 1 May 31).

This study was initiated to find the extent of this influence on the river. Sampling programs were initiated in December, 1976, to continue until June, 1977, in order to study the adult and larval fish of this area of the Cape Fear River. These programs were combined with sampling programs for fish impingement and larval fish entrainment at the Cape Fear Plant to analyze the plant's influence on the fish community of this section of the Cape Fear River.

2.0 Materials and Methods 2.1 Adult Pish Pro ram Electrofishin A Smith-Root Type IV boat mounted electrofisher was used to collect fish at 5 transects for this study (Fig. 2). Each transect was electrofished for 1/2 hour each month. The 1/2 hour period was divided into 15 minute intervals along each shoreline of the transects.

The fishes collected were identified (in the field if possible),

weighed (to the nearest gram), measured (total length) and released.

Fishes that were in good condition and of sufficient size were tagged with Ploy Anchor Tags before release. Those fishes that could not be identified in the field or were needed for a reference collection were preserved in formalin and returned to the laboratory for identification, weighing, and measuring.

Hoo (F ke) Net tin Hoop (Pyke) nets, with 4 ft. diameter hoops and a 20 ft. lead, were set monthly on each shoreline of 5 transects (Fig. 3 - same as electrofishing transects) for approximately a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period each month.

The catch is reported for 24 hour period averages in order to limit the influence of unusual catches possible during a one day period.

The fishes captured were processed in the same manner as the electrofishing samples.

II b

EF PlAN c

/

Vt CvP 4f b

58 1$ 58

(

(l Figure 2. 'LECTROFISHING SAMPLING TRANSECTS. COLLECTIONS WERE MADE ALONG BOTH. SHORELINES. AT EACH TRANSECT.

8 1

%3 cAP) 4I C33 F I /

I O

I~

j )

I 1

'VI ve,47

~

~ II a.

.j

/'

(

/'

/: E~i1 S$ UCXHO IW OAAI P~ (

I I

Figure 3. HOOP (FYKE) NET SAMPLING TRANSECTS. SETS WERE MADE ALONG BOTH BANKS .AT..EACH TRANSECT.

2.2 Larval Fish Pro ram Two 1/2 meter plankton nets (571 p mesh) were set into a bongo frame with a General Oceanics flow meter mounted in each net. The bongo frame was normally towed for 5 minutes at two stations (southern shore-line and midchannel) at 5 transects (Fig. 4 - similar to the other transects) on a weekly sampling schedule. Day and night tows were taken within a 24-hour period for each, weekly sample. Mght samples were collected starting approximately one-half hour after sunset or when it became sufficiently dark (if this took longer than one-half hour). Day samples were collected anytime during daylight hours but no sooner than three hours after sunrise.

Each sample collected was recorded with the time, station, net number, date, period (day or night), flow meter readings, temperature, and collectors. Each sample was preserved in buffered formalin and returned to the laboratory for analysis.

In the laboratory, the samples were sorted for larval fishes and a record kept on the samples containing fishes. The larval fishes were placed in vials of 5% buffered formalin and labeled to indicate from which sample the fishes were obtained. The fishes were identified to the lowest taxa possible and the number and length of individuals were recorded for each sample. In samples with a large number of individuals in a taxon, 100 randomly chosen individual lengths were measured, as a subsample, and the percentages expanded to the total number of fish in that taxon.

/ ~ W p ~

O I

\

t g*

1

(

Cy

/

Qi gC

/ /

j E

/

r~

.j l KÃHOAN 0AM lL74

/ c Figure 4. LARVAL FISH SAMPLING TRANSECTS. TOWS WERE TAKEN IN MID- ..

CHANNEL AND ALONG THE SHORELINE OPPOSITE THE PLANT SITE QT EACH TRANSECT.

The flow meter counts for each sample were transformed into cubic meters of water filtered by the plankton nets. This transformation was made with a table of meter counts of water volume filtered generated by a calibration curve made for each meter. The table was generated through a computer analysis from these calibration curves.

A more involved statistical analysis of the 1/2 meter net larval fish catch was undertaken to illustrate any major differences between catch rates of transects, stations and each of the nets in the bongo frame. The analysis used was a 5 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments in a Randomized Block Design. The factors analyzed were the 5 transects, the 2 stations per transect and the 2 nets of the bongo frame with the blocks consisting of day and night sampling periods.

The data of May 10, 1977, was analyzed with this method as this was a date of good catch rates and might offer more information when compared with the results of the comparison of meter net and 1/2 meter net samples. The analysis was conducted on both total number of organisms per cubic meter and the number of taxa obtained in each sample. This was done so that an idea of the differences in species diversity could be seen as well as the total number differences between the factors

analyzed, On May 10, 1977, meter net samples (505 p mesh) were taken, as advised by EPA, during the day at the same stations and times that the 1/2 meter net samples were collected, in order to get a comparison of the 1/2 meter net tows with meter net tows in this area and season.

Meter net and 1/2 meter net samples were processed with the same li laboratory methods. The samples were compared statistically by way

of a Randomized Block Design with the tow stations as replicates and the net types as treatments. This was done to remove most of the station-to-station variance and give a good comparison of the net types (505 p mesh meter net catch and the mean 571 p mesh 1/2 meter net catch) for this study.

2.3 Plant Monitorin Pro ram Tm in ement The plant has two sets of traveling screens in the intake area. One set operates for units 3 and 4 (1 pump for each unit), which are used only intermittently for extremely high load demand situations, and one set for units 5 and 6 (2 pumps for each unit), which are the newest and main units of the plant and are used whenever the plant is in operation. Due to the intermittent use of units 3 and 4, it was decided only to take impingement samples from the screens of units 5 and 6, in order to enhance sample scheduling and quality. Units 5 and 6 pump a larger volume of water (40,800 g'al/min each for pump of unit 5 and 48,000 gal/min for each pump of unit 6) than units 3 and 4, (30,000 gal/min each pump) therefore, making them the major contributors toward impingement at this plant. Future reference and results of impingement in this report refer to units 5 and 6.

Zmpingement samples were taken for a 24-hour period each week.

Problems. arose in sampling due to tremendous trash loads (leaves and st'cks) during certain periods and icing conditions during the winter (the coldest on record for this area) so at times samples could not be obtained or had to be terminated before the full 24-hour period was sampled (Table 15). Trash and organisms impinged on the traveling screens were collected from the wash trough with dip nets as the screens were washed at certain intervals (depending on the trash load) during the 24-hour sampling period. Between screen washings for the sample, they were set so the screens could not rotate. The trash and fish of the sample were sorted. The fish were identified, weighed (to the nearest

gram) and measured (total length). Fish that could not be identified, or were needed in the reference collection, were preserved in formalin and returned to the laboratory for analysis.

She, fish collected were expanded to meet the criteria of a 24-hour period with four pumps (the total for units 5 and 6) running. The expansion was completed for the number per major taxa, weight per major taxa, total number of fish and total weight of fish impinged (Table 15).

Entrainment The current and eddies generated by the plant intake made the use of a net to collect icthyoplankton entrainment samples very difficult.

Therefore, a 2-inch diameter diaphragm pump was used to gather samples (as recommended by EPA, 1977) in front of the trash racks of the intake pumps. The time required for the pump to filla 55 gallon (0.21m 3 )

barrel was noted and expanded fnto the time needed to pump a cubic meter of water, so a known volume was sampled. A 571 p mesh net was then placed in the barrel of water and the water pumped was filtered through the net in the water, so the organisms were not impinged on the net.

This is a method similar to those used for entrainment in other studies.

Samples were collected during the day and night that. the river larval fish were sampled. The samples were preserved in buffered formalin and returned to the, laboratory for analysis. The time, date, volume sampled and collectors of each sample were recorded. The laboratory analysis for these samples was the same as discussed previously for the river larval fish samples.

3.0 Results and Discussion 3.1 Adult Fish Pro ram General This section of the Cape Fear River lies on the fall line of North Carolina giving this area a rich assemblage from both the Pied-mont and Coastal Plain regi'ons. Few published studies have been con-ducted in this area of the river. An ongoing monitoring program by CP&L, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, has generated several annual reports and the Wildlife Resources Commission has done some survey work on the area during the 1960's. Other than these studies, no general survey work was conducted on this area of the Cape Fear River.

The Cape Fear River has been dammed in this section since 1907 and the plant has been operating at its present capacity since the mid-1950's, thus giving ample time for a balanced fish community to develop in the area. This study is to find if such a balanced com-munity exists and whether it is deterimentally influenced by the Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant.

Thirty-five fish species were captured during this study (Table 1), representing 12 families. The main channel Deep River above the study area was sampled by the Wildlife Resources Commission (Carnes, et al., 1964). Ten species were found, all but two of which were found in this study (steelcolor chiner and Johnny darter). The Haw River was also sampled above the study area by these biologists; 11 species were found with one that was not collected during the present study (Piedmont Table l. Species list of fishes collected during the Cape Fear 316 (b) study.

Amiidae Bowfin Family Amia calva Bowfin Anguilidae - Eel Family

~An uilla rostzata American Eel Clupeidae Herrings Dorosoma cenedianum Gizzard Shad Esocidae - Pikes Esox ~ni er Chain Pickerel Cyprinidae - Minnows Cvyziuus ~caz io Carp

~Sotto is alborus Nhitemouth Shiner N. amoenus Comely Shiner N. hudsonius Spottail Shiner N. nizeus Whitedin Shiner N. ~sce ticus Sandbar Shiner Catostomidae Suckers

~Erim zon ~chion us Creek chubsucker Noxostoma anisurum Silver Redhorse H. macroleoidotum Shorthead Redhorse Ictaluridae << Catfishes Ictalurus brunneus Snail Bullhead I. cetus White Catfish I. natalis Yellow Bullhead I. nebulosus Brown Bullhead

l. Eunctatus Channel Catiish Aphredoderidae Cyprinodontidae Killifishes Fundulus rathbuni Speckled Killifish Poecilliidae Livebearers Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish Centrarchidae Sunfishes

~La ernie auritus Redbreast Table 1.

