ML20079N176

Plant,1989 Environ Monitoring Rept

ML20079N176
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	12/31/1989
From:	Blue R, Cates K, Cooke D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NUDOCS 9111110100
Download: ML20079N176 (60)

Text

_ -- - - _ - _ - - -

[

I BRUNSWICK STEAM

-I ELECTRIC PLANT I .

I I 1989 I ENVIRONMENTAL g MONITORING REPORT I

I

\

~

~

I l BRUNSWICK STEAh! ELECTRIC PLANT 1969 BIOLOGICAL hiONITORINO REPORT l Prepared by:

R. J. Blue . Editor K. N. Cates . Entrainment and Larval Impingement D.S.Cooke . River Larval Fish A. B. Harris . Statistics W. E. Herring - Water Quality L W. Pollard - hiarsh and Report Compiler T. E. Thompson . Juvenile and Adult Impingement Biological hionitoring Unit I

j Environmental Services Section CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COhiPANY SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA hiarch 1990 IR Reviewed and Approved by:

/@( &b}th J lMrtAb hianager hianager Bio'ogical Monitoring Unit Emironmental Assessment Unit This report was prepared under my supervision and direction, and I accept full ll responsibility for its content.

A u d/k

!l 5fanag'er Emironmental ServicesSection I

I

Brunswick St:am El:efne P!t.nt _

1989 Enytt nm:ntal Mon!tonn0 Report l Ii This copy of the report is not a controlled document as detciled in Environmental Services Sec-tion procedures. Any changes made to the original of this report subsequent to the date ofissu-ance can be obtained from:

Manager Environmental Services Section Carolina Power & Light Company Harris Energy & Erwironmental Center Route 1, Box 327 .l New Hill, North Carolina 27f 52 I

~E Acknowledgtttents The authors thank Chris Benedict, Tina Reece, and Steve Parrish who made this report possible by collecting, identifying, and processing samples. A very special thanks to Susan Holth for typing diis report. Mary Milligan of the Office Senices Unit at the Harris Energy &

Environmental Center proofed the report and Sandra Price assisted with the completion of the figures.

1 I

l l

i Carchna Power & Ugnt Company g i 5 l

a I

w Drutiseck Otzm Electnc PtEnt 1989 Enyttonmenic] Mon tonng Report I Table of Contents Page A e kn o w l e d g m e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ListofTables......................................................................................................................... iii ListofFigures......................................................................................................................... iv hi e t ri c . E n glis h Co nve r s io n Tabl e .. ........ ........ ......... ........... ...... .. . .. .. ....... ... .. .. . . ...... ... ... . .... .. .. vi Common and Scientific Names of Species Usea in This Report .................................... vii

! Ex e e u t iv e S u m m a ry . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . - . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . .. v i 1.0 1 NT R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ..................

t J5 2.0 CAPE FEAR ESTUARY POPULATION hiONITORING ............................ 21 2.1 1ntroduction.............................................................................................................. 21 2.2 htethods...................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 S a m p l e Coll e e t io n ... .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . . m. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... .. .. ... . .. . . . . . 21 2.2.2 DataAnalysis............................................................................................................. 21 1 2.3 R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n . .... . .... . . . . . .. ... . . .. ... .. . .... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .

j 2.3.1 WaterQuality............................................................................................................ 23

, 2.3.2 D o m i n a n t S p e c i c s . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j 2.3.3 S e a s o n a 1 D i s t ri b u t i o n .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. . . .. .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 24 2.3.4 S p a t ia 1 D is t rib u t i o n .. .. .. .. .... .. . . . . ... . . .. ... .. . ... . .. .. . .... . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 24 2.3.5 Ti m e S e r ie s An a lys is .... . . . .. .. . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . ... . .. . .. . .. . . ... . .. ... ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . .. .... . . . ... .- . . . 25 R i v e r La rv a l F i s h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

hiarsh...............................................-.................o.......................................g.............. 26

A l l i g a t o r C r e e k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

! 5101t'sBav.................................................................................................................. 26 WnldenCreek............................................................................................................ 26 i Ba1dHendCreek........................................................................................................ 27

! 2,4 S u m m a ry a n d Co n c l u s io n s .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... .. ... . .. . . ... . . . . .. ... .. ... . .. .. .... . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . 27

! 3.0 P LANT.RELATED hiONITORING PR OG RAhtS .......................................... 31 iI 3.1 3.2 Introduction................................................................................................................ 31 hicthods...................................................................................................................... 31

!3 3.3 R e s u l ts a n d D is c u s s i o n . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . .... . .. .. . . . .. .. . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . ..... . . .. .. . . . . . 31

'E 3.3.1 D o m i n a n t S p e c i e s . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3.2 S e a s o n a li ty a n d A b u n d a n c e .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. ... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . 32 j 3.3.3 FlowRates................................................................................................................ 32 3.3.4 Fi n e . h f e s n S e r e e n s ...... .. .. . . . .... . .. . . . . ... .. . ... . . .. . . .. . ... . ... . ... .. .. . ... .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. ... ... . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . 33

! 3.3.5 S u rviva l E s t i m a t e s ... .. . . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . ... . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .... . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . 33 3.4 S u m m a ry a n d Co n c l u s io n s .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.0 REFERENCES

.........................................................................................................41

.I

.I Environrnental Services Section n I

Brunsvack St::m El:ctnc PI:nt 1039 Environmentt_gion'tonng Repon Table List of"thbles Page l

1.1 The 1989 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant biological monitoring p r o g r a m s u m m a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l

2.1 Annual mean density and the percentage of the total mean density for the most abundant taxa collected in the BSEP .

tiver larva 1 fish program from 1984 through 1989..............................................29 g

2.2 Total catch and percent total of the ten most abundant organisms collected in the BSEP marsh study during 1 98 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10 l

2.3 Periods of maximum abundance during recruitment to each river area for 11 selected species in the BSEP tiver la tva i fd s t u dy d u ri n g 1989 ... . .. . .. . . .. .... .... .... ... ... . .. . . . . .. ... .... . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .... . . . . ..... .... . . 2. I 1 l

2.4 Periods of maximum abundance during recruitment to each creek system for 13 selected species in the BSEP marsh s t u dy d u ri n g 1989 . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

g 2.5 Spatial distribution of the most abundant larvae in the Cape Fear Estuary during 1989......................................................................................213 l'

2.6 Annual catch per unit effort by creek system for 13 selected species in the DSEP marsh study during 1989.......................................................214 l 2.7 Time series analysis for BSEP river larval fish data by a station group indicating trends in density from I January 1977 throuph December 1989..................................................................215 2.8 Time series analysis for BSEP marsh data by creek I indicating trends in abundance from 1981 through 19 89 . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 16 3,1 Mean density and percent total of fish, penacid shrimp, I and portunid megalops sampled in entrainment at the B S E P d u r i n g 19 8 9 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2 Totallarvae sampled in impingement at the BSEP during E 198 9, ra n k e d by pe rce n t . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5 3.3 Total number, total weight, and percent total of the ten most g

abundant organisms collected in the BSEP impingement samples during1989.............................................................................................................3'T I

iij Carohna Power & Ugh.'.$ompany R

H 1

Drunsw6ck St02n Elecinc Pi nt

.I - 1989. EnwonmntcJ Monrtonng Repon -

)1 I List of Tables (continued) 3.4 Entrainment densitles at the BSEP during 1989................................................38 Page 3.5 Entrainment rates at the BSEP during 1989.........................................................39 j 3.6 Total number of selected species estimated by monthly samples of larvalimpingement at the BSEP during 1 9 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 3 1 0 l 3.7 Juvenile and adult impingement densities for selected species and the number of damaged diversion screens per month at the BSEP during 1989.....................................................................................................311 3.8 Percent effectiveness of fine.raesh screens in reducing the

!g number of selected species aficcted by entrainment per sampimg 5 date at the BSEP during 1989.................................................................................312

! 3.9 Estimated number of and percent survival of selected larval organisms impinged at the BSEP during 19 8 9 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3 i

i 3.10 Number of selected organisms collected duringj ivenile and

, adult impingement sampling and their estimatec percent surviva1 during 1989.................................................................................................314 List of Figures

!l

Figure Page

1.1 Location of fish diversion structure, fish return system, and return basin at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ...................................... 13 1.2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant biological monitoring program sa m r "ng loca tions for 1989 ...................................................... ..... ......... 14 1

I 2.1 Bottom salinity for selected stations in the Cape Fear Estuary from September 1988 through December 19 89 .. . .. .. . . . . ... .. .. ..... ..... . . . . .. . ., 2 17

.l 2.2 Mean daily freshwater inflow by month and mean bottom salinity at m: driver Stata,n 25 in v kpe Fear Estuary I from January 1986 through December 1 9 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 8 I Enwonmental Services Section iv

drunswick St*arn Electnc Plant 1989 Environmental Monitoring Report List of Figures (continued) Page g

2.3 Mean daily freshwater inflow by year in the Cape Fear Estuary from 1979 through 1989.............................................................................219 l

2.4 Bottom temperature for selected stations in the Cape Fear Estuary from September 1988 through December 19 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 2 2 0 l

2.5 Time series analysis oflarval anchovy densities collected g

in the upper area of the Cape Fear Estuary and Dutchman u Creek from 1977 through 1989..............................................................................221 2.6 Time series analysis of spot densities collected in Dutchman Creek, Walden Creek, and the lower river area from 1977 through 1989..........................................................................................222 l

2.7 Time-series analysis of totallarval organism densities collected in Dutchman and Walden Creeks from 1979 t h rou gh 1989................... ........................................................................................223 l

2.8 Time series analysis of blue crab data collected in Alligator Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 19 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4 2.9 Time series analysis of croaker data collected in Walden Crcek by the marsh trawl from 1981 tbrough 198 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4 2.10 Time series analysis of blue :rab data collected in I Walden Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 19 89 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 2 2 5 ,

2.11 I

Time series analysis of bay anchovy daia collected in Walden Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 19 89 . .. . . . . .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . 2 25 2.12 Time series analysis of bay anchovy dan collected in Bald Head Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 198 9 . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2 2 6 g

2.13 * 'ime scra , analysis of flounder data collected in Bald Head

( reek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 19 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 6 l

., . ?

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant intake, discharge, diversion structure, and return system with associated effects onfish........................................................................................................................3-15 l

3.2 Mr M n, 9thly flow of water pumped at the BSEP from 1977 t h t w ch ] >82, 1987, 19 88, a n d 1989 ........ .... ..................... ..... ... ...... . ........ ..... ........ 3 16 I

v Carchna Power & Light Company I

e

. ~ .

l Brunswick St:am Electnc Pt nt 1989 Environm:nti Mo3tonng R port I

j Metric.English Conversion Table Length I 1 micron (um) = 4.0 x 10' inch

'g

)

1 millimeter (mm) = 1000 um = 0.04 inch g I centimeter (cm) = 10 mm = 0.4 inch 1 meter (m) = 100 cm = 3.28 feet 1 kilometer (km) = 1000 m = 0.62 mile Area 11 1 square meter (m') = 10.76 square feet .

i 1 hectare = 10,000 m' = 2.47 acres s

Weight f.

1 microgram (pg) = 10' mg or 10* g = 3.5 x 10' ounce 1 milligram (mg) = 3.5 x 10' ounce

'g 1 gram (g) = 1000 mg = 0.035 ounce 1 kilogram (kg' = 1000 g = 2.2 pounds

', E 1 metric ton = 1000 kg = 1.1 tons

[g 1 kg/ hectare = 0.89 pound / acre r Volume I milliliter (ml) = 0.034 fluid ounce

1 liter = 1000 ml = 0.26 gallon i

1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet Temperature Degrees Celsius ('C) = 5/9 ('F 32) i

'I

.I Environmental Services Soction vi

Bruns; rick St:am Etctnc PI:nt 1989 Environm:nt') Monitormo Report Common and Scientille Names of Species Used in This lleport American cel Anguilla rostrata Atlantic menhaden Brcroorria tyrannus Anchovies Bay anchovy Anchoa spp.

