ML19056A412

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station NPDES Permit No. SC0030856 Renewal Application, Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data

ML19056A412
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	01/31/2019
From:	GeoSyntec Consultants, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19056A440	List: ML19056A404 ML19056A406 ML19056A407 ML19056A408 ML19056A409 ML19056A410 ML19056A411 ML19056A412 ML19056A413 ML19056A414 ML19056A415 ML19056A416 ML19056A417 RC-19-0012, NPDES Permit No. SC0030856 Renewal Application, Operational Status
References
RC-19-0012
Download: ML19056A412 (59)

Text

Prepared for SCE&G, VC Summer Station Highway 215 and Bradham Blvd Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065 SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA V.C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 40 CFR §122.21(r)(~)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS-COMPANY JENKINSVILLE, SOUTH ~AROLINA Prepared by Geosyntec t> consultants engineers I scientists I innovators 1255 Roberts Boulevard, Suite 200 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 Project Number GK5356 January 2019 Geosyntec t> consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IN"TRODUCTION

........................

• ........................................................................

1 2. BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIN"G ...................................

4 2.1 Monticello Reservoir

...................................................................................

4 2.2 VCSNS Unit I .............................................................................................

5 3. STUDY METHODS .............................................................................................

7 4. SPECIES FOR ALL LIFE STAGES AND THEIR RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN" THE VICIN"ITY OF THE CWIS .....................................................................

9 4.1 Fish ..............................................................................................................

9 4.2 Shellfish

..................................................................

...................................

11 5. SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES THAT WOULD BE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO IMPIN"GEM,ENT AND ENTRAIN"MEN1'

.. : .............

... :,_. ....................

,., ..... i2 5.1 Impingement

.....................

_. .....................*.....

_ .... , ..................................

...... 12 5.1.1.: 2005-2006 Impingement Study .......................................

...........

13 5.1.2 1983-1984 Impingement Study ..............

.: .......................

.... :* ...... 17 5 .2 Entrainment

...........................................................

...................................

18 5.2.1 2016 Entrainment Study ........... , ...................................................

19 5.2.2 2008-2009 Entrainment Study ......................................................

20 5.2.3 .1983-1984 Entrainment Study ......................................................

21 6. PRIMARY PERIOD OF REPRODUCTION, LARVAL RECRUITMENT, AND PERIOD OF PEAK ABUNDANCE

.........................................................

22 7. SEASONAL AND DAILY ACTIVITIES OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS IN THE VICIN"ITY OF THE .CWIS ........................................................................

23 8. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES ... 25 9.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

.................................................................

26 10. REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................

28 GK5356/R4_SWBBio_ VCSNS_Rev2019_GA!90030.docx 01.22.2019 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

• Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Geosyntec 1> TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OFT ABLES consultants List of Fish and Shellfish Species Known to Occur in Monticello Reservoir Relative Abundance of Fish Collected Seasonally in Monticello Reservoir, 2006-2009 Electrofishing Catch Per Unit Effort of Fish Collected Seasonally in Monticello Reservoir, 2006-2009 Relative Abundance and Biomass of Impinged Fish and Shellfish at VCSNS Unit 1 Size Range of Impinged Fish at VCSNS Unit 1, July 2005-June 2006 Extrapolated Annual Estimate oflmpingement at VCSNS Unit 1 Based on Monte Carlo Simulation, July 2005-June 2006 . Known Life-Stage Habitats of Representative Fish Species Occurring in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity ofth~ VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS_ Monthly Density of Ichthyoplankton, Young~of-Year, arid Yearling Fish Collected in Monticello Reservoir, -September 2008-August 2009 Average Density and Percent Composition of Ichthyoplankton Collected irt Monticello Reservoir, September 2008:August 2009 LIST -OF FIGURES Site Vicinity ofVCSNS Unit 1 Site Layout of the VCSNS Unit 1 Cooling Water Intake Structure and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Bathymetric Depiction of Monticello Reservoir and the CWIS Area of Influence near VCSNS Unit 1 Spawning Seasons of Representative Fish Species Occurring in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS APPENDIX Appendix A Supporting Data Tables from the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station _Entrainment Study-2016 and revised 2017 GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx ii 01.22.2019 CFR CWA CWIS EPA FERC FPSF Geosyntec gpm MGD mm MSL MW 'NGVD29 NOAA-Normandeau NPDES NRC SCDHEC SCDNR SCE&G UCL USFWS VCSNS LIST OF ACRONYMS Code of Federal Regulations Clean Water Act cooling water intake structure U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. gallons per minute million gallons per day millimeters Mean sea level megawatt , National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Normandeau Associates, Inc.

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nuclear Regulatory Commission Geosyntec t> consultants South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Natural Resources South Carolina Electric and Gas upper confidence limit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station GK5356/R4

_SWBBio_ VCSNS _Rev2019 _ GA190030.docx iii 01.22.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

1. INTRODUCTION This report provides source water baseline biological characterization data for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's (SCE&G's)

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Unit 1. VCSNS Unit 1 is an existing nuclear-powered generating facility located on Monticello Reservoir 1n the Broad River system near Jenkinsville, Fairfield County, South Carolina.

SCE&G operates VCSNS Unit 1 under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number SC0030856.

The information provided in this report supports the facility's compliance with section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 316(b) regulations for cooling water intake structures ( CWISs) at existing power generating and manufacturing facilities became effective October 14, 2014 (40 CFR Parts 122 and 125). The final 316(b) rule requires the submittal of applicable CWIS information under 40 CFR § 122.21(r) to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the NPDES permitting agency in South Carolina.

As proviqed in the regulations at 40 CFR § 122.2l(r)(4), the source water baseline biological characterization data submitted must include: (i) A list of the data in paragraphs (r)(4)(ii) through (vi) of this section that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data; (ii) A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; (iii) Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment.

Species evaluated must include the forage base as well as those most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries; (iv) Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa; (v) Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA! 90030.docx 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants (vi) Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structures; (vii) Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan; and (viii) If you supplement the information requested in paragraph (r) ( 4) (i) of this section with data collected using field studies, supporting documentation for the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization must include a description of all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling, and data analysis including a description of the study area; taxonomic identification of sampled and evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish);

and sampling and data analysis methods. The sampling and/or data analysis methods you use must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and "based on consideration of methods used in other biological studies performed within the same source . water body. The study area should include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure. (ix) In the case of the owner or operator of an existing facility or new unit at an existing facility, the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data is the information in paragraphs (r)(4)(i) through (xii) of this section. (x) For the owner or operator of an existing facility, identification of protective measures and stabilization activities that have been implemented, and a description of how these measures and activities affected the baseline water condition in the vicinity of the intake. (xi) For the owner or operator of an existing facility, a list of .fragile species, as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(m), at the facility.

The applicant need only identify those species not already identified as fragile

• at 40 CFR 125.92(m).

New units at an existing facility are not required to resubmit this iriformation if the cooling water withdrawals for the operation of the new unit are from an existing intake. GK5356/R.4

_ SWBBio _ VCSNS _ Rev2019 _ GA 190030.docx 2 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants (xii) For the owner or operator of an existing facility that has obtained incidental take exemption or authorization for its cooling water intake structure(s) from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, any iriformation submitted in order to obtain that exemption or authorization may be *used to satisfy the permit application information requirement of paragraph 40 CFR 125.95(!)

if included in the application.

The following sections present source water baseline biological characterization data for Monticello Reservoir in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS. GK.5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 3 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

2. BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING VCSNS Unit 1 is located at the southern end of Monticello Reservoir (Figure l); The facility is situated in a rural area of the Piedmont physiographic province within the Broad River system of the larger Santee-Cooper River basin. VCSNS Unit 1 operates using a single CWIS located along the shoreline of Monticello Reservoir (Figure 2). Although the cooling system operates in a "once-through" mode, Monticello Reservoir was constructed for the purpose of serving as part of the cooling water system (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[NRC], 2004). Thus, the use of Monticello Reservoir as a cooling impoundment for VCSNS Unit 1 has been determined by SCDHEC and EPA to be a "closed-cycle recirculating system" under 40 CFR, Part 125, Subpart J, § 125.92(c)(2).

2.1 Monticello

Reservoir Monticello Reservoir is .a 6,500-acre freshwater impoundment with 51 miles of shoreline.

It was built (Gompleted in 1978) to serve as the cooli~g water source for VCSNS Unit 1 and the upper pool for the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (FPSF) (NRC, 2004). Monticello Reservoir has an average depth of 59 feet (ft), a maxim~m depth of 125 ft, and a watershed area of 17.4 square miles in the Frees Creek valley, a tributary.

to the Broad River. Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir serve as the upper and lower reservoirs, respectively, for the FPSF.

FPSF is part of the Parr Hydroelectric Project operated by SCE&G and licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as Project Number 1894. FPSF generates hydroelectricity by releasing water from Monticello Reservoir into Parr Reservoir, a 4,398-acre freshwater impoundment on the main-stem Broad River (Figure 1 ). During off-peak power demand periods, FPSF turbines reverse flow and pump water from Parr Reservoir into Monticello Reservoir.

The full-pool elevation of Monticello Reservoir is 425 ft mean sea level (MSL, NGVD29). Monticello Reservoir experiences daily fluctuations in surface elevation of up to 4.5 ft due to pumped storage operations (Kleinschmidt, 2015). Under the FERC license for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, SCE&G operates Monticello Reservoir within an elevation range of 420.5 to 425.0 ft MSL. At the northern end of Monticello Reservoir is a 300-acre impoundment known as the Monticello Sub-impoundment (Figure 1). Although hydraulically connected to the main GK5356/R4_SWBBio~VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 4 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants reservoir by a conduit that passes under South Carolina Highway 99, the water level in this sub-impoundment is minimally influenced by pumped storage operations

• on Monticello*

Reservoir proper. The sub-impoundment is managed for fishing and recreation by SCE&G and SCDNR. A survey to delineate the area of hydraulic influence attributable to the VCSNS Unit I CWIS was performed in April 2005 using acoustic Doppler current profiling technology (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. [Geosyntec], 2005). The area of influence survey remains relevant and representative of conditions at the facility because the cooling water system operations have not changed appreciably.

The survey was conducted over a 24-hour

• period to represent daily changes in reservoir elevations that occur as a result of FPSF

• operations.

Boundaries of the area of influence were conservatively estimated based on t.he detection of any flow vector oriented towards the CWIS regardless of the velocity (ichthyoplarikton may be susceptible to entrainment even at low velocities directed toward the CWIS). The maximum area of influence, delineated to encompass the areas . measured for three different reservoir elevatiqns, covered 2.92 surface acres and exten:ded froni the intake approxim~tely 550 ft out into the reservoir witn* a width of about 25.0 ft (Figure 3). 2.2 VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit I is a 972.7-megawatt, nuclear-fueled, base-load generating facility.