Continued L. ~o snellus Green Sunfish L. Sihhosus Pumpkinseed L. Sulosus Wsrmourh L. macrochirus Bluegill L. microloohus Redear Sunfish Hicrooterus salmoides Largemouth Black Bass Pomoxis annularis White Crappie P. ni romaculatus Black Crappie Percidae Perches Perca flavescens Yello~ Perch darter). The Cape Fear River above Buckhorn Dam was sampled by the Wildlife Resources Commission at the Hwy. 42 bridge crossing (Louder, 1963). Six species were collected with one not obtained in this study (steelcolor shiner). These collections were one time rotenone samples, The monitoring programs for CPGL used electrofishing and/ox hoop netting at the present study's Transect E. En 1972-73, the fishes collected (Aquatic Contxol, 1973a) found no species different from those found during the present study. This was also true of the 1973-74 collections (Aquatic Control, 1975) and the 1974-75 sampling (Aquatic Control, 1976). A total of 15 species was captured in this area during the studies by Aquatic Control, Inc., using electrofishing only to collect fishes. The 1976 sampling (Carolina Power 6 Light Co.,

1977) obtained one species not found in this study (bluespotted sunfish) and 22 other species that were collected in both studies.

The present study obtained more species than the other studies since it covered a larger area and was more intense th'an the other sampling programs. The collection methods used in this study, which stressed capture of fishes most susceptable to impingement, would not obtain the darters as readily as the state's rotenone samples so this lack Is not unexpected and is of minor importance for this study's objectives. The seeming loss of the steelcolor shiner found by the state but not by Aquatic Control, Inc. or CPGL programs is puzzling but not of great Importance, The shiner might be present but in such small numbers or scattered occurrence that it has not been obtained recently or is being replaced by one of .the many other species of forage fishes collected during this study. The bluespotted sunfish was the only specimen of this species collected in this area and might have been an Table 2. Total catch for electrofishing collections of the Cape Pear study.

~Lee th (ee) ~WeL ht ()L)

~See fee Mean Total Mean American Eel 1 291 40 Black Crappie 62 12428 200.45 9651 155.68 Bluegill 791 73724 93.20 20310. 25.68 Bowfin 1 493 1162 Brown Bullhead 3 944 314.67 1173 391 Carp 7 4428 632.57 27451 3921.57 Channel Catfish 2 948 474 1719 859.5 Comelv Shiner 64 3978 62.16 134 2.09 Creek Chubsucker 1 39 1 Mosquitofish 3 116 38. 67 3 1 Gizzard Shad 152 23709 155 '8 10420 68.55 Golden Shiner 50 5504 110.08 897 17.94 Green Sunfish 6 471 78.5 72 12 Largemouth Bass 59 12962 219.69 15192 257.49 Pirate Perch 2 154 77 13 6.5 Pumpkinseed 79 8173 103. 46 2041 25.84 Redbreast 74 8867 119. 82 2481 33.53 Redear Sunfish 54 8065 149.35 4013 74.31 Sandbar Shiner .

2 123 61.5 4 2 Shorthead Redhorse 2 706 353 1154 577 Silver Redhorse 11 4013 364.82 7396 672. 36 Silvery Minnow 3 259 86.33 14 4.67 Speckled Killifish 2 101 50.5 3 1.5 Spottail Shiner 9 634 70.44 31 3. 44 Warmouth 21 2433 115.86 1024 48. 76 White Catfish 34 9210 270.88 10382 305. 35 White Crappie Whitefin Shiner ll 14 2023 825 183.91 58.93 1141 26 103. 73 1.86 Whitemouth Shiner 4 235 58. 75 5 1.25 Yellow Bullhead 1 245 168 Yellow Perch 1 200 101 Total 1526 186301 122.08 118222 77.47 isolated individual (possibly released here from some other area). No major upsets or alterations can be seen in the fishes collected over the last fourteen years. Generally, the fish collected in this study have been found commonly in the area in other studies and reflect a stable community.

Electrofishin Thirty-one species of fish were collected with this method (Table 2). Nine species comprised 91% of. the total number of fishes collected. These species were bluegill (52%), gizzard shad (10%),

pumpkinseed (5%), redbreast (5%), black crappie (5%), comely shiner (4%), largemouth bass (4%), redear sunfish (4%), and golden shiner (3%).

These species are common in this area and indicate a healthy system, with forage species (gizzard shad, comely shiner and golden shiner),

first level predators (bluegill, pumpkinseed and redbreat) and higher predators (black crappie, largemouth bass and redear sunfish).

Of the five areas collections were made in, the overall total number of the fishes captured was greatest at Transect E (Table 3) and least at Transect B. None of the transects differed greatly and the minor differences can be explained by various habitat differences.

Transect B probably has a lower collection number due to its muddier water (hindering collection and possibly causing avoidance of the area by some species) and steeper banks with less cover or shallow areas which the fish might use. Transect E probably had higher catches due to the fact that it is just above the dam so it is more lacustrine in nature with a large amount of cover and shallows for the fishes to Table 3. Total catch and percent per transect for electrofishing collections oi the Cape Fear study.

B C D S ecies X X II X American Eel 1 0.4 Black Crappie 24 8.8 6 30 11 45 11 3.5 10 2.9 Bluegill 129 47.3 88 43.6 91 36,8 168 53.3 315 64.4 0.5 Bc@fin

'.4 1

Brown Bullhead 1 0.5 2 Carp 4 1.5 1 0.4 2 0.4 Channel Catfish 1 0.4 1 0.2 Comely Shiner 20 7.3 20 9.9 17 6.9 6 1.9 1 0.2 Creek Chubsucker 1 0.2 Mosquitofish 3 0.6 Citzard Shad 17 6.2 14 6.9 29 11.7 37 11.7 55 11.2 Golden Shiner 12 4.4 4 2.0 11 4.5 14 9 1.8 Cr een Sunfish 4 2.0 1 '.4 1 0.3 Largemouth Bass 19 7 0 10 5 0 10 4 0 LO 3.2 10 2.0 Pirate Perch 1 0.5 1 0.3 Pumpkinseed 5 1.8 5 2.5 10 4.0 14 4.4 45 9.2 Redbreast 10 3.7 25 12.4 28 11.3 11 3.5 Redear Sunfish 5 1.8 7 3.5 8 3.2 17 5.4 17 3.5 Sandbar Shiner 2 1,0 Shorthead Rcdhorse 1 0.5 1 0.4 Silver Redhorse 5 1.8 2 0.8 1 0.3 3 0.6 Silvery Minnow 1 0.4 1 0.5 1 0.3

Table 3, (cont.)

B S ecies 0 2 Speckled Killifish 1 0.5 1 0.3 Spottail Shiner 2 1.0 5 2.0 2 0.6 Wamouth 5 1.8 1 0.5 4 1.6 8 2.5 3 0.6 White Catfish 10 3.7 3 1.5 7 2.8 8 2.5 6 1.2 White Crappie 5 1.8 2 1.0 1 0.3 3 0.6 Whitefin Shiner 1 0.4 2 1.0 7 2.8 2 0.6 2 0.4 Whitemouth Shiner 1 0.5 1 0.4 0.3 0.2 Yellow Bullhead 1 0.4 Yellow Perch 1 0.4 Total 0 273 202 247 315 489

>>20-.

utilize. Also, during the cold months the plant discharge of heated water in the area attracted and provided a haven for the fish in the area. This caused higher catch rates in this area than the other transects at which fish were less active or concentrated.

The change in monthly catch rated (Table 4) is more confusing.

The highest catch was during December, 1976. The catch fell off during January when there was record cold weather in the region (see Table 8).

The next two months also show high catch rates. This can in part be explained by fishes seeking the bank areas to escape the fast current in the river caused by the spring thaw and rains. The last two months had normal current conditions and warming waters so the fishes were able to utilize the entire river and were not concentrated in the shallows or cover that was easily electrofished.

All of the major fish species collected were present at all transects (Table 3) except the redbreast which was not found at Transect E. Generally, the major species were present in similar numbers at all transects but the black crappie was more abundant at Transect A, while the other sunfishes (bluegill, pumpkinseed and redear sunfish) and gizzard shad were more common at Transect E. Host of the other fish (warmouth, white catfish and whitefin shiner) were found at all (5) transects, a majority (3 or 4) of transects (carp, green sunfish, silver redhorse, silvery minno~, spottail shiner, white crappie and whitemouth shiner) or had too few collected to form any basis on the extent of the area used by the species.

Table 4. Total catch per month for electrofishing collections of the Cape Fear study.

(Number of Fish, Mean Length, and Nean Weight)

December ~a~~tar ~MMMMMMM Wrch

~SMMMMM 1th. wt. 1th. wt. 1th. wt. 0 1th,wt. 1th. wt. // 1th. wt.

American Eel 1 291 40 Black Crappie 20 178 110 4 223 214 28 213 186 5 186 193 3 229 230 2 196 126 Bluegill 276 94 25 08 53 8 181 ill ~

37 171 92 22 7 105 37 8 113 35 Brown Bullhead 1 285 315 2 330 429 Carp 5 616 3342 1 659 5789 1 687 4949 Channel Catfish 1 496 1077 1 452 642 Comely Shiner 32 58 2 1 76 4 25 66 2 2 81 4 4 63 2 Creek Chubsucker 1 39 1 Mosquitofish 1 38 1 2 39 Cizsard Shad 98 133 43 26 172 82 10 243 14 I 2 217 17 16 207 144 Colden Shiner 15 101 11 2 79 5 6 130 25 8 97 1 9 128 34 10 112 18 Creen Sunfish 5 76 13 1 89 Largemouth Bass 11 176 103 5 233 345 23 235 321 4 142 3 4 181 16 12 263 346 Pirate Perch 1 87 11 1 67 Pumpkinsced 21 107 28 4 74 10 8 106 25 28 99 2 6 115 4 12 110 27 Redbreast 20 118 34 1 123 33 19 126 39 2 143 4 13 114 2 19 116 30 M

~

Redear Sunfish 23 164 99 4 167 94 19 136 52 2 160 6 3 102 2 3 137 52 Sandbar Shiner 2 62 2 Shorthead Redhorse 2 353 577

-22>>

Table 4.

continued December ~Jsuusu ~Pebeua March ~Ari1

~SsuSss 0 1th. wt. 1th. wt. 1th. wt. 8 1th.wt. 1th. ut, Silver Redhorse 2 262 329 3 413 982 1 350 434 5 380 672 Silver Minnow 1 89 6 1 86 4 1 84 4 S eckle d Kil1 i fish 1 48 1 1 53 2 S ottail Shiner 3 83 5 1 35 1 3 82 5 1 46 1 I 57 1 Warmouth 6 117 72 9 103 26 4 135 62 1 165 98 1 98 15 White Catfish 4 187 207 1 361 613 11 269 300 3 262 249 5 335 489 10 268 245 White Cra ie 7 160 65 3 215 138 1 257 276 Whitefin Shiner 3 59 2 3 58 2 5 52 1 2 63 3 1 87 4 Whitemouth Shiner 3 61 1 1 53 1 Yello~ Bullhead 1 245 168 Yellow Perch 1 200 101 Total 0 549 136 384 249 128 This sampling program indicated a healthy fish community present in the study area. The organisms present had to be very motile in order to utilize the area in the best manner, with the varying con-ditions existing in, the area during the study period. The species present were normal for this region. The area was not overrun by

'rough'ish species. The organisms captured were in good numbers and condition and they used a very large percentage of the study area. All of these factors indicate the balanced and healthy fish community pre-sent in this area.