A. mitchilli l

Spotted hake Urophych regia a Mummichog Funduhis heteroclitta l Silversides Atherinidae Atlantic silverside Atenidin menidia g Pipefish Sygnathus spp. 5 Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus Silver perch Bairdiclla chrysoura Seatrout Cynoscion spp, Weakfish C. regalis Spot Croaker Leiostomus xanthunts hIicropogonias undulatus l Mullet Alugil spp. g Striped mullet AI. cephahts g' White mullet AI. curema Combtooth blennies Blenniidae g Gobies Gobildae E Gobianclhts spp.

Gobioson: t spp.

Flounder Paralichthys s;:p.

Southern flounder P. Icthostigma Shrimp BrowrGhrimp Penaeus spp.

P.aztecus l Pink shrimp P, duorantm White shrimp Hardback shrimp P. scirfenis Dachypenaeus constrictus l

Grass shrimp Palaemonetes spp. g Swimming crabs Portunidae E Swimming crab larvae Portunid megalops Blue crab Callinectes sapidus I

vil Carolina Power & Light Company I

5

~ ~

g Brunswick StGam Etctne Plant 1989 Er.vironmental Morsonng twport Executive Suntniary Biological monitoring was conducted in the The establishment of large populations of fish Cape Fear Estuary and at Carolina Power and and shellfish in the Walden Creek hiarsh, adja-Light Company's Brunswick Steam Electric cent to the intake canal, and in the marshes

g Plant in 1989. Monitoring consisted of two further up the estuary indicated that the Brun-5 programs

an estuarine population monitoring swick Steam Electric Plant did not prevent their program and a plant monitoring program. movement to and utilization of the primary

,g Results of these programs were compared to nurseries in the Cape Fear Estuary.

previous years and to literature describing the The seasonal distribution and species com-populations of estuarine organisms. position of fish and shellfish collected in the l Studies conducted during 1989 indicated that species compositions and seasonal distri-Brunswick Steam Electric Plant monitoring studies reDected distributions and compositions butions of resident and transient fish and shell- of fish and shellfish in the estuary. Plant modi-I fish populations were similar to those of past years and to those reported by other investiga.

fications remained effective in reducing losses due to impingement and entrainment. The tors. River lanal fish samples were dominated diversion structure excluded most large organ-by estuarine spawned anchovy and ocean. isms from the intake canal causing a reduction spawned croaker. Marsh samples indicated in the impingement oflarge individuals. These

' that the dominant post larval and juvenile spe- large individuals are important because they cies in the primary nursery areas were ocean- have sunived the early life stages when mor-r- spawned spot and estuarine spawned grass tality is high and because they are the repro-ll shrimp. The seasonal occurrence oflarval or.

ganisms was dependent upon spawning and re-ducing members of their respective popula-tions. Entrainment of larval organisms was cruitment periods. Most species exhibited defi. reduced as a result of fine mesh screens. Lar-(l

! nite winter spring or summer fall periods of val organisms that would have been entrained maximum abundance. Environmental condi- before the installation of fine mesh screens were

'g tions, particularly high freshwater indow to tb- returned to the estuary via the return system.

<5 estuary and the associated decline in salinity, Results of previous sun'ival studies indicated appeared to have had a significant effect upon that substantial numbers of fish and shellfish j the spatial distribution and the overall abun- were returned alive to the estuary. These esti-dance of individual species in the Cape Fear mates indicated that, excluding bay anchovy,

, Estuary. Freshwaterinnow was higherin 1989 approximately 48% of all selected species of

'l than in the past ten years which may have re-sulted in decreased abundance or organisms in lan'ae and approximately 57G of all selected species of juvenile and adult fish and shellfish

,g some areas and increased abundance in other impinged were returned to the estuary alive.

!g areas. Similar patterns were evident in 1984 Sunival estimates also indicated that over 90%

when freshwater indow was comparably high. of the brown shrimp and blue crab, which are

,I Twenty nine of forty time series analyses showed that the density of individual species of larvae the most valuable commercial fishery species in North Carolina, were returned to the estu-in the estuary has increased or remained stable ary alive.

I over the past 13 years. Similar results were noted for older fish in the marshes where 26 of Earlier modifications to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant continued to substantially 32 time series analyses mdicated stable or in- reduce the impact of cooling water withdrawal l creasing populations over the past nine years, Environmental Services Section on the fish and shellfish populations in the Cape voi I

erunswe et=m Electoc Pinit Th09 Environm:ntd Mondorindepori Fear Estuary. Estuarine population monitor.

ing indicated that the operation of the Brun-swick Steam Electric Plant during 1989 did not significantly affect the species composition, g abundance, seasonality, or distribution of fish and shellfish in the estuary. Environmental phenomena have been and continue to be the dominant forces influencing the organisms in ,

the Cape Fear Estuary.

.[

I I

I I

ix Carolina Power & Light Company I

5 m

Brunswick Steam El:ctne Plant 1980 Enwor.mentaliEnItoring Repon l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L)

Data collected during 19S9 were compared to data from presious years to examine long-tenn population trends (CP&L 1980,1982,19s3.

I was issued a permit in January 1981 to discharge cooling water f rom the Brunswick Steam Elec-1984, 1985 a, 1985 b, 1986, 1987, 1988, 19S9 ) .

The 19S9 biological monitoring program con-trie Plant (BSEP)into the Atlantic Ocean under tuined several changes compared to previous

>g the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination years (Table 1.1). Larval impingement and Syste m (N PDES). Cooling water is drawn from entrainment samples were collected once per theCape FearRiver(CFR). Asastipulationof month instead of four times per month as in l the NPDES permit, biological monitoring was required to provide suffielent information for a 1988. Juvenile / adult impingement samples w ere also collected once per month instead of twice continuing assessment of power plant impact per month, on the Cape Fear Estuary (CFE)with particu. The BSEP biological monitoring program lar emphasis oa the marine and estuarine Osh- was designed to address questions relating to eries. With some modifications, this biological the ilsheries populations of the CFE and to monitoring requirement has been a continu- determine whether these populations were al-

ation of research conducted on the CFE by fected by the operation of the BSEP (Section g various investigators since 1976 (CP& L 1985a). 2.0). Plant relatedprograms(Section3.0)were 1

Another stipulation of the NPDES permit conducted to monitor the effectiveness of in-was the implementation of plant modifications take modifications in reducing entrainment and l 'l i to reduce entrainment and impingement of estuarine organisrns due tc we intake of cooling impingement.

Sampling locations ranged from Dutchman

! water. A permanent diversion structure was and Bald Head Creeks in the lower CFE to constructed across the mouth of the intake canal Alligator Creek adjacent to Wilmington, North

, in November 1982 to reduce impingement by Carolina (Figure 1.2). Because several stations t

g preventing larger fish and shellfish from enter- were sampled in each creek in the marsh pro-E ing the mtake canal (Figure 1.1). To reduce gram, the entire creek was designated as a entrainment, two 6ne mesh (1 mm) screens were sampling area.

I installed on each unit in July 1983 and a third in April 1987. Presently three o. the four intake Each of the plant related and CFE popula-tion monitoring studies was based on data col-traveling screen assemblies on each unit are lected from January through December 1989.

l covered with fine mesh screens.

A maximum flow of 26.1 cubic meters per These analysis periods differed from the 1988 periods for entrainment and larval fish pro-second (cms) (922 cubic feet per second (cfs)) grams when data were analyzed from Septem-I per unit is allowed from December through March, while during the period from April ber through August (CP&L 1989).

through November,31.l cms (1105 cfs) per unit isallowed Onlyfine meshscreensarenormally used during these periods. The now ofone unit g may be increased to 34.8 cms (1230 cfs) during July, August, and/or September by the use of a fourth intake pump operating without fine-mesh (9.4 mm) screens.

I Environmental Semees Secuon 11}

I

I Table 1.1 The 1989 Brunswick Stearn Electric Plant bin iogical monitoring program g

summary.

Program Freauency Locations / Station No.

I Water Quality Once per week 11, 15, 19, 24, I

25,29,35,38, 42 l-River larval fish Twice per calendar 11,18,24,25, I

month 34,37,41 l'

Marsh -

Seine Once every three weeks 16,25 Trawl Once every three weeks 11,15,17,21, 24,27,28,31, '

32,42,43,51 I

Entrainment Once per calendar month Discharge weir as Impingement Juvenile / adult Once per calendar month Fish return flume Larval Once per calendar month Fish return flume I

12 E

7- 'M M M M W M M M'M M REI M M M M 'M'M M M i

TW i i

.w.

3 psjl s 7

.44,, weia afit>RN

$" AcrAS$noap j 19tT AKE CAN at

/~ h s

gaviasy 7 ea** anone. srstras

'e -

v b ,o J

' ,* 'T

. . ,u

,/

,, - ,ua, o sm som I .p*~

j,,,, * $

f som nn xn ;ld t

f '~'

t

/s

. ii Figure 1.1 location of fish diversion structure, fish return system, and return basin at the Ilrunswick Stenin Electric Plant.

I l

LLCA TOM Cattar

,/ i -.--4 klL"!%d M fm J '

N[i .

~

I y

9 WATE R QUAL ITY STATIONS g '~""" I Q AIVER LARVAL FISH STATONS O MAR $N SAWPUNO AREAS g w g WPWGCWENT STs.TioNs M e ENTRAAWENT STATON Y sg6 p 0 r g iso at i o ,}

PC N g*reA 33 I

! /l*

• umf-"

Y a = >~ # >>

1 l f

s// --

ep pq g')

I

%MTEA5 j g

• i

? j esowe e caEs<

Figure 1.2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant biological monitoring program sampling locations for 1989.

I 1-4 E

l arunsmek St:Im Etctric Plant 1989 Environm:ntal Monitoring Report 2.0 CAPE FEAR ESTUARY POPULATION Simultaneous replicate river larval fish MONITORING samples were collected twice per month at night from the surface and bottom at each of seven

.l 2.1 Intmduction stations (Figure 1.2). Five stations were located in the CFR channel and one each in Dutchman l1 t

Fisheries population monitoring in the CFE and Walden Creeks. A 1 m diameter 505 um continued during 1989 to determine if opera- mesh net and a flowmeter were attached to

, tion of the BSEP had an adverse impact on each of four rectangular frames (Hodson et al.

con.mercially important fish and shellfish and 1981). One of the two replicate surface and I sportfish populations. The river lamd fish study was designed to evaluate recruitment oflarvae bottom samples from each station was proc.

essed (CP&L 1987). Stations and gears have

,g to the estuary, while the marsh program was not changed since 1981 (CP&L 1982).

E designed to evaluate recruitment of postlarvae The sampling gear (3.2 m trawland 15.2 m to the nursery areas. The associated hydrologi, seine), sampling methods, and laboratory pro-l cal conditions that might have affected many of these movements were regularly monitored, cedures for the marsh program were identical to those used in previous years (CP&L 1989).

Specifically, the estuarine monitoring program Sampling locations were identical to those in I was designed to examine: 1988 (Figure 1.2). Three trawl stations were

a. Freshwater inflow, temperature, and located in Bald Head Creek, four in Walden i salinity fluctuations. Creek, two each in Mott's Bay and Alligator i b. Species composition. Creek, and one in the return basin. One seine

, c. Seasonal distribution of species, station each was located in Bald Head and iE

• m

d. Spatiai distribution of species. waiden Creeks.

e. Relative yearly species abundance. The relection of marsh sampling locations

f. Long term trendsin species popula- was based on different salinity regimes typically I tions, present in the CFE. Bald Head Creek is 10-Data from 1989 were compared with data cated in the polyhaline (18.0 30.0 ppt salinity) from previous years to quantify changes in the zone of the estuaryadjacent to the mouth of the l numbers of organisms utilizing the CFE that may have been affected by operation of the CFR (Figure 1.2). Walden Creek is located in the meschaline (5.018.0 ppt salinity) zone of g BSEP. Population trends in Walden Creek the estuary near the BSEP intake canal. Mott's 3 were of interest because ofits proximity to the Bay is an oligohaline (0.5-5.0 ppt salinity) to intake canal. meschaline area well upriver from the BSEP.

