Text

Section 316(a) Demonstration (Type I)
	ML19093A172
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	08/31/1977
From:	; Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of VA, State Water Control Board
References
	Download: ML19093A172 (119)
	v • d • e

SECTION 316(a) DEMONSTRATION (Type I)

SURRY POWER STATION - UNITS 1 and 2 Submitted to Virginia State Water Control Board by Virginia Electric and Power Company August 31, 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCT 1. ON . .

I I. MASTER RATIONALE FOR TYPE I DEMONSTRATION 3 I I I. DESCRIPTION OF SURRY POWER STATION .... 10 A. PHYS ICAL LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. PERTINENT ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 11 C. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM . . . . 12 IV. SURRY POWER STATION OPERATING HISTORY 14 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE 20 A. HYDROLOGY * ,

20 B. METEOROLOGY 24 C. WATER QUALi TY 27

1. Chemistry 27

2. Sa I in i ty 29

3. Temperature 31 VI. HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER ANO TRANSITION ZONE 33 A. FINFISH . . . . . 34 B. BENTHOS . . . . . 36 C. FOULING ORGANJSMS 38 D. ZOOPLANKT~N . . . . , . . 39 E. PHYTOPLANKTON . . 41 F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 42 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH . . 43 V11. HISTORY OF THERMAL ANO ECOLOGICAL STUDIES AROUND SURRY POWER STATION. 44 A. THERMAL MODEL STUDIES* AND FIELD VERIFICATION 45 B. ECOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES . . 47

1. Finfish . * * * . * . . . 49

2. Benthos . . . . . 50

. J. Fou I i ng Organ isms . 51

4. Zooplankton . .

52

5. Phytoplankton . . . 53

c. ECOLOGICAL LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS . 54 VI I I. ANALYSIS OF SURRY STUDIES BY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 55 IX. THERMAL PLUME ANALYSIS . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A. PHYSICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS. . . . . . ... . 59 B. FI ELD MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 C. COMPARISON OF FIE~D DATA WITH MODEL PREDICTIONS 64 D. - COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS* . . 65 X. THERMAL EFFECTS . . . 66

-- A. FINFISH * . , . . .

B. BENTHOS . . . . . .

C. FOULING ORGANISMS . . . .

67 85 89

D~ ZOOPLANKTON . . * . . . . . . . . .. . 94

.e E.

F.

G.

PHYTOPLANKTON . . . . . . . . . .

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH

,* 101 108 109 XI .

SUMMARY

. . . . . 110 XI I. APPENDICES 111

FIGURES

1. Location of Surry Power Station on the James River, Virginia e 2. Typical Intake Current Velocity

3. Flow Records of the James River at Richmond (1970-1976) Showing Monthly Maxima, Minima and Averages

4. Temperature - Salinity Hydroclimographs Showing Average Conditions for Seven Seine Stations Around Hog Point, James River, Virginia by Month by Year, 1970-1976

5. Mean Benthic Community Structure Measurements by Transect

6. Temperature Monitoring Recorders - James River in Vicinity of Hog Point

7. Sample Station Locations for Various Components of the Surry Power Station Ecological Studies

8. Boat Cruise Temperature and Salinity Monitoring Stations

9. Sample Stations for Haul Seine and Otter Trawl. Haul Seine 0001 to 0007; Otter Trawl 0009 to 0014

1o. Sample Stations for Special Seine Study

- 11.

12.

13.

Number of Species, Diversity (H 1 ) , Evenness (J), and Richness (D) by Season for Seine and Trawl Caught Fishes, 1970-1976 Temporal Distribution of Surface Salinity at Benthos Station 11 Temporal Distributions of Balanus sp. Population Densities at the Three Fouling Plate Stations 1971-1976

14. Temporal Distributions of Barnacle Nauplii and Balanus sp. Adults at Fouling Plate Station DWS, and of Balanus sp. Adults at all Benthos Stations Combined; 1973-1976

15. Temporal Distributions of Corophium l.acustre Population Densities at the Three Fouling Plate Stations and at All Benthos Stations Combined; 1971-1976

16. Population Densities of Copepod Nauplii in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations

17. Population Densities of Rotifers in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations

18. Population Densities of Bosmina sp. in the Study Area, 1975-1976; Means Over Nine Stations

19. Populaiion Densities of Barnacle Nauplii at the Surry Power Station*

Discharge, 1975-1976

20 .. Population Densities of Polychaete Larvae in the Study Area, 1975~1976; Means Over Nine Stations e 21. Surface Water Temperature and Total Phytoplankton Abundance in the Study Area, 1975-1976

22. Surface Salinity and Skeletonema costatum Abundance in the Study Area,

975-1976

TABLES e 1. Surry Power Station - Unit One - Net Electrical Output in Megawatt Hours

2. Surry Power Station _; Unit Two - Net Electrical Output in Megawatt Hours

3. Surry Power Station - Unit One - Plant Capacity%

4. Surry Power Station - Unit Two - Plant* Capacity%

s. *Preoperational and Postoperational Haul ,Seine Data

6. Preoperational and Postoperational Haul Seine Data

]. Preoperational and Postoperational Trawl Data

8. Species Occurrence by Temperature

9. Species Occurrence by Salinity

10. Ecological Classification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Found in the Oligohaline James River

I. INTRODUCTION The Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco) announced plans in 1967 for the construction of a two unit nuclear powered electric generating station on Gravel Neck peninsula adjoining Hog Island in Surry County, Virginia (Fig. 1). Gravel Neck is located adjacent to the tidal oligohal ine transition zone of the James River, a major tributary of Chesapeake Bay. This zone is centered around Hog Island and generally ranges from 46 to 63 km (25-34 nautical miles) upstream from the river mouth.

Unit 1 attained initial criticality on July 1, 1972, and Unit 2 attained initial criticality on March 7, 1973, Vepco applied for a Section 316(a) demonstration on August 16, 1974, to be filed with the Virginia Water*Control Board on September 1, 1977, The following report constitutes a non-predictive demonstration

{Type I, absence of prior appreciable harm), and is submitted in accordance with the provisions and regulations under Public Law 92-500 and Vepco 1 s request of August 16, 1974. The data presented herein will demonstrate conclusively that the thermal effluent from Surry has not caused appreciable harm to the fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the waters of the James River. Such proof will constitute a successful Type I demonstration and render the Surry Power Station thermal discharge eligible for alternate thermal effluent 1 imi-tations as provided in existing laws ~nd regulations.

2

-N-I I

HOG

~ ISLAND INTAKE SUR~

STATION JAMES RIVER 0 2 Nautical MIies 1000 0 1000 2000 3000

,.,.,.,.,,. r 1 , Yards FIGURE 1:* Location of Surry Power Station on the James River, Virginia.

3 I I. MASTER RATIONALE FOR TYPE DEMONSTRATION Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide that

. a Type I demonstration (absence of prior *appreciable harm) may permit the impo-sition of alternate effluent limitations where the applicant can demonstrate that "no appreciable harm has resulted from the thermal component of the dis-charge * . . to a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in an*d on the body of water into which the discharge has been made * . . 11 40 C.F.R. § 122. lS(b) (1) (A) (1976). In order to. conduct a Type I demonstration, Vepco has conducted and funded extensive physical and ecological studies in the vicinity of Surry Power Station. As discussed below and throughout this demon-stration, data from these studies indicate that Vepco's Type I demonstration successfully meets the regulatory standard. The remainder of this master rationale discusses the requirements for conducting a Type demonstration and the results of the physical and ecological studies.

The threshold question is whether an applicant may be permitted to conduct a Type I demonstration. Vepco submitted a Type I demonstration study plan to EPA with a copy to the State Water Control Board on_ October 14, 1974.

This plan was approved on March 22, 1976. Also, Vepco satisfies the require-ments for such a demonstration. According to EPA's regulations, a Type I demonstration may be conducted if it satisfies two requirements. First, an applicant must have been discharging heated effluent into a body of water for a sufficient period of time prior to its§ 316(a). application to allow evaluation of the effects of the discharge. The preamble to EPA's regulations specifies that the minimum period between the commencement of thermal discharges and a

§ 316(a) demonstration should be one year. Vepco's Surry Power Station more than satisfies this requirement -- Unit became critical on July 1, 1972 and Unit 2, on

4

~arch 7, 1973, and Vepco submitted its application on August 16, 1974, Moreover, Vepco has conducted or funded ongoing physical and ecological studies since the late 1960 1 s including more than three years since its application for a § 316(a) demonstration. Thus, there is a substantial body of on-site thermal effects data with which to evaluate the influence, if any, of the discharge.

Second, the discharge must not have been into waters which are (or were) so despoiled as to preclude evaluation of the ecological effects of the thermal discharge. While the James River, at points upstream from Surry, might be considered despoiled, it is not despoiled in the vicinity of Surry because the station is located in the river's transition zone. As will be discussed later in this demonstration, this transition zone is one of relatively clean

water since the pollution load in the river upstream is largely dissipated through natural processes before reaching Surry. Thus, the James River in the vicinity o~ Surry is not so despoiled as to preclude evaluation of the ecological effects of its thermal ~ischarge.

Once it is established that a thermal effluent qua] ifies for a Type demonstration, it is necessary to determine whether absence of prior appreciable harm can be demonstrated. To accomplish this entails comprehensive, long-term ecological studies in the area of concern; studies which involve communities from almost all trophic levels as well as selected species within communities. If the data from several years' duration indicate that the balanced, indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and wild] ife in and on the body of water under study are not being appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent, the demonstration should be found successful.

The circulating water system of Surry Power Station was designed to minimize the size of the thermal plume with the knowledge that such a design would minimize any possible impact on the aquatic ecosystem. During the design

5 ph_ase of Surry Power Station, Vepco contracted with Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants, to utilize the hydraulic model of the James River estuary located

. at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. The purpose of using the model was to develop an optimum discharge location, configuration, and exit velocity. The final design resulted, in a relatively low delta-t effluent that mixes rapidly with ambient estuarine waters.

This design minimizes any possible influence from the effluent on the environ-ment by substantially reducing the area of excess temperature. Model tests also showed that by withdrawing water from the downstream side of Hog Point and discharging it into Cobham Bay upstream, any possible influence of the heated

effluent on the downstream James River seed oyster beds would be eliminated.

The success of the design and the accuracy of the*model have been verified by extensive field monitoring. The circulating cooling water system was designed, constructed, and operated according to hydraulic model parameters.

Model verification field data were collected by VIMS from 1971 through 1975, and

.included several years of station operation. These field studies indicated that model projections were conservative in that areas of excess temperature were much smaller than predicted. Vepco concluded and the State Water Control Board has recently agreed that, under operating conditions, the thermal plume complies with Virginia water quality standards.

The most important component of this demonstration isSection X whi.ch describes the effects, if any, of Surry's thermal discharge upon various components of the aquatic ecosystem. In order to assess these thermal effects, Vepco -has conducted and funded extensive studies on various trophic levels.

Most of the proof of absence of prior appreciable harm is based upon these recent physical and ecological studies. In addition, the demonstration draws

6 from studies of the James River ranging from water quality, to fishes, to power siation effects which have been conducted by a myriad of sponsors for a multitude of reasons.

Field studies conunenced in 1969, placing primary emphasis on fish populations and benthic communities. These studies also included fouling orga~isms, zooplankton and phytoplankton studies continued throughout several I

years of station operation. Depending on the trophic level under investigation, sample frequency ranged from daily to annually.

The sum total of these studies support two basic conclusions. First, the heated effluent from Surry Power Station has caused no appreciable ha.rm to the aquatic ecosystem. Second, these studies confirm what is already well-known by estuarine ecologists. Th~ oligohaline zone of an estuary is a highly variable, inhospitable environment characterized by its natural instability.

Such instability dictates that only a few species from each trophic level are indigenous to this type zone. Other species that may be present in significant numbers, and there are many of these, are temporary inhabitants and are present when environmental conditions are suitable for their well being.

The highest trophic level, the finfish, have not been appreciably harmed by the thermal discharges from Surry Power Station,. Communities have remained stable, within natural variability, as evidenced by diversity, evenness, and .richness indices and confirmed by both parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. In addition, changes within dominant species, where changes were evident, were examined and de*termi ned to be the result of natural and man-made perturbations other than Surry. Also, the thermal plume from Surry was determined not to form a barrier to migratory fishes based on studies of various anadromou~ species such as blueback herring (Alosa aestival isl. During six years e

7 of study, fishes of the James River from egg stage. through adult, were subjected e to a wide variety of envi ronmenta 1 i nsu 1ts. Hurricane Agnes flooded the 1ower estuary with freshwater runoff. Certain species were overfished. Mild as well as extremely cold winters were the rule rather than the exception. Chemicals such as chlorine from sewage treatment plants as well as Kepone resulted in unknown consequences.

As to ichthyoplankton, relati~ely few eggs and larvae were found because little spawning occurs in the vicinity of Surry. Centers of spawning I

abundance are known to be well upstream and downstream. VIMS determined that

.those eggs and larvae present in the area were not being entrained by the thermal plume.

Benthos (including shellfish) and fouling organisms have not been appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent. Rather, studies have served largely to confirm the well-known low diversity and high temporal variability in e 'communities of an estuarine transition zone. Change has occurred, largely in community structure but has not been related to the thermal effluent. Change, however, appears related to natural events such as Hurricane Agnes, depressed salinity levels, elevated wintertime temperatures, and minimum wintertime temperatures. Natural, environmentally induced changes, have overshadowed any response of these communities that may have been due to the power station effluent.

Results of plankton studies by VIMS revealed no appreciable harm from the thermal plume to James River communities of phytoplankton and zooplankton (including egg and larval stages of benthic macroinvertebrates). Natural periodic seasonal shifts in species dominants related to normal reproductive cycles, not Surry produced temperature regimes, were found. A slight modifi-cation in community structure during the summer months was found within the discharge canal and in a small area immediately outside of the canal, but not

8 in the balance of the river. It should be noted that, while this was the only seemingly negative effect found in any of the studies related to Surry operations, the effect was duet~ pumping operations across the peninsula, was not a thermal effect, and did not constitute an impact. In reality, plankton populations in the plume were sometimes diluted when the downstream water was poorer in plankton than the upstream receiving water, and were augmented when the down-stream water was rfcher in plankton or when meroplankton were released into the cooling water canals by natural spawning activity. These were near-field, non-thermal effects that could not be detected in sampling at other stations in the river.

From these studies the following conclusions have been made:

1. These studies demonstrate that there has been, and is likely to be, no appreciable harm to the balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the James River resulting from the thermal discharge from Surry Power Station.

a. Finfish populations have shown natural variability within and between species, sample stations, months, seasons, and years. The increase I

or decline of any given species has not been the result of the thermal effluent from Surry. A zone of passage has not been impaired to the extent that fish and shellfish species are unable to pass upstream and downstream past the thermal discharge.

b. Benthic organisms, including shellfish, have not displayed a negative response to, or impact from, the Surry thermal effluent.

c. Fouling organisms exhibited seasonal variation patterns that changed from year-to-year in response to natural factors and indicated no appreciable harm from the Surry thermal effluent.

d. Zooplankton populations, while generally low in numbers, e showed considerable variability in abundance within and between stations, months, and seasons, as well as depth, tide, and time of day. The zooplankton community* in the transition zone was not appreciably affected by the thermal effluent.

e. Phytoplankton. populations did not react to the thermal component of the Surry discharge. An infrequently observed pumping effect in the immediate discharge area consisted of augmentation (both species and indivi.duals within species) or reduction depending on the comparative concentration of cells between the i*ntake and discharge. Far-field populations showed no changes due to this non-thermal pumping effect.

f. There has been no harm to threatened or endangered species.

g. Vertebrates other than finfish have not been appreciably harmed by the Surry thermal effluent.

2. Receiving water temperatures, outside the State established mixing zone, comply with thermal water quality standards.

3. The receiving waters are not of such quality that in the presence or absence of the thermal discharge promote the growth of nuisance organisms.

10 111. DESCRIPTION OF SURRY POWER STAT I ON e . A. PHYS I CAL LAYOUT Units 1 and 2 were constructed on a peninsula of land known as Gravel Neck (Fig. 1). This peninsula, generally land of 20+ feet MSL, is adjacent to Hog Island Waterfowl Refuge on the north, and timber lands to the south. Prior to construction, the 840 acre site was used solely for timber operations.

The station, from intake point to discharge point, extends across the penJnsula with the discharge situated upstream from the intake, about 6 miles away.

Cooling water is withdrawn from the James River through an eight-bay, reinforced-concrete intake structure (hereinafter cal led 11 low-level 11 ) .

Housed within each of the intake bays is a 210,000 gpm circulating water pump

which moves water through a 95-in. diameter line to an elevated intake canal.