Hoo (F ke) Nettin Eighteen species of fish were collected with hoop (Fyke) nets (Table 5). Five species made up 90% of the total number of fishes collected per 24 hour sets. Two of these species comprised the out-standing majority of specimens captured. These species were white catfish (40%) and brown bullheads (32%). The remaining three soecies to make up 90% of the catch were black crappie (8%), channel catfish (6%)

and bluegill (4%). Since these nets fish the bottom part of the ~ater column and have a large mesh size, they select larger fish that are mobile and/or use 'the lower part of the water column to a great extent.

Hence, the large percentage of ictalurids captured compared to the other species and the fewer number of species collected in comparison to electrofishing. This method also gave results indicating a healthy fish community. The species collected were common to this region, healthy in appearance and were not dominated by 'rough'pecies of fish, though some such species were present (carp, bowfin and redhorses).

Table 5. Total hoop or fyke net catch per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for the Cape Fear study.

(Total Number, Length and Weight)

~Secures ~Len th ~) ~Wet he(g)

Black Crappie 49.7 24660 12397.09 Bluegill 24.5 8538 2596.20 Bowfin 0.5 574 916.0 Brown Bullhead 209.4 129044 81731.25 Carp 8.0 10838 37047.12 Channel Catfish 39.3 30202 20864.95 Gizzard Shad 11.6 6754 3055,94 Largemouth Bass 2.0 1582 2253.65 Redbreast 0.5 174 50.71 Redear 1.5 600 202.12 Shorthead Redhorse 1.0 768 719.0 Silver Redhorse 8.3 7204 9196.82 Snail Bullhead 20.3 11965 6167.62 Warmouth 1.0 385 154.73 White Catfish 261.4 16443 112409.0 White Crappie .12. 4 6429 3526.48 Yello~ Bullhead 1.6 847 467.5 Yellow Perch 0.5 287 128.40 Total 653.5 289209 293874.58 Of the five transects sampled, Transect A had the highest catch while Transect E had the lowest (Table 6). These differences, like the electrofishing data, can be explained by habitat variations.

Transect A had fairly steep banks so the fishes were concentrated along the banks in order to escape the current during the flood season.

Thereby giving higher catch rates as the fishes moved into the nets which seemed to be refuge areas from the current. Transect A was also the site of by far the greatest catch rate of black and white crappie, which gave this transect a larger catch rate than the other areas.

Transect E had lower catch rates due to the more lacustrine nature of the area. This gave the fishes more shallow areas to seek refuge in than the more upstream areas. So the fishes were more scattered (not as concentrated as along the steep banks) giving lower catch rates.

The differences in the catches between stations on each transect were not consistent or easily explained (Table 6). The tran-sects in the Haw and Deep rivers had higher catch rates on the bank of the river shared by each river (Figure 3), This might be explained by the fact fish moving along this bank could move into either river, thus giving a higher shared community (see Fish Tagging section) and higher catch rates. The next two transects moving downstream '(C and D) had higher catch rates on the side of the river away from the plant site.

This could be due to the removal of some suitable habitat or refuge areas resulting from the plant structures (intake and ash pond banks).

Transect E had little difference between the two stations.

The differences in catch per month (Table 7) followed the same pattern as the electrofishing data, probably for the same reasons. The Table 6. Hoop or fyke net catch per 24 hours for each transect and station for the Cape Fear study.

(Number of Individuals Caught For Whole Transect and Stations on Each Transect)

TRANSECT (STATION)

Species A (1, 3) B (1,3) D (1, 3) E (1, 3)

Black Crappie 34 (9,25) 5 (1,4) 6 (1,5) 4 (2,2) 1 (0,1)

Bluegill 6 (2,4) 3 (2,1) 8 (2,6) 2 (1,1) 6 (1,5)

Bovfin ~ 5* (p ~ 5>>

Brown Bullhead 62 (27,35) 44 (29,15 6 (0,6) 63 (30,33) 34 (19,15)

(

~

Carp 5 (2,3) ~ 5* ( 5* p

~ 2 (1,1) ~ 5>> (p ~ 5*)

/ Channel Catfish 9 (7>2) 11 (9,2) 3 (1,2) 15 (4,11) 1 ( ~ 5* 5s)

~

Giscard Shad 1 (0.,1) 4 (2,2) 5 (1,4) 1 (0,1) ] ( ~ 5* ~ 5>>)

Largcmouth Bass ] ( ~ 5>> ~ 5>> ] (1 P) 1 (0>1)

Redbreast 1 (1,0)

Redear Sunfish 1 (0,1) 1 (0,1)

Shorthead Redhorse ~ 5s ( 5* p)

~ 1 (1,0)

Silver Redhorse 4 (3>l) 1 (1,0) 1 (0.1) 3 (1,2)

Snail Bullhead 6 (4,2) 8 (6,2) 3 (1,2) 3 (0,3)

Warmouth 1 (O,l) 1 (0,1)

White Catfish 91 (44 >47) 68 (54 > 14) 35 (16>19) 50 (16,34) 17 (15,2)

White Crappie 8 (2,6) 2 (0,2) 2 (2,0) 1 (1,0)

Yellow Bullhead 2 (0>2)

Yellow Perch ~ 5>> (0 ,5*)

TOTAL 228.5 (101,1275) 147 (105.5, 72.5 (23,49.5) 147 (57,90) 63.5 (37>26.5) 41.5)

• All numbers rounded to nearest vhole number except these which vere less than 0.5 but rounded to 0.5

~ ~

<<27>>

Table 7. Total hoop (fyke) net catch per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, by months, for the Cape Fear study.

(Total Number, Mean Length, and Total Weight)

SPECIES DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCll APRIL MAY 1th Wt. 1th Wt. 1th Wt. 1th Wt. li 1th Wt. 1th Wt.

Black Crappie 250 292 221 591 36 244 126 4 245 1091 231 1008 Bluegill 3 173 306 179 420 179 605 3 180 360 3 1&1 394 175 512 Bowfin . 5* 574 916 Brown Bullhead 32 318 11967 314 958 22 311 10205 59 315 22847 21 311 8357 68 318 27396 Carp 690 8296 656 136&9 1 740 3466 687 11596 Channel Catfish 6 407 3726 422 1570 11 386 5238 418 5 3781 15 391 6548 Gizzard Shad 2 303 662 328 162 310 1725 2 297 507 Largemouth Bass 1 356 797 362 381 502 1075 Redbreast 1 174 51 Redear Sunfish 1 205 73 198 129 Shorthead Redhorse 1 358 295 ~ 5* 410 424 Silver Redhorse 2 397 1892 ~ 5* 383 341 1 424 554 3 473 3591 512 2819 Snail Bullhead 10 303 3378 308 330 ~ 5* 305 148 5 296 1489 1 272 131 292 692 Warmouth 193 155 White Catfish 62 314 24480 325 2462 46 320 18632 94 323 40547 32 337 16732 20 337 9556 White Crappie 6 243 1628 250 394 277 1365 270 139 Yellow Bullhead 282 458 Yellow Perch 287 128 Total 8 127.5 24 126 187 67 125

• All numbers rounded to nearest whole number except those which were less than 0.5 but rounded to it.

catch fell off in January with cold weather, when the fish would be less active, but picked up again in February and March when there were high flow rates in the river so the fishes would seek refuge areas from the current and be concentrated for collection. Mhen the flows dropped off in April and the entire river channel was able to be used, catch rates decreased. The catch increased again in May, possibly due to repro-ductive activities along the banks of the river.

The fishes that were common were collected over the entire study area, although black crappies were more numerous on Transect A than any other transect. Of the other species caught, the silver red-horse'and snail bullhead were found at all transects except Transect E, white crappie was found everywhere except Transect B, carp were captured everywhere but on Transect C and the other species were caught in too few numbers to show any worthwhile preferences or occurrences.

This sampling technique, like electrofishing, indicated a healthy, well balanced fisheries community on this section of the Cape Fear River. Though 'rough'ishes were present, they were in their proper minor role in the community structure. The fish captured were healthy, in sufficient numbers to illustrate a good fisheries community and were present over the entire area, with game and forage fish plentiful.

3.2 Larval Fish Pro ram The ma5or fish species in the study area of important con-sideration for reproductive studies are: gizzard shad, redhorses, white 29

catfish, brown bullhead, channel catfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, black crappie, white crappie and yellow perch.

These are the ma)or sport fishes and forage fish of the study area.

Gizzard shad were found to spawn from late May through June in the Potomac estuary with a temperature range of 10 - 23'C (Lippson and Moran, 1974). In the study area they were by far the most abundant form of larval fish (Appendix A). They were first collected on April 19 with a surface temperature range of 20 23.5'C (Table 8) and continued to be abundant throughout the study.

The redhorses (shorthead and silver) have little information recorded for this area. They both go on spring spawning runs upstream.

In Missouri, they were both found to reproduce in April (Pflieger, 1975). During this study, larval catostomids (probably redhorses since only one other specimen of catostomid was collected during the entire study) were first found on April 19 with a water temperature range of 20 - 23.5'C.

White catfish, brown bullheads and channel catfish were all found to spawn in May and June in the Potomac estuary (Lippson and Moran, 1974) after the water warmed to 21'C. Larval ictalurids were not obtained until they had reached rather large size on June 2. They consisted mainly of channel catfish.

Bluegills and pumpkinseeds were both found to reproduce from May through August in 16 27 C water in the Potomac estuary (Lippson and Moran, 1974). The redear sunfish was also found to reproduce from May Table 8. Surface temperatures obtained at midchannel during larval fish collections.