Alligator Creek is the uppermost creek system

.I 2.2 Methods studied and is located in the head of the estuary where the salinity regime is usually oligohaline 2.2.1 Sample Collection to freshwater,

, Nine water quality stations were sampled 2.2.2 Data Analysis once per week during 1989. Surface and bot-tom temperatures and salinities were meas- Bottom salinity and temperature values were ured in degrees Celsius ('C) and in parts per examined from September 1988 through De-thousand (ppt), respectively. cember 1989 at stations characteristic of the I ~

Environmental Services Section 21

Brunswick Steem Electric Plant 1989 Environmental Monitoring Report various salinity regimes in the CFR channel and in three creek systems. The downriver station model fit and a testable method of biological or ensironmentalinterpretation. Significance of l

(15) was located near the mouth of the river, the upward or downward trends was deter- g the midriver station (29) was in the vicinity of mined at the P s 0.05 level. The coefficient of E Sunny Point, and the upriver station (42) was determination (R') was used to indicate how .

approximately 17 kilometers north of the plant well the model explained the variability in the (Figure 1.2). One station from the middle of I

data. m Bald Head, Walden, and Alligator Creeks was Time series analysis was perft.med on 10 examined for comparison. Total freshwater larval taxa,6 of which were the most abundant g

inflow was derived from formulas combining in the 1989 river larval fish study. River larval discharges from three United States Geologi- fish data were analyzed from January 1977 cal Survey stream-gaging stations with estimates ofrunoff from ungaged areasjust upstream and through December 1989 except for Penaeus spp., portunid megalops, and all organisms l

adjacent to the estuary (Giese et al.1979,1985). combined which were analyzed from January g Gaged areas represent 73% of the total drain- 1979 through December 1989. Earlier data for 3 age area for the CFE (Giese et al.1985). Penaeus spp. and portunid megalops were not Fisheries abundance dcta were collected available. Previously, river larval fish data were g and evaluated by three criteria: species compo- analyzed from Sepmber through August. The B sition, location, and time. These data were marsh data from Alligator, Walden, and Bald summed over one or more of these criteria and Head Creeks were analyzed from January 1981 a mean was calculated to represent the values. through December 1989. Mott's Bay data Densities of larval organisms were computed were analyzed from January 1984 through by dividing the number of collected organisms by the volume of water filtered and then multi-December 1989. An additional station has been sampled in Mott's Bay since 1984 in an effort l

plying by 1000 to obtain number collected per to more fully characterize this portion of the g 1000 m'. The catch-per unit-effort (CPUE) of estuary; therefore, the analysis encompassed 3 juvenile organisms was calculated by dividing this period only. Occasionally time-series analy-the total number of collected organisms by the sis could not be used due to zero catches of a =

number of trawl or seine samples collected in particular species in some years or when the I each creek. model failed to account for significant perio-Time series analysis was performed on river dicities. In these situations, the mean log,(CPUE larval fish and marsh data (CP&L 1985a). + 1) was used to compare populations.

Because the distribution of numbers at any Spatial differences of larvae were deter-level tends to be skewed toward the low range of values, the log,(X + 1) transformation of the mined by comparing annual densities and time-series year-level terms from Dutchman Creek l

individual samples was used to normalize the (Station 11), Walden Creek (Station 24), the g data prior to performing time-series analysis. lower estuary (avert.ge of Stations 12,25, and E The year-level terms in the time series model 37), and upper estuary (average of Stations 34 served as indications of yearly abundance after and 41) (Figure 1.2). Spatial differences of adjusting for environmental effects which im- organisms residing in the marshes were deter-posed selective periodicities en the distribution mined by comparing mean CPUE among the of organisms. Statistical testing for the pres-ence or absence ofsignificant periodicity within different creeks and the return basin. Seasonal and spatial distributions and trends were based l and among years provided an evaluation of on data collected by the gear (trawl and seine)

I 2-2 Carohna Power & Light Company g

\

Brureswick Stum Electric Plant g 1989 Environmental Monitonng Report that was deemed most effective for catching a in daily average freshwater inflow of three to I particular species.

Recruitment periods of organisms to the four years in duration (Figure 2.3). However, over the last four years (1986 through 1989), t he I marshes were determined by examining the CPUE and length frequency distributions of each species by creek. Shrimp smaller than 21 same pattern was observed but only at one year intervals. The mean monthlyinflow of 376 cms during 1989 was the highest it has been in the

( mm and blue crabs smaller than 11 mm were past 10 years. These freshwater inflows and the identified only to genus and family, respec. variations from year to year may have contrib-tively, because of difficulties in accurately iden- uted to shifts in the spatial distributions and l tifying organisms of these sizes to lower taxo-nomic levels.

occurrence of fish and shellfish in the estuary.

The CFE exhibited typical seasonal vari-

g ations in temperature during the year (Figure 3 23 Results and Discussion 2.4). A maximum temperature of 31.9'C was recorded during July 1989 in Dutchman Creek, I 23.1 Water Quality Salinity in the CFE typically declines during and a minimum temperature of 3.0'Cwas ob-served during December 19S9 at the upriver station. This minimum temperature in 1989 the winter months and increases from spring was approximately 3.5 'C colder than the mini-through late summer as a result of an increase mum temperature measured in December 1988.

in freshwater inflow during the winter followed

'l 1 by reduced inflows during the summer. Short- 23.2 Dominant Species term decreases in salinity are sometimes ob-

[ served during the late summer and early fall as Seven lanal fish taxa (Anchoa spp. [< 13

! a result of weather patterns (resulting in in- mm), croaker, Gobiosoma spp., spot, Gobionel.

creased rainfall) over the Cape Fear water- lus spp., Atlantic menhaden, and silversides),

g shed. These disturbances are normally short in one shrimp genus (shrimp postlarvae consist.

'E duration and salinity quickly returns to previ. ing of Penaeus spp.), and one crab family (Por-

. ous levels. tunidae) accounted for 94.5% of the larvae g For the period from September 1988 through collected from the CFE in 1989. The most December 1989, salinity gradually decreased abundant taxa were similar to those of the pre-starting in November 1988 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) vious five years. Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) were

l as a result ofincreased freshwaterinflows. During March of 1989, freshwater inflow increased again the dominant taxa accounting for 45.3%

of the lanae collected. Croaker, Gobiosoma a substantially and remained relatively high spp., Penaeus spp., portunid megalops, and spot 5 through May greatly depressing salinity levels accounted for 44% of the larvae (Table 2.1),

during that three month period. Salinity again The annual mean density of larvae in the I increased during the summer months of 1989 but the values were lower than those expected for that time of year. During the period from CFE was 1422/1000 m2 in 19S9 which was a decrease from the 2083/1000 m' estimate of 1988. Higher freshwater inflow appears to have

'g September 1988 through December 1989, the CFE exhibited a slight overall decrease in salin-contributed to this decrease by limiting the immigration of some larvae to the estuary. Similar ity, results were noted in 1984 when freshwater l

From 1979 through 1986, the CFE exhib- inflow was also high (CP&L 19S5a). Overall, ited a general trend of increases and decreases 1989 mean densities werc ! css than 1983 densi-I Ensironmental Services Section 2-3 l I

erunsviick ste.m El:ctric Plant 1989 Environm:ntal Monttoring Report ties for larval anchosy, croaker, and Gobiosoma species to the estuary, g spp., However, mean densities increased for The periods of maximum abundance in the E Penaeus spp., portunid crabs, spot, Gobionellus marshes (Table 2.4) were similar to those ob-spp., and Atlantic menhaden. Penaeus spp. served by other investigators in previous years densities were the highest they have been in the (Weinstein et al.1980; Kneib 1984; CP&L 1984, g

past live years (Table 2.1). 1985a,1989) and corresponded to the 1989 Ten taxa comprised 92.9% of the total marsh trawl catch (Table 2.2). Spot was the dominant river larval fish data. Variation in recruitment periods among creeks is not unusual due to l

organism collected representing 54.6% of the migration patterns and freshwater inflow, total catch. Grass shrimp, croaker, and white shrimp comprised 22.0%, while the remaining Generally, there is a lag time between peak abundance oflarval fish and peak abundance of l

S1 taxa made up 23.4% of the trawlcatch. With postlarval and juvenile organisms. This may g the exception of croaker, mummichog, and white result from increased time for immigration to E shrimp, the most abundant species collected in the marshes as well as gear selectivity for the 1989 were the same as those collected in 1988 older and larger individuals in the marshes.

(CP&L 1989). Hodson (1979); Huish and Geaghan (1979); Weirrein (1979); and CP&L 2.3.4 Spatial Distribution (1983,1984,1985a) also repor*ed that catches g in the CFE in past years were dominated by The distribution of most estuarine species is these species. Noticeable declines in the num- dependent upon many variables inherent to ber of southern flounder and pink shrimp in 1989 most likely occurred due to increased fresh-estuaries. Among these variables are tempera-ture (Joseph 1973), turbidity (Blaber and Blaber l

water inflow and/or reduced recruitment to the 1980; Miller et al.1984), food availability (Lasker E

estuary. 1975), predation (Weinstein et al.1980; Wein- 3 Ten species comprised 98.4% of the total stein and Walters 1981), salinity (G unter 1961),

marsh seine catch (Table 2.2). As in previous freshwater inflow (Rogers et al.1984), and years, grass shrimp were dominant making up current transport (Pietrafesa et al.1986; Boehlert 71.9% of the total catch; spot, Atlantic menha- and Mundy 1988; Lawler et al.1988). Different den, and mummichog comprised another 17.5%.

The remaining 38 taxa comprised 10.6% of the species and/or Cifferent life stages of the same species may respond differently to these envi- l total seine catch. With the exception of spottin ronmental variables (Miller 1985). Salinity, mojarra and white shrimp, the 10 dominant freshwater inflow, and water-current transport species in 1989 were the same as in 1988 (CP&L may be the most important variables in deter-1988) and were similar to those collected in mining the utilization of a particular area in the B

previous studies by Weinstein (1979) and CP&L CFE by migrating organisms. g (1983,1984,1985a). Densities of most larval species were greater in the creeks than in the river channel (Table g 233 Seasonal Distribution 2.5). The 1989 year-level term for total organ-ism density in Dutchman Creek was 6.98, while Seasonal trends of selected larval species in the CFE during 1989 at each group of stations that for Walden Creek was 6.45. The year-level term was 6.26 for the lower river stations and l were similar to those occurring over the past 12 5.78 for the upper river stations. The higher years (Table 2.3). These seasonal trends were densities in Walden Creek than in the river associated with the recruitment of individual stations indicated that larvae successfully immi-2-4 Carohna Power & Light Company I

I

=

l Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1989 Enwonrnental Monttonng Repon L

grated past the plant intake to the adjacent pink shrimp, white shrimp, and blue crab was marshes. The species area association was higher in the return basin than in any natural similar to that reported using a principal-com- creek system (Table 2.6). As in the past, com-g ponent analysis on data from 1977 through 1984 parisons between the return basin and individ-

, (CP&L 19S5a). For example, densities of croaker ual stations in Walde n Creek indicated popula-

, larvae were highest in the upper river areas, tion abundances and seasonal distributions at while densities ofAnchoa spp. (< 13 mm) were most species were similar to or greater than highest in the more saline Dutchman Creek those of the middle and upstream stations. These g and the lower river area (Table 2.5). results indicated that the return basin was being g Atlantic silverside and white mullet usually utilized by transient organisms in the same show preferences for polyhaline systems (Wein- manner as other upstream nursery habitats and

g stein et al.1980). As in 1988, the CPUE of were similar to results from previous years u organisms in the marshes indicated that Atlan- (CP&L 1989).

tic silverside and white mullet were most abun-dant in Bald Head Creek which is a polyhaline 2 3.5 Time Series Analysis system (Table 2.6).

Mummichog, spot, striped mullet, brown River Larval Fish shrimp, white shrimp, and blue crab usually are l found in highest numbers in oligohaline and Norcross and Shaw (1984) concluded that some of the factors causing fluctuations in the I meschaline water (Weinstein 1979). Walden Creek, which was oligohaline to meschaline during the respective recruitment periods, sup-mean larval density between years were spawn.

ing success, transport mechanisms (wind and I ported larger populations of these species than water current), water temperature, and salin-B the other natural creek systems (Table 2.6). ity. Fluctuations in the mean density of estuar-Bay anchovy, croaker, and Atlantic menha- ine larvae ameng years is a natural and ex-den are generally associated with oligohaline to pected occurrence. Therefore,long term trends meschaline conditions (Jones e t al.1978), while are more usefulin population evaluations than pink shrimp is usually associated with polyhal- year-to-year comparisons. Time-series analysis l ine systems (Weinstein et al.1980). Bay an-chovy, Atlantic menhaden, and pink shrimp was used to evaluate whether the annual abun-dance oflarvae of a particular species increased

'g were most abundant in Mott's Bay, which is or decreased signi5cantly over the past 13 years.