The canal, maintaining a minimum of 45,000,000 gallons of water, is concrete 1 ined and about 1.7 miles in length.

Cooling water flows by gravity the entire length of the canal (hereinafter called 11 high-level 11 ) into two four-bay intake structures, each structure serving one 810 MWe nuclear unit. After passing through the condensers and station proper, the water from both units, warmed by about 15 F, flows into a common discharge canal, 20-65 feet wide and 2,900 feet long *. The end of the canal at the point of exit to the James River is designed *to maintain a 6 fps discharge velocity to aid in the rapid mixing of heated water with ambient river water.

e

11 B. PERTINENT ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.

Certain features of environmental sigriificance were incorporated.

into the design of the Surry Power Station ... Because of the proximity of the station to historical Jamestown Island, the reactor containment foundations were constructed 50 feet below grade so as to lower the tops of the concrete domes and minimize their effect on the skyline as seen from across the river.

A blue-green siding for the turbine building was chosen to help to blend the structure into the forest background. The discharge canal, lined with trees, was constructed with an offset angle to minimize the view of the station from the river.

No chlorine is used for condenser cleaning at Surry Power Station.

Instead, an Amertap system was installed, utilizing abrasive sponge rubber balls.

A relatively low delta-t of 15 F was designed into the cooling system. This feature, coupled with the 6 fps jet discharge of heated water to the river, reduces the area of excess temperature in the James River proper.

Probably the feature of most significance to the aquatic environment of the James River was the design, construction, installation, and, ab9ve all, successful operation of a new concept in vertical travelling intake screens -

the Ristroph travelling fish screen. These screens are discussed in detail in Appendix S; briefly, they permit 94% of all impinged fishes to return alive to the James River.

. 12 C. CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM Surry Power Station utilizes a once-through system to dissipate waste heat from the turbine condensers and plant service water system (Fig. 1).

Water is withdrawn from the James River by eight 210,000 gpm pumps in an eight-bay shoreline stru~ture. Ahead of each pump is a standard trash rack (4 inches on center, 1/2 inch thick, 3 1/2 inch clearance). Between each trash rack and pump is a Ristroph travelling fish screen which effectively removes fishes greater than 30 mm total length from the incoming water and safely transports about 94% of them back to the James River.

From the pumps, water travels upward through 95 inch diameter pipes to an elevated, 1.7 mile long canal, whereby it flows by gravity through a second intake structure. This high-level structure has a trash rack assembly similar to the one at ,fne"-row-level structure, and conventional vertical

~- travelling screens which operate on a pressure differential. Water passes*

through the 15 F condensers of each unit and into 12.5-ft. by 12.5-ft.

rectangular tunnels and then into separate seal-pits in the discharge canal.

The canal is 2900 feet in length; 1800 feet is concrete lined and extends from the unit discharges to the.river shoreline, and 1100 feet extends out into the river in the form of a limestone rock enclosed groin (Fig. 1).

The velocity of the water flowing through the discharge canal is about 2 fps, however, the terminal discharge velocity is maintained at 6 fps by a contra l structure at the end of the cana 1. The ti me required for water to travel from the low-level shoreline intake structure to the discharge canal e*xit is about 61 minutes, of which the time of travel from the condenser inlet to the discharge canal exit is about 28 minutes.

13 In full-power operation, the Surry Power Station discharges 11.9 x 109 Btu/hr into the James River. Dissipatio'n of the thermal plume is dependent on prevail in~ estuarine and meteorological conditions including, but not limited to: the flow regimes of the estuary, their associated densities and temperatures, wind velocities and direction, ambient air temperatures, and relative humidities.

River topography is also important in determining the manner of heat dissipation. The river in the vicinity is generally shallow with a maintained shipping channel. Directly across from the discharge toward Jamestown Island the river is about 2.6 miles wide. At its narrowest, opposite Hog Point, the river is 1.5 miles wide, and becomes about 3,75 miles wide opposite the Jow-l eve l i n takes .

_)

14 IV. SURRY POWER STATION OPERATING HISTORY Surry Unit 1 attained initial criticality July 1, 1972, and was declared commercial December 22, 1972. Unit 2 became critical March 7, 1973, and was declared commercial May 1, 1973. The following Tables (1-4) list net electrical output (MW-hrs) and plant *capacities (%) from the time each unit became crit1cal through June 1977.

Surry Power Station utilizes eight (8) circulating water pumps to supply cooling and service water from the James River for the condensers.

When all eight (8) circulating water pumps are in operation, the combined flow is 1,680,000 gpm or 210~000 gpm per pump.

Figure 2 indicates current velo~ities at the low-level intakes.

These data were determined utilizing a Bendix Savonius Rotor Current Speed Sensor Model B-1. Replicates were taken surface to bottom at one foot intervals outboard of three (3) intake bays . .

The change in temperature (delta-t) of the cooling water when both units are operating at 100% capacity and all systems are functioning; varies between 14.0 and 14.8 F. If both units are operating and a malfunction in the system occurs, eg., loss of a circulating water pump, there may be a subsequent slight increase in the delta-t.

The groin discharge structure was designed to maintain an exit current velocity of approximately 6 fps. This design was established from model studies so that the velocity* of the discharge water would permit maximum heat transfer efficiency with ambient river water.

15 TABLE 1: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT ONE -

NET ELECTRICAL OUTPUT IN MEGAWATT-HOURS 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 76,582 -o- -o-* 561,212 139,519 February 351,949 -o- 412,497 517,366 456,863 March 345,220 251,119 431,941 376,648 568,732 April 313,633 503,663 462,515 426,326 195, 185 May 337,327 478,272 530,894 465,205 308,286 June 266,603 498,838. 477,277 527,763 551,480 July 30,252 445,294 326,556 407,891 395,817 August -o- 409,375 548,037 487,651 416,802 September 78,764 284, 190 468,107 429,467 422,821 e October 31 159,011 243,481 -o- 286,925 November -o- 490,569 -o- -o- -o-December 206,937 -o- -o- 276,394 -o-

16 TABLE 2: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT TWO -

NET ELECTRICAL OUTPUT IN MEGAWATT-HOURS 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 493,276 424,102 387,305 547,338 February 427,329 480,554 371,511 174,425 March 57,436 526,222 514,153 449,305 -o-Apri 1 255,450 229,597 427,911 358,361 349,246 May 147,294 -o- -o- -o- 564,584 June 466,755 51,204 216,234 355,272 543,470 July 410,548 401,279 458,372 527,570

- August September October 450,028 481,628 409,633 400,622 104,944

-o-513,134 497,651 424,714 505,862 258,516

-o-November 223,365 -o- 542,529 -o-December 475;475 -o- 553,728 129,619

17 e TABLE 3: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT ONE - PLANT CAPACITY%

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 January 13. 1 -o- -o- 95. 7 . 23.8 February 66.6 -o- 78.0 94.3 87.7 March

58. 9 42. 1 73. 7 64.2 98.6 Apri 1 . 55. 4 88.8 81. 5 75. 1 35.0 May 57.5 78.2 90.6 79.3 53.5 June 47.0 84.3 84. 1 93.0 98.8 July 5. 1 76.0 53.4 69.5 67.5 August -o- 69.8 93.4 83.2 71. 1 September 13.9 so. 1 82.5 75.7 74.5 e October 0.005 27. 1 41. 5 63.3 48.9 November -o- 86.5 52.5 57.6 -o-December 44.5 -o- 32.7 47. 1 -o-

"t _ Net Elec. Power Generated Plant Capaci Y - Cur. Lie. Power Level (788)xGross Hours in . . p Report1ng er10

d X 100

18 TABLE 4: SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT T\rJO - PLANT CAPACITY%

1972 1973 *1974 1975 1976 1977 January 87,7 72, 3 66.0 93,4 February 78,9 90.7 67,7 33,5 March 9.8 87.8 87,7 76.6 0 Apri 1 45. 1 38.8 75,4 63.2 62.7 May 25. 1 56.2 64.7 0 97,9 June 82.2 8.6 38. 1 62.6 97,4 July 70.0 65.6 78.2 90.0 August 76.8 68.3 87.5 86.3 September 84.9 18.5 87.7 45.6 October 69.8 45.8 72.4 0 e November 39. 3 41. 7 95.6 0 December 81. 1 38.2 94.4 22. 1 Net Electric Power Generated Plant Capacity= Cur. Lie. Power Level (788) x Gross Hours in Reporting Period x lOO

19 e Surface 5

10

...c:

,l,j 15 C.

(!J 0

20 0 .s 1. 0 t. 5 2.0 Velocity (feet per second) e FIGURE 2: Typical Intake Current Velocity

20 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE

- at Richmond.

A. HYDROLOGY The James River is tidal fr6m its mouth at Fort Wool to its fall line Upstream from the site at Surry, the James is fed by a drainage area of 9517 square miles. Freshwater inflow from this watershed is highly variable, ranging from a mean monthly average low*of 350 cfs in October, '1930, to a mean monthly average high of 36,185 cfs in January, 1937. Hurricane Agnes in June, 1972 caused the flood of record in the James River with a flow of 313,000 cfs.

The tidal James River is classified as a partially mixed estuary where salinity decreases in a more or less regular manner from the mouth toward the transition zone, and also increases with depth at any location.

The less saline upper part*of the water column has a net non-tidal motion directed toward the mouth of the James, wh i* 1e the more sa 1 i ne deeper part has a net non-tidal motion directed upstream. The boundary between the layers is generally sloped across the estuary so that the downstream moving surface layer extends to greater depths oa the right side (looking downstream) than on the left. Conditions can exist whereby a net downstream flow on the right side of the estuary coexists with a net upstream flow on the left side.

Basically this means that the net non-tidal flow involves volumes of water that are large when compared to river flow, but small compared to osci_llatory tidal flow. For example, in July, 1950, the fresh water discharge at Hog Point was about 6,000 cfs, the downstream directed flow in the surface layers was 18,000 cfs, and a counter-flow upstream in the deeper layers was about 12,000 cfs. By comparison, the average volume rate of flow {upriver during flood tide, downriver during ebb tide) was about 130,000 cfs during this time.

21 Flow records for the James River have been maintained for many years at the farthest downstream gaging station on the main stem at Richmond (Fig. 3).

Using these records and records from major tributary streams downstream from Ri,hmond, fresh water inflows at Hog Point have been calculated. It should be noted that the mean travel time for a flow of 14,000 cfs from Richmond to Hog

.Point is in excess of 20 days. This results in a relatively slow reaction time I

of the estuary at Hog Point to rapid fluctuations*1in flow at Richmond. The effects of rapid changes at Richmond are dampened considetably by the time the water reaches Hog Po~nt .

. The astronomical tide in the James River estuary, as along the Atlantic coastline of the United States, is primarily semi-diurnal with twcr high and two low waters each lunar day of 24.84 hours9.722222e-4 days 0.0233 hours 1.388889e-4 weeks 3.1962e-5 months .

Mean t1de level at Hog Point (based on a datum plane of mean lo~.water)

,. is +1.0 foot. Mean -tidal e

1 range is 2.1 feet and the mean spring tidal range is 2.5 feet.

J.

At Hog Point the ebb current is l~nger and stronger than the flood 1

current. The average maximum ebb current is 2.2 *ft. sec- (1.3 knots) while

-1 the average maximum fl?od current is 1.9 ft. sec (1. 1 knots). Spring tides have maximum ebb currents of 3.2 ft. sec-l (1.9 knots) and maximum flood currents

-1 of 2.8 ft. sec (1.6 knots). Current ebbs for 7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months 5 minutes and floods for 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months 20 minutes during a ty~ical tidal period of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months 25 minutes.

Since these figures are based on near surface observations, it should be noted v

that the predomi~ance of ebb over flood decre~ses with decreasing river 1;~charge and often depth.

The salinity structure in the James River has been studied almost every year since 1942. Hog* Point ha; been established to be in the transition region between the tidal river and the estuary proper. Areas upstream and e

e e e t 1

~.., ~

GI .,.

~ ~

GI

90 !!! OI

~ ~

-i* 7 N

C:

80 0

~ ::!

10 60 00 40

~o 20 10 JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJAS-ONOJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND; 1969 1970 .1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1976 FIGURE 3: Flow records of the James River at Richmond (1970-1976) showing monthly maxima, minima, and averages.

N N*

23 downstream from Hog P6int are subject to a wide range of salt concentrations,

_4lt primarily depending on freshwater river flow. Above 10,000 cfs, the freshwater/

saltwater interface moves ddwnstream of Hog Point. At median river flows of about 7,500 to 8,000 cfs, salinity readings off Hog Point are about 2 ppt.

High discharge rates in the James River occur generally in the colder months with low flows occurring generally in late summer and early fall.*

For a more detailed description of the hydrology*of the James River estuary see Appendix C from which much of the foregoing summary has been drawn.

e

24 B. METEOROLOGY The Surry Power Station is located in a humid subtropical climate which has warm humid summers arid mild winters. Tropical maritime air dominates the area during the summer months while the winter season is dominated by a transition zone separating polar continental and tropical maritime air masses.

The site's close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Appalachian Mountains results in these geographic features influencing the local climate in the Surry area. The Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay have a moderating effect on the ambient temper~ture at Surry. The Appalachian Mountains either deflect or modify winter storms approaching from the West and Northwest and, *there~y, decrease the storms' severity for the Piedmont and Tidewater areas of Virginia.

The onsite meteorology has been monitored since March, 1974 by a mini-computer based system which satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23.

The meteorological monitoring site is located 1494 meters to the southeast of Unit 1. The system includes a 45.7 meter tower." Dry bulb temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed, and wind direction are measured at the 10 meter level. Wind speed and wind direction are measured at the 45.7 meter level.

Differential dry bulb temperature is measured between the 10 meter level and the 45,7 meter level. Prec~pitation is measured at the surface. The data are processed into one hour averages for historical storage.

Joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction for the wind sensors at the 10 m and the 45.7 m levels for the period March, 1974 through February, 1977 are*presented in Appendix B. A summary of th.e maximum one hour averaged wind speeds and their associated wind directions for the 10 m e

25 and the 45.7 m wind sensors for the period March, 1974 through February, 1971 is also presented in Appendix B. The data show, that the prevai 1 ing wind.

direction is from the S through SW with a secondary maximum from the NW through N.* This is in good agreement with climatological wind direction data for eastern Virginia.

Dry bul.b temperature, dew point temperature, and differential dry bulb temperature data are presented in Appendix B for the period March, 1974 through Februa*ry,.1977. The average daily value, maximum one hour val'ue, and minimum one hour value are given for each parameter. Additionally, an hourly profile of the average parameter day for each summary period is presented. The Surry dry bulb temperature data indicate an annual average of 59.9 F and 57.8 F for 1975 and 1976 which agrees very well with the average annual temperatures for Richmond (58.5 F and 57.7 F) and Norfolk (60.8 F and 59.7 F) for the same periods.

The Surry average annual dew point temperatures of 50.6 F and 45.1 F for 1975 and 1976 compare favorably with estimated average annual dew point temperatures for Richmond (50 F and 47 F) and Norfolk (52 F and 48 F). The one hour averaged dew point temperature extremes are 78.9 F (August, 1975) and

-4.5 F (January, 1977).

The onsite precipitation data are also given in A~pendix B. The maximum 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months precipitation amounts and the total precipi-tation are given for each month during the period March, 1974 through February, 1977. The monthly total precipitation data for Surry are also given. The Surry annual precipitation amounts for *1975 and 1976 are 59.07 in. and 32.66 in. These amounts compare\ery well with the pr~cipitation totals for Richmond (61.31 in. and 34.76 in.) and Norfolk (50.53 in. and 32.36 in.) for the same e periods.

26 Based upon the onsite wind speed, wind direction, dry bulb temperature, and dew point temperature data observed at Surry for the period March, 1974 through February, 1977, there are no significant deviations in the onsite meteorology from the general meteorological conditions experienced by eastern Virginia for the same period.

27 e C. WATER QUALITY

1. *Chemistry The James River is the most heavily industrialized and urbanized of Virginia's major tributa.ries to Chesapeake Bay. In addition to receiving substantial artificial enrichment from forest and agricultural sources, the tidal river receives heavy organic and inorganic loadings from both the metropolitan Richmond and the industrialized Hopewel 1 areas.

Levels of dissolved oxygen in the James River estuary, as in other estuarine systems, are determined largely by temperature and salinity influ-enced solubility coefficients. In addition, man-made or natural organic loadings which create an oxygen demand exceeding reaeration rates also influ-ence this coefficient. Lower port i ens of estuaries genera 11 y range between e 90 and 100 percent saturation, while upper reaches frequently fall below 90 percent due to marsh drainage and industrial wastes. In the James River, reaeration generally occurs between the transition zone and the 5 ppt isohaline and "critical" levels have not been measured around Hog Point.