Unit I uses a cooling water system with a design intake capacity of approximately 533,122 gallons per minute or 768 million gallons per day (MGD). The actual intake flow of the CWIS is greater than 125 MGD. The VCSNS Unit I CWIS consists of an inlet bay about 550 ft wide (east to west) and about 200 ft in length (north to south) (Figure 2). Water depth in the inlet bay ranges from 30 to 40 ft. The circulating pump house structure located within the inlet bay is 93 ft wide with six intake bays each approximately 13-ft wide. Parallel concrete retainer walls extend out into the inlet bay approximately 30 ft. Trash racks comprised of steel bars with I 0-inch spacing are located along the upstream face of the pump house structure to prevent large debris from entering the intake bays. The trash racks are mounted to the bottom of a skimmer wall that extends from the water surface to a depth of 9.5 ft (415.5 ft MSL) at normal high water ( 425 ft MSL ). The skimmer wall is designed to exclude floating debris GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA!90030.docx 5 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants from entering the cooling water system and, combined with the intake retainer walls, to optimize withdrawal of the coolest water from mid depth of the water column at the pump house. Vertical traveling water screens are located 25 ft behind the trash racks to strain out smaller debris. A ha~ grid structure is located between the traveling screens and the circulating pumps. Three circulating water pumps convey screened flow to the condensers.

At normal high water, the CWIS is designed to withdraw water from the water column between the 415.5 ft and 390 ft MSL; or from a depth of 9.5 ft to 35 ft. Fish and shellfish are potentially subject to impingement and entrainment at the CWIS's six vertical

• traveling screens. Under normal operations, the traveling screens are activated by timer approximately every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, or more frequently if differential pressure across the screens becomes excessive.

High-pressure screen-wash water is used to clean the screens of debris and impinged organisms and conveys removed,items to a trash sump where they are accumulated in a collection basket. The screen wash water is then returned to the intake pumps downstream of the traveling screens. As the collection basket reaches capacity, its contents ;ire discarded (about every two weeks depending oil *****debris load), thus resulting in 100-percent mortality of impinged fish and shellfish.

Eptrained organisms

• pass through the cooling water system.* After leaving the conclensers, the heated cooling water discharges to Monticello**Reservoir via a discharge basin and 1,000-foot-long discharge canal located east of the CWIS beyond the service water pond and jetty (Figure 2). GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GAi 90030.docx 6 01.25.2019 Geo syn.tee t> consultants

3. STUDY METHODS The existing aquatic biological community in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS was characterized based on review of existing information sources. Efforts made to identify sources of existing data included review of fisherie.s studies previously conducted in Monticello Reservoir for species, life-stage, and relative abundance information; online searches of protected species databases and relevant technical reports; and review of the scientific literature for life history information on species occurring in the vicinity of the CWIS, including data representative of seasonal and daily activities.

Key sources of information identified included:

• The CW A section 316(b) demonstration study conducted for VCSNS Unit 1 in 1983-1984 by Dames & Moore (1985), which included fish community and ichthyoplankton surveys in Monticello Reservoir, and impingement sampling at

• the CWIS; .

• Fisheries surveys and creel surveys conducted on Monticello Reservoir by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) betw.een 1987 and 1996 (Nash etal., 1990; Christie and Stroud, )996, 1997, 1998, 1999); .

• The generic environmental impact statement for VCSNS license renewal (NRC, 2004 ), which characterized changes in the fish community composition of the reservoir based on the previous fisheries studies conducted since 1983;

• The I-year impingement mortality characterization study conducted at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS in 2005-2006 by Geosyntec (2007);

• Seasonal fisheries surveys of the reservoir conducted between fall 2006 and winter 2009 by Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau, 2007, 2008, 2009a); *

• Ichthyoplankton surveys of Monticello Reservoir conducted over 1 year in 2008-2009 by Normandeau (2009b) to support SCE&G's combined license application for new VCSNS Units 2 and 3;

• Ichthyoplankton surveys of Monticello Reservoir conducted over 6 months in 2016 by Normandeau (2017) to support SCE&G's Entrainment Ch;:trtization Study for VCSNS Unit 1 GK5356/R4_

SWBBio_ VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 7 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

• The final environmental impact statement for combined licenses for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (NRC, 2011 ), which characterizes the aquatic biological community of Monticello Reservoir based on existing data;

• The baseline fisheries resources report for SCE&G' s Parr Hydroelectric Project by Kleinschmidt (2013), which describes the fish community in Monticello Reservoir and summarizes the Normandeau fisheries surveys from 2006-2009;

• Life history information for fishes occurring in Monticello Reservoir from Rohde et al. (2009), Jenkins and Burkhead (1993), Boschung and Mayden (2004), and in other scientific sources; Scientific literature on the temporal distribution, species, composition, and chronology of appearance of larval fishes iri. streams and rivers; and * .. Information on rare, threatened, and endangered aquatic species in the Broad * *River from online databases and information maintained by the SCDNR Heritage Trust Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and. from scientific literature.

In response to 40 CFR § 122.2l(r)(4)(i), based on the efforts made above to identify sources of relevant data, the following types of data were not readily available for characterizing certain aspects of the aquatic biological community in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS:

• Data on habitat use by larval and juvenile life stages were available for some fish species but were generally lacking in the scientific literature; and

• Data describing the daily activity patterns of fishes were available for several fish species but were lacking for other species in the scientific literature.

GK5356/R.4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 8 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants

4. SPECIES FOR ALL LIFE STAGES AND THEIR RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN THE VICINITY OF THE CWIS This section describes the aquatic resources of Monticello Reservoir, the source water body for the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS. This information is characterized with respect to fish and shellfish species composition and relative abundance.

4.1 Fish Monticello Reservoir supports a warmwater fish community characteristic of a southeastern Piedmont reservoir.

It shares many of the same fish species with Parr Reservoir on the Broad River (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Kleinschmidt, 2013), with which it exchanges water daily through FPSF_ operations.

Fisheries surveys, impingement sampling, and ichthyoplankton surveys conducted between 1983 and 2017 have documented the occurrence of 42 species of freshwater fish from 10 families in . Monticello Reservoir (Table 1). The famjlies represented by . .the most species were sunfishes (11), suckers (8), catfislws (7), and minnows *(6). The principal sport fishes inhabiting the reservoir include blue catfish, channel. catfish, white catfish, largemouth bass, _black crappie, white bass, yellow perch, and a variety of sunfishes.

Other recreationally important species include bluegill and white perch. Forage fish for predators include gizzard shad, threadfin shad, and juvenile white perch. Since 1984, the Monticello Reservoir fish community has shifted in species composition and abundance as a result of the introduction of white perch and blue catfish (NRC, 2004 and SCDNR studies cited therein).

The fish standing crop from 1984 to 1988 was dominated by bluegill, gizzard shad, channel catfish, and white catfish. Blue catfish and white perch were collected from Monticello Reservoir for the first time in 1989 and 1995, respectively.

By 1996, blue catfish had become the dominant species, increasing dramatically in SCDNR standing stock estimates from 7 pounds per acre in 1995 to 110 pounds per acre in 1996 (Christie and Stroud, 1997). White perch was the sixth most dominant species in 1996. Like previous years, other dominant species in 1996 included gizzard shad, channel catfish, bluegill, and white catfish (NRC, 2004). SCDNR roving creel surveys conducted in 1997-1999 found that fishing effort had increased substantially since the late 1980s and that the most harvested species by numbers were blue catfish, channel catfish, white catfish, white perch, and bluegill GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 9 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants (Christie and Stroud, 1998, 1999). Harvest by weight was dominated by channel catfish, blue catfish, and white catfish. Normandeau (2007, 2008, 2009a) conducted seasonal surveys of the Monticello Reservoir fish community in fall 2006, spring 2007, summer 2008, and winter 2009. The primary sampling methods used in all seasons were boat electrofishing and gillnetting.

Limited hoopnetting was also used in fall 2006 and spring 2007 but the method yielded few fish. Electrofishing transects and netting stations were located in the southern end of the reservoir and included the shoreline in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS. A total of 2,063 fish representing 25 species was collected during the study period using all gear types (Table 2). Bluegill, gizzard shad, blue catfish, white perch, and largemouth bass numerically dominated the catch (in descending order of abundance), comprising

_ 82.7 percent of the total catch. Electrofishing in shallow, shoreline habitats yielded

• bluegill as the numerically most abundant species, comprising 51.2 percent of the total catch (Table 3). The next most abundant species in electrofishing samples were gizzard shad,Jargemouth bass, white perch, whitefin shine~, purilpkinse_ed, channel *catfish; and white catfish (in descending order of abundance), comprising 3 7.4 percent of the total catch. In response to 40 CFR § 122.21(r)(4)(xi) (see Section 1), two fragile species are identified as commonly occurring in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS: gizzard shad and threadfin shad. Gizzard shad, specifically identified as fragile at 40 CFR § 125.92(m), is one of the most abundant species collected in historical and recent fisheries surveys of Monticello Reservoir (Table 2). Threadfin shad is another highly abundant, fecund forage species closely related to gizzard shad (same genus), and like gizzard shad is especially susceptible to naturally occurring mortality resulting from cold shock in winter months. During the coldest periods, cold-shocked threadfin shad and gizzard shad often arrive in large numbers at power plant CWISs in a naturally moribund condition resulting from diminished swimming performance and a loss of equilibrium (Loar et al., 1978; McLean et al., 1985; Frost, 2006). As described in the 316(b) regulations, EPA (2014) does not intend for such naturally occurring mortality to be counted against a facility's performance in reducing impingement mortality, rather to allow the permitting director to establish site-specific measures addressing fragile species under 40 CFR § 125.94(c)(9).

GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GAI90030.docx 10 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

4.2 Shellfish

Only three taxa of shellfish have been documented from Monticello Reservoir, including the introduced, invasive species Asian clam, freshwater grass shrimp, and unidentified crayfish (Table 1 ). None of these taxa are known to be of recreational or commercial significance in Monticello Lake. GK.5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GAl90030.docx II 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

5. SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES THAT WOULD BE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT This section identifies the species and life stages of fish and shellfish that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment at the VCSNS _Unit 1 CWIS. Readily available information and data for the evaluation include the impingement and ichthyoplankton sampling conducted in 1983-1984 (Dames & Moore, 1985), the impingement mortality study conducted in 2005-2006 (Geosyntec, 2007), the ichthyoplankton sampling conducted in 2008-2009 (Normandeau, 2009b ), and the ichthyplankton sampling conducted in 2016 (Normandeau, 2017). The evaluation also considers the location and configuration of the CWIS in Monticello Reservoir relative to the known life.,.stage habitat use of resident species. 5.1 Impingement Impingement studies previously conducted at VCSNS Unit* 1 indicate that th_e species most susc~pJible to *impingement are threadfin sha~ and gizzard shad. Both are highly abundant, fecund forage species that school in open water *and are especially susceptible to natural swimming impairment and mortality resulting from cold shock in winter months. Each species meets EPA's definition of a fragile species at 40 CFR § 125.92(m) because their impingement survival may be on the order of less than 30 percent. Shad impingement rates may vary substantially from year to year depending in part on the severity of cold winter conditions.

The next most numerically abundant species impinged include catfishes (blue catfish, channel catfish, and white catfish), white perch, and yellow perch. The life stages most susceptible to impingement are small fish, including juvenile and sub-adult life stages. Shellfish taxa impinged in low numbers include crayfish, grass shrimp, and Asian clam but none of these species is commercially or recreationally important in Monticello Reservoir or the Broad River. No federally or state listed protected species are known to be impinged at the facility.