'E generally oligohaline to meschaline, but occa- Results of time-series analysis indicated there sionally approaches polyhaline conditions de- were 11 significant taxon station group increas-g pending upon the magnitude of freshwater in- ing trends, no significant changes in 18 taxon-E tlow (Table 2.6), station group associations, and 11 significant Southern flounder was most abundant in taxon-station group decreasing trends (Table g Alligator Creek This species is usually associ- 2.7).

ated with oligohaline areas (Table 2.6) (Wein- Time-series analysis indicated tiiere has been stein et al.1980). no significant change in the density of Anchoa

,l The plant impingement return basin, lo- spp. (< 13 mm) in Dutchman and Walden cated at the head of a tidal creek, was popu- Creeks during the past 13 years, while there has lated with estuarine organisms by a combina-I tion of natural immigration and the BSEP fish retum system. The CPUE of spot, brown shrimp, been a significant increase in the densities up-river and downriver (Table 2.7). However, the year-level term for Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) i Environmental Services Section 2' 5 I

Brunswick Stum Electnc Plant 1989 Ermronmental Monfior ng Report upriver (Station 34 & 41) declined in 1989, Creek with the exception of blue crab. Blue while there was an increase in the year level crab data indicated that population levels of term in Dutchman Cceek (Station 11)(Figure juveniles fluctuated from year to year, but large 2.5). High freshwater inflow in 1989 probably numbers collected during the first two years of caused the decline of some larval densities in h

the study resulted in the overall decreasing trend the river and creek stations as in 1984 when (Figure 2.8). Time series analysis could not be freshwater inflow was comparably high (CP&L E

performed on brown, pink, and white shrimp 3 1985a). data because none were collected in Alligator Time series analysis also indicated signifi- Creek during one or more years since 1981, cant declines in spot densities in Dutchman and Annual log,(CPUE+1) values indicated that Walden Creeks and in the lower river area. all of the shrimp species were collected in low However, year level terms indicated an increase in abundance of this species since 19S6 (Figure numbers during 1989, possibly reflecting the higher freshwater inflow during their respec- l 2.6). tive recruitment periods which may have inhib-Time series analysis indicated significant decreases in the year-level terms for totallarval ited their migration to the upper estuary (Fig-ure 2.2),

l organisms in all four areas sampled during the g past 11 years (Table 2.7). This decrease was Mott's Bay E caused by recent declines in Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) and Goblasoma spp, in the creeks, croaker Time series analysis for Mott's Bay was g in the upper and lower river areas, and spot in performed on data collected from 1984 through a the creeks and lower river areas. The 1989 1989 due to the addition of Station 32 in the year-level term for total organisms decreased analysis (prior to 1984, only Station 31 was slightly in Walden Creek and increased in Dutch- sampled). The analysis of data from Station 31 g

man Creek (Figure 2.7). from 1981 through 1988 indicated that the only Significant increases in the densities of lar. species with a significant trend (decreasing) val Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm), Gobiosoma spp., was blue crab (CP&L 1989). Time series analy-l mullet, and Penaeus spp. in the upriver stations sis on populations of both stations, however, = -

and significant increases of Atlantic menhaden, indicated that the number of bay anchovy, pink I mullet, and Penacar spp. in Walden Creek during shrimp, and white shrimp have increased sip the past 13 years continued to indicate that nificantly during the study period (Table 2.8). g larval organisms were able to immigrate past The inclusion of data from Station 32 and data u the intake area of the BSEP to upriver areas. analysis for the past six years resulted in nonsig-nificant trends for the remaining selected spe-Marsh cies. Time-series analysis was not used for spot due to significant periodicides in the data. Annual Allicator Creek log, (CPUE+1) data indicated that a small decrease in the abundance of spot in Mott's l

Croaker was the only species that exhibited Bay occurred in 1989. g a significant increase in abundance from 1981 5 through 1989 (Table 2.8). This increase was Walden Creek due mainly to increased numbers during the past four years. No significant trend was evi- Flounder and white shrimp populations in dent for any other species co"ected in Alligator Walden Creek have increased significantly since I

2-6 Carchna Power & Light Company g

E l

l Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1989 Environrriental Monttonng Report 1981 (Table 2.8). The white shrimp population consistent numbers migrated past the plant to 1 in 1989 was the largest since this study began. the upper estuary. No significant trends were Analysis indicated that the abundance of croaker, evident for Atlantic menhaden, croaker, stnped

.l blue crnb, and bay anchovy has decreased sig-nificantly since 1981 (Figure 2.9 through 2.11),

mullet, and white mullet, although substantial fluctuations among years has occurred. Time.

The abundance et croaker in 1989 was similar series analysis could not be pedormed on brown to that of the previous four years; however, the shrimp due to significant periodicities or on large numbers in 1983 and 1984 (high freshwa- white shrimp since none were collected in 19SS.

g ter inflow years) probably caused the decreas- The annual mean log, (CPUE+ 1) values indi.

5 ing trend. Although a significant decreasing cated that the numbers of both species increased

trend occurred for the study period, the num- in 1989.

ber of blue crab actuallyincreased over the past three years. The 1989 catch was second to that 2.4 Summary & Conclusions of 1983. The decline in bay anchovy reflected

.l the decline of anchovy larvae recruited to Walden Creek as indicated by the river larval fish data, The mean daily freshwater inflow of 376 cms during 1989 was the highest it has been in The population trends of spot, striped mullet, the past ten years. This resulted in generally white mullet, and pink shrimp have not changed lower salinity throughout the year compared to significantly over the study period. Atlantic the past several years. Water temperatures

g menhaden and brown shrimp data could not be exhibited typical seasonal variation during 1989

'E analyzed due to significant periodicities. The except in December when below normal tem-mean annual log, (CPUE+1) indicated that peratures were observed.

,i these populations were smaller in 1989 than in

~

The species composition ana seasonal oc-1988 but were similar to or higher than in previ- currence of larval fish, shrimp, and crabs ente r-ous years. The abundance of most species has ing the Cape Fear Estuary have changed little remained stable or increased during the study during the past 13 years. Densities of larvae indicating that fish and shellfish migrated past recruited to the estuary were down substan-the plant intake and successfully populated the tially in 1989, probably as a result of the high

! Walden Creek nursery. Additionally, most of freshwater inflow. Similar decreases in larvae the decreasing trends were attributed to envi- were observed in 1984 when freshwater intlow ig ronmental factors during the study. was comparably high. Anchoa spp.(< 13 mm),

!3 Gobiosoma spp., and croaker dominated the Bald Head Creels river larval fish samples. The species composi-I Spot data shcwed an increasing trend in tion ofjuvenile organisms residing in the marsh nursery areas also exhibited little change over abundance during the study period while bay the past nine years. Marsh trawl and seine anchovy and flounder populations decreased samples were dominated by spot and grass l significantly over the study period (Table 2.S; shrimp. The seasonal occurrence of juvenile

.M Figures 2.12 and 2.13). These decreases were organisms also changed little and reflected the

5 similar to decreases that occurred to bay an- recruitment of larvae to the estuary.

chovy in Walden Creek. The nonsignificant or The spatial distributions of larval fish and

'g increasing trends in the upper estuary indicated shellfish were similar to historical reports.

E that even though the populations in the lower Densities of totallarval organisms were highest estuary have decreased over the past few years, m Dutchman Creek and lowest in the upper

.I a

, enenmentai smes sen

l Brunswice St:arn Ebctric Plant 1989 Environmental Monnonng Report river area. Densities of croaker larvae were highest in the upper estuary indicating that these dances and seasonal distributions of most se-lected species in the return basin were similar g

ocean spawned fish were able to move past the to those in upper and miJdle Walden Creek, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant intake canal area during recruitment to the estuary. The indicating the basin was being utilized as nurs-ery habitat, l

distributions ofjuvenile fish and shellfish resid. The ' association between trends in abun-ing in the marsh nursery areas were influenced dance and environmental variables, as well as by recruitment success to particular areas and large populations of fish and sne!! fish in the changing freshwater inflow and salinity during vicinity of and upstream of the Brunswick Steam 3 their respective recruitment periods. All but Electric Plant intake canal, indicated that popu- 5 two species, which typically are more abundant lations of fish and shehfish in the Cape Fear in high salinity water, were most abundant in Estuary were influenced by natural estuarine the marshes of Walden Creek or marshes fur- conditions and were not adversely impacted by g

ther up the estuary. These distributions indi- the Brunswi.:k Steam Electric Plant.

cated that most species immigrated past the innuence of the plant. The greater abundance l of many species in Walden Creek compared to g the othercreeks indicated that operation of the g Brunswick Steam Electric Plant did not prevent these organisms from using this nursery area, g.

even though it is in close nroximity to the intake a canal.

Twenty nine of forty time-series analyses indicated that the densities ofindividual species g

of larvae in the estuary have increased or re-mained stable from 1977 through 1989. Trends in the abundance of larval anchovy in the river and postlarval sh; imp in the river and the creeks .

have increased during the past 12 years, while g abundances of spot and flounder have decreased.

Total larval organisms exhibited a significant g decreasing trend in abundance in Walden Creek, E while Atlantic menhaden, mullet, and Penaeus spp, increased in abundance. Twenty-six of thirty-two time-series analyses of juvenile fish g

and shrimp residing in the marshes exhibited s nonsignificant or increasing trends M abundance over the past nine years. In most cases, the l decreasing trends were probably caused by g changes in immigration patterns due to fresh-water indow or poor recruitment of larvae to 3

the estuary.

g The return basin supported large numbers E of many estuarine species. The relative abun-1 28 Carchna l~ower & Ught Company E

M M M M M M M W M p M M M M W W M M M Table 2.1 Annual mean density (organisms /1000 m 3) and the percentage of the total mean density for the most abundant taxa collected in the llSEP river larval fish program from 1984 through 1989 (based on ranking for the 1989 larval year).

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean density  % density  % density  % density  % density  % density  %

Taxa Anchoa spp. < 13 mm 419 37.2 1280 59.1 2173 69.3 1143 54.4 1059 50.9 645 45.3 Atlantic croaker 265 23.5 277 12.8 72 2.3 341 16.2 337 16.~. 197 13.9 60 5.3 130 6.0 393 12.5 266 12.7 354 17.0 In 12.2 Gobiosoma spp. i 29 2.6 101 4.7 95 3.0 97 4.6 59 2.8 106 7.5 Penaeus (postlaivae)

Portunid (megalops) 153 13.6 78 3.6 169 5.4 77 3.7 70 3.4 74 5.2 63 5.6 121 5.6 37 1.2 50 2.4 57 2.7 73 5.2 Spot

• 12 1.1 6 0.3 7 0.2 6 0.3 7 0.4 27 1.9 Gobionellus spp.

20 1.8 16 0.7 10 0.3 8 0.4 15 0.7 18 1.2 Atlantic menhaden 32 2.8 4 0.2 7 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 16 1.1 Portunid crabs 1.0 28 1.3 22 0.7 4 0.2 18 0.8 14 1.0 Sihersides 11 62 5.5 124 5.7 154 4.9 103 4.9 102 4.9 78 5.5 Other taxa Total 1126 100.0 2165 100.0 3139 100.0 2100 100.0 2083 100.0 1422 100.0

I Table 2.2 Total catch and percent total of the ten most abundant organisms collected 3 in the BSEP marsh study during 1989. 5 Trawi Seine l

Taxa Catch  % Taxa Catch  %

Spot 51,518 54.7 Grass shrimp 44,320 71.9 Grass shrimp 9,603 10.2 Spot 4,533 7.4 Croaker 5,541 5.9 Atlantic menhaden 3,193 5.2 White shrimp 5,538 5.9 Mummichog 3,044 4.0 Atlantic menhaden 4,211 4.5 White shrimp 1,554 2.5 Bay anchovy 3,149 3.3 White mullet 1,093 1.8 Brown shrimp 2,942 3.1 Brown shrimp 958 1.6 Blue crab 2,494 2.6 Atlantic silverside 867 1.4 Portunidae 1,688 1.8 Striped mullet 796 1.3 Mummichog 871 0.9 Spotfin mojarra 262 0.4 Other taxa 6,711 7.1 Other taxa 1,011 1.6 Total 94,266 100.0 Total 61,631 100.0 Number of efforts 204 34 g

5 I

I I

I I

2-10 I

a M

1 -

Table 2.3 Periods of maximum abundance < luring recruitment to each river area for 11 selected species in the BSEP river larval fish study during 1989.