Values* for pH levels show that the James River estuarine and tida.1 fresh water is slightly alkaline with mean values of ].4-8.0 (Appendix D). An occasional value as low as 6.8 has been recorded in the freshwater reach which has been attributed to marsh drainage water. Biological activity or minor influences by man seldom cause significant changes in pH levels. In general, mean pH values tend to decrease from the mouth upstream to the fall line although the range of values becomes wider upstream with decreasing salinity.

Alkalinity values tend to show differences with decreasing salinity in the James River because the freshwater discharge in this system is poorly e

28 Mean va 1ues range from 1 . so meq

1- 1 (1.26-1.71) at the 20 ppt e buffered.

isohaline to 0.69 meq*l

-1 .

(0.41-1.18) at the 0 ppt i soha 1 i ne.

Phytoplankton productivity in natural waters depends largely on the primary nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. Added to trace substances these e'I ements are discharged in large amounts into estuarine waters through runoff from farmland, sewage treatment facilities, detergents, and certain industrial activities.

Total nitrogen levels in the, tidal James River are generally indicative of upstream loadings. While nitrate plus nitrite values tend to remain constant within the system at any given time, soluble organic nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen levels varied with freshwater discharge.

Phosphorus levels are generally related to loadings from irtificia1

sources, especially sources in Richmond and Hopewell. During the summer and

.e fall months, the highest soluble phosphorus levels tend to be found near the mouth of the James River indicating that this form is coming from lower Chesapeake Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. Wintertime and springtime values show that total particulate phosphorus was the dominant form and these levels were generally related to high freshwater discharges during these seasons.

e

29

2. Sa 1 in i ty e

The James River is tidally *influenced from its mouth at Ft. Wool in Hampton Roads upstream to the fall line at Richmond, about 90 nautical miles. In times of low freshwater inflow, measurable ocean-derived salt water can be found as far upstream as Hopewell, although the upstream limit at median river flows is generally between Jamestown Island and the Chickahominy River. When river discharges are greater than 14,000 cfs, the boundary between the fresh water tidal river and the estuary proper is downstream from Deep Water Shoals. Thus, salinities exceeding 0.5 ppt occur off the downstream intakes about 75% of the time while the upriver limit of salt intrusion extends above the upstream discharge point more than 50% of the time.

According to data appearing in Appendix C , the following salinity

-e ranges have been observed in the vicinity of Surry Power Station:

Off intakes: Surface - 0.0 to 16.95 ppt.

at 25 ft. - 0.0 to 21.13 ppt.

Off Hog Point: Surface - 0.0 to 12.20 ppt.

at 20 ft. - 0.0 to 14.20 ppt.

Off discharge: Surface - 0.0 to 9.19 ppt.

at 20 ft. - 0.0 to 11.16 ppt.

While these ranges were observed from 1942 through 1965, the upper limits recorded have not been measured from 1969 through 1976, the time period for Surry preoperational and operational studies (Fig. 4).

For a more detailed description of the salinity structure of the James River estuary, see Appendices C and D.

e

e e *e I 11 I' I I I I I

1970 I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 1974 I 1971) I 1976 I I I .I

---\

I 1 -- I I i

. I 8

.::/f 30

~* ---*-----e

-u 0........

L1J 20 1

I I

r I y I*\

\'

0::: 10

) I I- I I

~ Ill I

L1J n..

c L1J I- 10 1 :l \ :/ It i

' 11 /' I \

I 13 12 3

12

,2 lI 12

\

2 2

I : '1 I I I I I I I I I I *.1I _____________ _

0 0

~----------

234:16189 0 2 3 4 0 2 S 0 2 3 4 3 I

--1o------

0 j 2 ll _ 0 2 ll 4 3 Ii ' 8 9 SALi NITV (ppt)

FIGURE 1': Temperature-salinity hydroclimographs showing average conditions for seven seine stations around Hog:Point, James River, Virginia by month by year, 1970-1976.

w 0

31

3. Temperature e

As with salinit~, the temperature structure of the James River has*

been studied in detail since 1942. Surface water temperatures historically have closely followed the mean daily air temperature, except for a slight lag in the spring when air temperatures rise rapidly, and in the fall when they cool rapidly. Temperature-salinity hydroclimographs are presented in Figure 4.

Prior to station operation, the maximum surface water temperature measured in the area was 33.8c (92.8F) while the minimum was O.OC (32F) when this stretch of the river iced over in 1969. While the majority of summer surface water temperatures fall in the range of 26-28C (78.8-82.4F), tempera-tures exceeding 30C (86F) are commonly found.

During the spring and summer water temperatures generally decrease with depth. A verticaJ gradient of about 4C is pr~sent over 20 feet of depth in the spring while the gradient is about 1-2C in the summer . . In the fall, the temperature is approximately isothermal with wintertime temperatures increasing slightly with depth.

It should be noted* that because surface water temperatures closely track air temperatures, differences in surface water temperature patterns between years and between months of successive years can be considerable. A prolonged season such as winter can result in an 11 out-of-phase 11 spring or even an abbreviated spring if summer air temperatures occur on schedule .. A prolonged winter can, for example, result in an increasing day-length occurring with cool water whereby water temperatures would 11 norma 11 y11 be increasing along with day-length. These situations can adversely influence the normal biological processes of many species.

e

32 e Minimum water temperatures can occur fo December; January, February; or March while maxima can occur.in July, August, or Septembe~.

More detail on the temperature structure of the James River before Surry Power Station operation can be found in Appendices C and D.

)

33 VI. HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF THE TIDAL JAMES e RIVER AND TRANSITION ZONE Aquatic populations of the James River have been studied for many years and a bibliography of these studies has been compiled by Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Appendix A). Generally, many of the investigations have examined the tidal James from its mouth at Fort Wool to the fall line at Richmond. Reference to the oligohaline or transition zone, where Surry Power Station is situated, is contained in these pub! ications; The following brief synopsis is a general characterization of the tidal James River taken from these many publications, with emphasis on the transition zone at Surry.

34 A. FINFISH e

The tidal James River supports a wide diversity of finfish species ranging from exclusively marine forms ryear the mouth to exclusively freshwater riverine forms at the fall line in Richmond. Also present at various 1 ife stages, depending on the season, are both anadromous and catadromous species.

Extensive commercial and sport fisheries exist within the tidal James although the activities of both have been severely curtailed in recent years due to chemical contamination of the basin waters.

Limited localized surveys of the James River fish fauna have been conducted for many years. However, no systematic survey of the entire basin has ever been attempted. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), through its anadromous fish program and winter trawl survey, has probably been the most instrumental in.characterizing the fishes of the tidal James River. Vepco has characterized the faunas of the upper tidal James and the transition zone.

About 80 species have been taken in the transition zone and 40 in the upper tidal river.

Population densities forany given species will vary by several orders of magnitude depending on the season of the year and the location within the basin where such a determination was made. Variation of a similar magnitude also occurs between years. Long-term studies have shown that probably the most numerous estuarine species on an annual basis tend to be the indigenous forage forms such as the bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, and silver-side, Menidia spp., as well as nondescript forms such as the hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus.

35

(

e The tidal James River contains meroplanktonic forms from marine, estuari"ne, freshwater, anadromous, and catadromous fish species that spend all or. part of their 1 ife cycles in these waters. Few fish eggs, however, are found in the vicinity of Surry Power Station because the true estuarine species generally spawn at salinities higher than 5 ppt, while the freshwater and anadromous forms spawn upriver from the 0.5 ppt isohal ine. Salinities in the vicinity of Surry are usually between these values but can vary between O ppt and about 15 ppt.

Larval stages 6f several species, transported largely by tidal action, are found in the transition zone. Some species, especially marin~ and estuarine, use this zone as a nursery. Among the more notable are postlarvae of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus and the Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus.

The tidal James River has been the site of several large fish kills over the last several decades. Despite these kills, the resiliency of the system has been shown asaffected populations have tended to recover, some more quickly than others. Fish diversity in the tidal basin has remained relatively stable.

Mor~ detailed analyses of historical fish populations in the tidal James River appear in Appendices A and E.

36 B. BENTHOS e

Bottom dwelling species are found in the James River estuary from the mouth to the fall line. Variation is considerable, changes occurring not only with longitudinal distance upstream (Fig. 5}, but with sediment type and depth

(

within an area as well.

Shellfish, from the transition zone downstream form the bulk of the benthic biomass encountered in the James River estuary. The brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata, dominates from fresh water to about 5 ppt salinity . . The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, occurs from about 5 ppt to about 20 ppt, while the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, occurs extensively *in higher saline parts of the lower estuary. In relatively recent times the Asiatic clam, Corbicula sp., has been found in the freshwater James in ever increasing numbers.

The blue crab, Call inectes sapidos, occurs sporadically in the transition zone, with population concentrations downstream in more saline waters. Commercial quantities of penaeid shrimp are not present within Chesapeake Bay.

The diversity of benthic taxa is minimal in the transition zone, increasing maximally toward seawater and moderately upriver to freshwater.

This distribution is not the result of a single environmental variable such as the oft-studied parameter salinity, but results from a combination of ph~sical, chemical, and biological gradients which influence the genotypic physiological

. l behavior and tolerance of al lJ species from all sources. These variables collectively may limit the distribution of a species to a much greater extent than could be determined through laboratory experimentation on single factors.

The ionic composition of the water .Efil:.~, however, probably exerts the greatest influence on the distribution of benthic organisms.

I More specific details on estuarine benthos in general and James River benthos in particular may be found in Appendices F and G.

( '* 37 e 3.0

FALL 1971 o SUMMER 1972

6. FALL

1972 J:

C/)

2.0 ct:

w Q

1.0 u,

0.75 u, 0.50 w

z z

w 0.25 w

0.00

'4t 3.0

- .2.0

- ct:

C/)

Cl)

LtJ z

J:

~

ct: 1.0 0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 LOWER OLIGO LOWER UPPER JAMES HAL/NE e ESTUARY JAMES TIDAL FRESHWATER NAUTICAL MILES UPSTREAM FIGURE 5: Mean benthic community structure measurements by transect.

(from Appendix G)

I

38 e C. FOULING ORGANISMS One component of the infauna of benthic organisms that is usually highly visible but often little studied are the fouling organisms. These organisms in estuaries are commonly composed of barnacles (Bal anus spp.),

hydroids, tube-secreting worms, and sea squirts.

Diversity in the transition zone is generally low due to the salinity gradient experienced over time while numbers within a given species may be relatively high (Appendices G and H).

39 D. ZOOPLANKTON Historically, zooplankton abundance and composition in the James River has been closely related to phyto~lanktoh abundance and turbidity levels.

The fresh water component of the James River estuary supports relatively large populations of cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, however, the heavy organic load results in cladocerans being a common part of the zooplankton community. The estuarine component is volumetrically abundant but relatively limited as to the number of species. Reasons for this phenomena include a salinity gradient compartmentilization of species.

Whether the salinity is reduced going upstream or the salinity manifests itself going downstream from fresh water, there i~ an area where the most tolerant species of both environments coexist, the transition zone. At Surry, seasonal pulses are evident in both forms dependent, in part, on the

e salinity regime present at the time, as well as the prevailing temperature and turbidity levels. In addition to salinity zonation, temperature zonation is also known to occur.

Meroplankton includes those forms having a temporary planktohic stage (eggs, larvae, etc.) in their life cycle. Included are temporary planktonic stages of true benthic organisms and other invertebrates such as the blue crab, Call.inectes sapidus, as well as fish eggs and larvae discussed previously.

Few egg stages are found in the vicinity of Surry Power Station.

Such a phenomenon occurs because the true estuarine forms generally spawn at salinities higher than 5 ppt, while the freshwater and anadromous forms spawn upriver from the 0.5 ppt isohaline. Freshwater inflow and tidal action, however, result in limited numbers of both forms present in the transition zone.

40 Larval stages of several species, transported by tidal action, are found in the transition zone. Other species, such as the indigenous brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata, spawn in _the transition zone with egg and larval stages tending to cluster within the zone of salinity tolerance.

The zoo.plankton fauna in the transition zone is usually dominated by copepod nauplii with occaslonal pulses of other forms. More detailed species information may be found in Appendices A and I.

e I ,

41 E. PHYTOPLANKTON The Ja~es River estuary, while probably the most highly enriched of Virginia's estuaries, is also one of the most turbid. High turbidity levels tend to r~duce light penetration and hence phytoplankton populations; a condition u~ually found in the James.

The James contains both do.wnriver saline and upriver freshwater species of phytoplankton with the transition zone around Hog Point having a mixture of the two. Standing crop, as determined by chlorophyl I 11 a 11 determi-nations, will vary significantly at any given point in the estuary both within and between seasons, within and between years, and within and between stations.

In the oligohaline zone it is not uncommon to f°ind the fauna dominated by one or two species particularly we] I suited to existing environmental conditions.

The study area of the James is usually dominated by diatoms and cryptophytes with representatives from both freshwater and estuarine environ-ments present. Primary productivity values, whether by mgC/hr/m3 or by 1

µg I , are extremely low in this zone.

Species lists appear in Appendices A and I. Individual species will be discussed in more detail in Section X-E of this demonstration.

42 e F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The following species are listed as endangered (E) or threatened (T) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* as possibly occurring on or near the Surry Nuclear Power Station site.

Fish Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon (E)

Birds Haliaectus 1. leucocephalus southern bald eagle (E)

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine fa 1con (E)

Falco peregrinus tundris Arctic peregrine fa I con (E)

Pelecanus -0ccide~talis brown pe Ii can (E)

Dond rocopus borea 1 is red-cockaded woodpecker (E)

Dendro i ta ki rt 1andi Kirtlands warbler (E)

,e Only the southern bald eagle and American peregrine fa 1con are 1 i ke 1y to have resident individuals during any given season of the year. A11 others would probably occur, ff at a 11 , on 1y as migrants through the area.

Federal Register, Wedne~day, October. 27, 1976, Vol. 41, N~. 208, pp. 47181-4719].

e

43 e G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH The only category of vertebrates coming under the jurisdiction of this cla~sification that would be reasonably close to the thermal discharge at Surry would be waterfowl. Eastern Virginia lies within a major duck and goose migration route. Consequently, directly to the north of Surry Power Station, on Hog Island, the Commonwealth of Virginia owns and operates a waterfowl refuge that is annually visited by thousands of ducks and Canada geese. The refuge consists of many freshwater ponds as well as fields that are planted each year with waterfowl food.

e

44 VII. HISTORY OF THERMAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES AROUND SURRY POWER STATION e

Historically, the James River and its ecology have been under investigation for mahy years and a lfst of these studies has been compiled in an inclusive bibliography by VIMS (Appendix A). Although the majority of these studies were conducted under Federal, State or University sponsorship, private industry such as Vepco has also contributed extensively to knowledge concerning the James River (Appendices J and K).

Studies conducted and/or funded by Vepco with the_ Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) were initiated in 1969. These studies, designed to assess ecological consequences of operation of a nuclear generating facility on the ol igohaline zone of the James River, !~elude the fbllowing trophic levels or areas of interest: finfish;benthos, primary productivity, zooplankton,

. phytoplankton, and fouling plate communities. In addition, extensive model and field studies on thermal plume configuration have been conducted.

Studies related to an assessment of the aquatic ecosyst~m as influenced by the thermal plume were divided into three categories -- thermal plume model studies, field studies and laboratory investigations.

e

45

- A. THERMAL MODEL STUDIES AND FIELD VERIFICATION During the design phase of Surry Power Station, Vepco arid its consultant (Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants) employed the hydraulic model of the James River estuary at the u: S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi-ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, to determine the best design features and lo~ation of the clrculating water system (Appendix L). The results were incorporated into the design of the station and later checked by field studies when the station became operational.

A thermal monitoring system was designed and employed by VIMS and Vepco in order to better determine the region of the J*ames River estuary which would be affected by the discharge of the Surry Power Station as well as to better determine the temperature distribution within that area. Three e different measl!rement systems were utilized: (1) multi-sensor system located on a small boat serving as a mobile measurement pla'tform, (2) multi-sensor system. located on towers in the James River which served as fixed instrument platforms (Fig. 6), and (3) infra-red sensor scanning system located in a plane.

Two years of background data were obtained prior to Units 1 and 2 becoming operational. These data and the subsequent three years of data colle~ted after the plant went operational are described in detail in Appendix M.

46 FIGURE 6: TEHPERA'Th~E MONITORtNG RECORDERS - JP..HES RIVER IN VICINITY OF HOG POINT ..

G)

~ .

i I

..-........- . . _......a.___ _ ___.*~-....:-_:'-,;.* ....

JAMES RIVER 0

Ler:end

1. St;;i.tion Intakes -. ~

2. Deept,:ater Sho.:ils

3. Hog Point South

4. no~ Point North

5. Cobhnn Bay Souch

6. c ..+h:1:-1 Ik1y ~-1 i,!,'. l<.!