Fish impingement at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS was documented in two, I-year studies conducted in 1983-1984 (Dames & Moore, 1985) and in 2005-2006 (Geosyntec, 2007). The results from both studies remain relevant and representative of conditions at the facility for the following reasons. First, the operation of the CWIS has changed very little compared to historical operations.

The 2005-2006 impingement study reflects the GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 12 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants composition of the fishery after the introductions of blue catfish and white perch. Although the 1983-1984 impingement study pre-dates these introductions, the data are relevant to characterizing the susceptibility to impingement of resident species that have remained abundant in the reservoir, including bluegill, gizzard shad, channel catfish, white catfish, largemouth bass, and other species. In addition, when evaluated along with the 2005-2006 impingement data, the historical data also contribute to understanding of potential annual variation in impingement mortality as may be related to shad cold-shock events and other conditions at the facility.

5.1.1 2005-2006 Impingement Study Impingement sampling was conducted biweekly at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake from July 12 2005 through 27 June 2006 for a total of 26 sampling events (Geosyntec, 2007). Samples~were collected using the existing collection basket, modified to incorporate 3/8-inch wire mesh openings matching the opening size of the traveling screens. Each impingement sairiplin*g event consisted of a 24.:.hour collection period split into approximately equal 12-hour samples, yielding a total of 52 individual impingement samples. Size distributions ofimpinged fish in each sample were determined by weighing (grams) *and measuring iri total length (millimeters

[mm]) up"to 100 representative individuals of each spe'cies.

Fish impingement data were standardized to reflect density and mass of organisms per unit volume of cooling water pumped. Annual impingement mortality was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation techniques (Geosyntec, 2007). The base density impingement rates were grouped by season and then randomly drawn to estimate impingement rates for unsampled days within the specified season. The base density impingement rates were multiplied by the volume of cooling water withdrawn for each day of the half-month period associated with the sampling event. Daily estimates were then summed to yield an annual estimate of impingement mortality.

The process was repeated 10,000 times to incorporate all possible outcomes from the available dataset. A .95-percent upper confidence limit (UCL) was calculated for the annual estimate to account for uncertainties associated with expected diel, seasonal, and operational variability.

5.1.J.1 Species Composition and Relative Abundance Impingement sampling in 2005-2006 yielded 574 organisms representing 12 species of fish, one hybrid sunfish, and two taxa. of shellfish ( crayfish and freshwater grass shrimp) GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 13 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants (Table 4). The forage species threadfin shad comprised 50.2 percent of the total number of organisms collected.

The impinged threadfin shad were small, ranging in length from 35 to 119 mm (Table 5). The majority of the threadfin shad (84 percent) were collected in the coldest months December-March (Geosyntec, 2007). Blue catfish, channel catfish, white perch, yellow perch, and gizzard shad were the next most numerically abundant species impinged, together comprising 43.9 percent of the sample (Table 4). The impingement of blue catfish, channel catfish, and white perch was scattered throughout the year with no discernible seasonal peaks (Geosyntec, 2007). Yellow perch were collected in impingement samples almost exclusively in December-February.

Impinged gizzard shad were collected only in late November and December.

No other single species comprised more than 3 percent of total impingement (Table 4). Although relatively abundant in the fish community, bluegill were impinged in low numbers (1.0 percent) and largemouth bass and black crappie were abse~t from impingement samples in 2005-2006.

White perch dominated impingement biomass (36.6' percent) (Table 4). The next most * * .... *

• dominant specie~ by biomass (in descending ordei-)"'were blue catfish,.

gizzard shad, channel catfish, white catfish, and threadfin shad. These six species tofaled 92.4 percent of the impingerµent biomass. No other single species acc'ounted for more) than 4 percent 'of the impingement biomass. No rare, threatened, *or endangered species of fish or shellfish were collected during the impingement sampling.

5.1.1.2 Size Distribution Impinged fish were small, consisting mainly of juveniles and sub-adult fish. The vast majority ofimpinged fish were less than 169 mm (6.7 inches) long. The mean total length by species ranged from 35 to 155 mm (Table 5). The length-frequency distribution of all impinged organisms exhibited modal peaks from 59 to 79 mm. (Geosyntec, 2007). Length-frequency distributions of the most commonly impinged fish species indicated the following size characteristics (Geosyntec, 2007):

• Threadfin shad and yellow perch, which ranked first and fourth in numerical abundance in impingement samples, respectively, had mean lengths less than 100 mm (3 .9 inches). The modal size class of impinged threadfin shad was 50 to 69 mm, while that for yellow perch was 90 to 109 mm. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GAI90030.docx 14 01.25.2019 Geo syn.tee t> consultants

• The majority of blue catfish and channel catfish impinged were juveniles and adults less than 119 mm long but each species was represented by multiple life stages across the full size range of impinged fish (Table 5).

• Impinged white catfish represented modal size classes of 69 and 199 mm, and likely included multiple life stages across the impinged size range (Table 5).

• White perch ranged in length from 30 to 250 mm, were broadly represented in most size classes, and represented multiple life stages Guvenile to adult).

• Impinged gizzard shad ranged in length from 56 to 332 mm, with the modal size class occurring at 60 to 69 mm. 5.1.1.3 Seasonal Occurrence lmpingeme,nt rates were greatest during the. winter, fr?m late Dece1pber th.rough early March (Geosyntec, 2007). Impingement

.~.atjiples from December through Mar.ch comprised 62 percent of total impingement; 67 .5 percent of these impinge.d organisms were threadfin s~ad. Other species contributing.

to peak impirigement rat_es in winter included yellow perch, blue catfish, gizzard shad, c.Jlannel catfish; and white perch. The number of taxa impinged on the traveling screens per sampling event ranged from one to seven (Geosyntec, 2007). The frequency of occurrence by species during the 26 sampling events varied from 1 to 19 events (3.8 to 73.1 percent, respectively).

Channel catfish occurred in the highest frequency of sampling events (73.1 percent) but represented only 11.8 percent of the total impingement sample. Four fish species -threadfin shad, blue catfish, channel catfish, and white perch -were collected in at least 65 percent of the sampling events, each occurring in 10 months of the year. Yellow perch occurred in 23 percent of the sampling events (4 months), while gizzard shad occurred in 11.5 percent of the sampling events (2 months). Shellfish taxa occurred in 15.4 percent of the sampling events (Geosyntec, 2007). Crayfish was collected in December-January, and grass shrimp was collected in May. 5.1.1.4 Diel Distribution Fifty-six percent of the fish collected during the 2005-2006 impingement study were taken in the night samples, which were generally collected between 1800 and 0600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx is 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants (Geosyntec, 2007). Impingement rates were higher during the night in 19 of the 26 sampling events. 5.1.1.5 Annual Impingement Estimate Annual impingement mortality was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation techniques (Geosyntec, 2007). After adjustments reflecting actual plant operations during the study, the 95-percent UCL of estimated annual impingement mortality was determined to be 9,154 organisms weighing 272 pounds (lb) (Table 6). This estimate was representative of the VCSNS Unit 1 cooling water system in the absence of any structural controls specifically intended to reduce impingement mortality.

The rate of impingement documented for VCSNS Unit 1 in 2005-2006 study is very low compared to once-through facilities located on regional freshwater reservoirs, as shown by Geosyntec (2007). The VCSNS Unit 1 impingement rate of 0.03 organisms per million gallons of cooling water pumped wa1i the 'lowest impingement rate of seven facilities evaluated.

Several factors, way contribute to these low impingement rates at ** VCSNS Unit 1, such as (Geosyntec, 2007):

• Rapid attenuation of the hydraulic area of influence with increasing distance froni the CWIS;

• Possible beneficial effects of the existing CWIS skimmer wall in restricting cooling water withdrawals to depths greater than 9.5 ft, thereby reducing impingement of surface-oriented fish species;

• Natural aging of Monticello Reservoir following trophic upsurge commonly associated with new reservoirs, leading to reduced biological productivity since construction (and the previous impingement study);

• Lack of significant allochthonous nutrient input to the reservoir due to limited natural inflow from the small upstream watershed (about 17.4 square miles); and

• Daily water level fluctuations of up to 4.5 ft, which may limit the reproductive success of littoral-zone spawning species in the vicinity of the CWIS. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev20I9_GA!90030.docx 16 01.25.2019

,.-... Geosyntec 1> consultants 5.1.2 1983-1984 Impingement Study Impingement sampling was conducted at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake from October 1983 through September 1984 as part of the facility's original 316(b) demonstration study (Dames & Moore, 1985). Fish were collected from the traveling screens over a 1-day period twice per month for a total of 22 sampling events. The impingement sampling yielded 5,140 fish representing 17 species of fish in six families and two taxa of shellfish (Asian clam and grass shrimp) (Table 4). 5.1.2.1 Species Composition and Relative Abundance The forage species gizzard shad comprised 82.6 percent of the total number of impinged fish collected (Table 4). Gizzard shad, a historically abundant species in Monticello Reservoir, is a pelagic, schooling species exhibiting high reproductive and growth rates. Nearly all of the impinged gizzard shad (99 percent) were collected during the coldest nwnths December through March, implicating cold. 1,bock .;:ts likely contributing to an impaired**swimming ability. or moribund condition of shad arriving 'at the intake screens (Dames & Moore, 1°985). During January 1984, 2,834 gi;z:zard shad were impinged, representing 55 percent of total study impingement and at least 3.75 times the number of impinged gizzard shad collected in any other winter sampling month (December 1983-March 1984). The gizzard shad impinged were consistently small young-of-year and juvenile fish, which tend to be more susceptible to cold shock. Yellow perch was the second most abundant species impinged, comprising 7 .6 percent of the sample (Table 4). Ninety-six percent of impinged yellow perch were collected from the traveling screens in December through March (Dames & Moore, 1985). White catfish ranked third in numerical abundance, comprising

2.4 percent

of the total sample. White catfish impingement was scattered throughout the year with no discernible seasonal peaks, and size data indicated no clear relationship between size class and impingement susceptibility.

No other single -species comprised more than 2 percent of total impingement.

Although sunfish and bass (family Centrarchidae) were relatively abundant in the fish community, the eight species present in impingement samples accounted for only 4.9 percent of the total study impingement (Table 4). Gizzard shad dominated impingement biomass in the 1983-1984 study, representing 51.8 percent of the total impingement sample, followed by white catfish (17.6 percent), yellow perch (8.0 percent), white bass (5.2 percent), and channel catfish (4.7 percent) (Table 4). GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GAI90030.docx 17 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants No other single species accounted for more than 4 percent of the impingement biomass. Centrarchid species comprised 11.9 percent of the biomass. 5.1.2.2 Size Distribution Nearly all of the impinged fish were small, and analysis of their lengths showed them to be predominantly young-of-the-year or age-1 fish (Dames & Moore, 1985). The mean length of gizzard shad and yellow perc~ impinged by sampling event was typically less than 100 mm (3.9 inches). 5.1.2.3 Seasonal Occurrence The greatest numbers of fish were impinged in January through March 1984, primarily reflecting the seasonal abuo.dance of gizzard shad and yellow perch (Dames & Moor.e, 1985). The high numbers of gizzard shad collected during this period, especially in January, indicated jhe likely influence of cold shock in impairing

.. the swimming . .. performance of gizz11rd shad and increasing their susceptibility to impingement, 5.1.2.4 Annual Imping'7n,ient Estimate . The total number of fish collected during the study was extrapolated to obtain an annual impingement estimate of about 85,000 fish weighing 1,133 lb. This estimate was over nine times higher than the 95-percent UCL reported for the 2005-2006 impingement study. The difference in the impingement rates between the two studies stemmed in part from the high impingement rates reported for young-of-year gizzard shad in January 1984 when cold-induced swimming impairment was implicated.