Transect Date Period 12/13 Day 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 Night 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 12/20 Day 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 Night 7.2 7.5 7 ' 8.0 8.0 12/28 Day 4.0 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.0 Night 4.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.1 1/4 Day 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 Night 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.2 1/7 Day 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Night 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2/13.* Day 3.5 3.0 3.0 Ice Flows Night No Sample-Ece 2/16 Day 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 Night 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6;0 2/21 Day 4.8 5 0

~ 5.0 5.0 3.0 Night 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3/3 Day Equipment Failure Night 8.5 9.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 3/7 Day 10.0 10. 0 10.0 10.0 10. 0 Night 10.0 10. 0 10.0 10.0 10. 0 3/16 Day 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Night 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 3/21 Day 13.0 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 Night 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13. 0 3/29 Day 15.0 14.0 15.0 14.5 15.0 Night 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 4/6 Day 15.0 16.5 16. 0 16. 0 16. 0 Night 15.0 16.0 15.5 15.0 16.0

Table 8 continued Transect Date Period A D 4/12 Day 16.0 16.5 16.0 17. 0 16.0 Night 16.5 16.5 16.0 16. 0 17.0

=4/19 Day 21.0 20.5 21.0 22.0 23. 5 Night 20.5 20.0 20.5 20.5 21.0 4/26 Day 20.0 20.0 20. 0 20. 5 21.0 Night 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.5 21.0 5/4 Day 23.5 25.0 23.0 24.0 26.0 Night 23.5 24.0 23. 0 23. 0 25.5 5/10 Day 22.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 25. 0 Night 20.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 23.0 5/16 Day 25.5 25.0 24.5 25.0 25.0 Night 24.0 23.5 24.0 24.0 24.0 5/23 Day 27.0 26.0 26.0 27.0 26.0 Night 26.0 25.5 26.0 25. 5 25.0 6/2 Day 29.0 29.0 29.0 28.0 26.0 Night 26.0 27.0 27.0 26.0 27.0

• No samples between January 7 and February ll due to river being frozen.

through August in Missouri (Pf ledger, 1975). The lervsl ~Le omis species were not easy to separate for this study but must have been made up mostly of these three, the most common species in the study. ~Le omis larvae were first collected on May 4 with a surface water temperature range of 23 26'C.

Largemouth bass were found to spawn from May through July but mainly in June in the Potomac estuary (Lippson and Moran, 1974) with a temperature range of 15.5 25'C. Vio largemouth bass larvae were obtained during this study; though young of the year have been collected.

Possibly they were in the smaller tributaries or not spawning during the time of the study.

Black and white crappie were Sound to spawn from spring through mid-summer in 16 - 28'C water in the Potomac estuary (Lippson and Moran, 1974). The Pomoxis larvae collected in this study-were mainly black crappie although some larvae collected could have been either species and so were called Pomoxis spp. The first black crappie larvae was collected on March 21 with a temperature range of 12.5 13'C, but were not common until after April 26 (19 21'C).

The yellow perch spawned from late February through April in the Potomac estuary (Lippson and Moran, 1974). Although it was not a common species in the study area, its larvae were frequently collected after April 26 (19 21'C).

A total of 14 taxa were collected during the larval fish study, representing six families (Table 9). The species collected were Table 9. Taxa list of larval fishes collected during the Cape Fear study with occurrence in samples and sites collected, Number of Times. Collected Obtained at these Transects Gizzard Shad 215 ASB SC SDSE Cyprinid (Minnows) 33 A,B,C,D,E Carp 19 A,B,C,D,E Golden Shiner . A,B,C,D,E Shiner (~petro is spp.) B,C,D,E Catostomid (Suckers) 42 A,B,C,D,E Ectalurid (Catfish) A Channel Catfish Centrarchid (Sunfish)

Sunfish (~Le amis spp.) 23 B,C,D,E Crappie (Pomoxis spp.) C,D Black Crappie 23 A,B,C,D,E Percid (Perches) 4 D,E Yellow Perch A,B,C,D,E distributed over most of the study area but the ictalurids appeared restricted to the upper study area while most of the other species were more plentiful in the lower sections of the study area (Appendix A).

The lower part of the study area (Transect E) appeared to be the main starting point of the spawning in the area. Possibly, this is due to the more lacustrine habitat and the thermal discharge of the plant in this area so the temperature reaches spawning levels earlier in this section of the river. The gizzard shad first appeared on April 19 at Transect E and spread upstream from there until on Ltay 4 it was found at every transect. ~Le omis spp. ffrst appeared at Transect E on May 4 and moved upstream from there, but remained sparse in the other areas of the study. The catostomids appeared to start upriver first (Transect B) and spread from this transect throughout the study area. This might be explained by the spawning runs upriver by the redhorses, so the more upstream sections would be used for reproduction.

Generally, the more dense samples were collected at Transect E and larval fish were not observed as plentiful near the plant site until the May 4 collection. Thus the plant would not endanger the main portion of the fish community's reproducing capacity until this time. Then the major part of the larval community would still be downstream of the influence of plant operations.

Bongo 1/2 meter nets were used to obtain replicate tows for sample quality assurance. But meter nets have been found to be more efficient in collecting larval fish due to net avoidance and other factors. Therefore, as advised by EPA, a simple statistical analysis was performed comparing the 1/2 meter net and meter net in this area on May 10. A Randomized Block Design was used, blocking on =stations, with the net types as treatments. Though the meter net often obtained higher catch rates than the 1/2 meter net the differences were not significant for this study (Table 10), for either total number of organisms or the number of taxa per tow. Significant differences were found between stations for the number of taxa present (a .05).

Zn order to test the differences between net samples, tran-sects, and stations for this study, a 5 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments in a Randomized Block Design was used on the Mi y 10 data (as set forth in Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). Day and night were the re-plicates and the five transects, two stations, and two nets, the main factors to'e tested. This analysis was,run on both the number of 3

organisms per m and number of taxa per collection, so a more in>>-depth feeling for the diversity in the study area could be obtained.

The analysis results (Table 11) indicated no significant 3

difference for numbers of organisms per m for replicates (day or night), stations or nets but it did give a highly significant (a .01) difference between transects and a significant difference (a .05) in the transect X station interaction. This supports the earlier dis-cussion of a higher concentration of larval fishes in the lower portion of the study area (especially Transect E). The analysis on the number of taxa present gave no significant difference between nets but gave highly significant (a .01) differences between replicates and stations and significant (a .05) differences between transects and the transect Z station interaction (Table ll). This indicates the increases in taxa Table 10. Statistical Results for a randomized block design comparing meter net catches to 1/2 meter catches for both total number of organisms per m 3. and number of taxa per example.

SOURCE dF F VALUE Replicate (Stations) 130. 36 3.14 Total Number Treatment (Net Type) 5.80 0. 14 Error 41.56 Replicate (Stations) 1. 467 3.474~

Taxa Treatment (Net Type) 0.2 0.474 Sample Error 9 0.422

• c

• • c m ~ Q5 m ~ Ql Table 11. Statistical results of a 5 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments in a randomized block design for total number of organisms per m and number of taxa per sample.

SOURCES dF MS F VALUES Replicates (Day or Night) 75.04 2. 35 Treatments 19 68.74 2. 15 A (Transects) 4,86K*

B (Stations) 1 105.44 3. 30 Total Number C (Nets) 20.12 0. 63 3.36*

BC 7. 94 0. 60 AC 0. 25

0. 30 Error 19 31.96 Replicates (Day or Night) 21. 025 53 '75**

Treatments 19 0.888 2.259

~ ~

A (Transects), 1.188 3.020*

B (Stations} 4.225 10.746**

Taxa Sample C (Nets) 0.025 0.064 1.163 2.957*

BC 0.025 0.064 AC 0.213 0.540 0.588 1.494 Error 19 0.393

• c m ~ 05

• • n = ,01 Note: Transects, stations, and nets were considered fixed effects in this analysis.

at night, that normally occurs and the normally more diverse assemblage of organisms to be found hear the shoreline (Station 3) as opposed to midchannel (Station 2). Also the greater number of taxa in the down-stream sections of the study area is shown, as was the higher abundance in this area discussed earlier.

These results show that the sampling method was adequate for this area and consistent in its collection quality. It also confirms the findings of higher number of organisms at the transects below the plant to offer a restocking of the plant area if there should be any entrainment problems before the plant goes on cooling towers in Hay or June.

The dominance of gizzard shad in the early larval fish samples led us to obtain more samples to determine if other areas were used for reproduction. Therefore, on Mt y 4 some extra tows were taken in some tributaries (Bush Creek and Lick Creek) in the study area to assess the status of larval fish in these waters. Bush Creek was found to contain more fish than the river (Table 12) with tentraraohids, Leoomis spp.,

Pomoxis spp. and percids present along with the ever present gizzard shad. Lick Creek also had more larval fish with black crappie and percids in addition to gizzard shad. Subsequent trips found the streams too shallow to sample, but these samples seem to indicate that the tributaries are important nursery areas for the fish community of the area. These areas are outside the plant influence and would protect the larval forms until they were large enough to leave or the stream levels lowered forcing the fishes into the river. But this gives the fish community in the river additional sources of replenishment to 3

Table 12. Tributary larval tows (May 4) with number per m and

~ ~ h mean length for each taxa collected.

BUSH CREEK LICK CREEK 1th 1th Taxa Gizzard Shad 1.63 2.48 7.83 6,81 21.53 23.82 F 17 6.28 Centrarchid 0.11 Sunfish 0.50 6.08 Crappie 0.52 7.14 Black Crappie 0.89 9. 26 0.09 0.17 5 7.5 Percid 0.04 0.07 8 8 1.04 '1.85 8 8.86 TOTAL 3.06 3.18 22.66 25.84 overcome any plant influence in the river.

The larval fish situation on the Cape Fear River and its tri-butaries, in this study area, is in very good condition. The numbers of larval forms collected and their distribution can practically guarantee a viable fisheries community -in this area.

3.3 Plant Monitorin Pro ram I in ement The Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant has fairly high intake velocities (Table 13) and an intake opening near the river bottom.

The intake operates on a once-through system from December 1 to May 31, when the plant goes on a closed cycle cooling system (cooling towers).

The plant is required to go on cooling towers at anytime the river flow is less than 600 cfs in order to preserve the water quality of the river. This factor can require the plant to go on cooling towers before the Hay 31 date, as it did this year. The plant is a peak load plant, so that it does not operate unless there is a sufficient need, and then not necessarily at full capacity (Table 14). This was a colder than normal winter, so the plant did operate during most of the study but did shutdown for two weeks in the spring (Table 14). The cold winter caused harsh icy conditions (the river froze completely over), and it inter-fered with some of the impingement samples by making it impossible to sample for a full 24 hours. It caused a delay in sampling for a full week during its coldest period (Table 15).