7. Cohhnm Bay North

8. Jn~estown lsl.:i~<l

47 tt' B. ECOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES Field studies designed specifically: to *characterize the biota in the Hog Point region of the James River were originated in May, 1969 by VIMS and by Vepco in 1970, The field work placed primary emphasis on fish populations and benthic communities but also included studies on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fouling organisms. Figure 7 locates the sampling stations for various components of the Surry Power Station ecological studies.

48 BIOLOGICAL S.AHP'LE- STl*..TIONS t'

-N-I.

A 0

~

A A

.e 8

A HOG DO I SLAtlD A

0 A

SURRY POWER STATION O 2 Nautical Milas JAMES RIVER L,J..;~u....J...i...1,..1..L----...:..----....1 1000 O 1000 2000 5000 Yards o Trawl* (Nekton)

G Seine (Nekton) 0 Plankton r;J Fouling Plates A Benthos FIGURE 7: Sample station locations for various components of the ?urry Power Station ecological studies . .

e 1. Finfish A program by Vepco personnel was begun in May, 1970, to identify finfish populations in the shallow water oligohaline zone of the James River near the Surry Power Station. The program*s purpose was to obtain baseline data prior to the facility becoming operational. Collections were taken monthly by beach seine and by otter trawl at thirteen locations. In addition, fish populations have been sampled by VIMS lchthyological Department on a monthly basis at four locations in the James River near Surry since 1964.

These data collectively provided a sound data base to which similar post-operative study results could be compared (Appendices N, 0, and E).

The postoperative studies were intensified to have a better under-standing of the composition and changes of the fish populations at Surry. In

'e addition to the haul seine and otter trawl samples, the circulating water intake screens were employed as a biological sampling gear type during this study. The circulating water intake screen system was sampled, usually five

' i days per week, from July, 1972 through August, 1976 (Appendix 0).

e

50

2. Benthos Studies began in May, 1969, to quantitatively and qualitatively describe the benthic organisms. found in the James River adjacent to the Surry Power Station. Samples were gathered quarterly with the exception of the summer months when samples were collected monthly. Two replicates were 2 .

collected with a 0.07 m Van Veen grab, washed through a 1 mm .screen and preserved. Selection of the sixteen stations generally wa.s based on the sediment type found at each station as well as on the areas most 1 ikely to be influenced by the thermal discharge. A large number of these stations were, therefore, concentrated in Cobham Bay, however, some were selected in areas not )ikely to be affected by the effluent (Appendices Hand P).

e

51 e 3. Fouiing Organisms Fouling organis~ studies have been conducted at three river towers, Cobham Bay North, Cobham Bay South and Deep Water Shoals (Fi~. 6), since 1971. The studies involved suspending two pairs of 125 x 75 mm asbestos plates one meter above the bottom at each of the towers, one pair being replaced monthly and the other on a yearly schedule. Scheduled plate removal and replacement have yielded data on the fouling community in this area (Appendix H).

e

52

4. Zooplankton e

Surface zooplankton samples have been taken with a No. 20 mesh Clarke-Bumpass plankton sampler on a monthly schedule since November, 1972.

Tow duration ranged from one minute to five minutes, depending on the turbidity conditions encountered.

Samples were preserved and counts and identifications made ~sing a dissecting microscope. Seven rivei stations were sampled in 1972-( . 1974, increasing to twelve stations in 1975, while ten stations were sampled in 1976 (Appendices Hand P).

53 e 5. Phytoplankton Phytoplankton samples were taken monthly at seven river stations and in the intake and discharge canals in 1973 and 1974, and contiriued at six stations in 1975 and ten stations in 1976. A non-metallic 2-liter Van Dorn bottle was used for the collection. These samples were preserved with Lugols 1 iodine solution, and total cell counts and identification of dominant organisms were made using the inverted microscope method. These stations were also sampled and analyzed qualitatively in the second half of 1972. Monthly phyto-plankton studies are continuing at ten stations. Chlorophyll a measurements were taken from July, 1972 through December, 1973 and again in 1975 and 1976.

Primary productivity measurements have been taken at three stations monthly between May, 1971 and Apri 1, 1972. This program was continued in 1975, A le '

modified C-14 procedure was utilized at river towers Cobham Bay North (CBN),

Cobham Bay South (CBS) and at the intake canal (Fig. 6 ) , (Appendices H and P).

e

54 e . C. ECOLOGICAL LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Diaz (1972) studied the effects of thermal shock on growth, mortality and setting success of oyster larvae, Crassostrea virginica. Another study researched the reproductive cycle and larval tolerance of the brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata in the James River (Cain, 1972), Dressel (1971) examined the effects of thermal shock and chlorine exposure on the estuarine copepod, Acartia tonsa. Details of these studies are presented in Appendix I.

e

55 VI 11. ANALYSIS OF SURRY STUDIES BY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY e

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, acting under contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reviewed the physical and biological data collected under the NRC Technical Specification requirements and published two reports authored by Adams, illl* on its evaluation of the non-radiological environmental technical specifications. The first, ORNL/NUREG/TM-69, Vol. 1, compared the quality of the studies conducted at eight nuclear powered

generating facilities. The Sutry studies received an overall ranking of 2, only behind Peach Bottom, a station located on a riverine impoundment. The authors acknowledged the quality of study data despite the complexity and dynamics of the tidal system at Surry.

A second. report, ORNL/NUREG/TM-70, (Vol. 2 of ORNL/NUREG/TH-69),

covered only the studies conducted over a three-year period at Surry.

e The authors concluded that the data indicated that the thermal dis-charges ~ere enhancing the nektonic (fish) and benthic populations in the discharge area, but were having a negative effect on the phytoplankton *and zooplankton in the discharge area. However, they did not address the materiality of their interpretation of negative effects on phytoplankto~ and zooplankton, .except insofar as their conclusions implicitly recognized that any such effects have not adve*rsely affected nektonic or benthic populations.

The conclusions relating to adverse impacts were strongly challenged by aquatic scientists of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia Electric and Pa.'ler Company. The Institute and the Company immediately requested the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to recall the publication and correct the erroneous data analyses that led to the conclusions. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has not responded to the request.

e

56 e The fish and benthic data reviewed by the authors were very straight-forward,. and persons with mini ma 1 knOHledge and_ experience in

estuarine systems could only conclude that the thermal discharges were not adversely aff~cting the populations. The bligohaline-freshwater reach of an estuary is a very complex environment for phytoplankton and zooplankton, however, and the authors completely misinterpreted the data in arriving at their conclusions.

The authors major*interpretive error resulted from their complete disregard for salinity differences that occur in an oligohaline reach of an estuary both within and between years. Salinity changes may also be associated with turbidity levels in this reach because high freshwater runoff which depresses salinity also carries high levels of suspended solids. Nektonic and benthic populations that are found in the area are much better adapted to cope with fluctuations in salinity and turbidity than are phyto- and zooplankton populations.

Dr. Robert A. Jordan, Associate Marine Scientist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, was the scientist in charge of the phytoplankton and zooplankton studies. Dr. Jordan reviewed the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report and submitted a critical review to the authors in support of the request to recall the publication.

Dr. Jordan pointed out that, 11 most of the data analyses performed by Adams, il ~- in the sect i ans 1 is ted above fa i 1ed to support their cone 1us i ans, because the analyses either were fundamentally improper or were inaccurately done. 11

57 Dr. Jordan went on to .say, Consequently the statements made by e

11 Adams, !:_! !.!_. concerning the ecological impact of the Surry Power Plant are unjust if i ed.,11 Adams,~!.!.* concluded that the 1974 data suggested inhibition of phytoplankton production in the discharge area. Dr. Jordan replied, 11 the 1974 control means lie within the discharge confidence limits for eleven of the twelve sampling dates. The control values and the discharge means were very close for the warm summer months of July, August, and September. There is certainly no statistical evidence for inhibition of phytoplankton production.

Adams, ~tl* contended that zooplankton densities at the control station were generally higher than those in the discharge area. Dr. Jordan's statistical analysis of the data for 1975 indicated that only two t values were significant, the value for May when the discharge mean was significantly higher

.~ than the mean for the control station and the value for July when the control mean was higher. He concluded, "These test results certainly do not support the author's statement. 11 The Conclusion section of Dr. Jordan's critical review follows:

11 The deficiencies present in the data evaluations performed by Adams et al. are serious. The authors committed many errors attributable to carelessness: improper application of the log transformation;* inaccurate construction of graphs; .inaccurate interpretation of graphs. Other errors may be ~ttributable to ignorance: failure to select benthos stations with the same substrate type to use in their data comparisons; selection of a study conducted in the polyhaline York River to provide the basis .for predicting plankton responses to a thermal effluent in the oligohaline James River. Their most serious technical erro;, however, which renders all of their conclusions invalid, is their complete failure to invoke the concept of statistical e 1 significance in making the comparisons upon which their con-clusions are based. Professional scientists cannot be forgiven for such a failure. As I mentioned in the section on models,

58 I suspect that the preoccupation of Adams ,il ll* with performing a modeling exercise can explain, to a large 1..

degree, their approach to the data evaluation and their zeal to demonstrate power plant effects that, upon proper scrutiny, prove to be tmaginary. 11 Staff members of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science have presented numerous papers*at professional meetings (Atlantic Estuarine Research Society, National Bentholog*ical Society, etc.) which described the flora and fauna of the James River in the vicinity of Hog Point before and/or after the operation of Surry Units 1 and 2. Without exception, these papers reached the same conclusion as that contained in this demonstration - that the operation of the Surry Power Station was not adversely affecting the balanced, indigenous aquatic populations of the James River.

In summary, while the Oak Ridge review of existing data concluded

!.e I

that the data indicated a reduction in planktonic populations in the immediate discharge area but enhancement of benthic and nektonic populations, intensive and extensive studies conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Vepco discussed in this demonstration, indicate that the thermal effluent from the Surry Power Station is not adversely affecting

\

any trophic level including the balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, or wildlife in the James River.

e

59

. IX. . THERMAL PLUME ANALYSIS A. PHYSICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS The distribution of excess temperature that would result from the discharge of waste heat from the Surry Power Station was determined from studies conducted on the hydraulic model of the James River estuary located at the U. S.

Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

This physical model covers the entire tidal waterway from R.ichmond to the mouth, and part of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Studies were conducted for Vepco by Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants and are appended as Appendix L. The model has a horizontal scale of 1:1000, and a vertical scale of 1:100. The approximately 90 nautical miles of the estuary are therefore represented by a mode 1 about 550 feet .1 ong. The ti me sea 1e of this mode 1 is 1: 100; therefore one day iii the prototype occurs in about 14 1/2 minutes in the model.

.e All pertinent features of tide, current, river inflow, ~n.d mixing of seawater and freshwater are properly scaled in the model. Density, temperature, and salinity are al 1 scaled 1 :1 in this model, and previous studies have shown that for mode 1s of this re 1at i ve* size, the therma 1 exchange processes at the water surface are also properly scaled.

A model heat source was constructed at the site of the Surry Power Station on the James River estuary. The heat source was designed to maintain a constant temperature rise of 15 F between the intake and discharge.

Tests were conducted during two different periods. The first set of tests were made between 29 July - 1 August 1966, and the second series during the Reriod 19 October - 23 October 1966. The freshwater inflow at Richmond was maintained throughout the first series at a simulated 2000 cfs. The results of the first series of tests determined that the ideal discharge of the heated e effluent back to the James River could be accomplished through a six foot per

60 second discharge velocity.

(

e For the second series improvements were made in the temperature measuring system so that 2 thermister bead sensors were towed across the m9del on each run. In the October series the model was run for a total of 784 tidal cycles, corresponding to about 379 days of prototype time.

In addition to the simulated flow of 2000 cfs from Richmond into the model, tests were *also run simulating a river flow of 6000 cfs. Results showed that there was very little difference in the distribution of excess temperature under these two different river flows. This lack of difference is largely attributable to the initial mechanical mixing produced by the jet discharge, which provides for a rapid decrease in the maximum excess temperatures. In addition, mixing provided by the oscillatory ebb and flood of the tide, which on a single flood tide passes an average of 190,000 cfs pass the plant site, is not significantly influenced by river discharge except during very high river flows.

The results of the thermal studies in the James River estuarine model show that only a small portion 9f the estuarine water in the tidal segment

\ adjacent to the plant site would be subject to excess temperatures which might have biological significance, assuming that the plant were designed, built and operated according to the parameters tested in the model. Averaged over a tidal cycle the area having excess temperatures exceeding 5 C would occupy less than 7 percent of the width of the estuary. Over 2/3 of the width of the estuary in the tidal segment c1djacent to the discharge would have excess temperatures less than 2 C. The highest excess temperature which completely encloses cross-section of the river would be 0.80 C which occurs at only 1 of the eight dis-tributions over the tidal cycle. The average closing excess temperature over the tidal period would be 0.66 C.

(

61 r - Other results of the model study indicated par~meters that might be useful in the design and construction of the Surry Power Station. For example, it was found that the condenser cooling water circulating system with an intake on the downstream side of the site and the discharge on the upstream side would be more desirable from the standpoint of the estuarine environment than the opposite arrangement. In addition, the mechanical mixing produced by a jet discharge, and the turbulent mixing resulting from the tidal currents, should contribute significantly to reducing the area occupied by the warmest water.

Subsequently, these two parameters in particular were incorporated into the design of Surry Power Station.

For a more detailed study of the results of the model test, the reader is referred to Appendix L.

62 e B. FIELD MEASUREMENTS Temperature distribution in the James River in the vicinity of Surry

.Power Station is measured by two methods:. stationary recorders affixed to towers or buoys within the river (Fig. 6), and a monthly boat survey that starts downstream near the intake at low slack water and proceeds upstream to the vicinity of Jamestown Island (Fig. 8). In addition, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, under a grant from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, conducted a multitude of near-field measurements during several years of station operation (Appendix M).

Results generally show that the thermal plume dissipates rapidly due to thei:roper functioning of the jet discharge at the end of the discharge groin. Rapid mixing occurs between the heated effluent and ambient river water causing the area of excess temperature to be kept at a minimum.

63 e

SURRY POWER STATION 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 2

.........'-'-.&..1,.1..1-...._ Nautical Miles JAMES RIVER 1000 o 1000 2000 3000 Yards LEGEND:

~ Monthly Salinity - Temperature Profile Station o Continuous Salinity~ Temperature Monitoring Station CJ Near Surface Temperature Monitoring Station Boat Cruise Fl GURE 8: Boat cruise temperature and salinity monitoring stations.

64

.*e* C. COMPARISON OF FIELD DATA WITH MODEL PREDICTIONS Although Vepco has been collecting monthly temperature and salinity data as well as continuous temperature and salinity data from the James River estuary in the vicinity of the Surry Power Station, probably the most intensive survey in the area has been conducted by Dr. C. S. Fang, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, under ERDA project AT-(40-1)-4067. Results of Dr. Fang's.study may be found as Appendix M.

Comparison of actual field studies with model studies indicates that model results tend to be about an order of magnitude higher in their predictions than actua 1 fie 1d measurements. The main reason fo.r this discrepancy 1 i es in the fact that the scale of the model is distorted and* does not appear to accurately predict water entrainment and near field excess temperatures.

Because actual field data show that the areas of excess temperature are much less than the model predicted, and therefore much of the James*River in the area is not affected by the thermal plume from Surry Power Station, the reader is referred to Appendix M showing six parts of the study by Dr. Fang on "The Thermal Effects of the Surry Nuclear Power on the James River, Virginia."

65 D. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The Commonwealth of Virginia has determined that the thermal discharge from Surry Power Station is in compliance with state water quality standards.

This determination will be reflected in the amended NPDES permit .

.e

66

. X. THERMAL EFFECTS The following section contains information from studies conducted over the past seven years (1970-1976) which show, in keeping with the purpose of the Type I demonstration (absence of prior appreciable harm), that the Surry Power Station has been operated for five years with no appreciable harm occurring in the balanced indi9enous populattons of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the James River estuary surrounding the Surry Power Station .. Sample station locations for various components of the study are shown on Figure 7.

e

67 A. FINFISH e

Vepco has elected to examine fish populations in the Surry area through the study of juvenile fishes. This stage in the life cycle is usually beyond the stages of highest natural mortality and can be used to reflect the general success and 11 health 11 of the current year-class of any given species as well as to make implications concerning past and future adult populations. In addition, juvenile fishes are more susceptible to capture by present-day biological sampling gear than, are larvae or adults. Fishes less than 30 mm TL and greater than 200 mm TL ~sually display gear avoidance behavibr patterns not so commonly found in fishes within this size range. Finfish in the oligohaline zone of the James* River have been examined with probably more intensity a~d repetitiveness than lower organisms since the ecological "heal th 11 of this trophic level generally reflects the 11 health 11 of the ecosystem as a whole.