5.2 Entrainment

Planktonic fish larvae occurring in the southern end of Monticello Reservoir are the life stages most susceptible to entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS because of their potential to enter the CWIS area of influence and their small size and lack of swimming ability. Based on entrainment studies previously conducted at VCSNS and the known life-stage habitats of resident fish species (Table 7), the species most susceptible to entrainment are threadfin shad, gizzard shad, and white perch. Each of these species is relatively abundant in Monticello Reservoir and highly fecund. Although their eggs are demersal and removed from the CWIS area of influence, as the larvae grow and move into the water column of nearshore waters, they become susceptible to entrainment upon GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA!90030.docx 18 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants drifting toward the inlet bay to the CWIS. Sunfishes and catfishes are relatively abundant in the reservoir fish community but are much less susceptible to entrainment because their larvae receive prolonged parental care and reside in sheltered littoral-zone habitats away from the generally deeper waters of the CWIS area of influence.

Entrainment performance studies previously conducted at VCSNS include two, 1-year ichthyoplankton surveys conducted in 1983-1984 (Dames & Moore, 1985) and in 2008-2009 (Normandeau, 2009b), and one 6-month ichthyplankton survey conducted in 2016 (Normandeau, 2017). The results of these entrainment studies are relevant and representative of conditions at the facility for the following reasons. First, the operation of the Unit 1 CWIS has changed very little compared to historical operations.

The 2008-2009 ichthyoplankton survey represents the current species composition of the reservoir as well as the overall physical characteristics and aquatic habitats available in the vicinity of the Unit 1 CWIS. Although the fish comrfmriity has. shifted in species composition since the-1983-1984.

study;-these historical data-are still relevant to characterizing th~ .. s~asonal and spatial distribution of the early life stages offish species that have remained abundant in the reservoir, including gizzard shad.and white bass. The historical data also contribute to an under*s-ianding of potential annual variation in entrainment.

5.2.1 2016 Entrainment Study Normandeau (2017) conducted an ichthyplankton survey within the area of influence of the Unit 1 CWIS from March through August 2016: Ichthyoplankton samples were collected from transects orientated parallel to the shoreline within the area of influence of the Unit 1 CWIS at both the surface and mid-depth using paired 0.5 m-diameter, 0.300 mm-mesh nets. Day and night ichthyoplankton samples were collected twice per month. A total of 48 samples were collected during the study. Organisms were and enumerated as to life stage, either eggs, yolk-sac, post yolk-sac, larvae, young-of-year (YOY), or juvenile (age 1). In a few instances, larvae were identified as having an und~termined larval stage due to unambiguous size and the lack of distinguishing guts and/or yolk sac. Ichthyoplankton were collected in all samples from March through August 2016, though numbers collected in March and August were the lowest observed during the sampling period (Appendix A, Table 4-1 and 4-7). A total of 1,311 organisms comprising seven fish families were collected with over half (50.8%) occurring during the month of June. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 19 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants Larval fish dominated collections with only one egg (Dorosoma spp.) and five YOY catfish (blue and channel catfish) comprising other life stages. As expected, no federal or state protected species were identified in ichthyoplankton samples. Ichthyoplankton were dominated by members of the Clupeid family (Dorosoma genus), which comprised over 86% of all organisms collected (Appendix A, Table 4-6). Centrarchidae comprised 9 .6%, Cyprinidae 1.6%, and the Catostomidae, Ictaluridae, Moronidae, and Percidae each comprised less than 1 % of the total number collected.

No differences were found in larval density based on the sampling depth, however, density was typically higher during the day than the night. Ichthyoplankton densities were highest in June with Dorosoma genus dominating the numbers for April, May and June. Lepomid larval fish were the most abundant taxon in July and August, but with far few organisms.

• 5.2.2 2008.-2009 Entrainment Study N o~~ndeau (2009b) conducted an ichthyopla:nkton survey along_ ~p.e southern shoreline of Monticello Reservoir from September 2008 through August 2009. Ichthyoplankton samples *were collected from two transects oriented parailel t~ the. shoreline near the proposed location for the Units 2/3 CWIS using paired (i.e., bongo) 0.5 m-diameter, 0.300 mm-mesh nets. Samples were collected at the surface along the nearshore transect and at mid-depth along the offshore transect.

The transects were located west and in the vicinity of the Unit 1 CWIS. The nets were fitted with calibrated flow meters and each side filtered a minimum of 50 m 3 of water in a tow length of 250 m. Samples were collected once per month from August through February and twice per month from March through July. Day and night samples were collected during each event. A total of 68 samples were collected during the study. Organisms were identified to the lowest practical taxon and enumerated as to life stage, either eggs, yolk-sac larvae, post yolk-sac larvae, YOY, or juvenile (age 1). Although sampling was conducted year-round, fish larvae were collected only in March through August (Table 8). No shellfish were collected.

The primary species collected as larvae were threadfin shad, which comprised 70.6 percent of the mean monthly sample density, white perch, other unidentified shad, and gizzard shad (Table 9). No eggs were collected in any sample, probably because most of the resident fish species have demersal, adhesive eggs typically not found in the water column (Table 7). As a group, the clupeids (shads) comprised 84.7 percent of ichthyoplankton collected near the intake structure GK5356/R.4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_GA190030.docx 20 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants (Table 9). White perch was the next most abundant taxon, comprising 12.6 percent of the total catch. The remaining

2.7 percent

included sunfishes, minnows, suckers, darters, and yellow perch. Although abundant in the fish community, catfish were not collected in ichthyoplankton samples. 5.2.3 1983-1984 Entrainment Study Dames & Moore (1985) collected ichthyoplankton samples at seven stations located throughout Monticello Reservoir from October 1983 through September 1984. One station (Station M) was located in the vicinity of the VSCNS Unit 1 CWIS. Samples were collected at the surface and at mid-depth using net tows. Specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxon and enumerated.

Larval fish were collected throughout the reservoir in 1983-1984 but no fish eggs or s~el~fish wen~ collected.

Larval fish were collected at Statio_n Min the months February through August. The numerically dominant taxon collected at all stations in the reservoir

.... __ .(~urface*

and mid-depth) was shad (Cl_upeidae), primarily gizzard shad. Gizzard shad dominated the samples at both depths, comprisi~g 94 percent of the samples,*.*,White bass repr:esented about 5 percent of the samples. Other taxa collected in l9w numbers. were minnows, suckers;sunfish, and perch. Catfish eggs and larvae.were not collected.

/ GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 21 01.25.2019 Geosyntec t> consultants

6. PRIMARY PERIOD OF REPRODUCTION, LARVAL RECRUITMENT, AND PERIOD OF PEAK ABUNDANCE The primary periods of reproduction in Monticello Reservoir for 18 fish species considered to be representative of those species most susceptible to impingement and entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS are characterized in Figure 4. The spawning periods shown are based on the species and life history information compiled in Table 7. Early spring spawners include black crappie, gizzard shad, yellow perch, and eastern silvery minnow. Although striped bass begin spawning in March, successful reproduction is not expected to occur in Monticello Reservoir due to the absence of suitable spawning habitat. Mid-spring to early summer spawners include threadfin shad, spottail shiner, shorthead redhorse, catfishes, white perch, and tessellated darter. Sunfishes, catfishes, and gizzard shad spawn through the summer. While there is substantial temporal overlap of spawning periods, the greatest numbers of species tend to spawn durin~ the period April-June (Figure 4). Table 8 shows the monthly larval occurrence art_d density by ~p~cies in 2008-2009.

Table4.-1 of Appenqix_

A shows th,~ . numbers o_f ichythoplankton collected by month.' * *

• Larval recruitment and peak larval abundance likely follow the primary periods of reproduction by several days or weeks, as eggs of the numerically dominant species tend to hatch within periods of a few days to a week or more (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Boschung and Mayden, 2004; Pflieger, 1997). The appearance of various species in larval drift in rivers corresponds with when they spawned (Brown and Armstrong, 1985; Niles and Hartman, 2010). The 2008-2009 ichthyoplankton survey in Monticello Reservoir found larval fish recruitment beginning in March (Normandeau, 2009b ). Larval abundance increased through April, peaked in May, and then declined steadily from June to August (Table 8). The 1983-1984 ichthyoplankton survey collected fish larvae from February through August (Dames & Moore, 1985). Larval abundance in the vicinity ofVCSNS Unit 1 also peaked in May and steadily declined from June to August. The 2016 ichthyoplankton survey collected fish larvae from March through August, with larval abundance peaking in June and steadily declining from late June to August (Appendix A, Table 4-7). GK.5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA!90030.docx 22 01.25.2019 Geo syn.tee 1> consultants

7. SEASONAL AND DAILY ACTIVITIES OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS IN THE VICINITY OF THE CWIS The principal seasonal activities of organisms in Monticello Reservoir in the vicinity of th~ VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS that may influence their susceptibility to impingement and entrainment include their movements and habitat use associated with: spawning; larval recruitment and propensity for larval drift within the water column; juvenile rearing; downstream transport from tributary stream habitats; vulnerability to swimming impairment during cold winter periods; outmigration of juveniles and sub-adults; and related activities.

Table 7 summarizes the known seasonal life-stage habitat use of many of the representative fishes in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS.

• Impingement rates in 2005-2006 at VCSNS Unit 1 were low throughout the year with the exception of December-February when higher*numbers ofthreadfin shad, yellow perch, and gizzarq shad were impinged (Geosyntec,-2007).

Impingement r;ites in 1983-1984 were highest-in Dec~mber-March; with a pronounc~d peak in January that may have been attributable to cold si~~ck of gizzard shad {Danie~ /sl Moore, 1985). *

• The daily activities of fish and shellfish_in the vicinity of the VCSNS Vnit 1 CWIS may also influence their susceptibility to impingement and entrainment.

Catfish adults may become more active at night, moving from beneath rocks, deep water, and other cover into pools and shallows to feed (Pflieger, 1997; Rohde, 2009). Sunfish species, including bluegill, and yellow perch tend to exhibit peaks of feeding activity at dawn and dusk, and bluegills move onshore after sunset and offshore after sumise (Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Some species show peaks of spawning activity during daylight hours (e.g., gizzard shad and threadfin shad), and others spawn mostly in the evening or at night (e.g., yellow perch). Egg and larval fish distribution within the water column may vary substantially over the course of a day. Larval fish drift in strea~s and rivers tends to exhibit a pronounced diel pattern, with peaks observed at night and densities of drifting larvae highest near the surface and channel margins (Brown and Armstrong, 1985). Spatial and diel distribution patterns of larval fish in reservoirs have been found to be similar to those in large rivers (Sammons and Bettoli, 2002). Surface densities of most species are typically higher at night, although diel .shad distributions can vary among reservoir systems, species, and possibly years (Sammons and Bettoli, 2002). These daily distribution patterns of larval fish suggest that potential fish entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS may be greatest GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev20l9_GAI90030.docx 23 01.25.2019 Geo syn.tee 1> consultants at night. Ichthyoplankton densities in the 2008-2009 and 2016 study were higher at night (Normandeau, 2009b; Normandeau, 2017). Another factor that may affect the die I and spatial distribution of fish and shellfish in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS is the daily operations of FPSF. Pump-back operations occur at night, transferring water and organisms from Parr Reservoir into Monticello Reservoir, steadily increasing reservoir elevation, and influencing the magnitude and direction of flow in the reservoir.