A total of.27 species of fish were impinged (Table 16). Of these species, only nine species occurred in three or more of the 19

. samples. They were bluegill, gizzard shad, comely shiner, white cat-fish, black crappie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, redear sunfish, hand white crappied. Of these species, the majority, in both number and weight, belonged to the gizzard shad (Table 15). Host of these fish were impinged from the last week in January to the third week of February.

Table 13. Cape Fear Plant intake velocities, June 4, 1975. Velocities are in feet per second.

Downstream Intake Gate U stream Intake Gate Depth Lower Middle Upper Depth Lower addle Upper (ft ) (ft.)

Surface 0.58 0. 82 0.86 Surface 0.0 0.97 1.13 0.91 0.90 0.95 1.01 1.07 0.83 0.99 1.00 1.05 1.25 1.21 3 0.99 1. 10 0.99 1.01 1.21 1.29 4 0 91

~ 1. 27 1.10 1 13

~ 1.27 1.44 1.05 1.27 1. 17 1.29 1.50 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.79 1.91 1.25 1.86 1.50 1.47 2.08 2.03

l. 35 1.87 1.56 1.50 2.53 2.18

1. 35 2.03 1.60 1.64 2.78 2.43 10 1. 53 1. 87 1. 50 10 1. 72 2,90 2.48 l.. 44 1.56 l. 29 11 1.56 2.84 2.59 12 1.25 2. 38 1.35 12 1.41 2. 71 2.43 13 1. 07 2. 38 1.47 14 0.49 Tabl~ 14 'lov through condensers at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant-million gallons per day (million cubic meters per day).

Day December ~Jaaear ~raerear March ~Aril 1 255.8 (0.969) 127 ' (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 186.7 (0.707) 2 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 186.7 (0.707) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 69.1 (0.262) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 117.6 (0.445) 186.7 (0.707) 5 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 117.6 (0.445) 255.8 (0.969) 6 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0. 969) 7 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 255.8 (0.969) 0 8 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 255.8 (0.969) 0 9 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 0 255.8 (0 ~ 969) 10 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) . 58.8 (0.223) 255.8 (0. 969) 11 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 255.8 (0.969) 12 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 117.6 (0.445) 255.8 (0.969) 13 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 138.2 (0.523) 14 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 255.8 (0.969) 15 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 58.8 (0.223) 117.6 (0.445) 16 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 0 0 17 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 0

,18 255.8 (0.969) 255 ' (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 0 117.6 (0.445) 19 255.8 (0.969) 127.9 (0.484) 255.8 (0.969) 0 117.6 (0.445) 20 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 21 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0,969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 22 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 23 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 0 24 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255,8 (0.969) 117.6 (0.445) 0 25 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 186.7 (0.707) 58.8 (0.223) 255.8 (0.969) 26 197.0 (0.746) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 27 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 186.7 (0.707) 117.6 (0.445) 127.9 (0.484) 28 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 0 29 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 255.S (0.969) 30 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969) 0 31 255.8 (0.969) 255.8 (0.969)

• Plant on Cooling To+era Table 15. Fishes impinged on Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Unit 5 and 6 intake screens (number and weight in grams per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />). All observations were expanded to four intake pumps operating for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

December January February March April May Total 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Gixzard 4.1 9.2 7.1 6.9 22.8 39.0 46.4 11.1 2.0 1.1 Shad 'Mt, 3.9 1.9 155.5 37 460 99 114 5188 659 9841 2043 263 10 252 12 27931 Comely 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.4 1.0 3.8 1.2 2.3 .1 18.8 Shiner Mt. 2 2 2 26 1 6 3 4 4 50 White 1.0 1.0 3.9 1.0 1.9 2.4 2 1.9 15.1 Catfish 'Mt. 26 1 392 2 2 1.9 96 309 847 Channel 6.1 3.1 3.9 4.1 17.2 Catfish Mt. 293 92 217 179 781 I

I Bluegill I 10.2 3.1 2.0 8.8 3.9 1.0 ~

1.0 6.9 7.4 7.0 8.1 4.6 9.2 5.8 5.7 10.7 5.7 18.4 119.5 Wt. 475 124 80 444 8 109 47 221 209 394 723 9 78 6 171 136 310 671 m m 4215 gl Redear 2.0 I4I 1.0 0 0 1~9 4.9 Sunfish Mt.

CJ M 0 339 149 'a 'a 307 795

'a Large- 2.0 1.0 M 1.8 1.2 6' mouth Wt. 829 1159 201 1142 O O 3331 Bass White 1.0 2.4 1.1 4.5 Crappie Mt. 286 103 793 1182 Black 4.1 1.0 3.9 1.0 9.2 3.6 1.5 6.8 41.1 Crappie 'Mt. 750 133 473 151 2457 186 685 608 5441 Ocher

• 2.1 9.2 1.0 0.9 2' 3.7 1.9 I I 3.4 6.5 7.6 4 46.4 Wt. 56 1304 91 226 14 214 301 48 36 208 266 479 3243 Total 24.5 34.7 10. 19.6 15.6 25.8 42.0 53.3 40.6 13.9 16.2 4.6 9.2 7.8 13.4 24.I 27.6 38.7 5.9

'Mt. 1690 4542 270 920 1090 5450 9720 10062 5150 1110 950 9 78 8 503 170 2010 2110 481 s includes: American eel, siver redhorse, flat bullhead, brown bullhead yellow bullhead, chain pickerel, spotfin shiner, golden shiner, flier, green sunfish, snail bullhead, and whitemouth qhiner.

../,c

Table 16. Species impinged at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, in decreasing order of 'occurrence.

Bluegill Gizzard Shad Comely Shiner White Catfish Black Crappie Channel Catfish Largemouth Bass Redear Sunfish White Crappie Redbreast Pirate Perch Yellow Perch Whitefin Shiner umpkinseed Warmouth erican Eel Silver Redhorse Flat Bullhead Brown Bullhead Yellow Bullhead Chain Pickerel Spotfin Shiner Golden Shiner Flier Green Sunfish Snail Bullhead Whitemouth Shiner Gizzard shad are very susceptible to cold, and the winter of this study was much colder than normal, setting many records for low temperatures.

This is one of the very few times that the Cape Fear River froze com-pletely over from Buckhorn Dam up into the Deep and Haw Rivers. The susceptibility of gizzard shad to cold caused many to die off during this time (fish kills due to low temperatures were reported throughout the state); though, they were not impinged at the plant until the ice began to melt in late January and February. Many of the fish were observed to be dead or in poor condition, and many dead fish (mostly gizzard shad) were observed when the ice cleared off the river so samples could be taken again. These factors indicate that the shad impingement was increased greatly above normal due to the severe weather conditions.

The next most abundant fish impinged (though of the highest frequency of occurrence) was the bluegill. It averaged 6.29 fish impinged per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and was present in all but one sample. This fish is one of the most abundant fish in the study area (Section 3.2) and can easily withstand this impingement rate, as it has a large popula-tion and reproductive potential (Section 3.1).

The black crappie is the next most abundant fish impinged.

It was impinged at an average rate of 2.16 fish per 24 hours and was present in 42 percent of the samples. This fish was a common fish in this area of the river (Section 3.1), but it existed throughout the study area. The impingement rate is not sufficient to give rise to concern over the possible encroachment on this species in the study area due to its high mobility, wide distribution, and reproductive potential (Section 3.2).

The other fish impinged at the Cape Fear Plant were found on scattered occasions and in small numbers. They ranged from an average of 0.99 fish per 24 hours (comely shiner) to 0.05 fish per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and occurred in from 47 percent of the samples (comely shiner) to 0.05 percent of the samples. None of these fish were impinged in sufficient numbers to reduce their abundance in the study area (Table 15).

Generally, impingement is highest in species and numbers during the warmer months. Decreasing from December (except when the dead fish appeared after the ice left), remaining low during early spring, and increasing again in the late spring or early summer (Table

15) when the fish became more active for spawning and feeding.

Overall, impingement at the Cape Fear Plant is not sufficient to deplete the fish community of the study area. No dangerous encroach-ments were made on the species impinged even though the overall impinge-ment was probably greater than normal due to a harsh winter. In fact, the species impinged in the greatest quantities (gizzard shad) was the one with the largest number of larval stages in the river during the spring; thereby, ensuring the health of its population (Section 3.2).

Entrainment Larval fish were not obtained in the entrainment samples until the last week in April (April 26). This is reasonable since larval fish were not obtained in this area of the river until this time (Section 3.2 and Appendix A). At this time, no fish were obtained in the day, but 3

1/m was obtained at night (Table 17). This catch was of one species only (black crappie), but this species was not obtained in front of the plant (Transect C) during this sampling period (Appendix A). Catostomid larvae and golden shiner larvae were obtained, but the total was 0.08 3

total larvae per m in the most dense sample.

During the first week in May Quay 4), no larval fish were obtained in the entrainment samples, although larval fish were more abundant on the river than the previous week. The most dense samples in front of the plant (Transect C), during this period, were 1.8 fish/m 3 at Station 2 and 1.9 fish/m3 at Station 3 during the day. At night, no fish were caught at Station 2, while 1.05 fish/m 3 were caught at Station

3. The samples from the second week in May (May 10) gave higher numbers (3.5/m 3 3

of fish entrained per m for day and 7/m 3

for night) than the 3 3 3 highest per m obtained in the river (1.76/m for day and 0.92/m for night). Whereas, the samples of the last full week in May (May 27) gave 3

less fish entrained per m than in the river (the plant was on cooling towers for the third week in May, so no entrainment samples were ob-tained). At this time, the entrainment sample gave 1.5 fish/m 3 for the 3

day and 2.5/m for the night, while the densest river samples (Transect C) were 3.41/m 3 at Station 2 and 9.44 fish/m 3 at Station 3 during the 3 3 day, with 4.51/m at Station 2 and 4.15/m at Station 3 during the night.

Table 17. Fish entrainment at Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant (number per cubic meter and mean length).

~Ar11 26* 'Hav 4 Ma 10** Ha 27 Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night 0 lt. lt. a lt. lt. lt. 1t. lt. lt.