The breakdown of, or damage to, a lesser trophic level should manifest itself in this higher level once or twice removed from the affected component.

The studies of fish populations influenced by Surry Power Station operations commenced in May, 1970, and have concentrated on a 10-mile stretch of the James River centered on Hog Island (Appendi~es IN and 0). This geographical limit allowed for a characterization of populations found about 5 miles upstream and downstream from Hog Point and encompassed both the intake and discharge areas as well as the primary study area and a reasonable far-field study area. In addition to the study of juveriile fishes by Vepco, fish eggs and larvae of the area have been sampled by VIMS through a thermal plume entrainment study (Appendices Hand P).

Although estuaries are generally regarded as intricate environments their transition zones display an even greater complexity with wide variability being characteristically normal. Physico-chemical parameters such as tempera-

68 e ture and salinity exhibit wide annual ranges and are subject to rapid changes within each range. Variations in freshwater input from the basin watershed, in addition to tidal fluctuations, have a pronounced influence on these param-eters. Natural events such as floods, hurricanes, and droughts are added I

variables. These changes continually influence freshwater, estuarine, and marine fishes which perpetually immigrate and emigrate through the area at different life stages. In addition, natural or man-made occurrences may be causative factors of pe~i-0dlc fish kills which, in turn, inf1uente the relative abundance and/or behavior o.f certain species.

In an effort to assess the composition and fluctuations of the fish populations as influenced by thermal and other factors, haul seines, trawls, and circulating water system intake screen were used during this study. While each gear type has its own limitations, th_eir uses in a repetitive sampling program have collectively provided the best available insight into the composi-tion, habits, and movements of young fishes in the area.

The overall program was divided into three parts. Seines at seven stations and trawls at six stations (Fig. 9) were used in a monthly pre-operational and postoperational survey (May, 1970 - August, 1976) (Appendix 0) and are continuing. A lhaul seine was used to study shore zone populations at th.ree stations (Fig. 10) between the power station intake and discharge points (hereinafter called the ~pecial seine progra~). These three stations were sampled from May, 1973 through August, 1976, The circulating water system intake screens were sampled for impinged fish, usually five days a week, from July, 1972 through August, 1976, Results from these three studies covering the period from May, 1970 through August, 1976 have been presented in an inclusive report (Appendix O ).

69

-N-I 0009 e 0011

\ 0003 0012~\

0013--- HOG

~ ISLAND DEEP 0 WATER GOOSE ~ ~0010 SHOAL HILL SURRY POWER ooo 1 STATION

JAMES RIVER 0 2 Naufical Miles

,,.,,,,,.,,*o 1000 1000 2000 1 r 3000 I Yards FIGURE 9: Sample stations for haul seine and otter trawl.

Haul seine - 0001 to 0007; otter trawl - 0009 to 0014.

70

~

-N-I HOG I SLAtlD SURRY POWER STATION Intakes O 2 Nautical Miles L....L.J,..JU-i...r..&..J..1------'----- JAMES RIVER I OOO O 1000 2000 3000 Yards A~Hog Po+/-nt-West e* B~Hog Poi:nt-North c~Hog Poin;-Ea~t Fl GURE 10: Sample stations for special seine study.

71 *.

Using three gear types during the six years.of the study, 84 species and f-ive genera of fishes were collected. This diverse populatio.n.included 32 freshwater species, 32 species I iving in both the Atlantic Ocea*n and fresi')water, and 20 species normally inhabiting only the Atlantic Ocean. The fol lowing are the major conclusions resulting from this comprehensive examination of young fishes residing in that section of the James River most 1 ikely to be influenced by operation of the Surry Power Station.

This series of studies has shown that the nektonic community around Surry is very diverse and dynamic, changing monthly and seasonally between species and sizes of individuals within species (Fig. 11). Diversity, even-ness, and richness indices are useful analyses for determining long-term community trends and comparing pre- and postoperational communities. Since wide variability exists within and between samples, fish communities were analyzed by season, e.g.,~ given diversity for a given seine or trawl gear type for a given season is representative of samples from seven collection sites taken once each month for three months. Data pooled in this manner provide a more realistic look at fish community changes and provide a damping effect on the within and between station variability.

The diversity, evenness, and richness trends are amenable to a parametric test such as regression analysis. Using least squares regression, analyses show that the young fish populations around Surry have remained relatively stable for the past six years (including two years preoperational and four years postoperational data). Regression slopes have either: (1) not changed significantly, or (2) increased slightly (p < 0.05) over time indicating improvement.

e

e e 0

iii en 2*15 Ill I 2-0 0

-i.1-:1 ,,,"'~o... ..... ,... ,

, olo 3 . '----o"

- a___ -o---o"' /.

l*O Ill X

20-5

~

Ill

_ _ _ .,o **

---o--- ---o- --- 0 ---o,

---~,..ot

J 3-0

~2-5

.... 2*0 l:i 1*5 ii 1-0 e----e SEINE o---o TRAWL 0*5

..,,o u25 l&J g; 20 015 o*****************

~10 ;

o" 5

t---.:s__..;;s:-_'-F--.-w"---s"'-..,...-s;...._..:F:.---.:~----=s:....-_..;;s:..:*c..._...:..1'_ __,w___, _:::.s--c-s~_ _,F'---r'w'---==s'----=-="'=s:-:-_.a.F_--rw"'"'--__s:::.-___,c::-s~_..,F'---.-w--.a.s_-:-;::-::-s::---'f---t 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 FIGURE 11: Number of species, di~ersity (H'), evenness (J), and r1chness (D) by .season for seine and trawl caught fishes, 1970-1976.

N

_(

73

- A non-parametric compa.ison between preoperational and postoperational diversity indices indicated either no Significant difference in the means or that preoperati"onal means were significantly (p < 0.05) less tha~ postoperational means.

The null hypothesis was that the preoperational mean and postoperational mean were equal.

It was therefore concluded not only but from both parametric and non-parametric analyses of the data in Figure 11, that operation of the Surry Power Station has caused no appreciable harm to the fish community in the area. A negative response, if any, of the young fish community has not been evident as community diversity, evenness, and richness indicators have remained relatively stable or increased slightly during the six years of the study (Fig. 11).

At the species level, the following discussion focuses on the dominants, as wetl as certain non-dominant commercially and recreationally important species.

Changes have taken place at the species level within the community that are a direct response to other environmental perturbations that have occurred in the James River. During the study period from May, 1970 through August, 1976, a major hurricane (Agnes) resulted in the flood of record and corresponding salinity de~ression; several other floods occurred; droughts and atteridant salinity elevations were frequent; rainfall patterns within any given year did not appear to follow expected 11 norms 11 ; winters were relatively mild, on the average, except for an occasional cold snap, similar to that in January, 1976, that caused water temperatures to drop sharply in a relatively short period of time.

Between 1962 and 1971, there were 17 documented fish kills in the James River between Hopewell and Jamestown (Appendix 0). The Virginia Water Control Board lists 24 kills in the lower James River alone from 1962 to 1973

C 74 (Appendix Q). The kiJl of 1971, prior to Surry operations, was one of the worst I.~, 0n record and possibly contributed to the precipitous population decline experi-enced by white perch, Morone americana. Other species possibly affected included striped bass (Marone saxatilis) and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).

Another kill was recorded in 1973, and another in 1974. No kills, however, were associated with the operation of the Surry Power Station.

These events have undoubtedly influenced specific fish populations in the James River. The response of the individual species, however, has not always been one of population decline (Tables 5, 6, 7 ). Mar~ne spawners whose larvae and young use the river as a nursery have generally shown increases in relative abundance. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus) are three of the dominants at Surry that were spawned in the marine environment. Using a combination of seine and trawl catches, these three species have shown increases over preoperational times in relative percent of the total number of fishes taken during operational times. Declines in relative abundance of some anadromous species such as alewife (~. pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (1- aestival is) have been attributed by VIMS to natural fluctuations in year-class strength and offshore catches by foreign fishing fleets (Appendix E).

Estuarine species such as the indigenous bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and silversides (Menidia spp.) have shown no change at all or have increased.

Upper estuarine species such as channel catfish (lctalurus punctatus) and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) have experienced significant population increases.

The results of all of these studies only serve to emphasize what is already known about young fish populations in the transition zone of an estuarine

~ environment. While this zone serves as a nursery for some species, there is

75 TABLE PREOPERATIONAL AND POSTOPERATIONAL HAUL SEIUE DATA Pre - 149 hauls*

Post - 357 hauls Frequency of Occurrence(%)

Pre Post Pre Post Silvers i de sp. 95 99 Carp <1 3

=<1 .

Spottail Shiner 57 77 Summer Floupder =<l . 4 Bay Anchovy 56 *53 Mosquitofish = 2 White Perch 41 10 Tessellated Darter ~1 1

Jueback Herring 39 39 White Catfish ~l 2 Mummichog 28 17 Si Iver Perch =

<1 0 Spot 28 30 Bluefish <1 1 Striped Bass 24 2 Harvestfish ~1 0 American Shad 22* 8 *. Bl ueg i 11 <1 1 Atlanttc Menhaden 22 . 21 Common Shiner 0 6

'., i zzard Shad 20 23 Threadfin Shad 0 7 Golden Shiner 18 37 Satinfin Shiner 0 13

, Pumpki nseed 13 13 Silvery Minnow 0 8 Alewife 11 7 Johnny Darter 0 2 Hog choker 11 4 Shiner sp. *o 1

. o r v Shad 1n <1 Strir"'ri 1'1rd !'='t 0 5

< ntic Needlefish =T Rough Silverside 0 *. '* 3 9

American Eel 7 4 Chain P i'ckere l 0 <1 Yellow Perch 7 4 Ladyfish 0 2 Channel Catfish 6 15 Bonefish 0 <1 Sheepshead Minno'II 0

=<1 Striped Killifish 5 <1

=6

, qrown Bu 11 head 5 Bluespotted Sunfish. 0 <1 Redfin Pickerel 0

<1 Banded Killifish 5 27

Atlantic Croaker 4 13 Smallmouth Bass 0

<11 Bridle Shiner .3 1 White Mu 11 et 0 Weakfish 3 0 Spotfin Killifish 0

<1 2* *Longnose Gar Creval le Jack 0 0 a =<1

<1

raked Goby 2 1 Redbreast Sunfish Sunfish sp. 2 <1 Short head Redhorse 0

=<1

=

lroncolor Shiner 0

<1 Largemouth Bass 2 0

Carter sp. ~1 2

. E;;is tern Mudrn i nnow <1

= 0

76 TABLE 6 -- PREOP.ERATI ONAL AND PO STOP ERAT I ONAL HAUL SE INE DATA e Pre - 149 hauls Post - 357 hauls Total Number (%}

Pre Post ~ Post Blueback Herring 18. 6' 15. 5 Naked Goby <Q. 1 <O. l Silverside sp. 18.0 -24.5 Bluegi 11 . ~0.1 ~0.1 Atlantic Menhaden *. 16 .3 .. 21.2 Bluefish <Q. 1 ~0.1 Bay Anchovy 14. 8 9.9 Silver Perch <O. 1 0 Alewife 8.5 o.4 Largemouth Bass <O .1

0 Spot , 6.6 2.2 Weakfish ~-1 0 White Perch 4.2 0.5 Harvest fish ~0.1 0 American Shad 4.2 1.3 Eastern Mudminnow <Q. 1 0 Spottail Shiner 3.8 15. l Creval 1e Jack <O. 1 0 Striped Bass 1.6. 0. 1 Striped Mullet 0 <O. l Hurnmichog 0.9 1. 1 Common Shiner 0 0.2 Atlantic Needlefish 0.8 <O. 1

= Rough Silverside 0 <O. 1 Golden Shiner- o.s 1.9 Threadfin Shad 0 0.2 Hickory Shad 0.3 <O. 1 Satinfin Shiner 0 0.2

,e Hogchoker Gizzard Shad Brown Bullhead 0.2

.::_u. I

-~

<O. 1 4

_<O. 1 Vo"T

<O. 1 Si 1very Mi n'noi.-J Johnr.y Darter Chain Pickerel 0

a 0.3

~-0. i Pumpkin.seed <O~ l Ladyfish 0

=<O. 1

<Q. 1 0.2 0

= =<O. 1 Sunfish sp. <O. 1

<O. 1 <O. l Shiner sp. 0 Channel Catfish

0.5 Spotfin Killifish 0 <O. 1 Yellow Perch <O. 1 ~0.1 White Mullet 0 =

<O. 1 Striped Killifish =<O. 1 <O. 1

= Smallmouth Bass o <O. 1

=<O. 1 American Eel = . <O. 1

<O.l Redfin Pickerel *O At1antic Croaker *- <O. 1 0.7 Bluespotted Sunfish 0 <O. 1 Banded Killifish =<0.1 3. 1 Sheepshead Minnow 0 =

<O. 1 Darter sp. * <O. 1 <O. 1 Bonefi sh . 0

=<O. 1 Carp . =<0.1 ~0.1 . Redbreast Sunfish a =<O. 1 Summer Flounder ~0.1 * <O. 1 t roncolor Shiner 0 <O. 1 Shorthead. Redhorse =<O. 1 Bri d l*e Shiner ~0.1 <0.1 0 White Catfish ;iO. 1 ~0.1 *Longnose Gar 0 -~o. 1 Mosquitofish ~0.1 <O. 1

=

Tessellated Darter ~0.1 <O. 1

=

77 TABLE 7 *- PREOPERATIONAL AND POSTOPERATIONAL TRAWL DATA e . Pie - 90 trawls

Post - 300 trawls Frequency of Occurrence (%) Total Number (%)

Pre Post Pre Post Hogchoker 84 50 Hog choker 46. l 11

7

. White Perch 56 25 Channel Catfish 8.8 22.9 Channe 1 Catfish 53 _74 Spot *~ 8. 4

18. 1

\.lhite Catfish 46 55 White Perch 8.2 1.3 Bay Anchovy 39 48 Atlantic Croaker ,., 7,9 15. 5*

Spot 34 40 Bay ARchovy 5.0 9.5 Atlantic Croaker 34 44 White Catfish 3. l 4.9 Spottail Shiner 29 39 Alewife 2.6 o.6 Brm*m Bu 11 head 26 4 Spottail Shiner 2.6 5.3 Ame:*ican Eel 22 22 American Shad ,. 3 0.3 American Shad 18 8 .Brown Bullhead 1. 1 ~o*.1 Alewife 17 16 Weakfish 0.8 0.2 Carp 16 Striped Bass 0.7 <0.1 Weakfish .16 1 '"4 American Eel 0.7 1. a Striped Bass

16 2 Carp o.s 0.4

~!ue~~c~ HP-rring iZ q B1ueback He;ri ng "V l,o 0.5 e

Gizzard Shad 8 11 Si 1ver Perch 0.3 <Q, 1 Si 1ver Perch 6 1 Gi zza.rd Shad 0.3 0.7 D*arter sp. 6 1 Hickory Shad 0.2 0 Pumpkinseed 6 5 Pumpkinseed 0.2 0.3 Hickory Shad 4 0 Creva 1le Jack ~o. 1 <Q. l Tessellated Darter 3 4 Darter sp. g), 1 <Q. 1 Crevalle Jack 3 1 Tessellated Darter ~O. l 0.2 Yellow Perch 3 1 Atlantic Sturgeon ~0.1

0 Atlantic Sturgebn 2 O* Si 1vers i de sp. ~-1 ~o. 1 Silvers i de sp. 2 1 Yellow Perch g). 1 <O. 1 Harvestfish . ~1 0 Harvestfi sh S).1 *o Seaboard Goby ~1 1 Seaboard Goby S). 1 S). l Bluespotted Sunfish <J 0 Bluespotted_ Sunfish ~0.1 0 Atlantic Menhaden .~J 9 Atlantic Menhaden SJ, 1 0.4 Summer Flounder 0 5 Summer Flounder 0 0.2 Threadfin Shad 0 12 Threadfin Shad 0 s.4 Redbreast Sunfish 0 ~1 Redbreast Sunfish 0 SJ.1 Longnose Gar Ladyfish Catfish sp.

0 0

0

~,

=<1

<1 Longnose Gar Ladyf i sh Catfish sp.

0 0

0

~0.1

<O.l

~0.1 Naked Goby *o 2 Naked Gaby 0 ~o. t Spotfin Mojarra 0 <1 Spotfin Mojarra 0 <O. 1 Silvery Minnow

=<1 Silvery Minnow 0 ~o. 1 0

Spotted Hake = Spotted Hake . 0 ~O. l 0 ~1 e Bluefish 0 ~1 Bluefish 0 ~0.1

\ .