'n Dutchman Walden Lower Upper g Species Creek Creek River River Adantic menhaden Mar Apr Mar Apr Feb-Apr Feb-Apr Anchoa spp (< 13 mm) May Jul May Aug May Aug Jun Sep Spot Jan Apr Jan Apr Jan Apr Jan Apr Croaker Oct Apr Nov Apr Oct Apr Oct-May Flounder Jan Mar Jan-Mar Jan Mar Dec Feb Penaeus spp. r g brown Mu Apr Feb Apr Mar-Apr Feb 5 pink & white Jun Nov Jun Nov Jun Sep Jun Sep Portunid megalops Jun Nov Jul Dec Jun-Nov Jun Sep Mullet Jan Mar Jan-Mar Jan Mar Jan-Feb Seatrout May-Jul Jun Jul May-Jun Jun Gobiosoma spp. May Sep May-Sep Jun Aug Jun Jul i

I B  ;

i .

2-11

Table 2.4 Periods of maximum abundance during recruitment to each creek system for 13 selected species in the BSEP marsh study during 1989.

5 E

Bald Head Walden Mott's Alligator Species, Cttek Creek Bay Creek Atlantic menhaden Mar Apr May Mar May h Bay anchovy May Aug Jul Aug Jun Aug Jul Sep Spot Feb-Mar Feb Apr Feb-Mar Feb Croaker

• Apr May Mar May Jan Feb Southern flounder

• Mar-Apr Mar-May Apr May Brown shrimp May May May

• Pink shrimp Aug Jul Nov Oct Nov

• White shrimp

• Jun Jul Aug

• Blue crab Jan-Feb Jan Apr Jan Mar Jan 5 5 Mummichog Jun Aug Aug Atlantic silverside Jun * ' 5 Striped mullet

• Jan 5 5

' 5 g

White mullet May Jun Jun

• Very few or no postlarvae collected. ,

S Seine samples were not collected in Mott's Bay and Alligator Creek.

I I

I I

I 2 12 E'

=

W @ M MM M kW M W kdW W W W W W W' Table 2.5 Spatial distribution n the most ubundant larvae in the Cape Fear Estuary during 1989.

l t

Area Dutchman Walden Imwer Upper Creek Creek River River Mean Mean Merm Mean Species Density Sxcies Density Species Density Species Density Anchoa spp. 229 Anchoa spp. 954 Croaker 396 Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 997 721 Penaeus spp. 170 Croaker 179 Anchoa spp. 194 Gobinsoma spp.

302 Portunid megalops 169 Gobiosoma spp. 120 Spot 56 Penac4tr spp.

112 Portunid megalops 82 Pcnaan spp. 24 Spot 140 Spot 61 Gobiosoma spp. 92 Penacus spp. 74 Portunid megalops 22 Portunid megalops Goblonclhes spp. 46 Goblonelha spp. 60 Spot 49 Atlantic Menhaden 18 eg C 28 Silversides 45 Portunidae 26 Gobiowma spp. 15 Croaker 26 Atlantic Menhaden 41 Gobionellus 21 Coblonellus spp. 9 Silversides Ilardback shrimp 22 IIardback shrimp 15 Weakfish 9 Atlantic Menhaden 23 Croaker th IIogchoker 9 Portunidae 7 131enniidae 13 Total Organismst 1035 Total Organisras t 1607 Total Organisms

• 781 Total Organisms t 2442 J

• Density of total organisms include the most abundant larvae presented here and other less abundar.t taxa not appearing on this table. Sum of mean density in each column does not equal the total organisms density.

1

I Table 2.6 Annual catch per unit effort (CPUE) by creek system for 13 selected species in the BSEP marsh study during 1989. l Bald Head Walden Mott's Alligator Return I

Species Creek Creek Bay Creek Basin Atlantie menhaden 1 30 48 8 13 l

Bay anchovy 1 4 50 27 9 Spot 40 282 134 36 1443 Croaker <1 3 133 18 14 Southern flounder <1 1 1 7 3 Brown shrimp 4 27 2 0 47 Pink shrimp 2 2 5 <1 10 White shrimp 8 53 4 <1 79 Blue crab 8 16 9 5 30 -

Mummichog 22 157 t t

• Atlantic silverside 47 4 * *

• Striped mullet 4 43 * *

• White mullet 41 23 * * *

• Seine samples were not collected in Mott's Bay, Alligator Creek, or the return basin.

E I

I I

I 2-14 I

e.

Table 2.7 Time-series analysis for BSEP river larval fish data by station gronp indicating trends in demity from January 1977 through December 1989.

Station troups Dutchman Creek Walden Creek Imwer IUver Upper River 11 24 18 + 25 + 37 34 + 41 2

Taxon Trend R Trend R2 Trend R2 Trend R2 A> chou spp. (< 13mm) NS 0.98 NS 0.98 +"* 0.99 +"* 0.98 Croaker NS 0.97 NS 0.98 -* 0.9') NS 0.96 Gobinsoma spp. --* 0.99 NS 0.98 NS 0.99 +"* 0.97 Atlantic menhaden NS 0.95 +"* 0.96 NS 0.96 NS 0.94 Mullet NS 0.96 +'" 0.96 NS 0.96 +"* 0.91 Seatrout NS 0.97 NS 0.95 -* 0.95 NS 0.96 Spot -* 0.99 -* 0.99 -** 0.99 NS 0.98 Penaeus spp. +"* 0.98 +** 0.97 +*" 0.95 +*" 0.96 Portunid megalops NS 0.97 NS 0.97 +" 0.97 -* 0.97 Flounder -*" 0.98 -* 0.97 -"* 0.97 -** 0.97 Total organisms * -*" 0.95 -*** 0.98 -*** 0.98 -" 0.95 NS P > 0.05 0.01 < P s 0.05 0.001 < P S 0.01 P 5 0.001

+ Increasing trend Decreasing trend R2 Amount of variation explained by the time-series model i

Data analyzed for period from January 1979 through December.1989.

i I

i

W 9

W k

8 eZ 0 4 6 2 7 0 0 9 e 1

8 1 r R 8 7 9 7 7 8 8 9 7 h C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M

g d u a o

r c I

h I d S **

• S S S

• DSNI DSN t n N* + NNN -

1 d l

e r

I M

8 a -

9 1 H T m

f or M

k Z 2 4 2 8 7 8 0 3 2 i e e R 7 9 8 7 8 8 9 9 8 c e n r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d

a n

C n

W u e b d a

d

-i a D* SN * -S SNN

• DS

• i n W e r

I

• " I N *' "

M-d s

T - + + .

n e

t r

g ).

W 5 7 8 in9 8 7 1

8 1 1 8 9 8 7 7 1 8 t

a9 8 y a

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i

c1 dngh B

s d e

a W

i 't u m o dn t

k o l er S

• AAS S

• t eh M re " N S o n&o W r t c T N *+ D S I N NN NN"

• y8 4 ++ em r

b9 es a

1 wier t

am d o k i

f t

s es l

u -

W i e 9 3 4 9 l

eae hf e

• 9 7 s

r s C R r 7 8 8 7 8 7 dho eim B a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 mw r mn e i

t E

y o r eh P a t a os t EB in dn S S S oey S

B 't s l l

e N N N "' NN AASNIDDD" I I psbu r

W A r

+

o cade r o t

T - s e n f oM s

i s bi lyel a i r al p lad s

yf o n b x a c ae W no rl i

n ai r d opo i n f pt 1

s e pe 5 0 d e a a ar i

r s ei n

0. 0 0

nr e t t

a oa t i

M s- sy e $ r gd n v el a

d a

$ P1 t gi nio nt s

s f imn h t p 5P<0i 0 n aise T (a n y e v le t e mp mp 0 0 <1 0 a

. s eci n ri lyu s t

M l

e cf f mo u l r e uanmo i

mumer h s l

r mihr 0 8

2 s e i c c h

n r

e d i

h r

s b

ra 1

P>00 0

0 PI$cDsn nAA e i t

n a k e e n d n s e c I M

l b

a c

e p lta y t

o a p r a

oih pi r o t

o u wk i u n rhi t

e S *

• D/-

\

T S AB S CS WF B P WB t l l N* **+ I NR M

y C' M

E

-- _., , . _ , . . _ , ~_ .__ . - . . . _ _ .

W W

M M M M M M' W m M m M , W M M LM M 'W RNER STATIONS 40 Dn 30 , ,- \/\

. - .. \

25 . ..: .

3 S 20 -\..:-: - *- - -- -

l -

-~

\-.

• 4 m

~. :

.l to - ^~- *

\* -

• . .: - :i 0': i '';': : '*:' ';Y::*'  : ;*: : i SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1988 MONTH 1989 DOWNRIVER MIDRNER UPRNER CREEK STATIONS IJ zg20  : .

Q-

---~.... ._ , _ , .

39 . _ . , -

~.... - - *^ '. .. ... .

0'

' '-- ' ' ' ' ' ' i' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

OCT OCT NOV MAR AY SEP SEP DEC JAN MAR APR MAY " JUL^ AUG OCT NOV 1988 1989 MONTH BALD HEAD CREEK WALDEN CREEK ALUGATOR CREEK Figure 2.1 Bottom salinity for selected stations in the Cape Fear Estuary from September 1988 through December 1989.

1986 1987 1988 1989 I

800 i -

40 i

e00

\ gj -

20 a s

?

)1 400 S s .

20 '

% a b 200 -

10 0 -

• . O JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV l INFLOW (CMS) SAUNITY (PPT) l Figure 2.2 Mean daily freshwater inflow by month and mean bottom salinity at midriver Station 25 in the Cape Fear l Estuary from January 1986 through December 1989.

IR M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M - M M

l-l 400

' 'g *?

~

{= 337 337 y;!!Q

, {i ; ,

![ . $$

,l i [? M 300 - k, 288 7 Mb 18 I -

, [

L h

I; E 6

!y th

$200

l N

M

~

, .1 144 c;

~

jl 100 -

" 4 lI .

~

!g 0 >' -

{~ '2 -

j- 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 YEAR Figure 2.3 51enn dall freshwater inflow by year in the Cape Fear Estuary from 1979 I

RIVER STATIONS U 30 o -

g 20 ...

ft uj 10

n. .s .

Q ...

1. 0l': ' ' ' " '';!' i;*;'!':

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1980 1989 MONTH DOWNRIVER MIDRIVER UPRIVER CREEK STATIONS i,a U 30 o  %

ij ,, ,,...,......-  ;........,,,,

a 20 .

' \.

? ....

,...........e.

' ~. ' '

u3 n.

to - ' . -- * -- -

2 uJ o- - , . . i - 1 > - * - > - , . . . . . .

SEP OCT DEC JAN P/AR APR MAY JUL AUG OCT NOV OCT NOV JAN FEB MAR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT DEC 1988 MONTH 1989 BALD HEAD CREEK WALDEN CPFCK ALUGATOR CREEK Figure 2.4 Hottom temperature for selected statEnsin the Cape Fear Estuary from September 1988 through December 1989.

SIB W W WB W W W WE W M M 6 MB W W W . M .

W M

I

• Significant increase Upper River Area S b g n ,

\

8 '\! '

i b, e

,s.

\ i <

3 I $ ) i I I e a. I g ,

,. y . .j...... .. t . a\ ,

j j if

-- - YL A n l \'\

\

l(<

j l

vr -.

!  ??

's 79 50 1 02 0 .5 :4 3 52 7 30 59 90 l1 -

, - Ocserzea b r ea,c t ea - : eai ie.ei i

I ' ' No Significant Trend Dutchrnan Creek

,I 'O

!I j

7 0 f9{

L

( ': -

l

}5 do h f j~ d 4

, 2 3 3 I

N k h

'I I i-

{ (

0 l 77 78 79 SO 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 $ S 90

[g Year 3 - Observed Predicted -- Year level 1

g Figure 2,5 limuries analysis of larval anchovy densities collected in the upper

-E arm of the Cape Fear Estuary and Dutchman Creek from 1977 thnzqh 1489.