Black Crappie 1 4 Gizzard Shad 3.5 4.3 7 4.3 1.5 4.3 2.5 4.8

• No fish caught prior to April 26.

• • Plant on Cooling Towers for 3rd veek in May

Except for the April samples (black crappie), the only fish species in the entrainment samples were gizzard shad. This is under-standable since it is by far the most abundant larval fish in the study area.

Zt appears that little harm is being done to the study area through entrainment. Larval tows (Section 3.2) indicate the plant area was one of the least used sections of the study area for fish repro-duction. Entrainment of larval fishes did not occur until the last two months of the study and then samples indicated variable catch rates.

But even if the plant was said to entrain the same amount of fish per m 3

as found in the river, the adult population of the area can easily be restocked from the rest of the study area and the 'tributary streams.

The high mobility of the species entrained (crappie and shad) make their replacement from the other areas fairly certain, especially with the number of fish present in the downstream sections of the study area (Section 3.2).

4.0 Su lemental Pro rams Fish collected that were in good condition and large enough were tagged with numbered Floy Anchor Tags. These tags had "Reward" and an address printed on them so they would be returned by the fishermen.

Of the 1,307 fish tagged, 39 were returned by fishermen (Table 18) and 53 were recaptured during the study (Table 19) for a 7% return of tags.

The angler returns were from nine species. In decreasing order of magnitude, the species were: black crappie, bluegill, white catfish, largemouth black bass, brown bullhead, channel catfish, pump-kinseed, snail bullhead, and white crappie.

Thirteen black crappie tags were returned. Three were ori-ginally released at Transect E (Fig. 5) with two recaptured there and one at an unknown location. Two were released at Transect C and caught in the vicinity of McKay's Island. Three were released at Transect B.

One moved to McKay's Island, one to Transect E, and one to an unknown location. Five were released at Transect A. Three moved down to the Highway 42 bridge, one to Transect D, and one upriver to the B. Everett Jordan Dam. These returns indicate that this species moved freely through the area utilizing the study area to a large extent.

Nine bluegill tags were returned. Three were tagged at Transect E and remained in that area. One was tagged at Transect D and was impinged by the power plant after two months. Two were tagged on Transect C and remained in that area. Three were tagged on Transect A.

Table 18 Angler fish tag returns (39 tocal) .

Recaoturc Species Transecc Scacion Dace Transect Scacion Date Black Crappie E 2/14/77 E 4/29/77 E 2/14/77, 7 2/15/77 E 2/14/77 E 2/15/77 C 5/5/77 McKay Island 5/15/77 C 2/17/77 McKay Island 4/24/77 B 12/14I 76 5/1/77 B 3/3/77 E 3/27I77 A 2/17/77 Hvy. 42 Brd. 5/16/77 A 2/28/77 HMy. 42 Brd. 4/22/77 A 2/17/77 Hey. 42 Brd. 4I2I77 A 2/17/77 D 4/17/77 A 2/28/77 B. E. Jordan Dam 3/22/77 Bluegill 12/10/76 E 2/5/77 1/5/77 E 1I8/77 12/10/76 E 5/4/77 4/4/77 C 5/20/77 5/5/77 C 5/15/77 12/14/76 C 3/16/77 2/28I77 A 4/28/77 12/14/76 Impinged 2I26I77 12/16/76 Impinged 2/28/77 White Catfish 12/9/76 E 2/10/77 1/7/77 2/26/77 12/9/76 B. E. Jordan Dam 4/14/77 4/7/77 HMy. 42 Brd. 5/8/77 2/17/77 Deep R. (Noncure) 5/14/77 12/9/76 7 2/22/77 12/9/76 I 3/3/77 Hwy, 42 Brd. 4/14/77 3/3/77 Deep R. (Moncure) 5/28/77 Largemouth 1/5/76 Discharge Canal 3/25/77 Black Bess 2/28/77 A 4/22/77 2/28/77 Deep R. (Moncure) 6/18/77 Bro~ Bullhead A 2I17I77 Deep R. (Moncure) 3/31/77 Channel Cacfish B 3/3/77 Hey. 42 Brd. 4/23/77, Pumpkinseed E 4/5/77 Horth Of Lillington 4/24/77 Snail Bullhead B 12/9/76 3/1/77 White Crappie A 12/19/76 B. E. Jordan Dam 3/23/77

~53-.

Table 19. Fish tag recaptures during Cape Feac River study (52 total) .

Ta ed Reca ture Species Transecc Stacion Dace Transect S cation Dace White Catfish 2/17/77 lnpinged 5/11/77 1/7/77 3 3/3/77 2/17/77 3 3/3/77 2/17/77 1 3/3/77 12/9/76 1 3/3/77 2/17/77 1 3/3/77 2/17/77 3 3/3/77 3/3/77 1 4/7/77 2/28/77 1 4/7/77 2/17/77 1' 4/7/77 2/17/77 5/5/77 3/3/77 3 5/5/77 4/7/77 3 5/5/77 12/9/76 1 12/9/77 12/9/76 1 12/9/77 12/9/76 3 2/17/77 3/3/77 3 3/3/77 12/9/76 '/4/77 12/9/76 1 4/7/77 12/9/76 3 4/7/77 12/9/76 1 2/17/77 2/17/77 1 3/3/77 12/9/76 1 4/7/77 4/7/77 3 5/5/77 Brown Bullhead A 1 2/17/77 3/3/77 A 3 2/17/77 3/3/77 A 1 2/17/77 5/5/77 A 3 1/7/77 5/5/77 A 3 2/17/77 5/5/77 A 1 12/9/76 2/17/77 B 1 12/9/76 4/7/77 B 1 3/3/77 4/7/77 B 1 12/9/76 5/5/77 B 1 3/3/77 5/5/77

. 4'3 12/9/76 5/5/77 3 3/3/77 5/5/77 1 3/3/77 5/5/77 3 3/3/77 5/5/77 3 3/3/77 s/s/77 1 12/9/76 4/7/77 3/1/77 4/7/77 3 4/7/77 5/5/77 Black Crappie 2/15/77 2/28/77 2/28/77 5/5/77 2/14/77 2/15/77 Bluegill 12/14/76 12/16/76 12/10/76 2/5/77

Table 19.

continued Ta ed Reca ture Species Transect Station Date Transect Station Dace Snail Bullhead A 12/9/76 1/7/77 B 12/9/76 3/3/77 Silver Redhorse A 3 12/9/76 A 4/7/77 A 1 2/17/77 A 5/2/77 Channel Catfish B 3/3/77 5/5/77 Cizsard Shed 12/14/76 3/3/77

aa B3

~a

=13 1

CAPE FEAR 3 1 PLOP g Iv 3 I C O

0I

)

ha i

\

v v

Ivc4

/

/

~r rr 1 Vha

<4 I

,/'

/ I (

l

/ / l )

f E

$4VCXHllllllOJ4P

.'5 54 1534 (v~.~.

)

f Figure 5. CAPE FEAR RIVER STUDY AREA ON WHICH FISH WERE TAGGED, WITH TRANSECTS WHERE FISH WERE RELEASED.

~

One remained there, one was caught in front of the power plant, and one was impinged by the plant after two months. This indicates that this species. was limited in its movements and did not travel extensively, though they did move somewhat over extended periods (2-3 months, as in the cases of moving to the plant area).

Aine white catfish tags were also returned. Four were re-leased on Transect B. Two of these were returned from unknown areas, one went downstream to the Highway 42 bridge, and one upstream to Mon-cure. Five fish were released on Transect A. One was recaptured in an A

~ ~

unknown area. Two moved downstream, one to the Highway 42 bridge, and one to Transect E. One moved upstream to the B. Everett Jordan Dam.

The last one moved from the Haw River to the Deep River and upstream to Moncure. These returns indicate that this species moves extensively up and down the river in the study area.

Three largemouth black bass tags were returned. One fish moved from Transect E, approximately one half mile (0.8 km) up the discharge canal. One was released at Transect B and moved upstream to Moncuze. The last one was released at Transect A and remained in that area. These observations are too few to make firm conclusions, but they seem to indicate that these fish will move over a large area in this region.

The other species (brown bullhead, channel catfish, pumpkin-seed, snail bullhead, and white crappie) had only one return each, so that nothing definite can be observed although it might show some generalities. The snail bullhead was recaptured from an unkown area.

The brown bullhead moved from Transect A to the Deep river and upstream to the US 1 bridge on the Deep River. The channel catfish moved down-stream from Transect B to the Highway 42 bridge. This could indicate that these ictalurids, like the white catfish, will move extensively through the area. The white crappie moved upstream from Transect A to the B. Everett Jordan Dam, possibly indicating that this species moved over a large area like the black crappie. The last return was fzom a pumpkinseed that moved downstream fzom Transect E, over the dam (for

~" ~ unknown zeasons) to approximately 10 mi. (16.1 km) north of Lillington.

The tagged fish recaptured during the study consisted of eight species. ln order of decreasing magnitude, these species were: white catfish, brown bullhead, black crappie, bluegill, silver redhorse, snail bullhead, channel catfish, and gizzard shad. Only she white 'catfish and bzown bullhead had enough returns to give any definite indication of movements.

Twenty-four white catfish were recaptured during the study.

Sateen white catfish were tagged and released on Transect A (Haw River). One was impinged by the power plant after three months. Six were recaptured on the same transect. Six moved to Transect B (Deep River). Two moved to Transect C, and one was recaptured on Transect E.

Five White Catfish were released on Transect B. Three were recaptured in the same azea, and two moved to Transect A. Two fish were released on Transect C. One was recaptured on Transect A and one on Transect B.

One was released on Transect D and remained in that area. These re-captures support the evidence of the fishermen returns; that the white catfish utilizes an extensive part of the study area.

Eighteen brown bullheads were recaptured during the study.

Six were tagged on Transect A. Four remained in that area, while two moved to Transect B. Four fish were tagged on Transect B. One remained in that area, one moved to Transect A, one moved to Transect C, and one moved to Transect E. Five fish were tagged on Transect D. Four re-mained in the area, while one moved to Transect C. Three fish were tagged on Transect E, and all of them remained in that area. This seems to indicate that the fish just above Buckhorn Dam are more stationary than the upstream fish, which moved more freely through the study area.

Three black crappies were recaptured. One moved from Transect A to Transect D. One moved from Transect A to Transect B, The final fish remained 'in the area of Transect E (only released for one day).

Showing again that these fish will move through a major part of the study area.