78 considerable immigration and emigration through the zqne as well as constant e changes taking place within the zone as well as without. lnterspecific and intraspecific competition for food and space are commonplace. Over an extended

time period, natural and man-made insults generally appear to result only in relatively short-term changes, and fishes within the zone apparently thrive.

These results also show that, despite numerous environmental pertur-bations occurrrng in almost every yec1r of the studies, the young fish population in the transition zone of the James River has remained relatively diverse and stable.

Turning to ichthyoplankton, the transition zone supports little spawning activity although its nursery function has been established previously.

Relatively few fish eggs and larvae are found in the area of Surry Power Station

~ppendices Hand P). Of those found, numbers of individuals and numbers of species are generally at their highest in early summer, declining during late summer and early fall. Although the number of species continues to decrease in late fall, total numbers of larvae increase. Wintertime sees fluctuating levels of, and early springtime shows increases in, both species and individuals within species.

Analysis of total catch data showed little or no entrainment of fish larvae or fish eggs by the thermal plume. VIMS concluded that effects on ichthyoplankters caused by Surry, if any, were within natural vari~bility.

Thus, the thermal effluent is resulting in no appreciable harm to. the ichthyoplankton component of the nekton community of the James River. Naked goby, Gobi osoma bosci , and bay anchovy, Anchoa mi tch i 11 i, are the dominant

species whose eggs (anchovy only) and larvae are found in the area. These two estuarine species have center's of abundance downstream from Surry Power e

79 Station and those in the oligohal.ine zone are representative of the upstream edge of the population. Postl~rvae and/or juveniles of some commercially important species such as Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus, and spot, Lei.ostomLis xanthurus~ were captured seasonally in relatively low numbers; however, these are ubiquitous species, being widespread along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Species occurrences by temperature and salinity give some indication of the environmental limits within which.these species were found during the course of the study (Tables 8, 9). It is interesting to note that both marine and freshwater species apparently tolerate lower and higher salinity levels, respectively, than is popularly believed.

An additional area of concern in more northern latitudes is one of 11 cold shock" whereby fish kills can occur upon rapid temperature decrease e during winter months., No 11 cold shock" caused fish kills or other effect$ have been observed during Surry operations.

The thermal plume was not found to form a barrier 'to migratory fishes.

This finding was confirmed by catches of several comparatively strong year-classes of juyenile blueba~k herring (Alosa aestival is), the most nu~erically dominant of the James River anadromous fishes. These fishes had migrated as adults upstream past Surry to spawning grounds near Hopewell and Richmond and the young were sampled as they migrated downstrea"! past Surry to Chesapeake Bay:

Several important conclusions can be. drawn from the results of the finfish study:

1. Surry Power Station operations have had no significant effect on the young fish community of the James River.

2.* From May, 1970 through August, 1976, several major environmental 41t* disturbances (Surry was not one) have occurred.

e TABLE 8: Spades Oc-rence by Temperature.

e C

. *******- -******-***.---. . . *------ -*-****** . .. -*** *--*--****o*-------*-*-**. *--- ------*

u s 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 N

. *---*-******---*--*---------*p q .1 .. ? .3 4 ~- ~-1 8 9 O 1 .2 ~ 4 5 6 J. IL~ Q __ 1 ?. ~ '! 5 .6 .. 7 _6 ? O 1 ... 2. 3 4 T _______ . --*--*--*-******

ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS X X 2

- - -----*--*-***------** ALBULA VULPES - ***----*****. . - -**-**. ...... --*- X ... --,---** --*** ....... .

ALOSA AESTIVALIS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xxxxxxx X X X X X 33 ALOSA HEDIOCRIS X X X XX XX X xxxxxx X 15

_*---------*-**----***-**ALOSA PSEUDOHARENGUS X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ~- X ~ X X X ~ ~ X X 32 ALOSA SAPIDISSIHA -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 .. - -31 *,

AHIA CALVA XXX X XX X XX X 10 ANCHOA HEPSETUS X X X 3 **---*-* *-*-**

ANCHOA MITCHILLI X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X X X-X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 ANGUILLA ROSTRATA XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX xxxxxx X X X *X X X*X XX 33 BAIROIELLA CHRYSURA X X. XX XX X X X XX X X X 14

-******--------*-*-----* BREVOORTIA TYRANNUS -- -*-*****-*y*,r*x XX XX x*x-;f XX XX X x-x xxx*xxx X X X X X X X X-X *x X 34 .

CARANX HIPPOS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 CENTRARCHUS MACROPTERUS **---*****-** _--*--*-*- .. ____ ........ --~ . . . X X .... - l2 CITHARICHTHYS SPILOPTERUS

.CYNOSCION NEBULOSUS X X X 3

- - - - ----*-------- __ CYNOSCION REGALIS _..... ------*---** .... X X X I( . ___ x x x >LX_?t..X. __x__ ~ x_x_x__ x x_x ____ x ___________ zo _____________. __ ._____ ..

CVPRINIDAE X X 2 CVPRINOOON VARIEGATUS X XI( X X X X X X XXX XXXXX 17

-****--*-***------*-*------ CVPRiNUS CARPIO X X X X X X X X I( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X. X X X X 30 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM -**--** *x -lf X X X X X X X X I( X X X X X X XX XX XX XX X x*x XX XX X x-i-35 DOROSOMA PETENENSE XX XX XX XX XX ( X X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X 34 X X X _x _________ .. X x_ >< X X.~ X X 17 _ __

. *-*------*-*--*-- *---* :~~:!c :~~~~~ GLORIOsus**--*-*-*-* *--* -- ........ -* ___ x *- . X *- X X __ X_ -*

X X XXXXX 7 ER IMYZON SP. X 1 ESOX NlGER 2 ETHEOSTOMA NIGRUM

...... _________ X. ___ .. *********-** ... --* ...............- --** -* __ ------*-*****--*--*--------*-*-*-* . X ---**-* ....

X X X X X **-*x

6 --**

ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEOI l( X X XX XXl X XX X X X X X 16

... **-*-*** *-*-*--------- ETHEOSTOMA SP. X :< X XX X _______ X_. X _____ ><. -~ X ***-***-*----11 _____________________ _

EUCINOSTOMUS ARGENTEUS X 1 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS X 1

_*****-*--* -* _ ----** FUNOULUS OIAPHANUS __x XX XX XX XX XX X XX XX X ~XX X x_x XX .. ~ XX X X X X X 33

,FUNOULUS HETEROCLITUS X X X X X X X X X X X X XX x*i*x* XX XX XX XX XX X j XX X 32 .

FUNDULUS LUCJAE X 1 FUNDULUS MAJALIS *X X X X ........ JS __ X ___ X ~ X --*- ~o . - ---- ---**

GAMBUSJA AFFlNIS X X X X X X 6 GASTERDSTEUS ACULEATUS X X 2 GOBIESOX STRUMOSUS X X ***--*** ..-*** 2 ... -*-------**--***-*

GOB IOSOMA BOSC I X X X X X X i X X X X X ><' X >Cx X- X X x* X X. X X X X. X *x 28 GOBIOSOMA GINSOURGI X l

. --*------*--*. *--***-*****-- HYBOGNA THUS NUCHAUS X _)C X X X x*x XX XX XX XX XX x__x__ x_x X -*- XX XX X x .. ><.~ ____ 30 ________________ _

HYPORHAMPHUS UNIFASCIATUS X l ICTALURUS CATUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX X X 32 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX 34 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS XX XX XX.XX XX~ XX XX XX XX XX XX X XX XX XX XX X x**x 35 -

ICTALURUS SP. *x X 2 00 LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS X X X X X X X X ~ X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XXX XX XX 33

- - - -* .. -*----* 1**-*---*--*-~-*-

0 LEPISOSTEUS DSSEUS X X. X XX X LEPOMIS AURITUS X X X X X X X 7 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xx xx l(X_><_:><,x x x__ x_x __x_x_x_x_x _____ x__ 34 _______________ ......... .

-***e*-* ... - **------*-----*-**--- - - - - - - - -

TABLE t9 Cont I d C

- - --*-*- ---*--*-----*-------*------ 0 u------~--

s 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 Z 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 N p

------ .. -*** *-* - *****-* - ------** -*-**--- ~ ~- 2 3 4 ~ 6,_7 8 9 0 1 2_3 ___ 4_5 ___ 6 __ 7_8 9_0 __1 __ 2_3_4_5_6_7 __ 8 9_0_1___ 2 __~_4 .:r LEPOMIS GULOSUS X l LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS X

- - ------*****-**LEPOMIS SP. . - .... ------*-* . - .. ------**** *x *x X X X. -~ -----------*----------**x--X X X X X X X X X X X XX. 156 - - - - - - - -

LUTJANUS GRISEUS X X XX 4 MEMBRAS MARTINICA X X XX X Y. XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X 23 _ _ _ _ _ __

MENIOIA BERYLLINA X X X XX X X X xx x-x ic"*x*x--x x x**>cx x***x-5cx*--;cx *x xx xx xx xx 35 MENIDIA MENIDIA X X X XX X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X.X XX X 35 MENIDIA SP. X X X X X XX XX X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X X 30

-- **-***- -*----*--------------- - MICROPOGON UNDULATliS X X X XX X X X x x x x x x x. x x -)( x x >( x* x x Xx x *x* x x* x**;(;c*---*-33________

MICROPT~RUS DOLOMIEUI X X 2 MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES X X X X X X X 7 _ _ _ _ _ __

MORONE AMERICANA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X >f X X ){" >f x" x** jf X--X X- X X X X X 33 MORONE SAXATILI :i X X X X X xxxxxxx X X X XX XX XX XX XX. 25 MOXOSTOMA MACROLEPIDOTUH X l MUGIL CEPHALUS 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 28-:__ _ _ __

MUGIL CUP.EMA XX X X X X X 8 NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X 32 _ _ _ _ _ __

,NOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS X X X X X X X X X x* X X.. >Cx -- x" x* X X x-x *x- -**------*--*---if NOTROPIS BIFRENATUS X X X X XX XX X X 10 NOTROPIS CHALVBAEUS . X 1

- ---------NOTROPIS CORNUTUS *-*--------*-------*-* -..... x x*,c*x ---x*-----*-x x x-**x -x-x *-xx** x* x g*-------

NOTROPiS HUDSONIUS x XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 35

...... - **---*-- NOTROPIS PROCNE NOTROPIS SP. X x* -**--***--*. ... -*--*--* ******-********* .... -----*-****xX X *-*-***-..*------ 1 PARALICHTHVS DENTATUS XX X. XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX X 24 PEPRILUS ALEPIDOTUS *-*****---- -** * -- **--- ** * ..... _.. ___ ---- XX XX.XX XX

*--*-**-*-*-**------------**-**--**-***-*x--- -* XX ----*--*

-***-**-- 10

- -*-1*----------

PEPRILUS TRIACNATHUS PERCA FLAVESCF.NS X X x XX X XX X XX XX XX X XX X 19 PETROMYZON MARINUS X X X X X X X X . . . -------- - - - - - * - - - - * * -

POMATOMUS SALTATRIX **xx XX ;ncxxxx*x*xxx*x--xxx 1a POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS X X X X *4 PRIONUTUS CAROLINUS X XX X 4 ,

PRIONOTUS TRIBULUS **--*-**- *******- -* --*-*--*--*-****----** **-***** ***,c**-**---*--******-------* - - - - -

SCOMBE~OMDRUS MACULATUS xxxxxx 6 SELENE VOMER X SEMOTILUS ATROMACULATUS .****x X . X X . 4

-.. *-****------**-*----*i'*---

STRONGYLURA MARINA XX x XX XX XX X 10 SVGNATHUS FLORIOAE SYMPHURUS PLAGIUSA X x** *-*-------- *-****** *-x* -**-**x-*ic*x ----*---------*-***-*-------------7l * - - - - - - - - -

X TRICHIURUS LEPTURUS X X 2 TRINECTES MACULATUS xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .... -,*-*- -~-*~** ..... X 31

-*-***** *-**---****1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -

UMBRA PVG"IAEA X UROPHYCIS REGIUS X X 2

*-********-----*-*-------------- oo**

e TABLE 9: Species Arrnnce by Salinity SP 0 . PT5 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 COUNT AC IPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS X X 2 ALOSA AESTIVALIS X X X X X X X X X X X 11

.. *-----* ALOSA HEDIOCIUS ALOSA PSEUDOHARENGUS

--- X X

_x X X

X

)( .. *- __ x *--** *x X X X X --*---******* --*--- .x --- X --*---*---------**--*---*

X X X X X X 9-*-**--* ..

12 ALOSA SAPIDISSIHA X X X X X X X X X X X 11*

AHIA CALVA **--*-------------***x --*----**--**---* X *-------*--*-****-*-**--***-***-***x ----*-** ****--- .. -*-*--*-*** ------ *---**----*--*---------*-----****------*-*-----*** 3 .*

ANCHOA HEPSETUS X X X 3 ANCHOA HITCHILLI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14

------**-. ANGUILLA ROSTRATA .. ----- ____ x X --*-** X ****--- X *----***-x **--* X X -- x______ x. -*--- x______ x *-**-----x -* ______ x_____ x__.____ 14 BAIRDIELLA,CHRYSURA X X X X X X X X X X 10 BREVOORTIA TYRANNUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14' CARANX HJ PPOS X X X )( )( X .. >C ... ... X... _.. -***-* J< ......*. >L.. .. >< .... __ ... X._. _____ .X 13

-*-*---.-*-- CENTRARCHUS MACROPTERUS X l CITHARICHTHYS SPILOPTERUS X 1

.. -*-----** CYNOSCION NEBULOSUS **-------- ----*-** .. **--**-*--*** X X **-*-----X---*--**------------------* 3 CYNOSCION REGALIS X X . X X X )( X X . X X X X X X 14

CYPRINIDAE X X 2

* CYPRINOOON VARIEGATUS X -------- x_______ X X X .... >< . X _____ x*--*-- X *-*-*- x_.______ ------*. _________________ 10_. ________ ..

CYPRINUS CARPIO X >< ; X X X X .. X X X X X X 12 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 OOROSOMA PETENENSE X ........._.. X. _____ X X X X X X X X X X X X 14*

ELOPS SAURUS *-----*- --- X .X X X X . X --*x*- X- X X X - X X 13 ENNEACANTHUS GLORiosus X X X X X X -0 ER JMYZON SP. X - l

.. -* *--**- ESOX NIGER . ------*** X X . . 2 ETHEOSTOMA NIGRUH X X X X X 5 ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEDI *****------------** X **--*--*---*><***---*****.. X X .. *- *----* -*--*----*--* ...x --------- --------- ---- ---- ------**-----------**.---- 5 ETHEOSTOMA SP. X X X 3 EUCINOSTOMUS ARGENTEUS X l FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS X .... ---- ... ....... - -------. **-*---- ------*****----***----*---*-----*-*-*--------------*--- 1

- ----------. FUNOULUS DI APHANUS X X X X X X X X X X 10 FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 FUNDULUS LUCIAE X **--*** ....... ....... -***-** *--*---------*-***---***- -*---*-------* *--. l FUNDULUS MAJALJS . X X XX XX XX 8 GAMBUSIA AFFINIS X *X X X 4 GASTEROSTEUS GOB ACULEATUS-*-*-*---*-**--*-*-------------****X--*-*****-

IE SOX STRUMOSUS . - - *- -**---- -----. -*-*---- -*-----*----*---------**-----* - - - * - ---------* . l X 1*

GOBIOSOMA BOSCI X X X X X *X X X X X X X X X 14 GOBIOSDMA GINSBURGI X -------*-----*- ......................... ----------*---- *--*---*** l HYBOGNATHUS NUCHALIS X X X X X X X 10 HYPDRHAMPHUS UNIFASCIATUS X l ICTALURUS CATUS - - *----*---*---. X X X X X X X X X X X X X **-----****

X x*-- - X 14 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS X X X X X X X -- - X X X X 13 ICTALUlU§ P~NCTATUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 lCTALURUS SP. X .14L.

. ----*-* LEIOSTOMUS XANTHUR.US ic -*-*-**** x**----* X X. - X X X ----- x------*x-*------ X - -***-* -)(------*x --* -

X X LEPISDSTEUS OSSEUS X X X X X X X 7 LEPOMIS AURJTUS X X X X X ..

X X . --**-* **-*----*--**-* *-*-----*--------** .* 6 LEPOMIS GlBBOSUS **-*****-*--- - *- X .. X X X X x* X X X X X X 13 LEPOMIS GULOSUS X l CX)

LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS X X

--**- - *-*- X..