Impingement rates in 2005-2006 were significantly higher at night and may have been influenced by fish movements caused by pump-back Operations.

Pump-back operations may also transport ichthyoplankton into the vicinity of the CWIS, and from the rising water level and general mixing, contribute to a more uniform vertical distribution of larvae in the water column at night. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA!90030.docx 24 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 0 consultants

8. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES Review of protected species lists for Fairfield County indicates that there are no 191own occurrences of federally protected threatened or endangered fish or shellfish species in or near Monticello Reservoir, or designated critical habitat for these species in the reservoir . (SCDNR, 2019; USFWS, 2016). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed designated critical habitat for the Carolina distinct population segment of the federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon (jlcipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) that would include occupied and unoccupied habitats in the Santee River basin (NOAA, 2016). Carolina Unoccupied Unit 2 would include the Broad River extending upstream to Parr Dam but would not include Parr Reservoir or Monticello Reservoir.

The federally endangered freshwater mussel species Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) historically occurred in Fairfield County but none of the 11 currently known surviving populations of the species occur in the Broad River system of the Santee-Cooper River basin (USFWS, 2012). In addition, critical habitat -designated for the Carolina heelsplitter does not include any streams or rivers in the Santee--Cooper.River basin (USFWS, 2002). The Broad River spiny crayfish, a federal

• At-Risk Species, is restricted to the Broad River basin and inhabits small to medium tributaries of the .Broad River* that exhibit signs of flash flooding.

No Broad River spiny

• crayfish were collectured during a 2015 study during the Parr Hydroelectric Project relicensing studies (Klienschmidt, 2016) In March 2008, two specimens of robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum ), a species of conservation concern, were collected in Monticello Reservoir during a largemouth bass survey (SCDNR, 2013). These fish were believed to have been transferred into the reservoir through pump-back operations at FPSF, after having been stocked as juveniles in the Broad River upstream of Parr Reservoir (SCDNR, 2013). The robust redhorse inhabits mainstem rivers and occurs in the Broad River primarily downstream of the Neal Shoals. Hydroelectric Project near Carlisle, South Carolina.

The species is not listed as protected in South Carolina.

GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA190030.docx 25 01.25.2019 Geo syn.tee 1> consultants

9.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS Review and analysis of available existing information and data on the aquatic biological resources in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS, including several recently conducted studies, reveal the following characteristics of the fish community and the species and life stages that may be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment:

• Monticello Reservoir supports a warmwater fish community characteristic of southeastern Piedmont reservoirs.

The numerically dominant species include bluegill, gizzard shad, blue catfish, white perch, largemouth bass, whitefin shiner, pumpkinseed, channel catfish, *and white catfish. The fish community shifted in species dominance toward blue catfish and white perch after their introductions in 1989 and 1995, respectively.

Blue catfish, channel catfish, white catfish, white perch, and bluegill -now dominate the recreational harvest. Important forage species include gizzard shad, threadfin shad, and white perch.

• Three taxa.of shellfish have been documented from Monti~yllo Reserv.oir (Asian clam, freshwater grass shrimp, crayfish) but none of these taxa are commercially or_recreation~lly important in Monticello Reservoir or the B~o::i-q River., *

• The species most susceptible to impingement at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake are threadfin shad and gizzard shad. Both are fragile species that are highly abundant, fecund, grow rapidly, and school in open water. Both shad species are susceptible to natural swimming impairment and mortality resulting from cold shock during winter months, which can result in episodic impingement of shad in some years. Other numerically abundant species impinged include blue catfish, channel catfish, white catfish, white perch, and yellow perch. Dominant species by biomass include white perch, blue catfish, gizzard shad, channel catfish, white catfish, and threadfin shad.

• The life stages most susceptible to impingement are juvenile and sub-adult life stages of fish. The vast majority of impinged fish are less than 6.7 inches long with mean lengths by species ranging from about 2.5 inches (threadfin shad) to 5.9 inches (white perch). Shellfish taxa are impinged in low numbers and in only a few months of the year. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 26 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants

• The rate of impingement documented for VCSNS Unit 1 in 2005-2006 was very low compared to other facilities located on freshwater reservoirs.

Factors potentially contributing to these low impingement rates include rapid attenuation of the area of influence with increasing distance from the CWIS, restriction of cooling water withdrawals to depths greater than 9.5 ft by the existing skimmer wall, natural aging of the reservoir with reduced biological productivity due in part to limited nutrient input from the small upstream watershed, and the daily reservoir fluctuations potentially. limiting the reproductive success oflittoral-zone spawning species.

• Planktonic fish larvae are the life stages most susceptible to entrainment at the VCSNS*Unit 1 CWIS; Previously conducted entrainment*studies and the known life-stage habitats of* resident fish species indicate that the

• species most* susceptible to entrainment are threadfin shad, gizzard shad, and white perch. Each of these species* is relatively abundant in the reservoir and highly fecund: Although .their eggs are. demersal, as the larvae grow and move into'. the water . c6luri:m of nearshore waters, they become Susceptible to entrii.i'nment upon drifting toward the inlet bay to the CWIS. ,., .

• Sunfishes and catfishes are relatively abundant in the Monticello'Reservoir fish community but are much less susceptible to entrainment because their larvae receive prolonged parental care in nests and reside in sheltered littoral-zone habitats away from the generally deeper waters of the CWIS area of influence.

• Larval recruitment and peak larval abundance likely follow the primary period of reproduction for most species (April-June) by several days or weeks. Ichthyoplankton surveys in the reservoir collected fish larvae from March through August, with peak abundance in May-June.

• Currently there are no known occurrences of federally endangered or threatened aquatic species in Monticello Reservoir that would be susceptible to impingement or entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 27 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants

10. REFERENCES CITED Boschung, H. T., Jr., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Christie, R.W., and R.M. Stroud. 1996. Fisheries investigations in lakes and streams District IV, July 1, 1995 -June 30, 1996. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Annual Progress Report F-63-1-4.

Christie, R.W., and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries investigations in lakes and streams District IV, July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4.

Christie, R.W., and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries investigation~

in lakes. and streams District IV, July 1, 1997 -June 30, 1998. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Annu8:l Progress Report F-63. Christie, R.W., and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries investigations in lakes and streams . District IV, July 1, 1998 -June 30, 1999. South Carolina Department of Natural *Resources, Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4. . Dames & Moore. 1985. 316(b) demonstration for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

March 1985. Edwards, E. A., D. A. Krieger, M. Bacteller, and 0. E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: black crappie. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.6. 25 pp. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec).

2005. Delineation of the Area of Hydraulic Influence Attributable to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Cooling Water Intake Structure.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec).

2007. Preliminary report of fish impingement mortality at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

Prepared for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. May 2007. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_GAJ90030.docx 28 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants Jenkins, R. E., and N.M. Burkhead.

1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Kleinschmidt.

2013. Baseline fisheries report, Parr Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.

• 1894. Prepared for South Carolina Electric

& Gas Co., Cayce, South Carolina.

November 2013. Kleinschmidt.

2015. Pre-application Document, Parr Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 1894. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Cayce, South Carolina.

January 2015. Klienschmidt.

2016. Broad River Spiny Crayfish Cambarus spicatus Study Report. Parr Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1894). South Carolina Eletric & Gas Company. Krieger, D. A., J. W. Terrell, and P. C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information:

Yellow p~rch. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-83/10.55.

37 pp. Loar, J .. M., J.S. Griffith, and K.D. Kumar: *1978. An analysis of factors influencing the impingement of threadfin shad at power plants m the southeastern United States. Pages245-255 in L. D. Jensen, editor. Fourth national workshop.on entrainment and impingement.

EA Communications, Melville, New York. Marcy, B. C., Jr., D. E. Fletcher, F. D. Martin, M. H. Paller, and M. J.M. Reichert.

2005. Fishes of the middle Savannah River basin with emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia. Nash, V. S., R. W. Christie, and R. M. Stroud. 1990. Fisheries investigations in lakes and streams District IV. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Annual Progress Report F-11-25. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) .. 2016. Endangered and threatened s~ecies; critical habitat for the endangered Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon; proposed rule. Federal Register 81(707):36078-36123.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normadeau) 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs fisheries surveys: final report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. September 2007. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019_GA!90030.docx 29 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau).

2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs fisheries surveys: summer report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. August 2008. Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau).

2009a. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs fisheries surveys: winter report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. April 2009. Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau).

2009b. Monticello Reservoir ichthyoplankton studies, September 2008 through August 2009. Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau).

2017. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Entrainment Study -2016 and revised 2017 .. Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Inc. Ltd. Neptune City, New Jersey. Page, L. M., and R M. Burr. 2011. Field guide to freshwater fishes, North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston . . . Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri.

Missouri Department of Conservation, __ Columbia.

343 pp.

• Phelps, Q. E., S. J. Tripp, J.E. Garvey, D. P. Herzog, R. A. Hrabik, D. E. Ostendorf, J. W. Ridings, and J. W. Crites. 2011. Juvenile channel catfish habitat use in the middle Mississippi River. American Fisheries Symposium 77:535-543.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Rhode, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater fishes of South Carolina.

University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Ross, S.T., W.M. Brenneman, W.T. Slack, M.T. O'Connell, and T.L. Peterson.

2001. The inland fishes of Mississippi.

University Press of Broad, Jackson. 624 pp. Sammons, S. M., and P. W. Berttoli.

2002. Spatial and diel variation in distribution of limnetic larvae of fishes in a Tennessee reservoir.

Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17(1):45-53.

GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev20!9_GAJ90030.docx 30 01.25.2019 Geosyntec 1> consultants South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

2013. Final performance report: robust redhorse restoration and conservation.

South Carolina State Wildlife Grant F05AF00015 (T-9). October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2013. South Carolina Department ofNatural Resources.

2019. South Carolina rare, threatened and endangered species inventory, Fairfield County list. Heritage Trust Program. January 22, 2019. Accessed at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/.

Stanley, J.G., and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles:

life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic), white perch. National Coastal Ecosystems Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisia11a.

FWS/OBS-82/11.7, TR EL-82-4. October 1983. Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: largemouth

~ass. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildlife Serv. FW_S/OBS-82/10.16 33p. Twomey, K. A.; G: Gebhart, 0. E. Maughan, and P. C. Nelson: 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: redear sunfish. u*.s. Fish *and ~ildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.79.

29 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter; final rule. Federal Register 47(127):44502-44522.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), 5-year review: summary and evaluation.

Southeast Region, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Endangered species, species by county report, Fairfield Count;Y, South Carolina.