I 2.u

I

?

Signtlicant decrease Dutchman Creek s

j i 0 1 f k I(

75 f I i

E

1. l h,

3'

{4 ,

se3 .

^

ji ,, ,

... t i

1 0- -- - "

" ' " ~ ' -

77 78 79 80 8 '. 82 83 84 85 B6 87 85 89 90 Significant decrease Walden Creek s n t

3 i

l 2 j  ? f r .

7 j\

3 i

1. a -

8 l 3

$ 3

[

e }

}'

n .. s. . . ..-

i t l

o s ,_k_J _LJ ._,

_J _ ..j _

/

77 ?d 79 80 S1 82 83 84 SS 86 81 $d 59 )v ,

Signifcant decrease Lower River Area e

s~ '

j '

1 ) >

l v, c i

r i l

4 d,

4.. *"

0[

o

1. dO J LJ d U.- A- .

k- 'l is a eo 8i 82 e3 e4 es s6 er u os

• Teof

~ CD$ffvfd IF edeC lod * *

• 1ent levfl Figure 2.6 Time-series analysis of spot densities collected in Dutchman Creek, Walden Creek, and the lower river area from 1977 through 1989.

= ,

a

f

.I SignWicant decrease Dutchman Crook

,- *  ; 1

, f I .

s <3, l h~)

,l.a',-)y g 3,nqv i r'p]i...

g. y

g ..

f;1,i

<g  ;. :

e

],

\, \

l} h. {l4. j j

s-b r r i.

'I L

'? Su 51 32 33 S4 SS 56 87 SS is 's ?

E veor

- Yb$er,ed Predicted e* rect level i

~

Significant decrease Walden Creek

' ' A

'\

i

• ' ~ ' + '

I

, , , s. . ..

y &

P yi al i. >

Rg za 5

3 3-2 79 30 S1 S2 83 84 SS S6 S7 SS S9 90 I

.f e a r L - Ooservec Predicted - ear tevet l

l Figure 2.7 Time series analysis of totallarval organism densities collected in l Dutchman and Walden Creeks from 1979 through 1989.

2 23

ll Significant decrease I

t -

I

? '

', l

+ I

\

)

w f  !- h. L i j

'g- -i g', -l ~ " l '

g.

[}

g. ). ,

re  ;

-4 -

(, ..

,.. y q ',

,f t

5 e ]

j

[ i i  ; li \ -

I II \ 0 'i V

0. .

b . .

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 69 90 "

Yeor

- Observed Predicted -- Year level Figure 2,8 Time sedes analysis of blue crab data collected in Alligator Creek g by the marah trawl from 1981 through 1989. 3 I-Significant decrease 3 .

3

=

2- ,

f O I ,I i

")

n .- ,

f 4

! 3 1

)

- t l t ,

j f

I $ 1- j I i 4

$ 3 ,, f f

d O. .

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 1 eor

- Observed - Predicted *-- Year level Figure 2.9 Time series analysis of cmaker data collected in Walden Creek ,

by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 1989, 2.x

E Signrfcant decrease E , i , a I

I

! l

\l . V f '

9.  ; .4 - -

D/ if ,

"l f i

g i m e si e2 e3 e4 as 86 97 es n ao

, eor

- Obser ved Pr edic t ed * - T eof levet Figure 2.10 Time-series analysis of blue crab data collected in Walden Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 1989.

I Significant decrease g -

! i w I i l /, !f ,

f: [f p p > 1 )'

I j "

e -

4. , j

[j i! (

i J. 1 L l L. j .

(>

\\ -

\

i ,, Q e 1 ,

s1 62 83 e4 d5 56 37 $8 9 80 8

g Figure 2.11 Time-series analysis of bay anchovy data collected in Walden Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 1989.

2-25

I I

I Sqntreant decrease 1

4

[ _,

7 I.

$5 b, \

E:

E c ,

) {

{l i

6 ,

h i p /

I i p 4 j g e'

I e;

i a3 e4 1

es f[]f j'fj ee e7 es 39 w.,

g E

Figure 2.12 Time series analysis of bay anchovy data collected in Bald llend Creek 'g .

by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 1989. 5 I

Significant decrease -

10 ,

g O O9 g]

+03 3 07 06 .

g 05 ' '

!' 4

' l1 2 oj ,,,.

i, l

02 hJ l l f] .l ,

f

A i 81 82 S3

,ut 84 c

85 4di_ Lt ar_

86 87 88 89 99 I

leOr

- Deserved Pi ed ctec - -Yearlevet imp ,

I Figure 2.13 Time series analysis of flounder data collected in Bald Head Creek by the marsh trawl from 1981 through 1989. g m ,

e

Drunswick Stean E:octnc Plant 1989 Env6tonmental Monttonng Report 3.0 PIANT.itEL\TED MONITOltlNG However, for entrainment and larval impinge-

i PitOGitAMS ment, .he rates, densities, and total number collected were expanded to give an estimate g 3.11ntmluetion for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The J/A i mingement program included tish and shrimp 2 41 mm portunid Organisms from the estuary small enough crabs 125 mm, and cels and pipefish 2101 to enter the intake canal inny be affected by mm. Individuals smaller than these limits w ere l plant operations in one of two ways: (1) they

, included in the larval impingement program, may :;mpinged on the plant intake screens -

The densities of larvM organisms entrained I

and turr'ed to the CFE via a flume and re- were calculated as in the river larval fish study turn asin or (2) they may be entrained through (Section ;' 2.2). The densities calculated for all g the plant. Past data indicated that the abun. oiganisms from samples collected per sampling B dance of large tish and shellfish in the BSEP date were averaged to obtain a mean number intake canal has been reduced because these per 1000 m'of water pumped through the plant.

g- organisms were excluded from the intake ca- Denrities for juvenile and adult organisms nal by the. 9.4 mm mesh screening on the di- impinged on each sampling date were caleu- - - -

i version structure (Figure 3.1)(CP&L 1987,1988, lated by dividing the total number of crgan.

1989). isms collected by the volume of water pumpcd l Entrainment sampling documented the through the plant. Densities were express-d g species composition, seasonalities, and abun- as 'he number per million cubi: meters of wa.

g dances oflarval and postlarval organisms pass- ter pumped through the plant during each 24-ing through the cooling system during 1989, hour sampling period.

I Juvenile / Adult (J/A) impingement sampling documerited species cornposition, densitier, wei< hts, and sizes of juvenile and aduh organ-3.3 Ilesults and Discussion E isms impinged during 1989 and also provided 3.3.1 Dominant Species evidence of the continued effectiveness of the diversion structure 1.2rvalimpingement sam- Spot was the dominant organism sampled pling evaluated the success of the fine mesh in er.trainment during 1989 and comprised rl rcre ns in reducing entrainment of organisms. 21.2% of the mean density of all organisms a

" e Sarvival study results from previous years were collected (Table 3.1). Gobiosoma spp. (21.0%)

I 5 used to detern:in: how effective the return sys- was second most abundant and croaker (12.1%)

tem was at returning impmged organisms to was third. Other entrained taxa (in decreasing the CFE alive (CP&L 1985a,1986,1987,1988). order of abundance) were Anchoa spp. (213

_I mm), postlarval shrimp, Anchoa spp. (< 1.~,

3.2 Metrmds mm), Atlantic menhaden, Gobianclhts spp.,

portunid megalops, and silversides.

E The collection gear for entrainment and Ten taxa accounted for 92.2% of the total impingement have remained unchanged since larval organisms sampled in impingement dur-l 1984 (CP&L 1985a). The sampling frequency fur these programs was reduced to once per ing 1989 (Table 3.2). The dominant taxa in larwd impingement were spot, postlarval shrimp, month beginning in January 1989. Therefore, croaker, Anchoa spp. (213 mm), and por-I results were not expanded to obtain atinual estimates of organisms entrained or impinged.

tunid megalops. Each comprised between 25.0% and 7.1% of the total larval impinge-M.

I Environmental Senicos Section 31

Brunswick Strm El:ctnc P1 nt 1989 Ermronm:ntal Morutonng Repor1 ment catch. The same seven species have The typical winter and summer periods of g dominated de Imval impingement catch each abundance observed in the entrainment and W year since 1984, river larval fish pro; gams were also observed The total mean density of organisms col- in lanal impingement (Table 3.6). Atlantic lected in entraintnent and the total number of g

menhaden, spot, croaker, and brown shrimp -

larval organisms couected in impingement both all ocean spawned species were abundant showed decreases from the same period in 1988 (Tables 3.1,3.2; CP&L 1989). A substantial during the winter and spring months. The pe.

riod of abundance for portunid megalops oc-l decrease in the annual mean density oflarvae curred during the early fall. During the sum- g in the CFE was also observed !n the river lar- mer, ocean spawned species, such as pink and g val fish program (Section 2.3.2). white shrimp, and the estuarin spawned spe.

Bay ancho"y dominated J/A impingement cies, such as anchosy and Gobiosoma spp., were samples during 1989 accounting for $2.9% of B

abundant. W the 194,244 organisms collected (Table 3.3). Excluding bay anchovy, densities of selected Bay anchovy was followed in abundance by species collected during J/A frnpingement white shrimp, Atlantic menhaden, spot, weak-g sampling were generally higher during the pe-fish, brown shrimp, and croaker. These seven riod from March through July of 1939 (Table species accounted for 88.9% of the total catch.

The total catch by weight v as dominated by 3.7). Higher densities during Ws period may have been related to the greater number of l-AtLmtic menhaden, spot, bay anchovy, white damaged diversion structure screens which g shrimp, and croaker accounting for 70.4% of occurled at that time. The damaged screens the total catch. A total of 67.7 kg of blue crab 3

cause openings in the structure through which was couected and comprised an additional 5.8G juvenile and adult fish and shellfish can pass. A of the total weight. This species accounted for 3

damaged screen may equal up to 1.1 m3 of 5 tess than 1% of the catch by number with 1,452 opening out of a total diversion screen area of collected. 498.1 m'. Overnight damage to the screens was usually repaired the next day to minimize g

3J.2 Seasonality and Abundance intake canal access to fish and shellfish. Higher ,

freshwater in0ow to the estuary during March, g The seasonality for selected entrained spe. April, May. and July (Figure 2.2) may have cies was similar to previcus years and usually caused the damage to diversion structure screens corresponded to the seasonalities oflarval fish a

by increasing the amount of debris that was g in the estuary (Tables 2.3,3.4, and 3.5). How- Bushed into the vicinity of the intake canal.

ever, since fine mesh screen installation and Higher freshwater inuaw and low.r salinity may g Dow minimization implementation (July 1983) have restricted the number of larger organ- e and the decrease in frequency of sample col- isms to this portion of the estuary (CP&L 1985a, lection during 1989, peak abundance periods 1985b,1988). This would have increased the of entrained species may not necessarily corre- number oflarger organisms potentially atTected g

spond to peaks observed in the river larval fish by plant operation.

program. Peaks of abundance in entrainment can be induced by operating screens without 3.3 3 Flow Rates l

fine mesh, increasing the Dow of cooling water g as determined by plant operational needs, and/ The amount of water pumped through the 3 or by the time between sampling dates, plant affects the number and weight of organ-5 3-2 Caronna Power & Ught Company 5

Brunswick Stoam Electric Plant 1969 Environmental Monitonng Repon isms impinged and entrained. Monthly intake very effective in preventing the entrainment of I Gow rates in 1989 ranged from 64.5 million m'/

month in December to 168.2 million m'/ month these two species. Variability, due to the site class of a species,was demonstrated most clearly I in August. The mean monthly now for 1989 of 112.5 million c.Wmonth was higher than any by the catches of Atlantic menhaden, ancho-vies, and Gobiosoma spp. over time. The ef-mean monthlv Ocw from 1983 throuch 1986 '

fectiveness of fine mesh screens increased as (CP&L 1984,' 1985,1986,1987) but was the the larvae grew. During May and June, the l lowest since 1987 w ben NPDES permit changes kw effectiveness on small anchovies and Gobio-allowed higher Dows (Figure 3.2: CP&L 1988), soma spp. reduced the overall effectiveness This was probably a result of a dual unit out- because these species accounted for the ma-age from mid June to early July and the Unit 2 jority of organisms sampled.