X X

x X X 6 N LEPOHIS SP. ... ****-*--* --* >( X X 5 LUTJANUS GRISEUS X X X X X 5 MEMBRAS MARTINJCA ............ __ . X X _______>C******--~-*- ~ ... -- _x *------. >< X X X X X _x ____ x___ ---* l'-.., _

TABLE ---C~n~-,-~ . --- - - .... *-****---'----- ----------- ..--

SP 0 PT5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 COJNT x*------ -,c**--*-x----x--x____ x______x_____ x_____

MENIDIA BERYLLINA . -------- X X X X x 13 MENIDIA MENIDIA X X X- X X X X X X X X X X X 14 MENIOIA. SP. X 11 _ __

MICROPOGON UNDULATUS . -------*x X

X X

x X

X X

X xX X x----*-xX ___ xX____ X X x -----x**---------x------x X i4' MICROPTERUS OOLOMIEUI X .1 MICROPTERUS SALMDIDES MORONE AMERICANA X

X X X

X X

X X x - xX __x___x x )( X X 4

13---

MORONE SAXATILIS X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 MOXOSTOMA MACRDLEPIDOTUM X __ l ______ _

MUGIL CEPHALUS X X X )( X X X X X X X - X X X 14 MUGIL CUREMA X X X X 4

_____ .. NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS X -- ----*-*----*

X X X X X x-----*x---x-- X X X

- - -X- - -X x~_-__x____xc____F~-----

NOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS X X X x 7 NOTROPIS BIFRENATUS X X X x X 5 NOTROPIS CHALYBAEUS X --*--------** **------ ---------*------

l _______ _

NOTROPIS CCRNUTUS X X X X X X 6 NOTROPIS HUDSDNIUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 NOTROPIS PROCNE X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ __

NOTROPIS SP. X X 2 PARALICHTHYS DENTATUS X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 PEPRILUS ALEPIDOTUS X X XX X X X 7 PEPRILUS TRIACNATHUS ***** ----------------------x------**-------- - ---------*-1 -

PERCA FLAVESCENS X X X X X X X X 8 PETROMYZON MARINUS X X X X 4 POMATOMUS SALTATRIX - . --- X . X - *-. X -*---- *x *-* X. X- X x - x-- x --x x-~--~x*~--13*'----

POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS X X X 3 PRIONOTUS CAROLINUS X X

- - -X- __ 3l _ _ _ _

PRIONOT~S TRIBULUS --- -- --**--*x ------*----------------*--*

SCOMBEROMORUS MACULATUS X X X X X X X X 8 SELENE VOMER -------* ***-- X --------- . - -------*-----*----**------------- X X 3 SEMOTI LUS ATROMACULATUS x l .

STRONGYLURA MARINA X X X X X X X *x X X X X 12 SYGNATHUS FLORIDAE X

-- *---*--* --------------------------* 1 SYMPHURUS PLAGIUSA 5 -----

X X X X X TRICHIURUS LEPTURUS X X 2 TRINECTES MACULATUS X X X x__ . - ~ X X

xX ---*-** - X*---------------

X X *-*-------------

X X X 14

- - - - - *- i"- -- .

UMBRA PYGMAEA UROPHYCIS REGIUS X X 2

**ON***-*----*****----- -- **-~---*--*-** -----* * *-* --****--*****----* --* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - -

00 w

84

3. There have been increases in the relative abundance of some species, decreases in others, while still other species s~ch as the indigenous I bay anchovy have shown no change at. a 11 . None of these changes cou 1d be correlated wi_th Surry operations.

4. No 11 cold shock 11

fish kills have occurred.

5. No thermal barrier to migratory fishes was found to be present.

6. These studies show that, despite both natural and man-made pertur-bations, the young fish conununity of the transition zone of the James River is viable and stable and, above all, exhibits no appreciable response to Surry Power Station operation.

e

85

- B. BENTHOS Benthic macroinvertebrate studies have been conducted in the transition zone of the James River since 1969. Because this zone is of low but highly variable salinity (Fig. 12) and is characterized by high turbidities and sedimentatjon rates, it presents_ an inhospitable environment for al I but a few of the most tolerant of benthic species (Appendix G). Those surviving either maintain viable, reproducing resident populations, or are temporary invaders when suitable environmental conditions permit. Consequently, the benthos of the area are chatacterized by low species diversity values (0-3.04 bits per individual), values that have been found throughout the study ,period.

Diversity values have remained within natural 1 imits of level and variabi 1 ity before and during Surry Power Station operations which have had no detectable influence on the components of this trophic level (preoperational, 0-2.8; postoperational; 0-3,04).

As is typical of most zones of this type, a few species are over-*

whelmingly dominant. In the James River at Surry, the non-commerci~J brackish water clam, .Rangia cuneata is found in abundance, and comprises more than 90%

of the total invertebrate biomass. The American oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

I is not found in the oligohaline zone of the James River, this species being more mesoha 1 i ne in habitat while the b 1ue crab (Ca 11 i nectes sap i dus) is on 1y a sporadic visitor to the Surry area. VIMS concluded that Rangia cuneata showed no obvious preference or avoidance regarding the thermal plume as increases and declines occurred at both plume and non-plume sampling stations. Rather, Rangia cuneata revealed an apparent preference for silty-clay substrates whether this* substrate type was within the thermal plume area or not (Appendices Hand P).

e

e e 10 9

QJ 8 Cl>

QJ E C 0,

7 0

(.) ct 0

~

6 5

i t

..J ct Cl) 4 3

2 Figure *12: Temporal distribution of surface salinity at benthos Station 11 . (from Appendix P)

87 Other benthic species have shown changes during operational times with some decreasing in abundance while others increased. These changes occurred at both plume and non-plume stations and appeared to be related to natural perturbations such as Hurricane Agnes and its attendant low salinity levels. These changes are reflected in species diversity levels as well as temporal distribution patterns (Appendices Hand P).

Benthic macroinvertebrates represent an excellent example of the natural variability encountered in nature, the subtle as wel I as obvious changes that take place over time, and, above all, the resiliency of the eco-system to recover from insults such as Hurricane Agnes. Diversity and species richness I eve Is were reduced in the summer of 1972 fo 11 owing Agnes.* Wh i 1e div~rsrty recovered rather quickly, richness depression continued into 1973.

Diversity and richness values had recovered in 1974, 1975, and 1976 and were not significantly different,from one of the two preoperational periods used for comparison (Appendices Hand P).

The majority of the benthic macroinvertebrate species collected during this study are classed as 11 estuarine endemid 1 and are characteristic of the meso- and ol igohaline zones of the estuarine system of Chesapeake Bay (Table 10). As such, they are well adapted to the varying environmental conditions found around Surry Power Station. Since the transition zone is

, what it is, other species from both the upstream freshwater zone and down-stream saline zone are found when suitable conditions exist.

Results of this study show that the benthic macroinvertebrate community, including shellfish, is not being appreciably harmed by the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station. Changes within the community have been correlated with natural. changes as well as sediment type.

88 TABLE 10: ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES FOUND IN THE OLIGOHALINE JAMES RIVER*

Estuarine Endemic Other Scolecolepides viridis Tubulanus pellucidus (polyhaline)

Laeonereis culveri Nereis succinea (euryhaline) 0 l i gochaeta Dipteran larvae (freshwater tool igohal ine)

Hydrobia sp. Lepidactylus dytiscus (euryhal ine)

Congeria leucophaeta Corbicula manilensis (freshwater to al igohal ine)

Rangia cuneata Brachidontes recurvus (meso- to euhal ine)

Macoma balthica Polydora 1 igni (ol igo- to euhal ine) e Macoma mi tche 11 i Cyathura pol i ta Edotea triloba (euryhaline)

Monoculodes edwardsi (euryhal ine)

Chiridotea almyra Gammarus spp.

Leptocheirus plumulosus Corophium lacustre Rhithropanopeus harrisii

Adapted from Appendix G.

89 C. FOULING ORGANISMS A series of fouling plate stations was established in the James River around Surry Power Station in January, 1971. Studies on the organisms colonizing the plates have continued since that time. This cominunity has shown no effect from the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station (Appendices Hand P).

Throughout the six years that this trophic level has been under study the fouling plates have been colonized mainly by barnacles, ectoprocts, hydro ids, and one species of amphipod of the genus Corophium. Other forms have been found in reduced numbers. With the exception of 1972 following Hurricane Agnes, the largest numbers of species and individuals within species have been collected in August and October of each year. Temporal distribution patterns related to normal seasonal cycles of temperature and salinity have been displayed.

Two species were dominant during the entire study period and these I

have shown no changes in population density or structure attributable to the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station. Barnacles of the genus Balanus exhibited similar temporal patterns in all years of the study except 1972 when Hurricane Agnes resulted in reduced salinity levels in the area (Fig: 13).

Comparison of fouling plate data with plankton data (which sample barnacle naupl ii) and benthic data (which sample adults on a monthly or quarterly basis) shows the superiority of fouling plates for sampling organisms of this genus (Fig. 14). While plates yield samples integrated over time, plankton sampling can miss periods of nauplier abundance and benthic sampling for adult barnacles is dependent on a suitable substrate. All three methods, however, gave results showing no influence from the thermal effluent.

e

90 e

Ba/anus sp. X - ANNUAL. PLATES 3.5

~

e 3.0 CBN X

2.5 "1:1 ,-.

N Q,

2.0 X ci

z 1.5 C) 0

..J 1.0 I- I-Cl) Cl) 00 n-Q5 ..J ..J N

"O 3.5 3.0 e Z.5 0

CBS 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

'- 1976 I-- -

N

.* 2.0 Q,

ci . . - X

-:z 1.5 X

C) ;

0 1.0 I- I- I-

..J Cl) Cl)

n3

(/)

0.5 00

..J ..J 0

1971 1974 1972 1973 1975 1976 4.0 DWS 3.5 -

a. 2.0 X

X ci z

C) 0

..J 1.0 .

I-en I- I-(/) (/)

Q5 . 0 00 0

..J 1971

..J ..J r

1972. 1973 1974 1975 1976 e Figure 13: Temporal distributions of Balanus sp. population densities at the three fouling plate static1ns, 1971-76. (from Appendix P)

e - e

~ 2.0 BARNACLE NAUPLII OWS

-0

+

1.5 0

Q.

1.0 ci z 0.5

(!)

0 0

I 1973 1974 1975 1976

- 4.0 N+

BARNACLES ON FOULING PLATES DWS

~ 3.0 N

~ 2.0, ci z 1.0

(!)

0 0

1973 1974 1975 1976 4.0 N+ BARNACLES IN BENTHOS SAMPLES- ALL STATIONS e

3.0

~

Q. 2.0 ci z

~

1.0

(!) N N N N N N 0

0 s s s s ss 1973 1976 Figure 14: Temporal distributions of barnacle nauplii and Balanus sp.

adults at fouling plate station DWS, and of Balnnus sp.

adults at all benthos stations combined; 191J-/b.

(NS = not sampled) (from Appendix P)

92 e

~~- ..

Amphipods (Corophium lacustre), while not considered a fouling organism, were opportunistic in seeking suitable habitat and consequently l

cbmprised the other domi~ant species collected during this study. Population densities for this species were highest in late summer or early fal 1 at al 1 stations ih the six study yea~s (Fig. 15). Specimens were collected in June of each year except 1971 and 1974 when they appeared on the fouling plates in February. The winters of 1970-1971 and 1973-1974 were relatively mild through-out the Chesapeake Bay system and resulted in the early collections.

Fouling organism populations, on the whole, exhibited seasonal variation patterns that changed from year-to-year in response to natural factors. No evidence has been found of any appreciable adverse effects from the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station (Appendices Hand P).

e

(/

93

- Corophium /ociJstrs X - ANNUAL PLATES

-*

BENTHOS STUDY TOTALS 3.5 . CBN ..*-

-e 3.0 - - -- -- x-

~

"O N

2.5 .

- - X 2.0 z

Q, ci c:,

0 1.5 1.0 .

I- I-n

.J I-(/)

"' en 0.5 0 oo

..J ..J ..I 3.5 0

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 .

0

.c:

CBS X

c.

.a N

. 3.0 X

,+

"O e 2.s *2.5 NE

[-

Cl,I

~

Q, ci 2.0

, *2.0-: .

a.

-z I.S c.:,

1.0

'I I

I I

.- ...., I I . ... *1.5 1.0

-go

z 0

.J '* I

..I 0.5 -o.s 0 ~W-19.J.7_1LI~..,l....l-~W~..l.....Ll~9~7~3:--.l.4-..1.--:-1'='9=74-f-.1.-I-....J:-l::J9::7::-5...1.+......~l9~76~--tO 4.0 . *ows 3.5

N e

3.0 x-

"O N

0 a.

2.5 2.0 -- - --

X z

I.S c.,

Q

.J 1.0 .--

I- I-en*"'

0.5 00 l

..I ..I 0 -

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 e Figure 15: Temporal distributions of Corphium lacustre~

population densities at the three fouling plate stations and at all benthos stations combined, 1971-76. (from Appendix P)

94 D. ZOOPLANKTON The James *River zooplankton community is composed of two groups:_

the true zooplankton (holoplankton), and the meroplankton. The true zoo-plankters are generally present in varying numbers al 1. year while the mero-plankters are seasonal additions to the community, present only during times of reproduction. Those meroplankton discussed in this section include only the larval forms of benthic and fouling organisms. lchthyoplankton, the other component of the meroplankton, are discussed in the finfish section.

Zooplankton studies have been conducted on a monthly schedule since November, 1972 by personnel of VIMS (Appendices Hand P). Seven river stations were sampled in 1972-1974, twelve stations in 1975 and ten in 1976. These samples are taken with a 12.5 cm diameter Clarke-Bumpass quantitative sampler

(- equipped with a No. 20 net. In addition to these river surveys, studies were designed and data taken to determine the effects of plume entrainment. Vertical distribution, vertical migration and the ranges of abundance of major zooplankton groups during a twenty-four hour period were also determined.

Throughout the study there has been a relative paucity of zooplankton in the area. This finding was not unexpected since it is typical of most turbid estuarine transition zones. As with preoperational sampling, ~opepod nauplii are the dominant forms in postoperational times (Fig. 16). Rotifers, likewise, are a dominant (Fig. 17) and both show, along with most other species, considerable variation due to tidal, diel, salinity, and seasonal influences (e.g., Fig. 18 showing variability of Bosmina sp.). Normally freshwater species such as Bosmina are most abundant when salinity levels fall below one ppt.

e

e e 3.2 COPEPOD NAUPLII 2.8 0 2.4 0

~ 2.0 0 -

z 1.6

(!)

0

..J 1.2 o.q J F M A M J JASON DJ F MAM J JASON D 1975 1976 Figure 16: Population densities of copepod nauplii in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations. (from Appendix P)

U) u,

.e e 2.8 ROTIFERS 2.4 (Moan of 9 Stations)

~ 2.0 0

':::: 1.6

.g +

1.2 C>

O .0

...t

.4 0 J N O J F M A M J J A S O 0 1976 Figure. 17: PoQulation densities of rotifers in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations*. (from Appendix P)

.\

e 1.8 Bosmina sp.

1.6 1.4 o 1.2 0

~ 1.0

+

(!)

.8 g .6

.4

.2 0 .. J F M A M J J D J J A s 0 N D 1975 1976 Figure _18: Population densities of Bosmina sp. in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations. (from Appendix P)

v*

98 As to true zooplankters, the oli~ohal ine zone of the James River was usually dominated by two genera of copepods: Acartia and.Eurytemora~ These dominants were joined by rotifers and cladocerans during low salinity conditions and by larvae of gastropods, polychaetes, and pelecypods during normal reproductive seasons.

Meroplankton larval forms of benthic and fouling organisms were sampled as an inseparable component of the holoplankton. Normal seasonal patterns of abundance were observed with additions to the community by barnacle naupl ii from June to September (Fig. 19), polychaete larvae from June to December (Fig. 20), gastropod larvae from June to September, and pelecypod larvae from June to September. The only appa)ent effect of the Surry discharge was*an addition of barnacle nauplii to the river in August and September. However, these are not considered to be a nuisance species.

Analyses were designed to determine significant differences in plume and non-plume areas of the river. Analyses were conducted on all parameters using a variety of approaches, including analysis of variance. Considerable variability i~ abundance was found within and between stations in and out of the thermal plume, as wel 1 as months and seasons. Variation also occurred over depth, tide, and time of day. VIMS concluded from s~ch analyses that the heated effluent from Surry Power Station was not affecting the zooplankton community in the o I i goha Ii ne zone of the James River.

e t.

3.2 BARNACLE NAUPLII 2.8 2.4 0

o 2.0

-: 1.6 0

z ,.2 C>

0

..I .8

.4 O J F M J J A S A M J J A S 1976 1976 Figure 19:. Population densities of barnacle nauplii at the Surry Power Station discharge, 1975-76, (from Append ix P)

\.D

e 1.8 POLYCHAETE LARVAE 1.6 1.4 0

0 1.2

~ 1.0 0

z .8 C) 0 .6

...I

.4

.2 O'

J J JASON DJ F MAM J JASON D 1975 1976 Figure 20: Population densities of polychaete larvae in the study area, 1975-76; means over nine stations.