Environmental Conservation Online System. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

Accessed October 5, 2016. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic-environmental impact .statement for license renewal of nuclear plants, Supplement 15, regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, final report. NUREG-1437.

February 2004. GK5356/R4_SWBBio_

VCSNS_Rev2019

_ GA190030.docx 31 01.25.2019 TABLES Table 1 List of Fish and Shellfish Species Known to Occur in Monticello Reservoir Common Name Fisheries VCSNS Unit 1 Scientific Name Impingement Surveysa Samplingb GARS: Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus X HERRINGS AND SHADS: Gizzard shadd Threadfin shadd, e Unidentified shad Unidentified shad MINNOWS: Whitefin shiner Common carpe Eastern silvery minnow Golden shiner Spottail shiner Swallowtail shiner Unidentified minnow SUCKERS: Quillback White sucker Northern hog sucker Silver redhorse.

• Notchlip_redhorse Shorthead redhorse Robust redhorse 1 Striped jumprock Unidentified sucker CATFISHES:

Snail bullhead White catfish Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Flat bullhead Blue catfishe Channel catfishe LIVEBEARERS:

Ea.stern mosquitofish SILVERSIDES:

Brook silverside TEMPERATE BASSES: White perche White basse SUNFISHES:

Flier Redbreast sunfish Green sunfishe Dorosoma cepedianum Dorosoma petenense Dorosoma spp. Clupeidae Cyprinella nivea Cyprinus carpio Hybognathus regius Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis hudsonius Notropis procne Cyprinidae Carpiodes cyprinus Catostomus commersoni Hypentelium nigricans Moxostoma anisurum.

M(?xostoma co//apsum Moxostoma macrolepi~otum Moxostoma robustum Moxostoma rupiscartes Catostomidae Ameiurus brunneus Ameiurus catus Ameiurus natalis Ameiuru's nebu/osus Ameiurus p/atycephalus

/ctalurus furcatus /ctalurus punctatus Gambusia holbrooki Labidesthes siccu/us Marone americana Marone chrysops Centrarchus macropterus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanel/us X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X lchthyoplankton Surveysc X X X X X X X X Table 1 List of Fish and Shellfish Species Known to Occur in Monticello Reservoir Common Name Fisheries VCSNS Unit 1 Scientific Name Impingement Surveysa Samplingb Pumpkinseed Warmouth Lepomis gibbosus X X Bluegill.

Redear sunfish Unidentified sunfish Smallmouth bass 0 Largemouth bass White crappie 0 Black crappie Unidentified crappie Unidentified sunfish PERCHES: Swamp darter Tessellated darter Yellow perch Unidentified perch Unidentified darter BASKET CLAMS: Lepomis gu/osus Lepomis macrochirus

• Lepomis micro/ophus Lepomissp.

Micropterus dolomieu Micropterus sa/moides Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromacu/atus Pomoxissp.

Centrachidae Etheostoma fusiforme Etheostoma o/mstedi Perea flavescens Percidae Etheostomatini Total Number of Fish Taxa Asiatic *clam Corbicula fluminea PALAEMONID SHRIMPS: Freshwater grass shrimp Pa/aemonetEJs sp. CRAYFISHES:

Unidentified crayfish X X X X X X X X X X 41 X X X X X X X 21 X *. X X lchthyoplankton Surveys 0 X X X X X X X 15 Total Number of Shellfish Taxa O 3 0 a Fish community survey sources: Dames & Moore (1985); Christie and Stroud (1996, 1997); NRC (2004); Normandeau (2007, 2009a); SCDNR (2013). b Impingement sampling sources: Dames & Moore (1985); Geosyntec (2007). c lchthyoplankton sampling sources: Dames & Moore (1985); Normandeau (2009b). d Gizzard shad and threadfin shad are fragile species, as defined at 40 CFR § 125.92(m).

e Introduced species, not native to the Santee-Cooper River basin (Rohde et al., 2009). 1 Species of conservation concern but not listed as federally protected or state protected in South Carolina.

Occurrence in Monticello Reservoir based on two specimens collected in 2008, which were believed to have been stocked as juveniles upstream of Parr Reservoir in the Broad River and transfered into the reservoir through pump-back operations at FPSF (SCDNR, 2013).

Table 2 Relative Abundance of Fish Collected Seasonally in Monticello Reservoir, 2006-2009 Fall 2006 & Spring 2007 Summer 2008 Winter 2009 Total Catch 2006-2009 Common Name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Bluegill 267 32.6 181 23.1 154 33.4 602 29.2 Gizzard shad 161 19.6 330 42.2 31 6.7 522 25.3 ... Blue catfish ~o 11.0 156 19.9 14 3.0 260 12.6 White perch 78 9.5 28 3.6 99 21.5 205 9.9 Largemouth bass 71 8.7 11 1.4 35 7.6 117 5.7 Channel catfish 31 3.8 20 2.6 26 5.6 77 3.7 Black crappie 32 3.9 7 *o.9 8 1.7 47 2.3 White catfish 14 1.7 11 1.4 8 1.7 33 1.6 Whitefin shiner 15 1.8 2 0.3 16 3.5 33 1.6 Shorthead redhorse 10 1.2 4 0.5 16 3.5 30 1.5 Pumpkinseed 12 1.5 6 0.8 10 2.2 28 1.4 Spottail shiner 5 0.6 4 :o.5 12 2.6 21 1.0 Notchlip redhorse 0 0.0 9 1.2 8 1.7 17 0.8 Redearsunfish 7 0.9 4 0.5 2 0.4 13 0.6 Redbreast sunfish 3 0.4 3 0.4 6 1.3 12 0.6 Flat bullhead 7 0.9 2 0.3 0.2 10 0.5 Yellow perch 5 0.6 0 0.0 4 0.9 9 0.4 Eastern silvery minnow 0 0.0 0

• 0.0 8 1.7 8 0.4 Warmouth 6 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.3 Smallmouth bass 2 0.2 1 0.1 0.2 4 0.2 Northern hogsucker 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.4 4 0.2 White bass 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 Quillback 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.05 Snail bullhead 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 1 0.05 Yellow bullhead 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.05 Total 820 782 461 2,063 Sources: Normandeau (2007, 2008, 2009a).

Table 3 Electrofishing Catch Per Unit Effort of Fish Collected Seasonally in Monticello Reservoir, 2006-2009 Common Name Fall 2006 Spring Summer Winter Average Percent 2007 2008 2009 Bluegill 806.20 239.38 143.99 121.74 327.83 51.2 Gizzard shad 0 23.94 182.4 16.90 55.81 8.7 Largemouth bass 31.92 143.74 13.27 31.81 55.19 8.6 White perch 0 55.90 33.92 56.81 36.66 5.7 Whitefin shiner 55.92 3.99 3.98 63.79 31.92 5.0 Pumpkinseed 43.91 3.99 23.92 13.29 21.28 3.3 Channel catfish 0 31.95 11.96 35.88 19.95 3.1 White catfish 0 51.89 14.58 9.31 18.95 3.0 Notchlip redhorse 0 0 35.88 5.98 10.47 1.6 Spottail shiner 3.99 3.99 7.98 16.0 7.99 1.2 Redearsunfish 7.98 7.98 7.95 7.97 7.97

1.2 Shorthead

redhorse 0 19.96

• 3.99 3.99 6.99 1.1 Redbreast sunfish 7.99 4.00 5.98 7.95 6.48 1.0 Yellow perch 19.98 0 0 5.32 6.33 1.0 Warmouth 23.97 0 0 0 5.99 0.9 Flat bullhead 15.97 0 7.94 0 5.98 0.9

• Ea:stern silvery minnow 0 0 0 15.95 3.99 0.6 : Northern hogsucker 0 3.99 3.99

'3.99 2.99 0.5 Smallmouth bass 0 0 3.99 3.99 2.00 0.3 Bl<:1ck crappie 0 0 0 7.97 1.99 0.3 Blue catfish 0 0 3.97 3.99 1.99 0.3 Snail bullhead 0 0 3.97 0 0.99 0.2 Yellow bullhead 0 0 .3.97 0 0.99 0.2 Sources: Normandeau (2007, 2008, 2009a).

Table4 Relative Abundance and Biomass of Impinged Fish and Shellfish at VCSNS Unit 1 July 2005.June 20osa October 1983-September 1984b Number of Percent Percent Number of Percent Percent Common Name Organisms Abundance Biomass Organisms Abundance Biomass :;£1SA'~:~:0{;;~~tfi~0)f~;: i;;F?\iti?'.l~?::~1\t:; [i':/:/,~i}i{;;:}) ';}i'ff/:'\;'~'.!ff,:j:,j

tT¥~d:>?~i';;t~:rt'.'.

.::,-:!rt I~::: ;. :,:..,: Threadfin shad 288 50.2 6.9 41* 0.8 0.7 Blue catfish 70 12.2 16.1 ------Channel catfish 68 11.8 12.5 66 1.3 4.7 White perch 54 9.4 36.6 ------Yellow p'erch 35 6.1 3.4 381 7.6 8:o Gizzard shad 25 4.4 12.9 4,245 82.6 51.8 White catfish 15 2.6 7.4 123 2.4 17.6 Bluegill 6 1.0 1.5 77 1.5 2.1 Flat bullhead 3 0.5 1.1 10 0.2 0.5 Snail bullhead 2 0.3 0.6 ------Warmouth 1 0.2 0.1 30 0.6 2.8 Flier 1 0.2 0.0 1 0.02 0.08 Hybrid sunfish 1 0.2 0.7 ., ------Black crappie ------66 1.3 2.5 Pumpkinseed

---

56 1.1 1.1 .. White bass ------15 0.3 5.2 White crappie ' ------15 0.3 3.3 Longnose gar ------10 0.2 0.2 Redearsunfish

---

2 0.04 0.02 Yellow bullhead ------1 0.02 0.08 Largemouth bass ------1 0.02 0.01 f;iSJ!l;Jti.U:.f11S!'.l;/~t:*I~;Hi~

1 iiifi11:;~L'f 1:{tii~. (/';>; :;:'> :i,J:;:;, .. ,;,,*;:'ill,/,'~' 1[:ir:t~b:~:t']L~,:;:. r.[\k:ti,::i;_;,i:;{'} l:t:\i}i:t}\Lit,;c}.'.: i:.:;::,,::i'~:;:'.'.'.i('~ Crayfish 4 0.7 0.2 ------Grass shrimp 1 0.2 0.0 X ----Asiatic clam X ----Total 574 5,140 a Source: Geosyntec (2007). b Source: Dames & Moore (1985). Table 5 Size Range of Impinged Fish at VCSNS Unit 1, July 2005-June 2006 8 Species Number of Fish Total Length (mm) Common Name Measured Minimum Maximum Mean Threadfin shad 288 35 119 64 Blue catfish 70 56 290 113 Channel catfish 68 48 237 106 White perch 54 30 250 150 Yellow perch 35 44 118 97 Gizzard shad 25 56 332 117 White catfish 15 60 260 150 Bluegill 6 80 120 105 Flat bullhead 3 97 174 124 Snail bullhead 2 88 155 122 Flier 1 35 35 35 Hybrid sunfish 1 155 155 155 Warmouth 1 70 70 70 a_ Source: Geosyntec (2007). Table 6 Extrapolated Annual Estimate of Impingement at VCSNS Unit 1 Based on Monte Carlo Simulation, July 2005-June 2006 8* b Annual Estimate Upper Confidence Limit tEr~~::;g('.;;it;JFi.".:-t:;,:i]\:;;1~i:/fu::L~?~;:r]1:~~:'.~;;/i2Ii1:t.*:J'i*:;;i*;:/>l~;,J}t\::{){,}.~;(l:fl{fo;'.():i':?~::'.',., ;~;;'::".:6::*t:)~*/'tat;/(:;ii;: Threadfin shad 4,377 4,593 Blue catfish 1,064 1, 116 Channel catfish 1,033 1,084 White perch 821 861 Yellow perch 532 558 Gizzard shad 380 399 White catfish 228 239 Bluegill 91 96 Flat bullhead 46 48 Snail bullhead 30 32 Flier 15 16 Warmouth 15 16 Hybrid sunfish 15 16 ;~§H!fJ1ilfffi.!~H:H?:1Ut:fti;t1:t~1:')1~:;:fo:tf}?{ ! :t~?.,'.,f