Two bluegills were recaptured. One moved from Transect C to Transect D, while the other remained around Transect E.

Two snail bullheads were recaptured. One remained in the area of Transect B, while the other stayed in the vicinity of Transect A.

Two silver redhorses were recaptured. They both remained in the area of Transect A.

One channel catfish and one gizzard shad'ere recaptured. The gizzard shad moved from Transect B to Transect C. The channel catfish moved from Transect B to Transect D. These are insufficient returns to give rise to firm conclusions, although it shows that these species do move in the area.

There are general conclusions that can be drawn from the tag returns. The ma)or predators (catfish, bullheads, crappies, and large-mouth bass) moved freely and extensively throughout the study area. The bluegills, on the other hand, seem to be more restricted in their move-ments, consistently remaining in one area. Also, it seems that the fish in the area just above Buckhorn Dam (Transect E), which is more lacustrine than the upper transects, exhibit more stationary habits restricting their movements to that area (Tables 18 and 19).

Of all the fish tagged, only three were found impinged at the plant. One during regular impingement sampling and two by plant personnel (reported as angler returns). This is less than 4% of the fish returned and less than 0.3% of the total number of fish tagged.

Although this is in no way conclusive, it might give an indication of the minimal effect of impingement on the fish population.

The large number of fisherman tag returns for a six-month study indicates the viable sport fisheries use of the area. This use was observed throughout the study area. The discharge canal was fished intensively during the colder months (as reported in N.C.S. Bd. of Health, 1957) while the entire area was fished and used for water skiing, boating, and swimming during the warmer months.

4.2 Rare or Endan ered S ecies Only one fish species has been reported as rare or endangered from the study area. The Cape Fear Shiner (~Notre is mekistooholas) was placed on, the "Preliminary List of Endangered Plant and Animal Species in North Carolina" (1973). This species was listed as endangered and endemic to a few streams "near the confluence of Haw and Deep Rivers".

The species description was done by Franklin F. Snelson, Jr., (1971).

In this description, he states that the fish was found in Neals and Parker's Creeks on the Cape Fear River, both are belo~ Buckhorn Dam; in the Rocky River, a tributary of the Deep River; and Robeson Creek, a tributary of the Haw River. Although these collection sites have the study area bracketed, not one fish of this species was collected during the study; although, it has been collected below Buckhorn Dam (Aquatic Control, 1975).

This area in which the fish is not found might be explained by habitat preference., This fish wa's most commonly collected "in eddies, slow runs, and pools just below areas of fast, shallow water" (Snelson, 1971). Pith the construction of Buckhorn Dam, this habitat was removed from the study area. Above the dam, the habitat exists only in the tributaries and the Deep and Haw Rivers upstream of the study area.

Also, the habitat still exists below the dam. In this case, the fish would not exist in the area of the plant since its habitat of preference no longer exists in this area. Therefore, the plant offers no danger to the existing population of the Cape Fear Shiner.

5.0 Conclusions The Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant has been in operation for a sufficient length of time to allow a balanced fish community to develop. Such a balanced community is indicated by the adult fish monitoring program (sufficient forage fish and a healthy sport fish community). The fish community has not undergone any ma)or change in recent years, appears stable and exists in good quantities throughout the study area.

The larval fish of the area are numerous and present through-out the study area, though more concentrated in areas below the plant site. Entrainable numbers of larval fishes were not present in the plant area before the May 4 samples. Numbers entrained after Mi y 4 are ade-quately compensated for by recruitment from adjacent parts of the study area.

Impingement was not of extensive quantities, though the record cold spell caused the die-off and impingement of many fishes in January, particularly gizzard shad. The loss via impingement can easily be restocked by the other areas of the study and through reproduction. The impingement rate are not extensive enough to be harmful to the fish community and has not decimated it in the years the plant has been in operation.

Overall, the Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant does not harm the fish community in the river with its present method of operating. This operating method should be adequate to ensure a balanced and viable fisheries community in this area.

LITERATURE CITED Aquatic Control, Inc., 1973a. Baseline biota survey of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina. (Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana). mimeographed)

Aquatic Control, Inc., 1975. Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina, 19?3 1974. (Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour Indiana). (mimeographed)

Aquatic Control, Inc., 1976. Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area North Carolina, 1974 - 1975. (Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana). (mimeographed)

Carnes, W. C. et aleF 1964. Survey and classification of the Deep-Haw Rivers and tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina Wild-life Resources Commission.

Carolina Power & Light Co., 1977. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants interim fisheries program report. (Carolina Power & Light Co.,

Raleigh, North Carolina). (mimeographed)

Endangered Species Committee, 1973. Preliminary list of endangered plant and animal species in North Carolina. (Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina).

Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Guidance for evaluating the adverse impact of cooling water intake structures on the aquatic environment:

Section 31b (b) P.L.92-500 (U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D.C.).

Lippson, A.J. and R. L.Moran, 1974. Manual for identification of early development stages of fishes of the Potomoc River estuary. Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Louder, D. E., 1963. Survey and classification of the Cape Fear River and tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

North Carolina State Board of Health, 1957. The Cape Fear River Basin.

Pollution Survey Report 86. (North Carolina State Board of Health Division of Water Pollution Control, Raleigh, North Carolina).

Pfleiger, W. L., 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Sanders, T., 1977. River Trip. Wildlife in North Carolina, 41 (7):5p.

Snedecor, G.W. and W. G. Cochran, 1967. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

Nnelson, F. F. Jr.t 4 1971. ~Notre is mekistocholss, s new herbivorous cyprinid fish endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina.

~Co eie . 3:449-462.

APPENDIX A Larval fish collection data for each sampling period is listed be-ginning with the period in which larval forms were first obtained (night of March 21, 1977). In each table, the top line in each row gives the number of individuals per m and the second line gives the mean length (mm).

HICltf HAkCll 21 ~ 1911 INAHSICY A b C U I 9 SIA I Ills 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 ktVIII*It I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 3 SVICI I I 4LALK 0 03 CHAVPII 0

OAY APRII. d I'977 IRAnSECI A ls I.

51A I ll.rc 2 3 2 3 2 RAPI I CAIR I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 5HLII5 PCRII<cS 0 43 PcRC I CAl 0 ~ EI e He lervel II~ la vere ceptvre4 'hcrvcen 3/ll/I) ea4 thle eeeplc pcrlo4.

IaAY AVAIL 19a I921 U L lacANSI CI A aa L 3 2 3 5 IAIIOaa 2 3 2 3 I I I 2 I 2 NAVLICAIL I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 I 2 2 2 SVLLILS u S'0 aa CA u l3 u I G I I lnaau SaaAII

b. 1 S. s O.al S. I SUCALNS Ia u3 CAIUSIUNIUAL l3 u J

N>> Inraanl Cl ~ Ia cnVaaaa ~ al I ~ aaac<<n Ill/I) nnaI I/II/II

NIGllf APkll l9 ~ l911 u E C

IAiuSECf A S 2

5 AI I Iuu 2 3 2 3 I I I 2 2 L 2 RLPLICA IE I 2 L 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 L SPECIE 5 u ub ILI ~ VA Cf llAHO SuAu S.u 0 U

OA1 APRIL tds 1911 1 INAhSLC I A 0 C 3

2 3 2 5 I A I IUte 3 I I 2 1 2 RLI'LILAIE 1 2 I I 2 I I 2 2 L SPLL ILL 0111*uu SOLO 0 03 u ls uu3uvd0%4uli s.u s.l s-2 0 VI

~

S u A.u S 1 S u I u vJ bLJLL s ~u CAAPP It I

0 0C YLLLU4 PKNCII 0

)

0 u%

) Su(ALRS 13 0 C*1451OHIOAE

N IGIII APRIL 2C ~ 197 I IKAILStC I A 0 I 0 2 3 S IA I luu 2 3 3 2 RIPLICAIt I 2 I 2 1 2 I 2 I 2 I I 2 I SPLCltS GI EIANJ SIIAO LI ~ 03 LI ~ 09 u yi LI 9v Ll At 5.0 5.0 4 0 2 5 v CANP 0 LIC I.6 GIILULN J 03 V ILIC u uC 0 IIC LI A t

S I I I II R SiO 5 6 u 4 I LI 7 LI IILACR 0 OC u 03 CHAPPIt 0 0 0 VLLLOu PtRt.ll II OC D LI NIILVUVS 40 Vl CVPRIIIIUAt CI 4 PI ALII~ t 0 03 PtNCIUAt 5 J SULNLNS 0 03 0 03 0 ~ OC v JC 4 uC 0 II uC CAIUS IUNIOAt 13.0 IC 0 V IC u Ia.u IC 3 IC 0

OAT HAT Cg I 911 I AAIISLLI

• C 3

$ 1 A I I 0"s 2 2 3 2 ALPLICA IL I I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 L 2 I 2 2 I 2 SPICILY I

G 111*AU 5UAO 2.2s L.C9 Oht u dl u v9 u 31 u II u vd I dv I ~ 35 I 9v I ~ Oc I I zv I ud S,v2 1.4 5 vS I.h d 39 led d 91 I

CD 9 CD 4 S.a S.O C.S C. I S.u 4 5 u h 4 h 7 5 I 5 2 5 9 GOLvEH O Us SO Islay I.u YELLOU PLHCO v Oh j2 ~ v

N I Gall lhAt>SLCI la AY h~ I'lI A Ia I I>

S I A I IUta 4 taa VA ICA IC 2 I i I I Z ~ I 5 I'c C I I5 I'IllA>>U $ >lAO I ~ 25

)

10 al 53 u CC 3 31 SUI> 3ud I-19 0 Y4 u t9 ll lh lu 9>>

US lu J$ 9 a>S I I

I I

a>

I tas 1 Y4 C 4 C 1 5 0 3 1 C 5 h~h ~ I C 1 S~ 0 h 9 h 9 t> 1 GOLWta 0 LI U a>3 Sall>>tta 9~U 5 0 Sll I tta H I> at3 taO I alba'I 5 u t>LACK 0<<03 CRAPPIE >> 4 YLLLUaa PLRCII u 03 IO.O tait>ttU4$ 0 03 at alh at ~ 03 C Y t>ta I h I 0 A I U 5 U SU(ALAS OOC 0 03 0 Oh 0 U3 0 al3 0 US CA I(IS IU>a IIIAL l5 0 l3v l3 u IC G 15 0 I 0 Suhf I SaaL ALP~