(from Appendix P) a a

101 e E. PHYTOPLANKTON Phytoplankton populations in the oligohaline zone of the James ~iver have been under study since the late 1960 1 s, largely by personnel of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Appendices Hand P). Populations were charac-terized, and the effects* of Surry Power Station thermal discharge determined, by at least four *methods commonly utilized in such studies: primary production, chlorophyll a, total cell counts and identification, and community structure (See VI I for details). The major conclusion reached by VIMS during preoperational studies was that the oligohaline zone of the James River is one of low productivity (Appendix I ) , a conclusion affirmed during operational studies. Subsequently, through operational studies, VIMS concluded that the thermal effluent of Surry Power. Station was not appreciably harming the diatom-dominated phytoplankton

e community of the river (Appendices Hand P).

findings of low productivity.

There were two main reasons for _the Populations are naturally low in the transition zone because it is the interface zone between fresh and salt water, a relatively hostile environment for all but the hardiest of species. Also, the zone is an area of high turbidity which reduces light penetration levels which in turn reduce plankton levels.

As s~ated previously, cl igohal ine or transition zones, such as the one near Surry Power Station, usually have low levels of phytoplankton because of fluctuating levels of salinity and because this zone is one of high turbidity resulting in reduced levels of light penetration. Employing several of the accepted methods for the characterization and evaluation of estuarine phyto-plankton communities, it has been determined that although transition zone phytoplankton populations at times are diverse assemblages of flora, the thermal e

102 effluent. from Surry Power Station is n*ot causing appreci.able harm to them.

e Dominance* shifts .and total density fluctuate seasonally in response to natural temperature cond.itions and the number of species (o*r -community structure) var.ies in response to salinity (Appendices Hand P).

Primary production in the Ja~es River tr~nsitlon zone has been determined to be generally very low. Primary production is basically the production of organic matter from inorganic material~ per unit of time by autotrophic organisms (e.g., phytoplankton) with the aid of radient energy and is measured in terms.of milligrams of carbon. Preoperational studies have shown most wintertime levels to be below 0.1 mgC*m- 3 *hr-l with 87% of the annual measure-ments below 5 mgC*m

-3 *hr -1 (Appendices D and I). These low levels were due in part to extreme tidal variations in temperature and salinity and to high turbidities (e.g., Secchi disk readings ranged from 0.1 m to 1.0 m). Postoperational studies by VIMS tended to confirm those levels found prior to station operation in that 85% of the values obtained were below 5 mgC*m- 3*hr-l (Appendices Hand P) indicating that the thermal effluent from Surry Power Station is not harming productivity in the.phytoplankton community.

Chlorophyll!. determinations, as measured in micrograms or milligrams per liter, provide a relative measure of the standing crop of phytoplankton, and were made during both p*reoperational and operational times (Appendices I, H and P).

Variability was the rule within and between seasons and within and between stations. Generally, those measurements from July, 1972 through December, 1973 showed values ranging from t.8 µg*l-l in November, 1973 to 5.0 µg*l-l in June, 1973. Studies in 1975 revealed ranges from 1.5 µg*l-l in December to 5.3 µg*l-l in July (Appendix H ). Additional studies conducted in 1976 showed mean surface values ranging from 1.6 µg*l-l in Nbvember to 6.7 µg*l-l in April (Appendix P).

e

103 e

(.

Investigation~ of tidal James River phytoplankton populations in 1968 and 1969 showed similar values with few measurements exceeding 10 µg*l-l (Appendix D).

Levels exceeding 50 µg* 1-l are considered indicative of overenrichment. The results by VIMS show that the thermal effluent is not influencing the standing crop of phytop 1ankton in the river.

Finally, phytoplankton populations have been studied through total cell counts and identification (Appendices Hand P) with 1973 through 1976 samples having been analyzed quantitatively. In 1973 and 1974, VIMS found that the

' -1 lowest counts were.obtained in January which had ranges of 50-400 cells*ml (1973), and 30.;..150 cells*ml-l (1974). Yearly maxima occurred in the summer

-1 -1 with ranges of 3,000-7,500 cells*ml in June, 1973 and 1 ,550-5,200 cells*ml in August, 1974. Similar results were obtained by VIMS in 1975 and 1976 (Fig.21), who concluded that there were no harmful effects from the thermal 1.e plume on cell counts.

Community structure in the James River was also similar in all of the years studied (Appendices Hand P) although structure changes due to pumping were infrequently noted in the discharge canal. Dominant genera included four diatoms (Nitzschia, Melosira, Cycloteila, Skeletonema) and one cryptophyte (Chroomonas). As might be expected, periodic within-community dominance shifts occurred whi~h were related to salinity fluctuations in the transition zone. Extreme, but natural, variabi 1 ity within species was the rule rather than the exception (Fig. 22~. No effect on community structure could be related to the therma 1 effluent by VI MS.

During 1975, intensified studies were conducted to determine diel and vertical distributions of phytoplankton populations (Appendix H). These intensified studies were conducted in addition to the regular monthly samples e

e 40 SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE ... ,11-, .\ ,., *- ...

~

u 30 I

I

.... .,fl'

\

\ *,

Dis.--,' , -,

I I

I '*" \

\

.... \

~*

0 I \

a: 20

i:

w I- ,,

.... .,.. *- ...I I I \

\

.I \

I 10 * \

\

0 J F M A M .J J A s 0 N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 1975 1976 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 2400 (Mcans:Sta. J I,CBC,HPW 2) e 1600 Cl}

J J

UJ u

000 1 1 I 1 O -J F M A M J J A S O'N 0 J F M A M I J J A S 0 N D 1975 1976 Figure 21: Surface water temperature nnd total phytoplankton abundance in che study area, 1975-76.

(from Appendix P)

e e e SURFACE SALINITY

...... 8 0

~

...I

~4 1200 Skelotonemo cosfalum e 600 Downstream-t\ .....

I'

' I *

" \ I Cl) \ I ' f o

...I I \ , :

...I ILi 0 400 Upstream--... \ I

' 'I

\~Both up , , :

\ *. and down , .,.*' 11 : ** ..**"****

0 .J---.--.---.---.--....-..1<;..___,..._...--.:*!..:".::"!.;'*~*:.!**~*,.1,::."'::::;::=:!:=:!:;=~'._ _ _ _........._ _.._*_*_ _*.:i**..__ __

J F M A M J J A S O N D J f M ' A M ' /* J ' A ' S ' t N D 1

1975 1976 Figure 22: Surface salinitv and Skeletonema costatum abundance in the study area, 1975-76,_ (from .Appendix P) 0 V,

106 e taken at 12 river stations. Vertical distribution samples were taken at each of the 12 stations three times during the year. Diel distributions were determined by sampling at a single station for three 24-hour periods durfng the year.

Basically, the data indicate that the maximum abu~dance of phyto-plankton occurs during daylight hours (justifying the validity of daytime sampling), and that abundance is relatively uniform over depth (justifying the validity of replicate surface samples). Similar studies in 1976 tended to confirm these results (Appendix P).

The one influence of power station operations that was observed by VIMS occurred in the warmer months of some, but not all, years and appeared to have been limited to the dis~harge canal system and to a very small area of the river immediately outside of the discharge canal mouth. The effect consisted o_f slightly reduced or increased numbers of cells in the discharge area which.

is well within the prescribed mixing zone for Surry Power Station. It should be pointed out that this effect was measured within the discharge canal and immediate vicinity .and that there has been no detectab 1e impact on the phyto-plankton population in the James River. VIMS found that the effect was due largely to pumping operations and the resultant transport of organisms based on their comparative upstream/downstream densit:Jes. Discharge canal decreases occurred when downstream intake waters were poorer in plankton than upstream waters. The reverse was true at times when downstream areas were richer in plankton, and slight increases*outside the discharge canal would occur from pumping augmentation. Once again, this increase or decrease could not be detected in the zone of the river beyond the immediate discharge area.

e

107 e Studies by VIMS concluded that there is little likelihood that the discharge is altering the indigenous community and appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous phytoplankton population is not occurring nor is likely to occur as a result of the heated discharge from Surry Power Station. While the presence of blue-green algae species was noted, VIMS found no evidence to suggest that a shift toward nuisance species of phytoplankton had occurred nor was it likely that it would occur.

Further reading into the effects of Surry Power Station operation on phytoplankton populations in the cl igohaline reach of the James River may be found in Appendices Hand P.

e

108 F. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

(

The following species, whose known or suspected range includes the area of the Surry Power Station, have been officially classified as endangered*

or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Mammals - none.

Birds -

Southern Bald Eagle, Halleetus leucocephalus leucocephalus American Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum Arctic Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus tundrius Brown Pelican, Pelecanus occidental is Kirtlands Warbler, Dendroica kirtlandii Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Dondrocopos borealis.

Reptiles - none.

Fish -

Shortnose Sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum.

Snails - none.

Clams - none.

Insects - none.

Plants - none.

None of the named species has been, or is I ikely to be, affected by the thermal discharge froin Surry Power Station. Two Southern Bald Eagles are known to reside on the Hog Island Wildlife Refuge, feeding largely in the freshwater ponds on the island. Shortnose sturgeon are suspected to occur in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries although none have been reported from the James River in recent' years and none we.re taken during VIMS and Vepco fish surveys.

e

109 G. VERTEBRATES OTHER THAN FINFISH

(

e

. The location of Surry Power Station near the oligohaline zone of the James River precludes the presence of most aquatic vertebrates other than fin-fish. For example, there are no manatees, sharks, or whales in the area.

Other major vertebrates in the area include the ducks and geese found on the Hog Island Wildlife Refuge. These species are in no way adversely affected by the heated effluent from Surry Power Station.

e

110 C

- XI. .

SUMMARY

The foregoing demonstration contains all of the information necessary to meet the statutory and regulatory standard for a successful Section 316(a) demonstration. Vepco has conclusively demonstrated in this document artd the attached appendices that no appr~ciable harm has resulted from the thermal component of the Surry Power Station discharge to the balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the James River into which the discharge has been made ..

\.

e

111 XII. APPENDICES e

A. Tennyson, P. S., S. 0. Barrick, F. J. Wojcik, J. J. Norcross, and W. i. Hargis, Jr. 1972. _11The Chesapeake Bay Bibliography; -Volume 11, Virginia Waters 11

Spec. Sci. Rep. 63, Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

B. Meteorological Data.

C. Pritchard-Carpenter, Consultants. n.d. "Hydrology of the James River Estuary with Emphasis upon the Ten-Mile Segment Centered on Hog Point, Virginia 11

A Report Prepared for Virgini"a Electric and Power Company, Richmond, Virginia As Supporting Material for The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Surry Nuclear Power Station.

D. Brehmer, M. L., 1972. "Biological and Chemical Study of Virginia's Estuaries 11

VPI-WRRC~BULL 45, Contribution No. 452, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

E-1 Hoagman, W. J., J. V. Merriner, W. H. Kriete, Jr. and W. L. Wilson. 1974.

11 Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia 11

Annual Report Anadramous Fish Project. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

E-2 Hoagman, W. J., and W. H. Kriete, Jr. 1975, "Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia". Annua.l Report Anadramous Fish Project.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

E-3 Loesch, J. G. and W. H. Kriete, Jr. 1976. 11 Biology and Management of River Herring and Shad in Virginia 11

Completion Report, Anadromous Fish Project, 1974-1976. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

F. Carriker, M. R. 1967. 11 Ecology of Estuarine Invertebrates: A Perspective".

Edited by George H. Lauff, in Estuaries. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michig~n State University. pp. 442-487.

G. Diaz, R. J. 1977, "The Effects of Pollution on Benthic Communities of The Tidal James River, Vi rginia 11

Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Marine Science, University of Virginia.

H. Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho, G. C. Grant, B. 8. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, A. D. Estes. 1976. "Ecological Study of The Ti da 1 Segment of The James River ~ncompass i ng Hog Poi nt 11

Final Technical Report submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glouce_ster Point, Virginia.

I. Cain, T., R. Peddicord, R. Diaz, D. Dressel, E. Tennyson, M. Bender. 1972.

"Surry - Pre-Operational Ecological Studies". Report 1 and 2 submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

. 112

(,

J.

K.

Jenson, L. D. 1974. 11 Environmental Responses To Thermal Discharges From The Chesterfield Station, James River, Vi rginia 11

The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Ge.ography and E*nvironmental Engineeri.ng, Report No. 13.

Woolcott, W. S. 1974. 11 The Effects of Loading by The Bremo Power Station on a Piedmont Section of The James River, Volume I and I 111

Virginia Institute for Scientific Rese*rch, Richmond, Vi.rginia. */

L. Pritchard - Carpenter, 1967. 11 Temperature Distribution in The James River Estuary Which Will Result From The Discharge of Waste Heat From The Surry Nuclear Power Statiori11

A Report Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Richmond, Vi.rg in i a.

M-1 Bolus, R. L., S. N. Chia and C. S. Fang. 11 The Design of The Monitoring System for The Thermal Effect Study of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on the James River*. VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineiring, No. 16, Gloucester Point, Virginia, October 1971.

M-2 Chia, S. N., C. S. Fang, R. L. Bolus and W. J. Hargis, Jr. 11 Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part 11 Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of The Environment Prior to Plant Operation**. *v1MS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 21, Gloucester Point, Virginia, February 1972.

M-3 Shearls, E. A., S. N. Chia, W. J. Hargis, Jr., C. S. Fang and R. N. Lobecker.

11 Thermal Effects of The Surry *Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part I II. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters of The Environment Prior to Plant Operation**. VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 33, Gloucester Point, Virginia,*

February 1973.

M-4 Parker, G. C., E. A. Shearls and C. S. Fang, 11 Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James Ri°ver, Virginia, Part IV. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters During The First Year of Plant Operation 11

VIMS Special Report in Applied Marine Sc)ence and Ocean Engineering, No. 51*, Gloucester Point, Virginia, February 1974.

M-5 Parker, G. C. and C. S. Fang, 11 Thermal Effects of The Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part V. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters During The First Two Years of Plant Operation**.

VIMS Special Report tM Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 92, Gloucester Point, Virginia, June 1975.

M-6 Fang, C. S. and G. C. Parker, 11Thermal Effects of Tl'Je Surry Nuclear Power Plant on The James River, Virginia, Part VI. Results of Monitoring Physical Parameters**. VIMS Spe~ial Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean E.ngineering, No. 109, Gloucester Point, Virginia, May 1976.

N. White, J. C., Jr., J. T. Baranowski, C. J. Bateman, I. W. Mason, R. A. Hammond, P. S. Wingard, B. J. Peters, M. L. Brehmer and J. D. Ristroph, 1972.

11 Young Littoral Fishes of The Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia,

1970-1972 11

Surry Nuclear Power .Station Preoperational Studies.

Virginia Electric and Power Company manuscript.

11 3

0. White, J. C., Jr. editor, 1976 .. 11 The Effects of Surry Power Station Operations on Fishes of The Oligohaline Zone, James River, Virginia 11

Virginia Electric and Power Company manuscript.

P. Jordan, R. A., R. K. Carpenter, P. A. Goodwin, C. G. Becker, M. S. Ho, G. C. Grant, B. B. Bryan, J. V. Merriner, A.O. Estes. 1977. 11 Ecological Study of The Tidal Segment of the James River Encompassing Hog Peine*.

Final Technical Report submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Q. Anon. 1974. 11 Fish Kill 73-025, James River11

Bureau of Surveillance and Field Studies, Virginia State Water Control Board.

R. Byrd, M.A. 1975. 11 Study of The Vascular Flora and Terrestrial Fauna of the VEPCO Surry Nuclear Plant Area, Surry County, Virginia11

Submitted to Virginia Electric and Power Company by College of William and Mary, Wi.lliamsburg, Virginia.

11 S. White, J. C., Jr. and M. L. Brehmer, in press. Eighteen-Month Evaluation.

of the Ristroph Traveling Fish Screens 11

e

ML19093A172

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

<1 Banded Killifish 5 27

<11 Bridle Shiner .3 1 White Mu 11 et 0 Weakfish 3 0 Spotfin Killifish 0

<1 Largemouth Bass 2 0

<O. 1 <O. l Shiner sp. 0 Channel Catfish

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML19093A172

Text

SUMMARY

<1 Banded Killifish 5 27

<11 Bridle Shiner .3 1 White Mu 11 et 0 Weakfish 3 0 Spotfin Killifish 0

<1 Largemouth Bass 2 0

<O. 1 <O. l Shiner sp. 0 Channel Catfish

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search