1 I:tt'i**t?"-'~;;;

'>** :,,:, *:t;;::~* .. i:t;;,*r:;:;:r tf';*iEt ::*'*":. ti} y.** *:.*,ci** .,,*::~~?:'.'{<:,;* i\f Crayfish 61 64 Grass shrimp 15 16 Total 8,723 9,154 a Source: Geosyntec (2007). b*Annual impingement was estimated as the "calculation baseline" as defined in _the remanded Phase II rule and was adjusted upward to account for failure of a circulating water pump during part of the study. Table 7

• Known Life-Stage Habitats of Representative Fish Species Occurring in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS Family/Species Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)

Threadfin shad (Oorosoma petenense) Whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea) Eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius) Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macro/epicfotum) Adults Pelagic, schooling, in deep, open water of rivers, lakes, impoundments, and backwaters of low-gradient streams; occur over a variety of substrates, including.heavily silted bottoms; . planktivore ( 1, 2). Pelagic, schooling, in mid-water of lakes, reservoirs, backwaters, and pools of larger rivers; planktivore; susceptible to cold shock, which can result in massive die-offs (1, 2). Sand and gravel runs and riffles in larger creeks and medium rivers; also occurs along reservoir shorelines (2). Slow-moving large streams and rivers, moderate to low gradient; generally found in pools and backwaters over sand (1, 2). Wide variety of habitats; sandy and rocky pools and runs of moderate-gradient streams and rivers to often turbid and bottom rivers (1, 2). Moderate-gradient, medium to large streams and rivers; mainly in deeper pools with sand, gravel, rubble and bedrock; also occupies shallows of lakes and reservoirs (1, 2). Spawn.ing Spawns March-August near the surface in shallow water of rivers, sloughs, coves, and backV>{aters, an'd in low-gradient tributaries or ditches; spawns in large ~ggregations pf adults (1, 2). Spawns April-July along shorelines in groups over aquatic plants and other submerged structure; 0 spawning begins at' sunrise (1). Protracted spawning season from June to August; presumably deposits eggs in crevices like other species in the genus (2). Spawns 'in spring in large schools in shallows of backwaters

• and covers (1, 2). Spawns April-June in groups or aggregations; scatters eggs in shallow riffles over sand and gravel, or over sandy bottom or filamentous algae (1, 2). Spawns early April to May in streams on gravel shoals or in runs or pool tails over gravel, rubble, or sand (1, 2). Eggs/Larvae Eggs demersal, in ribbon-like masses, adhering to algae, rocks, vegetation, or other objects in shallow water; larvae concentrate near surface in calm water (1, 2) . Eggs demersal, adhering to submerged plants, logs, boulders, or debris (1). Eggs shed on or above silted, unvegetated detrital areas, also in sand and gravel areas (1). Eggs demersal and adhesive (1, 2). Eggs demersal and adhesive; larvae spend first several days motionless on bottom before moving into water column (14). Juveniles School in open water, straining plankton in surface waters (2). Similar to adults.

Table 7' Known Life-Stage Habitats of Representative Fish Species Occurring in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS Family/Species White catfish (Ameiurus catus) Blue catfish (lctalurus furcatus) Channel catfish (/ctalurus punctatus) White perch (Marone americana) Striped bass (Marone saxatilis) Adults Channels and backwaters of small to large rivers, reservoirs, ponds, and brackish waters, over sand or silt (1, 2, 5). Deep swift channels of rivers and impoundments over sand, gravel, and rubble (1, 2, 5, 10). Deep pools of large streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs over a variety of substrates (1, 2). Euryhaline, schooling; creek-like,

• riverine, and embayed portions of estuaries, and freshwater rivers and reservoirs (1, 2). Anadromous, schooling; channels of large coastal rivers, lakes, impoundments, and connecting rivers; adults return to estuaries, ocean, or reservoirs after spawning; stocked into many reservoirs (1, 2). Spawning Spaw/is May-July over shaped nests in sand or gravel (1, 2). SpaWl)s April to June in natural cavities around piles of drift, logs, and *undercut banks (10). Spawns May-July in nests in sheltered areas of rivers around piles of drift logs, undercut banks, or in cavities (1, 5). Semi-anadromous, moving from estuarine to fresher waters, or may migrate within reservoirs, to spawn;.spawns April,-early June over sand and gravel (1, 2). Ascends freshwater coastal rivers or tributary rivers ( of reservoirs);

spawns March-early June in near-sl!rface spawning aggregations; .broc1dcast eggs in moderate to strong current over rapids 'and boulders (1, 3). Eggs/Larvae Eggs demersal and adhesive, guarded and fanned by parents (1, 5). Eggs demersal and adhesive, guarded and fanned by parents; fry remain in nest for several days, protected by male (10). Eggs demersal and adhesive, guarded and fanned by parents; fry remain in nest for several days, protected by male (5). Eggs demersal and adhesive, attaching to substrate; with intensive spawning, eggs may adhere to each other, and drift and incubate in current; as larvae grow they move into water column as downstream or planktonic drift (15). Eggs semi-buoyant and adhesive, drifting downstream 2-3 days and requiring suspension above bottom to survive until hatching; streams must be of sufficient length to suspend eggs uniil hatching; larvae drift for several days (1, 3). Juveniles Young-of-year feed on or near the bottom (5). Sand substrate, low velocity, and shallow depths in habitats off the main channel (6). Protected shoreline areas near bottom at depths of 8 to 12 feet (15). Lower rivers, coastal estuaries, or lacustrine backwaters (1, 4). Table 7 Known Life-Stage Habitats of Representative Fish Species,OccurriQg in _Mpnticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS Family/Species Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) Largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/moldes) Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromacu/atus) Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedt) Adults Rocky and sandy pools and backwaters of streams and rivers of low to moderate gradient, often associated with woody debris, stumps, and undercut banks; pond and reservoir margins (1, 3). Pools and backwaters of creeks and small to large rivers, swamps, oxbows, and vegetated shores of all types of impoundments (1, 2). Clear, vegetated ponds, reservoirs, and lowland swamps; sluggish, vegetated pools of streams and rivers (1, 3, 7). Clear, low-velocity waters of lakes, ponds, oxbows,* reservoirs, and large streams and rivers; usually in association with vegetation, logs, stumps, or other cover (1, 5). . Clear backwater and pools.of streams, reservoirs, ponds, oxbows, and lakes; often among vegetation, fallen trees, and stumps (1, 5). Sandy and muddy pools and slow runs of creeks, small to medium rivers and lake shores (1, 11). Spawni(lg Spawns late May-July in nests constructed near cover in shallow, 'calm pool margins on san*d or fine gravel, or in sheller of large rocks or snags near swifter water (1, 3):

• Spawns May-August (peak generally in June) in nests constructed in shallow water on sand or gravel; freque"ntly nests in colonies (1, 3). ' Spawns spring to mid-summer in nests in sha,llow water near vegetation on sand, mud, or gravel, often in colonies (1, 5, 7). Spawns April-June in nests constructed on gr~vel or other firm substrates along margins of coves or quiet pools at depths of 0.3 to 0.6 m and sometimes greater (1, 5). Spawns late FebruaT)i,early May in nests constructed in shallow to moderately deep po"ols on sand or fine gravel, usually n*ear vegetation (1, 5). Spawns April-June in shallow water with slow to moderate current; inverts and *attaches eggs on undersides of stones, flat rocks, woody debris or other objects (1, 1 ~). Eggs/Larvae Eggs demersal and adhesive; male guards nest until fry depart; fry occur in shallow water near cover or vegetation (1, 5). Eggs demersal and adhesive; male guards next until fry leave and migrate from littoral to limnetic zone (1, 3, 5). Eggs demersal and adhesive; male guards nest until fry depart; fry occur in shallow water among submergent vegetation (7). *Eggs demersal; male guards nest until fry depart; fry occur in calm water near flooded vegetation or other cover (1, 8). Eggs demersal and adhesive; male guards nest until fry depart; fry move to nearby shallow, vegetated areas in calm water (5, 9). Eggs adhesive; male cleans and guards eggs (1, 12). Juveniles Shallow, vegetated littoral zones of still water (5). Shallow, vegetated littoral zones of still water (5). Similar to adults (7). Similar to adults (8). Often found over open water of considerable depth (10).

Table 7 Known Life-Stage Habitats of Representative Fish Species-Occurrin.9_ in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS Family/Species Adults Spawning Eggs/Larvae Juveniles Yellow perch Pools and backwaters of streams Spawns March-May in SC at Eggs adhere to vegetation or Similar to adults in slightly (Perea f/avescens) and rivers, ponds, lakes, and night in shallow (1-3.7 m), slow bottom substrates; fry move to shallower water (13). reservoirs; usually in clear water water over vegetation/woody calm, open water (1, 13). near vegetation; schools roam in debris, and sandy to rocky shallows among vegetation; bottoms; eggs broadcast_ in move to deeper, more open gelatinous strands (1, '2, 13). areas in winter (1, 11, 13). ' '* a Sources: 1 -Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993 9 Edwards et al., 1982 2 -Rhode et al., 2009 10-Pflieger, 1997 3 -Marcy et al., 2005 11. -Page and Burr, 2011 4 -Rhode et al., 1994 12 -Page, 1983 5 -Boschung and Mayden, 2004 13 -Krieger et al., 1983 6 -Phelps et al., 2011 14 -Ross, 2001 7 -Twomey, 1984 15 -Stanley and Danie, 1983 8 -Stuber et al., 1982 Table 8 Monthly Density of lchthyoplankton , Young-of-Year , and Year lin g Fish Collected in Monticello Reservoir , September 2008-August 2009 a Total Larval Month Density by (2008-2009) Species/Taxon Life Stageb Density Monthc September Channel catfish YOY 0.19 0 October None captured 0 0 November None captured 0 0 December Threadfin shad YOY 0.17 0 January None captured 0 0 February None captured 0 0 March Black crappie PYSL 0.25 31.86 Threadfin shad Undetermined 0.42 YSL 21.76 PYSL 4.43 Darter YSL 0.09 Unidentifiable Undetermined 0.29 l_arvae -White perch *-YSL 3.93 PYSL 0.60 Yellow perch PYSL 0.09 -Ap ril Black crappie PYSL 0.31 62.89 -Gizzard shad YSL 2.48 Threadfin shad Undetermined 3.06 YSL 17.97 PYSL 14.72 Catostomidae YSL 0.10 PYSL 0.54 Cyprinidae YSL 0.33 PYSL 0.31 Lepomis sp. PYSL 0.11 White perch YSL 15.55 PYSL 7.41 May Gizzard shad YSL 2.99 125.15 Threadfin shad YSL 17.91 PYSL 98.27 Catostomidae PYSL 0.49 Cyprinidae PYSL 0.37 Darter YSL 0.09 PYSL 0.19 Table 8 Month l y Densi t y of Jchthyop l an k ton , Young-of-Yea r , and Year li ng F i sh Collected i n Monticello Reservo ir , September 2008-August 2009 8 Total Larval Month Density by (2008-2009) Species/Taxon Life Stageb Density Monthc Lepomissp. PYSL 0.92 White perch YSL 0.46 PYSL 3.46 June Blue catfish YOY 0.39 30.2 1 Brown bullhead YOY 0.09 Channel catfish YOY 0.92 Spottail shiner YOY 0.10 Threadfin shad YOY 0.09 Clupeidae YSL 0.71 PYSL 28.00 Cyprinidae PYSL 0.69 Lepomis sp. PYSL 0.52 White catfish YOY I 0.10 White perch PYSL 0.29 July Blue catfish Yearling 0.10 2.87 Clupeidae PYSL 1.35 -Cyprinidae PYSL 0.10 Lepomis sp. PYSL 1.42 August Blue catfish Yearling 0.21 0.41 Clupeidae PYSL 0.20 Lepomis sp. PYSL 0.21 a Source: Normandeau (2009b). b Life stages: YSL = yo l k-sac l arvae; PYSL = post yolk-sac larvae; YOY = young-of-year