I refueling outage that began in October 1989.

3.3A l'ine Mesh Screens 3.3.5 Survival Estimates I it has been estimated that the operation of Sunival was determined for selected site classes of the dominant organisms that have three fine mesh screens per unit versus no fine- been impinged at the BSEP (CP&L 198Sa,

'l mesh screens will reduce the total mean den-sity of entrained organisms by 610o (CP&L 1966,1987,1988). Slow screen rotation speed (75 cm/ min) was the normal mode of opera-1989), in 1989, entrainment and larval im. tion; however, seteens were periodically oper-l pingement rates were added to find the total number of lanae affected. The percent effec-ated on fast screen rotation speed (200 cm/

min) depending on the amount of detritus or tiveness of fine mesh screens was calculated as number of organisms m the water column.

I the ratio between the larval impingement rate and the total number affected for each sam-Survival estimates were therefore calculated using both screen speeds.

I pling trip (Table 3.8). The overall effective-ness was about 30Co with a range between 129c Eight of the ten most impinged larvae were tested for sunival (Table 3.9). These eight and 717c. The variability of effectiveness could taxa accounted for approximately 73% of the j be innuenced by such factors as the number of total larval impingement catch. Excluding fine mesh screens in service, speci,3 composi- Anchoa spp. (213 mm)(which are not consid-tion, and size class of larvae sampled. For cred commercially or recreationally important),

l example, during the June sampling period the plant operated one nonfine mesh and two fine-the survival during fast screen rotation ranged from 90.3% for shrimp postlarvae to 3.2% for

'g mesh screens during the day and three fine. Atlantie menhaden. Survival estimates indi-5 mesh screens at night. For those species that cated that approximately 48% of all selected were present, the effectiveness of the screens species collected, excluding Anchoa spp., were I in reducing entrainment was substantially in-creased durir,g the night when only fine mesh returned alive to the estuary if the screens wen e on fast rotation. Sunival percentages during screens were in operation. During the July, slow rotation, excluding Anchoa spp. (213 l August, and September sample periods, the plant operated a founh pump on one unit with-mm), ranged from 0.0% for Atlantic menha-den to 86.3% for portunid megalops. Accord-out fine mesh screens which reduced the ef- ing to survival estimates during slow-screen I fectiveness, especially for shrimp and portunid megalops. Fine mesh screens were normally rotation, approximately 34% of the selected species weie returned alite to the estuary.

I Environmental Servmes Section 33 I l y u e il

erunsvock st::m Eioctnc Pl nt 1989 Environmental Monttonn0 Report Excluding bay anchosy, J/A impingement samples were dominated by organisms which mately 30% in 1989. Differences in the num-ber of fine mesh screens in operation, species l exhibited sunival rates ranging from approxi- composition, and size class of organisms sampled mately 16% to 96% during fast screen rotation and from approximately 53G to 92% for those caused substantial variability in the effective.

ness of the fine mesh screens.

l species tested during slow screen rotation The 1989 Juvenile / Adult impingement catch (Table 3.10), he best rates occurred for brown 3

was dominated by bay anchovy as in previous 5 shrimp and blue crab (the most valuable com- years. Higher densities of the commercially mercial species) which had survival estimates important fish and shellfish (Atlantic menha-of more than 90%. Sunival estimates indi- den, spot, croaker, trout, white shrimp, brown g

cated that approximately 57% of all selected shrimp, and blue crab) occurred during the juvenile and adult species impinged, excluding bay anchovy, were returned to the estuary alive spring and summer months during a period of some damsge to diversion structure screens, l when the screens were on fast rotation and Although densities of these species were greater approximately 77% when the screens were on slow rotation.

during this time, potentialimpact by the plant was lessened by the fish return system as evi-l 3.4 Summary and Conclusions denced by the higher survival of these species. g Survival estimates indicated that greater than 3 90% of brown shrimp and blue crab, the most Seasonality of organisms and the dom nant valuable commercial species, were returned to g species collected in the 1989 entrainment pro- the estuary alive, while substantial numbers of W gram were similar to previous years with spot most other species were also returned alive.

accounting for aproximately 21% of all or.

ganisms collected.

Impingement catches of larvae were also Modifications made to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant continued to be effective in re- l ducing the number of orgapsms affected by dominated by spot, followed by shrimp postlar-vae, croaker, Anchoa spp. (2.13 mm), and the withdrawal of cooling water from the Cape Fear Estuary. The diversion structure excluded l.

portunid megalops. Based on survival esti- most large organisms and a large percentage =

rnates data, approximately 48% of all selected of the lanal and juvenile and adult organisms E larval species impinged were returned alive to impinged were returned to the Cape Fear Es-the estuary when the screens were on fast rota- tuary alive, g tion and approximately 34% when on slow ro- E tation.

The total mean density of organisms col-lected in entrainment and the total number of l larval organisms collected in impingement both showed decreases from the comparable pe-riod in 1988. A substantial dectesse in the l annual mean density of larvae in the CFE, probably as a result of high freshwater inflow, 3

E was also observed in the river larval fish pro-gram.

The overall effectiveness of fine-mesh screens in reducing entrainment was approxi-34 I

Carohna Power & Light Company a

/

i 3 Table 3.1 Mean density (number /1000 m ) and percent total of fish, penacid shrimp, and portunid megalops sampled in entrainment at the llSEP during 1989.

F _ _

Species Density Percent l

Spot . 121 21.2 Gobiosoma spp. 120 21.0 Croaker 69 12.1 Anchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 65 11.4 Shrimp postlanae 51 8.9 Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 43 7.5 l Atlantic menhaden Gobionclha spp.

28 22 4.9 3.8 l Portunid megalops 11 1.9 Silversides 8 1A l Other taxa 34 5.9 h Total 572 100.0 1

I I

35

l I'

Table 3.2 Total larvae sampled in impingement at the BSEP during 1989, ranked by percent, g' Species Total number Peteent of total 6

Spot 3.0 x 10 25.0

]

6 Shrimp postlarvae 2.1 x 10 17.5 6

Croaker 1.8 x 10 15.0 g

Anchoa spp. (.>._13 mm) 1.2 x 10 10.0 Portunid megalops 8.5 x 105 7.1 g-Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 5.5 x 105 4.7 5

Gobiosoma spp. 5~a 10 4,4 Atlantic menhaden 4,3 x 10 3.6 I

Goblanc/hu spp.

Weakfish 0.s - 405 2 , x 10 5 3.2 j,7 l ,

Other taxa 9.4 x 105 7,3 l

Total 1.2 x 10 7 100.0 I

i 8

E I

I I

l I

I I a

=

. _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ - , _ _ _ . _ - .. _ ~.

I Table 3.3 Total number, total weight, and percent total of the ten most abundant organisms collected in the BSEP impingement samples during 1989.

l l Taxa Bay an:hovy Number 102,713

(~c 52.9 Weightrke) 105.3 G

9.1 White shrimp 21,439 11.0 90.9 7.8 Atlantic menhaden 20,998 10.8 372.3 32.0 Spot 10,234 5.3 163.5 14.1 Weakfish 6,117 3.2 33.9 2.9 Brown shrimp 5,916 3.1 27.7 2.4

{g Croaker 5,065 2.6 85.8 7.4 5 Silver perch 2,404 1.2 55.4 4.8

+

Spotted hake 2,308 1.2 18.6 1.6 Pinfish 2,040 1.0 21.0 1.8

{ Other organisms 15,010 7.7 187.48 16.18 Total organisms 194,244 100.0 1,161.8 100.0 3

• Includes blue crab which accounted for 67.7 kg and 5.8% of the weight and percent, respectively.

g

'I il i

I I

I

I 37 I

I

Table 3.4 Entrainment densities (mean per sampling day) at the BSEP during 1989.

Total Atlantic Portunid Month orcanisms Croaker menhaden Shrimp Sint Anchovies Gobiomma meraions Jan 119.86 20.98 0.00 0.00 41.12 2.82 O.00 0.00 Feb 347.45 29.78 44.63 6.11 171.75 72 61 2.92 5.93 Mar 1,616.26 159.20 226.06 0.00 1,121.46 . 86 0.00 0.00 Apr 685.58 259.45 55.61 6234 I11.55 52.58 0.00 0.00 May 286.89 9.57 0.00 51.22 10.07 2134 93.13 334 Jun 1,449.99 0.00 0.00 67.97 0.00 495.64 817.81 OlX)

.iul 87039 0.00 0.00 6632 0.00 435.47 255.73 8.76 Aug 828.10 0.00 0.00 237.60 0.00 1%.16 251.09 37.63 b Sep 172.62 0.00 0.00 I16.96 0.00 0.00 12.01 25.91 Oct 80.57 31.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.41 0.00 9.07 Nov 252.18 209.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45 24.52 Dec 157.30 113.03 3.85 0.00 0.00 11.31 0.00 I1.17 r.. . . . . . -. -- _ . - . . . .

M M M M M M M M M e M m'M ' M 'M 'M ~ M ~ m' Table 3.5 Entrainment rates (million per sampling day) at the I1SEP during 1989.

Volume Total Atlantic Gobiosoma Portunid (million Spor mecalons cubic m.) orcanisms Croaker menhaden Shrimo Anchovies snn.

hfonth 0.270 0.047 0.(XX) 0.(XX) 0.093 0.006 0.mX) 0.000 Jan 2.256 2.970 1.032 0.088 0.133 0.018 0.510 0.070 0.009 0.0I8 Feb 6.071 0.598 0.849 0.(XX) 4.212 0.157 0.uX) 0.(XX)

Mar 3.756 1.063 0.228 0.255 0.457 0.215 0.000 0.mX)

Apr 4.098 2.810 1.404 0.047 0.(XX) 0.251 0.049 0.104 0.456 0.016 May 4.894 0.(XX) 0.000 0.227 0.mX) 1.655 2.731 0.mK)

'J un 3340 4.843 4.749 0.000 0.(XXI O362 0.000 2376 1395 0.048 Jul 5.456 0.(XX) 0.(XX) 1.296 0.000 1.070 1370 0.205 Aug 5.456 4.518

1. 0.805 0.(XX) 0 mX) 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.121

'Sep 4.661 0.197 0.076 0.000 0 m)0 0.000 0.038 0.(XXI 0.022 Oct 2.447 0.512 0.000 0.mK) 0.000 0.0(X) 0.003 0.060 Nov 2.447 0.617 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.WX) 0.023 Dec 2.080 0327 0.235 1

Table 3.6 Total number of selected species estimated by monthly samples of larval impingement at the BSEP during 1989.

Total Atlantic Gobinsoma Portunid Croaker menhaden Shrimp Spot Anchovies spp. mecalons Month orcanisms 165,024 32,688 288 0 58,752 8,476 0 7,344 Jan 322,128 28,368 50,688 64,224 106,704 18,720 0 10,080 Feb 632,160 219,024 2,880 2,472,912 1(r),728 576 1,152 Mar 3,557,088 658,944 157,824 327,744 389,952 40,322 0 1I,952 Apr 1,681,488 385,632 34,128 0 52,992 18,576 11,664 3,888 41,472 May 0 0 233,280 0 206,0 M 194,112 3,456 Jun 688,176 1,214,784 0 0 157,536 0 716,400 I59,264 8,064 Jul 0 0 731,664 0 626,400 134,208 121,248 Aug 1,819,2 %

0 450,144 0 21,168 34,704 162,8M E Sep 767,088 576 127,003 0 28,080 0 19,584 576 208,224 Oct 487,003 231,408 0 21,456 0 5,184 576 220,8 %

Nov 497,664 84,384 2,592 3,456 0 15,2M 576 52,560 Dec 168,624

. _ . _ __. .. , . - - _ , __ _- . . . _ _ _ ._ -_ . _ , . . .1 M

M M M M M M M M M M M' W W~ M M M M 3

Table 3.7 Juvenile and adult impingement densities (number /million m of water entrained during each 24-hour sampling period) for selected species

• and the number of damaged diversion screens per month at the BSEP during 1989.