5 U.

I Iitt u.uc 1 5

u. IS 1 C uv 4.3 l

OAT tthy 10 ~ lull It INAttSi 4 I A L SIAIIOtt 2 3 2 3 RLVL I CA I L I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 2 I 2 I 5PLCILS ILIA@0 5ltA4 0 0$ Id I 2h 4 hO I bt 4 ~ Ah I.lz I l3 I I UJ hl I 29 I vt I hu I )I h2 Ll I'll C 0 ufo 0 w 0 0 U3 I>

4 5 0 5 U h 9 5 >0 5 I 5 UV I 5 4 .I o.h US I Vu 2 9 IUS9 8LACK 0 IJA CAAPPIL 5 u tt Itvtuul U ul C'IPAIttIOAL Il U PCALttt 5 0 uS PIRC14AL SUCAL~S 4+03 4 43 tt ~ US CAI4$ 1utt14AE 0 0 L3.0 A~0 Sutta ISetc$ 4 U3 LLPL:HIS cs It

IIICIII taAY lu, lvII L IIJ L IhstaSLI. I A 51A I IU'I 2 s 2 s 2 s 2 '

2 I 2 I 2 I 2 L 2 L 2 2 L 2 RLPLICALL I 2 L SPIC I C 5 I hl Uoa utl u J Jihad th L~ltj IV I 12 I GIIIAAO SUAU 3c05ucal 0.th u.sl O.oh d. Lu 0 32 C

U 5aj C L h I I u

C 51 0 i al 0 OS u

V Otj 5 u 3C 5 3 22 t.l 5 v 2

~ h v I a

v 2 I v GOLCLtl u.ns SIII JLR Ll u Sill tat R 0 V3 U V3 taUIHOI 15 LC C JJLAa.h v its u u3 J us 0 ujj V.OV b.S 'I 1 CAAPP If C.C J V I

Ci.os 0 Ou 0 LIII U9 V all IJ III3 tlluull 5 0 03 0 naj 0 VS lh 0 Lv' O u 1 h.u tj ~ al I.LPll ltjlUAE 9~0 9 3 I u PahLIII5 0 Os h ~ aj PLALII AL OUI. u.us u.vb JLI3 O.i'.JvI v.us v.l3 V Vb

~ SUC<ckS CA IUS IVJIIOAL btjbu noh 0+03 C Ola UVC 101,013u 0 ttt al0'9 13.0 V IC 13.0 13. 3 IO s I t.n ls 0 OS 0 5 b 5 U b 0 1 I

Sutaf ISILLS J uaj 0 8 ~ l. Lj L Cf Jt INARCIJ I luhL 5utaf I SILL 5 aj vs I LL I Vill5 V

OAT 11AY 14 I 1972 IKAOSCCI A C 0 S I Al I Ott 2 2 3 2 3 2 I 2 3 IEIPL ICA IL I 2 I 2 I 2 I I 2 2 1 I 2 I SVACICS 4111AtIO 51IAO I 2C 2 II 4.27 0.50 2 Sa 3 3E 2.73 3 39 h<<>v ~ aj 11 44 4 01 '9 12 I lu I 25 lh 43 lh 53 lu ha 17 ha S 4 5 3 0 5 1I 50 SO 0 SIC 50 5 I 4 5 u 5 3 S 51 ah I2 92 o5 41 4AACA 4 4A 0 03 4 EI 43 CttAVP Ie S.O 5 u h~u C u tl 1tttlttaS 0 1I3 Cork I lEI OA E 9 0 auCAI I1$ 0 03 0 02 CAltISluttlOAl 13.u u Suttl I Stll 1 El L I rbtl I S c.u

>>IG>CI >CAY )6 ~ L>t))

7k*I>ifCl A C 6 STA) IOU 2 2 3 4 3 S Ktrl llull, I 2 I 2 I 2 I I 2 I I 2 I 2 I 5V>CItS GIIIAuu $ >>AC> $ .33 5.4+ 3.I>> ut S C3 5 Sw 5 ~ ) 0 ~ CV 3 73 I l3 I )S I l2 II Ce) 0 )CI 3 C a l3.4u ) Iu Is 7>t )2 )2 t 5 I 5 0 5 5 5.0 5 0 4~8 C 53 52 5 ~ >I IS 3 I>) 3 IS. I Lu.tt u 2 I >I It 4 I >>

G bit>I t> 0 ICe 4 UJ EI US U vS 5II Ittf >C l3 5 't U 0 0 CI Sulttlk 0 0 I>S t>>tlku>'ll l5.u C>4 l).0 t>LACY 0 Uu 0 >IS Ct ~ ~ >u U GS CkAP>'t A.CI 5 0 5 U 5.0 Ytttu>C VtklH 0 03 0 03 0 UJ LA u LS ~ 0 CI

~> I>I>At>>5 0 03 It ~ II 3 CVVICICCICIAf ).0 tt G t

5>>t A K 5 u.u 3 Ct Ul C A IU5 I I IIIII CIA I. I 3.U l) u 5ut>f I 5>ti5 c> US u ~ 2at >I 54 >I l t. Put> I 5 > .U ).a 7 2 4 2

OAV HAY 23 ~ l91I 1NAHSICI A lj C U E SIA I IOH 2 3 2 ' 3 2 2 2 3 RAVE ILA If. I 2 I 2 C I I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 l SVACILS CII lAILU SIIAO 5 d jj 0 Ljl l3 5I 12 aA II. 23 IO cLa LL ILLL 3 IU 3 31 2 ~ CLCL 9 Al 0 CL3 cL O3 3. 51 79 3 99 2 lu I 02 2.al 57 5 ' >.2 5.5 5.3 S.s 5.3 $ .9 5.2 S.c, S.u 5. 7 S.l S. I 5:c S.c 1 a 4~2 ~ I I COL OIH U LI3 SIIIHCH lij 0 aLACK 0 ~ UL CRAPPIE lj jl IHHIL~ 'I U Ljl 0 OS L9PILIIIIDAE ~L LL 9 ~ LI SUHI I SIIES 0 09 uj L c POjl I S 0 c 5

M ICrr1 NAY 23 ~ I 911 INANSLI. 'I C U SIAIIIrN 2 3 2 2 2 3 FrcPL ILAIL I I I 2 I I 2 L SVLCIL.S GIIIANU SlrAU 3 I I 1 4

~ ~ 32 4 4 S.S Y

1. 5 5 ~ SS II 2 4 '9I 5

9 5>

5 Sl I

1 I4 S.u5 5 3 4 31 5 1 3 SL 5 5 99 2

u92 I 1

rrC 5 441%4)rr1 2.0< 3.25 La.ul u 4I 3 I

04 CAAP O. I 4 U 04 0 2I u 2rr 0 JS v vl v lu u 2s u uv u ~ u4 1.9 1~5 4.1 1 0 I u I v 3 Iol 1 ~ rr o J SrrlNLrI 0 Ir3 NOILIrPI5 Lh u SLACK U.vl v 03 0 u4 CNArrlc 'r ~ u S.u 5 ~0 YLLLON PlkCII U US IS u N INNOMS vO'3 uul OOC 0 0$ U,s)9 0~03 CYPAI FrIUAL 1 J l4 ~ 0 IS 4 9 u 4 u I SUC<artS 0 CAIUS IONII)AE 13 0 SUNF ISrrLS LIPONI5 u ll 5 0 0 U3 4 0 U 2U 0 24 0 4 4 l

OAT Juaai 2 ~ IP II IIIANSICI I A I I II II

'I A

2 I

2 C II I 2 3 2 IIEVLILAIL I 2 I I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 SVLCIL 5 GIIIAIau SIIAu I 55 U &3 I Il I SU 0 79 al Ii I 25 U W I- I

~ 2.Ui I 99 I %aa 2-I~ I.AL 2 lu 2 Sal 0 Uas U II u. I I 5.U 5.u S.aa 5.0 5.0 5 0 S.al $ .4 $ .0 5 0 S.u $ .2 $ .U 5 aa 5 U ~a li 2

&LACIL CkAVVIL 0 ul aI UA 5.6 5UIIF I IIII5 Llrualls 0.8 3 0

U.03 0 II c & 0 & I L IIAVV ruaau li X IS 0 aaA 5 u

HLCta'I DU<<2 2 ~ I'ill

'IAA<0$ ECI E. 0 E 5 IAl la)00 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 ttLVLICAIt I I I 2 I 2 L 2 1 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 SPEC la.S Gl I IA<<O St<At< I t<L I IC 5 ~ at 0 Ctt C.9 at ~ 40 a.)

0 13 5 0 0 Sd 4 9 ui)util 5.0 al22 5~C u21 0

0<15 0 il E<C 0

0 9

J 39

~ te LI C<<'

5 al 5 24 al O.ul 1.3 u 05 11 u)u 13 <I 0 15 I) tt CAkf u u9 u u3 0 Os 0 J'I t<C te ~ I0 u ~ Jl 1 u ) J ) al 1 I u ) u <I at St<It<Eat 0 03 0 ~ 03 t<OIkttt'IS )i 19eu El<at<<01 C I< uu v<03 uuA CAlf litt Ld 3 IS 0 lt u ta I tat<Ok 5 v. 11 0 OC u at3 u 03 O.JA O.os u. I I al Oae 0 11 C 9 f'te I te I0 A1 I 0 1.0 110 c v u 15 6 I!.0 1 al 9 ae CA If 1 St<0 S u.u3 I a. I Aua,k I GAE 12 u 5UCAL <<5 u3 OC CALUStutaIOAE ) u 13 u 5utt 0 I hell 5 a 03 0 ui 0 up 1 Aruta I 5 13 ~ al 12-0 0< u CCAVV I~ u uae VutauAIS u

OAY LIAT IO ~ $ 977 IR*OSLCI A

) 5 IA I IOR 2 3

), 5PLCILS E) GIIIARO SIIAO 0.5l 0 52 I 9$ 2E ~ 2 3 IS IS 1$ 5 IS LIE oS Is h IE 5 0 5 0 0 9 EI CARP 0 OZ 0 Ol I 0 I~ 0 GLACEE 0 Ol 0 CI

~ ) CRAPI'l I> u l) YLLLOEI PGRCII 0 ~ OI LG 0 LP II I IehtsMS 0 UI CYPRIIIIOAG 8 G EJ PLRLIIL5 I3 PLRCIOAt EJ 5' I $ I IL 5 LIPIuE IS IIeeer aet (SOSIE seeIE) ~ eePIee EJ

~l