Yearling = age 1; Undetermined

= damaged specimen for which l i fe stage could not be determined. c E x cludes YOY and yearling l i fe stages , which are large r may be non-entrainab l e in size. Table 9 Average Density and Percent Composition of lchthyoplankton Collected in Monticello Reservoir , September 2008-August 2009 8 Average Density Species/Taxon Life Stage* (number/100 m 3) Percent Composition Threadfin shad Undetermined 0.10 1.4 YSL 1.70 22.8 PYSL 3.45 46.4 ' Clupeidae YSL 0.02 0.3 PYSL 0.87 11.6 White perch YSL 0.59 7.9 PYSL 0.35 4.7 Gizzard shad YSL 0.16 2.2 Lepomis sp. PYSL 0.09 1.2 Cyprinidae YSL 0.01 0.1 PYSL 0.04 0.6 Catostomidae YSL <0.01 <0.1 .. PYSL 0.03 0.4 .. Black crappie PYSL 0.02 0.2 *oarter -' . YSL 0.01 -* . 0.1 --PYSL 0.01 0.1 Unidentifiable larvae Undetermined 0.01 0.1 Yellow perch PYSL . <0.01 <0.1 a Life stages: YSL = yolk-sac larvae; PYSL = post yolk-sac larvae; Undetermined = damaged specimen for which life stage could not be determined. FIGURES I I ~* I I \ / / I r LEGEND I

• Hope Station N 10-km (6-mi) radius of V.C. Summer N Interstates N Majo r Roads M i nor Roads County Boundaries

-Lakes and Rivers ..... Piitrr ffydro ,. Monticello ' . --Sul>-impo'undment I J l I

• Jenkins ville Source: NRC , 2004 N ~* / J ,* s ,. ~* ;*,-----------------------r--------------,----_J l g Geosyntec C> *. Site Vicinity of VCSNS Unit 1 consultants Figure i' Jenkinsville , South Carolina j L-----------------------------L-A_tia_nt

__ a. __ G __ e.:_or.::_gia:_ _J_ __ o:::.:c:.=to:_be:::_r_:2~01:6 _ _J_ ___ 1 _ _J I 0 Pa" Reservoir M o nticello Reservoir FPSF Intake Site Layout of the VCSNS Unit 1 Cooling Water Intake Structure and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility Jenkinsville , South Carolina 1 50 0 0 1500 3000 fe et Geosyntec 0 Figure c on sultants 2 Atlanta , Georgia Octo ber 201 6 '~---------------------------------~--------~-------...._ _____ _, 0 § f 1 i -------D CJ [_ CJ 350 -360 360 -370 370 -380 380 -390 390 -400 400 -410 410 -420 420 -430 High elevation hydraulic influence boundary Declining eleva tion hydraulic influence boundary Low elevation hydr au li c influence boundary I>----------------------------------------~-----------------~--------< u d i Bathymetric Depiction of Monticello Reservoir and the CWIS Area of Influence near VCSNS Unit 1, April 2005 Jenkinsville , South Carol ina Geo syn tee 0 Figure consultants 3 Atlanta, Georgia October 2016 l'---------------------------------------~--------~--------~-----~ Figure 4 Spawning Seasons of Representative Fish Species Occurring in Monticello Reservoir in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 CWIS Herrings and Shads Gizzard shad Threadfin shad Minnows Whitefin shiner Eastern silvery minnow Spottail shiner Suckers .. Shorthead redhorse Catfishes White catfish . u~ .. -Blue catfi'sD,. Channel catfish Temperate basses White perch Striped bass Sunfishes Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Redear sunfish Largemouth bass Black crappie Perches Tessellated darter Yellow erch Appen.dix A:. \I.C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION ENTRAINMENT STUDY-2016 AND REVISED 2017 Table 4-1. Month, common name, and counts of ichthyoplankton collected in Monticello Reservoir, March through August 2016. YSL = yolk-sac larvae, PYSL = post yolk-sac larvae, ULS = undetermined larval stage, and YOY = year. Month Common name Eggs YSL PYSL ULS YOY March Black Crappie 2 Carp and Minnow Family 4 Dorosoma Species 1 1 Golden Shiner 1 Largemouth Bass 1 White Perch 1 Chubsucker Species 1 Unidentified Osteichthyes 2 April Carp and Minnow Family 13 Dorosoma Species 72 101 70 Quillback 2 1 White Perch 2 9 Chubsucker Species 6 May ** ¢arp and Minnow Fmnily 3-** u

• Dorosoma Species 39* 146 8 Gizzard Shad,. 1 Lepomis Species 3 June Blue Catfish 1 Dorosoma Species 463 186 Lepomis Species 15 Threadfin Shad 2 July Channel Catfish 1 Dorosoma Species 2 Lepomis Species 94 Threadfin Shad 30 5 August Channel Catfish 3 Darter Species 2 Lepomis Species 11 Threadfin Shad 2 Unidentified Osteichthyes 2 2 Total 1 580 640 85 5 Summer Station 2016 lchthyo Final Report-2017 Additions.docx2/28/17 28 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

V.C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION ENTRAINMENT STUDY-2016 AND REVISED 2017 Table 4-6. Mean ichthyoplankton*density (no./100 m 3), listed in decreasing order of overall density, for each fish taxon, life stage and sampling depth at VC Summer Nuclear Station, averaged over diel and sample periods from 1 March through 31 August 2016. YSL = yolk-sac larvae, PYSL = post yolk-sac larvae, ULS = undetermined larval stage, and YOY = young-of-the-year. Surface (n=24) Midwater (n=24) Overall (n=48) Taxon Life Stage Mean % Mean % Mean % Dorosoma Species YSL 18.24 62.9 2.54 14.7 10.39 44.9 Dorosoma Species PYSL 5.52 19.1 10.23 59.2 7.87 34.0 Lepomis Species PYSL 2.43 8.4 1.41 8.2 1.92 8.3 Dorosoma Species ULS 1.24 4.3 1.36 7.9 1.30 5.6 Threadfin Shad PYSL 0.24 0.8 0.84 4.9 0.54 2.3 Carp and Minnow Family PYSL 0.48 1.6 0.20 1.2 0.34 1.5 White Perch PYSL 0.16 0.6 0.18 1.0 0.17 0.7 Chubsucker Species PYSL 0.25 0.9 0.00 0.0 0.12 0.5 Threadfin Shad ULS 0.09 0.3 0.06 0.4 0.08 0.3 Channel Catfish .. YOY 0.00 0.0 0.13 0.7 0.06 0.3 . .. -... Unidentified Osteichthyes PYSL 0.05 0.2 0.06 0.4 0.06 0.3 Black Crappie PYSL 0.07 0.2 0.00 0.0 0.04 0.2 I Quillback YSL 0.07 0.2 0.00 0.0 0.03 0.1 White Perch YSL 0.03 0.1 0.04 0.2 0.03 0.1 Darter Species YSL 0.00 0.0 0.06 0.4 0.03 0.1 Unidentified Osteichthyes ULS 0.00 0.0 0.06 0.4 0.03 0.1 Gizzard Shad PYSL 0.00 0.0 0.04 0.2 0.02 0.1 Blue Catfish . YOY 0.00 0.0 0.04 0.2 0.02 0.1 Dorosoma Species Egg 0.04 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 0.1 Golden Shiner PYSL 0.04 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 0.1 Quillback PYSL 0.03 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.02 0.1 Largemouth Bass PYSL 0.00 0.0 0.03 0.2 0.02 0.1 Total 28.98 100.0 17.29 100.0 '23.13 100.0 Summer Station 2016 lchthyo Final Report-2017 Additions.docx2/28/17 34 Normandeau Associates, Inc. \I.C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION ENTRAINMENT STUDY-2016 AND REVISED 2017 Table 4-7. Mean depth-averaged ichthyoplankton density (no./100 m 3) by fish taxon, life stage, die! period and month at VC Summer Nuclear Station representative of the period from 1 March through 31 August 2016. YSL = yolk-sac larvae, PYSL = post yolk-sac larvae, ULS = undetermined larval stage, and YOY = the-year. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Taxon Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Black Crappie PYSL 0.43 Blue Catfish YOY 0.23 Carp and Minnow Family PYSL 0.85 0.82 1.80 0.62 Channel Catfish YOY 0.20 0.56 Chubsucker Species PYSL 0.21 . 0.89 0.38 Darter Species YSL 0.38 Dorosoma Species Egg 0.21 PYSL 0.22 4.52 15.90 12.11 19.55 10.22 31.63 0.18 0.18 ULS 13.96 1.69 YSL 1.67 12.47 2.27 6.00 5.21 97.04 -Gizzard Shad PYSL ... 0.23 . .. ----Golden Shiner .. .PYSL ***** 0.21 .. .... Largemouth Bass PYSL 0.18 .. -Lepomis Species PYSL 0.70 0.66 2.70 10.85 6.12 1.12 0.91 Quillback PYSL 0.21 YSL 0.41 Threadfin Shad PYSL 0.46 1.40 4.23 0.19 0.19 ULS 0.74 0.18 Unidentified Osteichthyes PYSL 0.39 0.32 ULS 0.37 White Perch PYSL 0.21 0.65 1.17 YSL 0.21 0.20 Total 0.22 2.70 9.38 45.88 14.37 28.79 16.09 132.07 13.18 10.91 1.30 2.74 Summer Station 2016 lchthyo Final Report-2017 Additions.docx2/28/17 35 Normandeau Associates, Inc.}}