Bay Atlantic White Brown Blue Damaged Month anchovv menhaden Smt Croaker Trout shrimp shrimo crab screens Jan 6656.4 17.7 3.6 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.44 0 Feb 1970.4 2.4 4.7 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 135 5 Mar 86443 2155.2 1551.8 120.5 0.5 11.4 0.0 3.6 19 800.2 273.6 38.8 23.4 0.0 67.5 9 Apr 5982.2 1819.5 May 1026.0 517.0 136.1 161.1 23.8 6.2 0.0 89.5 12 Jun 29.8 158.9 28.6 17.5 0.8 03 456.5 69.7 21 Jul 88.4 273.9 293 465.8 1061.1 2220.0 748.8 148.0 20 61.8 16.8 8.5 9.8 1085.9 4263 44.4 2

, Aug 4.1 C 2.2 25.2 11.7 7.0 0.0 160.2 0.0 20.7 11 Sep Oct 13.0 119.8 9.8 23 23 139.0 1.2 62.1 0 328.8 273 0.4 0.0 0.4 36.9 0.0 1.6 0 Nov 8842.1 14.8 5.8 5.8 1.9 957.0 0.5 3.8 0 Dec I

Selected species are those which accounted for greater than 2% of the total catch by number or weight.

Table 3.8 Percent cifectiveness of fine-mesh screens in reducing the number of selected species affected by entrainment per sampling date at the BSEP during 1989.

Screens Total Atlantic Gobiosoma Portunid Month Sampled Organisms Croaker Menhaden Shrimp Spot Anchovies spp. Megalops Jan 3FM 38 41 NP NP 39 57 NP 100 3FM 24 24 28 78 17 21 NP 36 Feb Mar 3FM 3'i 51 21 100 37 41 NP 100 3FM 37 38 41 56 46 16 NP 1(X)

Apr 3FM 22 42 NP 17 28 10 1 72 May Jun 2FM,1NFM-Day 6 NP NP 27 NP 7 4 NP NP NP 51 NP 30 13 100 3FM-Night 27 Total 12 5I II 7 100

.y U Jul 3FM,1NFM 20 NP NP 30 NP 25 10 14 3FM,1NFM 29 NP NP 36 NP 37 9 37 Aug 3FM,1NFM 49 NP NP 45 NP 100 38 57 Sep 3FM 63 NP 100 NP 34 NP 90 Oct 71 NP 100 NP 1(X) NP 79 Nov 3FM 45 31 26 27 100 NP 38 NP 70 Dec 3FM 34 j FM = fine-mesh screens NFM = nonfine-mesh rcreens NP = Not present W W M M M M M M M M M M

( m W W W W M M

I I Table 3.9 Estimated number of and percent sunival of larval organisms impinge at the BSEP during 1989.

Percent survival 8 Fast screen Slow screen r Inla Total impinged rotation rotation I Spot 3.0 x 10 6 29.4 9.0 j Shrimp postlanae 2.1 x 10 6 90.3 80.3 6

Croaker 1.8 x 10 33,7 34,4 j Anchoa spp. (,> 13 mm) _. 1.2 x 10 6

0.7 0.3

. Portunid megalops 8.5 x 105 87.0 86.3 ll Atlantic menhaden 4.3 x 10 5 3.2 0.0

, Gobionc/h4s spp. 3.9 x 10 5 15.4 N.D.

!l Weakfish 2.0 x 105 12.6 N.D.

Total 8.8 x 10 6

[g (selected species 4

5 excluding Anchosy) l Percent Sunival 47.7 34.1 N.D. No sunival data were collected for these taxa on slow screer' rotation.

• CP&L 1988

!I

!I

s iu

I

, 3.u I

I Table 3.10 Number of selected organisms collected duringjuvenile and adult impingement g sampling and their estimated percent suivisal during 1989 m Percent survival 8 g Fast. Slow- E screen screen Taxa Number collested rotation rojn11on g

Bay anchovy 102,713 4.9 1.1 .

Atlantic menhaden 20,998 15.6 N.D.

Spot 10,234 60.4 57.1 g

Croaker 5,065 45.1 53.1 Weakfish 6,117 35.0 N.D. g White shrimp 21,439 93.7 86.5 Brown shrimp 5,916 90.4 90.7 Blue crab 1,452 96.2 92.1 _

Percent suniva, 26.3 23.9 5 (Selected species)

Percent survival 5 57.2 77.0 (Selected species g

excluding bay anchovy)

B-N.D. Survival data were not collected for these taxa on slow screen rotation.

ICP&L 1988 I~

l

'Does not include data for Atlantic menhaden or weakfish. l I

I 3 14 5

1

• "* - - ~ - . - - - . - " __ __

f I

gm ggg .

RETURt1 (larvas entrained - BA$ltJ 100% mortality) }

~DISCilAllGE *

< LA8 BSEP f@ Wvm mal FISil RETURN FLUME 1

• 2 1 Dwasion

( 'g swucsure escb&s

• INTAKE CAN AL +-- - lenge fish 1

Figure 3.1 Brunswkk Steam Electric ihnt intake, dixharge, discrsion structure, and return system with associated effects on fish.

1 I _ _ _ , _ _ _

I I:

.'O,L/

'60d

• p. / ~,- c':

s

-l ) ~,-- -

\

. g. . . : j.3 ,

f x ,. g

\\

140 A, ,

/

l

\

il L .  ;

f y ,

,/-

ll

/.

&~, \, =

,,n. j ,e +  ;,

'-- 3 __ __.y ,

, y o is , /

so /

j v.. A, s

,' /

ak  :

2 100- / -

/N & ' '

.9 D l i \ >

a 1

\,

O 4 a / \

' \

j a "0- 's / '

a/  : *

=

y ,  % ,'

e/.  %

l , -

,o ;, ,

60- .

.X- ,

d N ,'

3 --e 20- I O- 4 i i i i r r-- i I

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mcy .Jun Jul Aug Sep Cct Nov De:

Month I

1989 (mecn montniv f!cu = 11 5l I

0ce 1988 (mean mcothliv flow = 1: 24) e+e 1987 (meon montniv flow = 115.'!)

6 3 1977- 1982 (mean montmi< flou = 120.4')

Figure 3.2 Mean monthly flow of water pumped at the IlSEP from 1977 through 1982,1987,1988, and 1989.

3-16 g W

l Brunsmck et=m Ei:ctnc Plant 1989 Environmentai Monitoting Pepon g

4.0 REFERENCES

Blaber, S. J., and T. G. Blaber,1980. Factors 1986. Brunswick Steum Electric Plant affecting the distribution of juvenile estu. 1985 biological monitoring report. Ca ro-arine and inshore fish. J. Fish. Biol.17:143- lina Power & Light Company, New Ilill, 162. NC.

Boehlert, G.W., and B. C. Mundy.1988. Roles 1987. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant lg of behavioral and physical factors in larval 1986 biological monitoring report. Caro-

-E and juvenile fish recruitment to estuarine lina Power & Light Company, New Hill,

. nursery areas. . American Fisheries Sym. NC.

'I posium. 3:$167.

1988. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant CP&L 1980.1979 monitoring program. BSEP 1987 biological monitoring report. Caro-i Cape Fear Studies, Supplement 1. Caro- lina Power & Light Company, New 11i11, lina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

NC.

1989. Bri'nswick Steam Electric Plant 1982. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1988 biological monitormg. report. Caro.

jg annual biological monitoring report,1981, lina Power & Light Company, New 11111, 45 Carolina Power & Light Company, New NC.

Hill, NC.

Giese, G. L, H. B. Wilder, and G. G. Parker.

Ig J r. 1979. Hydrology of major estuaries 1983. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report,1982, and sounds of North Carolina. U.S. Geo-

.l l

Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

logical Survey Water Resources investiga.

tions 79 46. Raleigh, NC.

l 1984. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1983 biological monitoring report. Caro. sounds of North Carolina. U.S. Geologi-1985. Hydrology of major estuaries and

!g lina Power & Light Company, New Hill, cal Sutvey Water Supply Paper 2221.

lE NC. Raleigh, NC.

1985a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Gunter, G.1961. Some relations of faunal 1984 biological monitoring report. Caro- distributions to salinity in es. arine waters.

lina Power & Light Company, New Hill, Ecol,37:616-619.

,l l

NC.

Hodson, R. G. 1979. Utilization of marsh

g 1985b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, habitats as primary nursery areas by young

3 Cape Fear Studies, Interpretive Report, fish and shrimp, Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina Power & Light Company, New Carolina. BSEP Cape Fear studies, Val-

,g Hill, NC. ume Vill. North Carolina State Univer-

-E sity, Raleigh, NC.

I

, e_ _ _ e _ se _ ..,

1 Brunswick Strm Electhe Ptnt 1989 Environmental Monitonng kepor]

Hodson, R. G., C. R. Bennett, and R. J, hionroe.1981. lehthyoplankton samplers hiiller, J. hl., S. W. Ross, and S. P. Epperly.

1984. liabitat choices in estuarine fishes:

l for simultaneous replicate samples at sur- Do they have any? Pages 337 352 b B. J.

face and bottom. Estuaries 4:176184. Copeland, K. Hart, N. Davis, and S. Fri-day (eds.). Research for hianaging the Na-ll! '

Huish, bl. T., and J. P. Geaghan. 1979. A tion's Estuaries: Proceedings of a Con- g study of adult and juvenile fishes of the ference. Raleigh, NC. E lower Cape Fear River near the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1975 1976. North Miller, J. hi.1985. Effects of freshwater dis-Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

g charges into primary nursery areas for ju-venile fish and shellfish: criteria for their Jones, P. W., F. D. Afartin, and J. D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the protection. Pages 62 84 ha Water hian-agement and Estuarine Nurseries. UNC l Mid Atlantic Dight, Volume 1. U.S. Fish Sea Grant publication UNC SG WP 85.2.

and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Raleigh, NC. l Joseph, E. B. 1973. Analysis of a nursery Norcross, L B., and R. F. Shaw. 1984, Occ- g ground. Pages 118 121 ha A. L Pacheco anic and estuarine transport of fish eggs 5 (ed.). Proceedings of a workshop on egg, and larvae: A review. Trans. Am. Fish, larval, and juvenile stages of fish in Atlan. Soc.113 153 165.

tic Coast estuaries. Highlands, NC.

g Pietrafesa, L J., G. S. Janowitz, J. M. Miller, Kne;b, R. T.1984. Patterns in the utilization of the intertidal salt marsh by larvae and E. B. Noble, S. W. Ross, and S. P. Epperly.

1986. Ablotic factors influencing the spa- l juveniles of Fwuhdus heretoclhm (Unnaeus) tial and temporal variability of juvenile fish and Funduhes haciac (Baird). J. Exp. Mar. in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Pages 13iol. Ecol. 83:41 51. 341353 in V. S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine Variability. Academic Press, Inc., New e Lasker, R.1975. Field criteria for survival of York, NY. E' anchovy larvae: The relation between in-shore chlorophyll maximum layers and suc- Rogers, S. E., T. E. Targett, and S. B. Van cessful first feeding. Fish. Bull. 73:453 462. Sant. 1984. Fish nursery use in Georgia g

salt marsh estuaries: The influence of Lawler, J. P., M. P. Weinstein, H. Y. Chen, and T. L Englert.1988. Modeling of physi.

springtime freshwater conditions. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 113 595-606, l cal and behavioral mechanisms influenc-ing recruitment of spot and Atlantic croaker Weinstein, M. P.1979. Shallow marsh habi-to the Cape Fear Estuary. American Fish- tats as primary nurseries for fishes and shell-eries Symposium. 3:5167. fish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. g~

Bull. 77:339 357. E McHugh, J. L 1967. Estuarine nekton. Pages 581 620 in G. H. Lauff (ed.). Estuaries. g l American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.

i I

42 Carohna Power & Ught Company g

e

?

Brurswick Steam Eloctnc Plant 1989 Environmental Monitoring Report Weinstein, M. P., S. L Weiss, and M. F, Wal-ters.1980. Multiple determinants of com-

[ munity structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear Estuary, NC. Mar. Biol. $8:227 243.

Weinstein, M. P., and M. F. Walters. 1981.

Growth. Survival, and production in young.

~

of year populations of Leiostonnisxanthtmis Lacepede residing in tidal creeks. Estuar-les 4:185 197.

I I- .

I I

I

~

Environmental Services Section 43

. .